1923-03-28

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE

Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay on the
table of the House the authentic text of a recommendation concerning communication to the International Labour office of statistical and other information regarding emigration, immigration and the repatriation and transit of emigrants which was adopted by the International Labour Conference at its fourth session in Genoa, October 18, to November 3, 1922.
No draft conventions were adopted at this session of the conference and the only recommendation was the one to which I have just referred.
I may add, with reference to the recent inquiry of the right hon. leader of the Opposi-
Questions

tion (Mr. Meighen) on this subject, that the authentic text of this recommendation reached the Labour department on March 26. The same is being brought before parliament in conformity with the requirements of paragraph 8 of article 405 of the Treaty of Versailles and the analogous provisions of the other treaties of peace.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. WARD:: 1.	Did Mr. D. B. Hanna, former President of the
Canadian National Railways, receive on his retirement, a bonus, grant or gratuity of $35,000 in addition to his salary to date of retirement?	*
2.	If so, why, and on whose authority?
3.	Did Mr. A. J. Mitchell, former vice-president of the Canadian National Railways, receive a similar gratuity of $20,000?
4.	If so, why, and on whose authority?
5.	Did any other retiring official or director of the Canadian National Railways receive any such gratuity or bonus on retirement?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 
Mr. LOVETT:: 1.	Is A DeWitt Foster an employee of the Canadian National Railways?
2.	If so, what position does he hold?
3.	What salary does he receive?
4.	Was the said A. DeWitt Foster a former member of the House of Commons?
5.	Was he compelled to resign his seat in the House? If so, for what cause?
6.	Is this the same A. DeWitt Foster who was implicated in the scandals arising out of the purchasing of horses in Nova Scotia for military purposes during the late war?
7.	Is it the intention of the government to retain him-in his present position?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Superintendent of Resources, Chicago.
3.	$450 per month.
4.	Yes.
5.	Mr. Foster resigned his seat on April 24, 1915, following a discussion in parliament concerning the purchase of horses for war purposes. There is no official record as to why he resigned.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
7.	Mr. Foster entered the employ of the Canadian Northern Railway Company on May 20, 1916, as travelling passenger and immigration agent, Chicago. The question of his retention is not a matter for the consideration of the government, but of the Canadian National Railway Management.


MR. W. J. BLACK
Mr. LOVETT:: 1.	When was W. J. Black appointed as Deputy Minister of Immigration?
2.	What was his employment before his appointment?
3.	Is he the same W. J. Black who was organizer for the Conservative party in western Canada during the recent federal election?
4.	Did he resign his position as Deputy Minister of Immigration to assume the duties of Conservative organizer?
s. If so, when was he reappointed to the office of Deputy Minister of Immigration?
6.	What duties are being performed by him at the present time ?
7.	Is it the intention of the government to retain his services?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	Sept. 7, 1921.
2.	(a) Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Immigration for Manitoba.
(b)	President of the Manitoba Agricultural College.
(c)	Dominion Commissioner under The Agricultural Instruction Act.
(d)	Chairman, Soldier Settlement Board of Canada.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.
5.	His first appointment in connection with immigration is as indicated in No. 1.
6.	The usual duties of a deputy minister.
7.	The retention of Mr. Black, like all other government officials, is subject to the service rendered.


COLD STORAGE
Mr. THOMPSON:: 1.	Is the harbour cold storage a national institution?
2.	To what extent is it financed by the government and at what rate of interest?
3.	What are the net results profit or loss or the operating expenses of this storage for its firu year's operations ?
4.	How will deficits be met, and in event of loss will harbour dues be increased to meet same?
5.	Are the rates charged by the harbour commission lower than other public cold storages charged previous to opening the harbour commission's plant?
6.	Is it the intention of the government to subsidize cold storages to be operated by co-operative associations in various parts of the country with the idea of having a chain of storages in the country to supply the harbour cold storage and thus have all under government control ?
7.	Would there be any discrimination against private individuals or corporations who might desire a subsidy for a cold storage plant, or is it intended to assist only rural communities that are organized?
8.	Has any provision been made for the continuance of a subsidized cold storage in case of disorganization of the co-operative societies?
9.	In the event of public cold storages being closed as a result of competition is there likely to be any increase in the rates charged by the harbour commission?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: As I have already stated Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer this question in its present form. I want to know to what cold storage plant the hon. gentleman refers.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Stands.
rUKi/HASE OF UNCLEANED SCREENINGS


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Have there been any complaints since 1915 regarding the purchase of unscalped or uncleaned screenings from the government elevators to the Board of Grain Commissioners?
2.	If so, was any action taken by the board?
3.	Is the minister willing to lay on the Table of the House all correspondence and papers connected with such complaints if there were any?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: Mr. Speaker, this question has been on the order paper for some
Questions

days, and I may not have the required information until after the Easter holidays as we are waiting for a reply from Fort William.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands.


ESQUIMALT NAVY YARD
Mr. EVANS:: 1.	Wlien was the navy yard at Esquimalt closed?
2.	What was the purchase price of the groceries on hand at that date?
3.	How much of each of the following articles of food were on hand at the time this navy yard was closed: Pickles, oatmeal, raisins, ship biscuits, haricot beans, coffee, canned goods, hops, malt, mustard, pepper, preserved potatoes, rice, suet, vinegar, salt pork, arrowroot, pearl barley, celery seed, salmon.
4.	When were these groceries disposed of?.
5.	To what extent were they damaged by age oi other causes ?
6.	What were the total receipts from the sale of these groceries ?
7.	What was the value of all other stores at the
time the yard was closed, such as rubber sheets, rubber strips, utensils, dinghy, sailing skiff, diving dress, etc., etc?	.
8.	How were these stores disposed of and what were the receipts realized?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: Also, disposal of these provisions has been in [DOT]progress since the armistice, by issues to ships of naval and other services, to Imperial dockyards and by transfer to other government departments. At the present time practically all surplus provisions have been disposed of.
5.	In the case of pickles, there has been depreciation due to age and chemical action; the salt pork owing to age, likewise deteriorated to a certain extent; a portion of the raisins candied owing to age; other provisions more or less affected by age, but in the main continued serviceable.
6.	$15,324.34. Amount realized from sales to outside parties.
7.	$666,939.04. This value is taken as of 1st April, 1920-the nearest date on which stock valuations are prepared. '
8.	The excess quantities of other stores were disposed of by issue to ships of the different government services, by transfer to other government departments, by sale by tender, negotiation, and auction.
$27,436.54. Receipts realized by sale to outside firms to date.


GEODETIC SURVEY EXPENDITURE
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	What amount of money has the Geodetic Survey branch expended in the Dominion of Canada during the years 1900 to 1922?
2.	What amount of such money was expended each year, in each province?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	From 1905 the year the Geodetic Survey branch was instituted to the 28th February, 1923, the total expenditure has been $2,616,044.89.
2.	Statement attached.

Canadian National Railways


EXPENDITURE ON GEODETIC SURVEY OF CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Year	British Columbia	Alberta	Saskat- chewan	Manitoba	Ontario	Quebec	New Brunswick	Nova Scotia	Prince Edward Island	Total1905....'.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts. 3,876 63 5,237 65 42,531 90 36,179 39 22,366 52 49,942 77 54,875 15 49,609 35 61,933 53 57,681 56 61,370 66 51,059 09 21.812	40 9,532 84 12,827 96 43,164 05 49.813	45 60,250 41	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	§ cts.	$ cts. 3,876 63 7,083 94 52,416 75 60,298 98 55,491 82 67,734 63 93,882 38 91,926 93 135,639 75 150,333 59 199,761 11 146,511 12 121,437 83 132,477 70 210,877 35 369,382 98 366,024 94 350,886 461906	1,846 29 9,884 85 24,119 59 21,601 79 9,133 33 4,094 28 6,367 91 46,106 46 14,966 06 21,522 35 8,782 10 20,479 36 22,053 64 55,250 26 163,219 12 134,507 44 104,636 56	1907-08	*	1908-09	1909-10	9,119 54 1,664 88 10,611 54 4,354 66	2,403 97 1,664 88 4,001 16	1910-11	3,107 01 13,669 33 18,379 61 19,792 23 23,779 89 78,647 99 68,376 46 44,358 93 47,212 25 58,866 30 65,405 32 77,712 28 71,645 54	2,221 76 3,315 11	1911-12	3,315 81 13,215 40	1912-13	1913-14	4,057 27	3,750 26 13,726 83 7,996 06 8,505 11 11,440 13 5,903 44 53,793 86 46,152 69 52,944 63 46,893 86	1914-15	19,914 50 15,803 21	4,510 07	15,754 68 14,420 84 9,788 36 20,009 32 27,564 74 2,197 39 4,263 46 3,944 61 4,153 93	1915-16	1916-17	1917-18	13,337 69 10,134 63	1918-19	10,076 16 16,317 61 25,664 14 36,875 24 32,794 54	1919-20	11,185 08 12,286 21	438 89 4,360 73	1920-	21	
1921-	22	4,867 26 10,227,29 21,145 80	1922-Feb. 28, 1923	9,365 82	
590,953 14	68,554 82	142,768 97	69,306 81	694,065 31	668,571 39	127,847 95	249,176 88	4,799 62	2,616,044 89

Mr. CARRUTHERS:: For a copy of all papers, documents, telegrams, letters and other correspondence, exchanged between the Minister of Railways, or any official of his department, and the Land Commissioner of the Canadian National, Railways, relating to the transfer of the government lands to the Eastern Lands Divel>pment Company near Capreol and Poleyet.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM CActing Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following . proposed resolution:
Resolved, that the Governor in Council may from time to time cause an agreement or agreements to be executed by or on behalf of His Majesty the King, undertaking or guaranteeing that any company mentioned or referred to in chapter thirteen of the statutes of 1919 (first session), entitled: An act to incorporate Canadian National Railway Company and respecting Canadian National Railways, and in chapter thirteen of the statutes of 1920, entitled: An act to confirm the agreement dated the eighth day of March, 1920, between His Majesty the King and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada for the acquisition of the capital stock of the said Grand Trunk Railway Company, except the four per cent guaranteed stock, will restore or make good all loss or damage to the mortgaged premises comprised in any mortgage or deed of trust (hereinafter called "such mortgage") at any time executed by any such company occasioned by fire or other casualty against which such company covenanted in such mortgage to insure, and indemnifying the trustee or trustees of any such mortgage against any consequences arising from any failure- (a) on the part of such company to comply with such covenant to insure, and (b) on the part of such trustee or trustees to take any action in respect thereof. The
times and manner of the giving of any such agreement or agreements, and the form and terms thereof and the person who may sign the same on behalf of His Majesty shall be such as the Governor in Council may from time to time approve or direct.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General has been apprised of the subject matter of the resolution and has given his consent thereto.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I merely call the minister's attention to the impression thg resolution makes on me at the moment. I think it is more comprehensive than is necessary. The resolution provides not that any damage suffered will be made good to the mortgage company, but that any loss by fire will be restored. The words used are:
Will restore or make good all loss or damage to the mortgaged premises comprised in any mortgage or deed of trust. ... at any time executed by any such company.
It would seem to me that the government does not need to undertake to make good the loss to the mortgaged premises. That would require the government to restore the property, and it might not be wise to see that the property was restored. I would think that the only obligation the government would need to enter into would be this: that the mortgage company to whom there is a covenant to insure would not be allowed to suffer loss because of destruction of premises by fire.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I think my right hon. friend has the crux of the matter. But I suggest that the motion be allowed to pass-


Arthur Meighen: I am not objecting.

Mediterranean Trade


George Perry Graham: -and I will refer his remarks to the solicitor, Mr. Ruel, who drafted the bill. The desire is only to cover the necessary points. The purpose of the resolution, on which a bill will be based, is, of course, to protect the mortgage holder.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. BROWN:: I wish to call the attention of the government to a question that has been on the order paper for a few days-it is No. 19 on the order paper for today-referring to the further licensing of breweries that have violated the law. If I am not misinformed, these licenses are issued on the first of April. This is the 28th of March, and it seems to me the government might well have its policy formulated in the matter.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau) is not in the House at the moment. This matter comes under his department I think. As soon as I see him I will draw his attention to what my hon. friend has said.


Arthur Meighen: May I ask if it is true that since this government came into power the number of export liquor houses in British Columbia authorized by the government has been increased from four to thirty?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no information on the subject.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: I would like
to ask the government, particularly the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) if it would be possible by the time Easter recess comes to an end to have a return to an order made on the 12th of February concerning the proceedings of a sub-committee of the Privy Council appointed to regulate mining fees in the Yukon. A departmental clerk could prepare the information in a short time.


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: I will see that the return is brought down. I had not noticed that it had not been laid on the table.


WHEAT BOARD
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOHNSTON (Last Mountain):: I
would like to ask the govemmant what

action, if any, is being taken to give effect to last year's wheat board legislation for handling this year's crop?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might say that the government is prepared to pass an order in council, which it has authority to do under the legislation of last year, to renew the wheat board in accordance with the existing legislation, provided that two or more of the provinces are desirous that such a step should be taken. One province has already communicated its desire to the government that this be done, and I believe that one other is about to indicate its view in the affirmative. When that is done the government will take action by order in council in accordance with the powers given by legislation.


Mr. FORKE:: I was informed, by the
premier of Alberta that Saskatchewan and Alberta have both made application.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what I understand. I know that one has been formally received, but I could not be sure about the other.


Arthur Meighen: The purpose of the government, then, is to leave the legislation as it it is?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: It is not very material, then, what the requests are.



SUPPLY-STEAMSHIP SERVICE TO MEDITERRANEAN

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['Oh, no. The minister\nsuggested that the committee rise.\nProgress reported.']
Mr. DAVID SPENCE (Parkdale):: Mr Speaker, I wish to say a word in connection with a question I put on the order paper the other day and the answer I have since received. The matter has reference to the establishing of a steamship service between Mediterranean and Canadian ports. I am afraid that qu/estions of this kind do not receive the consideration that they deserve; the answer given in this case simply makes a perfect farce of the whole situation. I did not put this question on the order paper for the purpose of embarrassing the government. I was not criticizing the government nor do I propose to do so now. But knowing something of transportation by land and by water I feel that a service should be established between .Mediterranean and Canadian ports. I believe that Mediterranean ports are anxious to ship to Canadian ports and importers are desirous of receiving goods from that part of

Supply-Labour
the world through Canadian ports. It is said that we have a great merchant marine today that is doing no business. The answer to my question states that this is not the opportune time to establish such a service. I say that this is the time and this is the opportunity. The spring season is coming on. On account of frosts in California last year, 90 per cent of the lemons imported into Canada this year will come from Mediterranean ports, particularly from Italy. These lemons will have to be brought to Montreal and shipped inland as far as Calgary and Edmonton and probably to Vancouver. If a steamship service between Mediterranean and Canadian ports were established the result would be a benefit to our own Canadian transportation lines and the keeping of the transport business within our country. I would point out also that in the past we have lost a great deal, through breakages and otherwise, in the carriage through United States ports. The congestion at New York, for instance, is so bad that sometimes cargoes have to wait two weeks before getting a boat to take them to their destinations; or there may be a lapse of a week or two before cars can be got to transport the goods to inland points throughout this Dominion. I feel that some consideration should be given to this question, and I hope the Minister of Railways and Canals will consider it with the management of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, and if possible establish a service between the ports of the Mediterranean and this country. It is very necessary that we should have such a service. The loss in breakages alone at New York is very considerable owing to the very heavy traffic and congestion. There is no reason why such a service cannot be established. It would not only help to make the government merchant marine a better paying proposition than it is to-day, but help build up our National railway lines by keeping the money in our own country.


James Alexander Robb: I understand that the objection of my hon. friend is that Canada has done nothing to put on a service or subsidize a service between the Mediterranean ports and Canada, and his argument largely is that this service should be established because Canada imports from countries along the Mediterranean.
I submit to my hon. friend that Canada does all that it is possible to do to encourage and subsidize services from Canada to countries that buy Canadian products. If there are countries desiring to sell their products to
Canada, I think it should be up to those countries to see that they establish a service to carry those products to this country. We have a subsidized service between the West India Islands and Canada carrying fruits such as come from the Mediterranean.
e have also a subsidized service between Australia and Canada, and Australia also produces products similar in a very large degree to the products of the Mediterranean region. We have a service established between South Africa and Canada, and South Africa, one of the sister dominions, also produces commodities similar to those coming from the countries along the Mediterranean. I realize the importance of doing all that we can to establish connections that will give as cheaply as possible to our own people the products that we require and do not produce in this country, but may I repeat again to my hon. friend that we in Canada are more interested in encouraging services from Canada to countries that buy our products than encouraging services from countries exporting to Canada. It seems to me it would be good business upon the part of those countries themselves to establish better trade communications with Canada if they desire to put their products into this country.
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee of Supply.



[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
is'ooo011^'1""184™^011' Teohnical Education Act,
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Would the minister please inform the committee why there is a reduction of $4,000 from the vote of last year?


James Murdock: Heretofore in the civil government estimates we have provided for a director and an assistant director of technical education. Last year I intimated to the committee we would endeavour to get along with one officer. That has been done. This year we come to you with a request for provision for a director of technical education only. We have only had the one officer during the year, and he has been the assistant director of technical education. It is believed that the sum of $3,000 will be sufficient to cover the expenses that will be incurred by the director of technical education in visiting the different provinces in connection with his work.
Supply-Labour


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Who is the director at the present time?


James Murdock: There is no director at the present time. Mr. Crawford has been assistant director for some time. The Civil Service Commission have had an examination before them, the applications for which closed on the 8th day of March. Unfortunately Mr. Crawford has been confined to the hospital by a serious illness, and the appointment is being held up until such time as he can come before the commission.


Hugh Guthrie: I understand that the
appointment of this officer became necessary by reason of. the statute 9-10 George V, chapter 73, whereby a grant is made from the Dominion government to each of the provinces. That grant is not in the nature, I believe, of a permanent grant. It was for a limited number of years, if I remember right. When does that provision run out, may I ask?


James Murdock: In 1929. While on the subject of technical education, may I call attention to a typographical error further down on the same page where it appears that there is 81,000,000 authorized by statute for technical education. That should be 81,100,000 in accordance with the law. It was 81,000,000 last year, and the law provides that it be increased to 81,100,000 this year.


Mr. BOYS:: I do not know whether this would be the proper time to mention it or not, but my friend the minister has just referred to an item lower down on page 49. Do I understand that Item No. 266 is passed?


The CHAIRMAN:: Yes.


William Alves Boys: I am free to admit that I understood it was. I do not know whether the minister and the Chairman want Hansard to accord with the business done last night, but on glancing over yesterday's Hansard I see no reference whatever to that item. I remember quite well pointing out that the minister had made very considerable progress and that as it was getting late he might very well move that the committee rise and report progress, and I remember the Prime Minister answering by suggesting that the next item be taken up as it was in the same class. I understood that that item was then proceeded with, but I find that Hansard is silent as to what I said, silent as to what the Prime Minister said, and silent altogether as to this item No. 266. It seems to me something should be done to put that right.


George Newcombe Gordon: I would draw the hon. member's attention to page 234 of the Votes

and Proceedings, recording what was done on Tuesday, 27th March, from which it will be seen that Item No. 266 " To supplement amount provided by Statute 8-9 George V, Chapter 21, Employment Offices Co-ordination Act, 850,000" was passed and reported. Hansard is in error that it does not include Item 266 as reported to the Speaker.


William Alves Boys: I am not for one moment disputing the fact that the item was passed; I certainly think it was. But it is somewhat extraordinary that there is no reference to what was said by myself or the Prime Minister as regards this item; I cannot understand how all that could be omitted. I think something should be done to put the matter right, and to show that the item was considered.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: We had absolutely no opportunity of discussing the item last night, and right along we notice these figures in connection with almost every department. It seems to me that we have a right to expect from the Minister of Labour some statement as to his reason for offering us these decreases in each item. If it means efficiency and economy I presume we are all in favour of it, but if it means-as would seem to be the case-that there is a lessening of the work of the department, I think that is a matter that requires careful consideration. If I understand aright, one of the leading officials of this department was allowed to go last year to a private enterprise; and to-day we do not have the same investigations, the same studies of these questions, being carried forward. That would seem to be a serious thing; a serious impairment of the usefulness of the department. I think we ought to have a statement not merely as to the particular items we are considering here one by one, but also as to the policy of the Labour department. There are big questions like unemployment insurance, like old age pensions, like the bringing in of the eight hour day across Canada. Surely we have a right to look to the Labour department for legislation that will protect the workers and advance their cause. I cannot see that the department is bringing down any legislation of this kind; I cannot see that they are tabulating the necessary reports and preparing the necessary data. It would seem to me that at some point in his presentation of the work of the department we ought to have a statement from the minister as to his policy and the policy of the government in this regard.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the item carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Labour
Administration of the act respecting annuities for old age, $25,000.
James Murdock: The expenditure under this heading covers disbursements for travelling expenses of officials, printing and stationery, advertising and sundries. It is expected that the entire appropriation for the present fiscal year will be used, and as more activity in this branch is contemplated for the coming year it is thought advisable to increase the appropriation by $10,000, as an expansion in this branch would entail heavy charges for advertising and travelling expenses. The expenses up to January 31st of this year have been as follows: Travelling expenses, $33; sundries, $47.67; printing and stationery, $2,237.15; advertising-that is advertising the government annuities-$7,295.96. It is hoped and believed that with additional opportunities for bringing the features of the Dominion government annuities to the attention of the public in Canada a material improvement can be made in the work of that branch.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Would the minister inform the committee as to the number of parties who have taken advantage of this proposition during the past year, and the total number of annuities in force?


James Murdock: The total number of annuitants to-day is 5,642. According to provinces, if my hon. friend would like that information, the numbers are as follows: Ontario, 2,942; Quebec, 1,042; British Columbia, 468; New Brunswick, 313; Nova Scotia, 296; Alberta, 215; Manitoba, 183; Saskatchewan, 147; Yukon, 18; Prince Edward Island, 18. The total receipts to the 26th March, 1923, were $6,682,080.92. The receipts from the 1st April, 1922, to the 26th March, 1923, were $1,021,775.52.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would like to ask the minister further, what steps are being taken to bring this very desirable form of insurance before the public and to make known to them the advantages it possesses?


James Murdock: As I said a moment ago, and as indicated by the figures quoted, we spent something over $7,000 on advertising last year in various papers throughout Canada. We also have in mind the running of advertisements on the slides of the moving picture houses of the Dominion-we can do that fairly cheaply-and in other ways we propose to enlarge the advertising that has been carried on in connection with this work. That is why we are asking for a sum of $10,000 additional to promote a proper campaign of advertising.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think it is very desirable that this work should be extended and the public made more familiar with its advantages. I do not think the minister answered the question I asked as to the number of applicants during the past year?


James Murdock: I do not think we have data in a form which would disclose the actual number of applicants during a given year. The receipts, though, will indicate somewhat the volume of the business. As I have already stated, the sum of $1,021,000 odd was received during the fiscal year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would the minister inform the committee how the receipts for the last year compare with the receipts for the year previous, so that we may learn whether the business is increasing or decreasing?


James Murdock: I understand there has not been any great change from year to year during the past few years. The act, as my hon. friend doubtless knows, was passed in 1908. Its advantages, as I believe they can be regarded, have not been sufficiently impressed on the public of Canada-at least that is my personal belief-and it is with the hope of enlarging this field of effort, which we think would be to the advantage of many people in the Dominion, that we are asking for additional money to launch a campaign of extended advertising. We have been handicapped for the funds necessary to do what we think should be done.


Mr. WHITE:: Would the minister give the committee any information as to the total number of annuities taken out five years ago compared with the number taken out last year?


James Murdock: I have not that information before me, but I could get it, of course, for the hon. member from year to year.


Richard Smeaton White: Will the hon. minister have that information for three years?


James Murdock: My hon. friend will realize that this particular branch has not been in the Department of Labour for one year yet. Prior to May last it was in the Post Office Department, I am told, relegated to a back room, out of the way, where it would not come too prominently to the attention of people. I do not know how much there is in that statement, but that is what I am told. When it was handed over to the Department of Labour, we found it in another building, away down the street, and it has now been brought over and housed right in the
1640	COMMONS
Supply-Labour	)
Department of Labour building, on a separate floor, and we hope to boost the Dominion government annuities if we can get a chance and find out if any enlargement of the functions of this branch can be made.


William Alves Boys: When was the act passed?


James Murdock: 1908.


William Alves Boys: The law has been in force about fourteen years. Can the minister say whether the department has made or lost money during that period?


James Murdock: I do not think I could Properly pass on a question of that kind. The annuity system is conducted on an actuarial basis and on a safe basis so far as the government is concerned according to my best knowledge. I do not think it is reasonably possible that there should be a loss by the government. That phase of it, in my judgment, should be taken into consideration, and we should see if we could not improve the scheme and make it more attractive to the public generally.


William Alves Boys: That is just exactly what 1 have in mind. It was only yesterday I was making certain inquiries regarding annuities and it seemed to me that the sum of money asked was excessive, and that if the department was making a considerable sum of money they might see their way clear to reduce the rates. It might not be amiss that I should state just what took place. I wanted to ascertain what an annuity of $1,000, payable quarterly to a man for his lifetime, and after his decease to his wife, or vice versa- for that matter for the lives of both of them -would cost, and I found the figure was something over $15,000. Now $15,000 at 6 per cent will produce $900, and you would be getting, without the annuity, within $100 ot what the annuity produced, and at the end of the period you would have your $15,000. It seemed to me there should be more difference than that. I discussed the matter with Mr. Bastedo who is in charge. I heartily approve of these annuities, but if the department is making considerable money, it seems to me it might reduce the rates for, I think, on reflection the minister will admit that that difference is very slight.


James Murdock: Would it not be a question of increasing the interest allowance rather than decreasing the rates, as you suggest? For example, Dominion government annuities only pay on the basis of 4 per cent interest. If you place the interest at 5 per cent, it would be substantially better than it is at

the present time. I may say that considerable thought has been devoted to this question for some months now, to see if that could be reasonably done. I have personally been pressing to have it done.


William Alves Boys: I am very glad to hear the minister say that. Of course that is only another way of stating it, because that would reduce the payments. Instead of paying $15,000 one would only have to pay, say, $13,000. So far as this particular application to which I refer is concerned, if the figures had been $13,000 the annuity would have been purchased, but it was not attractive at $15,000. It will be good news to those interested in the purchase of annuities that the minister has the matter in contemplation. I can only say that I hope he will be successful. I should think in reaching a conclusion the minister would be guided to some extent by the success of the operations up to the present time, and I am rather surprised the deputy cannot inform the minister whether, during the fourteen years' operation, money has been made or lost. As the average person purchasing an annuity would, I think, be over 50 years of age, and the expectation of life would not be over 14 or 15 years, according to this estimate, the department would have the matter down to a working basis.


James Murdock: I think we are on a
working basis and it is only a question whether the interest rates should be 4 per cent, as they have been for many years, or whether we should improve on that interest allowance. If the interest were 5 per cent unquestionably there would be a great increase in investments in Dominion government securities. I am very much obliged, to the hon. member for his suggestion.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Could the minister inform the committee as to whether there is a classification of the parties taking advantage of this insurance, giving information as to the different occupations of the parties purchasing annuities?


James Murdock: The card index files
for each annuity would, I think, contain those particulars, but I have not the information here.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Can the minister tell the committee what considerations led to this work being taken over by the Labour department?


James Murdock: I could not give that
information. It came to me entirely unrequested. Probably the Prime Minister could answer that question.

Supply-Labour


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might say
to my hon. friend that the Department of Labour seemed to be the appropriate department with which to associate this work. It was originally in the Department of Trade and Commerce, and then for a short time in the Post Office Department, but after the present government came into office we thought the Department of Labour would perhaps have opportunities of making the work of the annuities branch better known than any of the other departments, and that on the whole it would be in the public interest to have it transferred to that department.


Hugh Guthrie: I think one of the difficulties in the system so far has been the lack of publicity. I think the minister has the right idea when he says that he is going to give it more publicity by means of newspaper advertising and by means of moving pictures established throughout the country. It is rather astonishing to see how many people in Canada do not know that there is such a scheme in existence and that they can obtain government annuities. Most people know, I think, that they can purchase annuities from the ordinary old line insurance companies, but very few business people of this country know anything about the government annuity branch which has been in existence in this country for fourteen years. I think if the business has been carried on up to the present time on a basis of 4 per cent, it is highly probable that the government has made a fair amount of money out of the scheme. I remember when the bill was brought forward by Sir Richard Cartwright who was Minister of Trade and Commerce,- and in the Senate at the time, he stated that it was not intended to conduct the department with the idea of making any profit; in fact it was stated that, being a government venture, and the ordinary expense being paid by the government, annuities could probably be granted to applications on better terms than could be obtained from old line companies, which, of course, would charge the annuitants with a proportion of the expense. It would be of great interest to know just how the matter has worked out as regards profit or loss after an experience of fourteen years. We are agreed that the matter is one worthy of consideration; we are agreed that the system is a good one, and the more extensively it will obtain throughout the Dominion, the better for the country and the people. I would heartily agree with the suggestion of the minister that he devote a considerable amount of the money at his disposal during the next twelve months to advertising the fact that the government of
the Dominion of Canada issues annuities, guaranteed by the whole Dominion of Canada, and just as good as the Dominion bonds Which are so greatly in demand by the people at the present time. But while we are on the question, perhaps the minister might go a step further and state whether he has developed any scheme in the way of old age pensions such as that referred to a moment ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Woadsworth). Many people feel very much interested in that question, and if the minister has anything in mind in regard to it, the committee would like to hear of it.


James Murdock: That is a matter that has been given very careful attention from every possible angle during the past several months, in fact, since I have been Minister of Labour. The important question confronting this government at the present time and, indeed, that would confront any government that happened to be in power at this time, would be the matter of finding the wherewithal to do the things that it might be thought desirable or right to do as regards adopting an old age pension plan. The matter is being given the most careful attention with the end in view of seeing what it may be possible to do; but no definite plan is in contemplation at present.


Hugh Guthrie: The first question would be: How much would it likely cost? Has the minister arrived at any conclusion as regards that question?


James Murdock: That would depend entirely upon what basis the contract was undertaken.


William Alves Boys: The government tables showing the cost of annuities at various ages should be distributed, and I should think as good a place as any for that would be the post offices. I have tried many times to get these tables, and you cannot get them locally. This leads to great delay when you have to wait and write to Ottawa for them. The minister, in his advertising scheme, should arrive at some plan whereby every post office in every town and village should carry these tables, and the advertising should show that the tables may be had at any post office. The minister will realize that once the people get the notion, they want to act very promptly; they do not want to wait for a week to find out what an annuity will cost. If these tables are made available in this way, any man taking them can find out from the age of the man or woman desiring the annuity what the cost is per $100.
Supply-Labour


James Murdock: The postmasters have all been agents of the government annuities, at least until the time when this branch was transferred from the Post Office department in May last. As a matter of fact, the act was passed in 1908 adopting the plan on a 3 per cent basis, which remained in force for a time. Then by order in council that was increased to a 4 per cent basis, and then apparently the matter was shelved, and as little as possible said about it. I hope that can be changed.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will the minister be good enough to inform the committee whether he proposes to continue to make use of the postmasters in connection with this work, or to improve the plan, or to abandon it or what other scheme he has of bringing this more prominently to the attention of the public?


James Murdock: Of course, I would not be in a position to utilise the services of postmasters to the same extent as when this work was under the Post Office Department. Considering the results that were secured when all postmasters were agents of Do-
4	p.m. minion government annuities. I do not know whether that plan would be very practicable. I imagine we might have to offer larger inducements than we could afford . with any appropriations that we have before us. But whatever, steps can be taken to make the benefits of Dominion government annuities known to the public generally, will be taken, and any other plan that can be suggested will be accepted if it will bring about that desired end.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Do I understand the minister to say that he proposes to cease this agency of the postmasters, or is he going to continue them?


James Murdock: We shall be glad, indeed, to have their help. What I said was that the annuities branch was under the Post Office Department until May last.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Only for a time.


James Murdock: For some few years. During that time the postmasters were agents for Dominion government annuities. Whether they are now or not is a question possibly for discussion. Probably most of them take the position that they are not.


John Livingstone Brown: The suggestion made by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Boys) surely ought to be acceptable to the minister. There should be sufficient co-ordination between the departments that the postmasters could dis-

tribute the advertising and literature in connection with these annuities, as they do in connection with the income tax.


James Murdock: We will endeavour to see whether that can be done.


William Alves Boys: I can see the difference between postmasters acting as agents for such work and their merely distributing the literature. If they were agents, it would be their duty to sit down with intending purchasers and explain the plan to them. I do not believe that is necessary but there ought to be some place where we can go and get these tables if we want them. In every town and village insurance companies have agents with all the information at hand. If the government want to increase this annuity business, as is desirable from the standpoint both of the government and of the public, something must be done to have the literature, figures and tables available in every community. I do not see why the postmasters cannot be used in that way. If they can act as agents, so much the better; but at least the literature can be left with them and had when called for by anybody.


James Murdock: The hon. member is entirely right and we will see if that cannot be done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International Labour Conference, $15,000.
William Alves Boys: Was the appropriation of last year all expended? Could the minister give us the details of that?


James Murdock: The expenditures until January 31 on this item were:
Services for allowances and travelling expenses of delegates, $12,616.58; sundries, $27.00.
Leaving a balance of $2,356.42 for the two months.


William Alves Boys: Who were the delegates?


James Murdock: At the International Labour Conference in Geneva, October 18 to November 3, last, the government representatives or delegates were the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Minister of Labour. The employers' delegate was Mr. Coulter of Toronto, and Mr. H. C. MacDonald was the adviser to the employers' delegate. The workers' delegate was Mr. Tom Moore, president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, and Mr. John Bruce was adviser to Mr. Moore. There were six present all told, two representing the government, two the employers and two the workers. In this are included certain expenses for attendance at

Supply-Labour
meetings of the governing body of the International Labour Office which are held every three months, and at which Canada is usually represented, although she was not represented at the January meeting.


James Shaver Woodsworth: From a practical standpoint it would seem to me as if there ought to be some more definite way of giving effect to the findings of this conference. Canada, as one of the signatories of the League of Nations, accepts these various conventions, for example, the eight-hour day. I understand the government of Canada thinks its duty is done when it reports the findings of the conference and suggests that the various provinces can carry out certain of those findings. The whole difficulty there would seem to arise because of a certain jurisdictional dispute as regards how far the Dominion can act and how far the provinces should act. In the meantime, great evils are going unremedied. I think I have already this year called the attention of the House to the fact that in the steel works in Nova Scotia, and I believe elsewhere, men are working eleven and thirteen-hour shifts, eleven by day and thirteen by night, every other week working twenty-four hours on end.
We have said that men ought to have an eight-hour working day and one day's rest in seven. We find every once in a while an industrial strike takes place. We had a strike in the steel works at Sydney not very long ago. Technically it was in regard to the reinstatement of certain workers, but I am told in reality it was a protest against the abominable working conditions which the men have to endure in that part of the country. A deputation of the clergy of the town a short time ago waited on the manager of the plant and asked him if there was any way by which an eight-hour day could be brought into effect. They were told that nothing could be done until Mr. Gary and the other steel magnates of the United States had decided on readjusting the working conditions and putting on three shifts in the twenty-four hours. Thus in this country our workers are exploited and practically forced to labour under the worst possible conditions for twenty-four hours on end. And yet it would seem that although we have signed a convention which concedes that the workers ought not to be subjected to these unjust conditions, we are powerless to effect a change. I suppose all we can say to these workers is that we will have to let things go from bad to worse until there is a riot in Sydney. Then this government, which now says it has no power in the matter, will find it has power to send down
a military force to suppress the disturbance.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it does seem to me that before we reach such a crisis we should calmy consider if we cannot work out some principle by which these evils-and I think everybody will acknowledge they are evils- can be removed in a regular manner. Therefore under this item I would suggest that the time is more than ripe for the government to definitely decide what action it will take to put these conventions into effect, some of which were drawn up at least two or three years ago.


Mr. GOOD:: Mr. Chairman, the member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) has already asked the minister (Mr. Murdock) to make some explanation regarding his general policy in view of the remarkable decrease in his appropriations this year. I note that there is a decrease in these estimates from a million and a half to about a quarter of a million. Of course, if this means efficiency and economy we are all delighted; but I want to know what it does mean. Does it mean a very large reduction in the work of the department? Does it mean that we have no need of an appropriation for relief? If that is so we are certainly very much pleased. But I do think it is in order for the minister to give us some explanation of this drop from a million and a half to a quarter of a million. I have not heard any explanation yet, and if it is coming I shall be glad to wait for it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
point which my hon. friend has just raised comes under another item. This is the international office we are speaking of.


William Charles Good: I Eee no item, Mr. Chairman, under which my question could be answered, so I thought I would bring it up now.


James Murdock: I shall be very glad
indeed to give the reason for this reduction as I have tried to do in respect to each item which we have dealt with. For example, in vote 265 we made a reduction of 815,000, and I indicated the reason, that is, that we were not in any way hampering the work of the employment service, but that we thought there were certain unncessary expenditures and possibly certain unnecessary officials. My hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) a little while ago referred to a prominent official who had to seek another position last year. I presume he was referring to the former director of the employment service, who prior to July 7th last spent a good deal of time out of Ottawa looking for another position, and on that date he told

Supply-Labour
me that he was leaving the department at the end of the month to accept a SI0,000 job with a private concern in Chicago. I said to him, "All right, Sir, you can go at once if you like." I immediately wired for the western superintendent to come down and take charge. 1 only mention this incident because my hon. friend would almost appear to suggest that an injustice had been done to a capable employee. The gentleman in question was a capable employee no doubt, but, as indicated, he was out looking for and secured another position, which I am sure he will fill satisfactorily. The work of the employment service has continued uninterruptedly and to the general satisfaction so far as I know of the various provincial authorities and others concerned throughout Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I made no reference to any injustice having been done. What I want to know is whether the department is being weakened by efficient men being allowed to go over to private agencies.


James Murdock: Of course, that is a
question which neither my hon. friend nor I can determine. If he takes the position that some men in the service are not getting all they are worth, I will say he is right. At the same time I will say that possibly some men are getting more than they are worth. But that is a question under the jurisdiction of a properly constituted body known as the Civil Service Commission, which classifies the salaries of the service. Possibly it was unfortunate that the director of the employment service was only rated as a 84,200 man, but, as I say, that is something that we cannot in any way control.
The next item in which there is a reduction is No. 266, which is 850,000 less than the appropriation for 1922-23. This is to supplement the amount provided by Statute 8-9, George V, chapter 21, Employment Offices Co-ordination Act. In that act there is statutory provision for $150,000 to be used in organization and co-ordination of employment offices in co-operation with the various provinces, and this, it will be noticed is provided for further down on page 49. The position has been taken that it might reasonably be assumed that when $150,000 was provided by statute it should not be necessary to appropriate an additional $100,000. Last year the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) embarrassed me somewhat during the consideration of the estimates in presenting that view, but upon further thought I had to agree that there was some ground for the claim made. I de-

cided, therefore, that we could get along with $200,000 for the coming fiscal year and at the same time meet our obligations with the provinces in which these employment offices were maintained. I believe that $50,000 added to the amount provided by statute will be amply sufficient. The amount provided last year in connection with the offices of director and assistant director of technical education, $7,000, has not all been spent. With only one officer in the future, the Director of Technical Education, $3,000 should be sufficient. As a matter of fact, up to January 31 last only $936.64 had been expended of the $7,000 during the fiscal year. So it seems reasonable to cut that appropriation down from $7,000 to $3,000.


William Charles Good: The minister seems to have misunderstood my question. I am not complaining about any particular reductions that have already been explained. I want some explanation about the reduction of $1,300,000 that has not been explained.


James Murdock: I was coming to that later, but I will explain it now if my hon. friend wishes. We are not asking for any money this year to provide for unemployment relief. We believe conditions have changed for the better, and whereas last year $1,200,000 was asked for in the Supplementary Estimates to meet expenditure that had been incurred in connection with participation in unemployment relief schemes, it is believed we do not need any such appropriation at this time. Except under P.C. 220, we have paid out no money during this winter for unemployment relief; that is, we have discontinued entirely the plan in effect during the two previous winters. That represents the item of $1,300,000 that my hon. friend refers to.


William Charles Good: What was the total amount spent for relief during the present fiscal year?


James Murdock: $902,576.79. We have on hand something like $380,000 of the amount voted in last year's Supplementary Estimates.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would call the
attention of the minister to the rather serious condition which has prevailed in Winnipeg during the last winter and to the earnest representations made to the government, not only by the city council of Winnipeg but also by the province of Manitoba, urging that conditions, at least in the city of Winnipeg, were similar to those which prevailed a year ago and pointing out that the joint conference called by the Dominion and the provinces had agreed that if conditions were

Supply-Labour
similar, relief would be granted. .Whatever may be true of other parts of Canada, if conditions are similar in Winnipeg to what they were a year ago-and I believe they are in some other parts as well-the government should explain why the arrangement of a year ago is discontinued.


James Murdock: Shall we proceed, Mr. Chairman, with a discussion of unemployment relief, or shall we deal with this item, International Labour Conference?


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall item 269, International Labour Conference, carry?


Mr. SHAW:: The hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) has asked a very important question which has not yet been answered, namely, what steps are being taken by the department to carry into effect the various labour conventions. If it is because of lack of jurisdiction on the part of this parliament that nothing has been done to give effect, for instance, to the eight-hour law, why not let the provincial governments be represented at those conferences and the Dominion government discontinue their efforts in that direction?


James Murdock: It has always been the desire of the federal government that the provincial governments should be represented at those conferences. At the Washington Conference in 1919, a representative from each province acted as adviser to the two federal government representatives. Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec were represented at the Geneva Conference of 1921. Last year, when the conference for 1922 was pending, the department urged that the provinces should be represented also on that occasion, but in each case the provinces considered such representation inadvisable. I assure the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) that I am just as much interested in the questions lie has in mind as he can possibly be. It is my desire to see the things dealt with in a businesslike way that are securing results for those interested, namely, the classes referred to by conventions resulting from the International Labour conferences. Unfortunately, so far as my hon. friend's views and desires are concerned, the British North America Act has some material bearing on this question as it precludes the possibility of the federal government doing certain things that it might desire to do in regard to some of these questions. In short, there is a dual or intermingled authority and responsibility as between the provincial government and the federal government on a number of these questions. I laid on the Table of the House
a few days ago the decision of the Department of Justice in regard to certain matters dealt with at the 1921 convention in Geneva, and prior to that time the decision of the Department of Justice had been laid on the Table in reference to the conventions emanating from the International Labour Conference at Washington in 1919. Some of the questions in which my hon. friend is deeply interested as emanating from this International Labour Conference cannot be dealt with by this government, I am told, under the provisions of the British North America Act, and therefore it is a question of getting the representatives of the provinces and those in authority in the Dominion together, if possible, to determine how far we can go in doing what is desired and should be done in connection with these conventions.
Last fall, on September 5, 6 and 7, it is true as my hon. friend says, that a conference was called here in Ottawa with the provincial authorities. The first question to be considered was deciding what we should do on the question of unemployment relief, if any, during the then coming winter. Among other important questions to be considered were the conventions and recommendations that had emanated from the International Labour Conferences to this federal government, and through the federal government to the several provinces. No definite action was taken upon the questions emanating from the International Labour Conference for the reason that the conference here in Ottawa after some discussion decided that it was not fully enough advised and in proper form to deal with these matters, but it was decided to arrange for getting together and dealing with these matters just as soon as possible. Some months ago we moved in the direction of bringing about a conference that would really deal with these matters, and suggested the latter part of February or early in March for the conference to meet and decide what should be done. The majority of the provinces indicated that the time proposed would be inopportune because their various legislatures would be in session, and the result is that the matter now stands until the various legislatures and this House have adjourned. The hope and expectation now is that within the next two or three months a meeting will be held as between those representing the provinces and empowered to discuss and deal with these questions and the federal government to see in what way we can ratify or deal with the conventions and recommendations that have emanated from the first, second and third
Supply-La hour

International Labour Conventions. That is briefly the status of the matter at this particular time.
So far as the Labour department is concerned, as my hon. friend wanted to know its position, I may say the department and its minister are deeply interested in going as soon as possible just as far as it is possible for us to go in doing the things that should be done in regard to these matters. If there has been any delay, or if there appears to be any lukewarm or indifferent attitude in the matter, it is simply because of a lack of opportunity to go forward and do the things that it is hoped and believed should be done.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Has not the Dominion government taken authority, for instance, in the case of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act and the Lord's Day Act? Do not these questions come in pretty much the same category as the eight-hour day or the one day's rest in seven?


James Murdock: As my hon. friend knows, the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act applies only to public utilities, such as railroads and coal mines. Unquestionably, I am told, the federal government under the British North America Act has jurisdiction to determine certain questions, but it has not been considered that we have authority even under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act to go so far as to deal with some particular concern in a particular province, as witness the British Empire Steel Corporation to which my hon. friend referred a short time ago. Jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act does not, as we understand it, rest in the province to say that a board of investigation shall be appointed in a steel works controversy, for instance. So far as the Lord's Day Act is concerned, I think my hon. friend will agree that there are many and various Lord's Day Acts in the Dominion, or at any rate references to Lord's Day Act provisions. If my hon. friend will get whatever legal advice he desires to secure in this matter, I think he will find that on most of the questions that have emanated from the International Labour Conference the best legal opinion is that the provinces have jurisdiction, rather than the federal government.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I quite readily appreciate the legal difficulties in which the minister finds himself. I am only anxious with the minister that effect be given at the earliest possible opportunity to such of these conventions as are found desirable. May I ask the minister, therefore, of the matters which have
I Mr. Murdock.]
been found to be within the sole jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament, which ones have received consideration by this parliament?


James Murdock: One of the most important questions emanating from the 1919 International Labour Conference at Washington was in reference to employment service. The federal government, as my hon. friend knows, promptly moved in the direction of making effective the general intent of that convention, which in substance provided that all possible assistance would be given to securing work for the unemployed without cost to the unemployed. In that direction the federal government has had the co-operation, generally speaking, of the provinces in so far as that was necessary, and it has been necessary because the western provinces all proceeded by regulation to discontinue private employment agencies. A commendable ^movement in that direction has been under way also in the eastern provinces, so that to-day in Nova Scotia there are no private employment agencies, but very few in New Brunswick, and in Ontario only some eleven or thirteen, I am not sure which. In that particular matter the federal government has, it is thought, gone a fair share of the way in doing the things it was contemplated would be done under that convention. On certain other matters the federal government has believed

or I should say the Labour department has believed and held all along-that we should, have some reasonably distinct co-operative understanding with our partners in regard to the proposal and the necessary action to be taken in connection with these conventions. That, it seemed, could only be done by bringing about an understanding at meetings held for that purpose, and my personal hope is that within the next two or three months, or as soon as this provincial-federal conference can be arranged, we will be in a position to know how we are going to proceed in regard to certain of these matters that have not yet been dealt with.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the matter of old age pensions come under the federal government?


James Murdock: As to that there is a legal point involved and I would not care to give my hon. friend an opinion. It concerns a disputed point, and in any case it is a matter for parliament to decide rather than-


James Shaver Woodsworth: All I want to get at is where we decide these things. We are told it is a disputed point, but is there no

Supply-Labour
clear line of demarcation or can we not, by means of the courts, or otherwise, decide what the powers of this parliament are and cannot we expect the government to take action within those powers?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On this item of the International Labour Conference, I think it would be appropriate for me to say a word in reply to some exception which the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) appeared to take the other day when mention was made of the circumstance that Mrs. James Carruthers had been appointed to represent the Minister of Labour at the meeting of the governing body which is to be held within the next few days at Geneva. I was responsible for suggesting the *name of Mrs. Carruthers to the Minister of Labour, and I think I ought to let the House know the reasons that actuated me. First of all, I might mention that the minister spoke to me a couple of weeks ago about the representation of Canada at this conference. He said that he would be unable to attend himself, and asked for a suggestion as to the person to represent Canada. I suggested that he follow the course that had been followed on previous occasions; that if the minister himself was unable to attend to have, if possible, one of our representatives in England appear on behalf of Canada; and I suggested that Mr. Pacaud, the Secretary of the High Commissioner's office in London, should represent the Dominion at that gathering.
May I say here, by way of parenthesis, that the governing body of this conference meets four times a year. Its sessions last for only three or four days. It is not a great international conference at which [DOT] special delegates appear, but is a permanent body. Under existing arrangements the Minister of Labour himself is a member of the governing body. I understand this was also the case under the previous government, though the minister, I think, attended only once; on all other occasions Canada was represented by some person who was resident in England or in France.
As I have mentioned, when the minister took the matter up first, Mr. Pacaud was spoken of. He was communicated with by letter and, as the correspondence which has been brought down shows, at the end of several days a cable was received from him mentioning that he would not be able to find it possible to attend the gathering himself. The minister then spoke to me again, pointing out that the time was very short, and I suggested to him a name that would be suitable. I suggested the name of Colonel Cunningham who
has represented the minister on three or four occasions. The minister said to me that he would prefer to have another nomination this time, and I then suggested to him the name of Mrs. Carruthers as one who, I thought, was very specially qualified to represent Canada at that gathering.
The main reason why I suggested Mrs. Carruthers' name was because she is the author of one of the best known books on labour legislation which has been published- one of the very few books that I know of that deal with labour legislation in Canada.
I should be obliged if any member of the committee can tell me of any other author, or authoress, who has published a book, particularly on labour legislation, in the British dominions. I have in my hand a book entitled The Factory and Shop Acts of the British Dominions. It is by Mrs Carruthers, who at the time it was written was known as Miss Violet Markham. The contents are divided into three parts: Part 1, General View of the English Law; Part 2, New Zealand and Australia; Part 3, Canada-General Review of Federal Law; General Review of the law in Quebec, the law in Nova Scotia, the law in New Brunswick, the law in Manitoba, and the law in British Columbia. When Mr. Thomas, Director of the International Conference, was in Ottawa, he mentioned to me that one of the subjects which had occasioned most embarrassment and confusion to members of the conference was the very question we have been discussing this afternoon, that namely, of jurisdiction as between the federal and provincial governments; and having in mind the conversation I had with him at that time, it occurred to me that no person would be better qualified to make a satisfactory explanation and give a satisfactory exposition of that important matter than Mrs. Carruthers, who is thoroughly familiar with the labour questions of our country both in the federal and the provincial fields. That was the reason I suggested Mrs. Carruther's name-the fact, that she has taken a very important part in labour questions generally.
It is perfectly true, as the leader of the Opposition mentioned that she was a candidate for parliament-not at the last election, as he said, but at the election before last. She was one of four candidates, I think, in a particular constituency, not supporting any party, but running as an independent Liberal. That, however, should not disqualify anyone from representing this country at such a conference. In addition to that, Mrs. Carruthers has been a member of the Central Committee
Supply-Labour

on Womens' Employment in Great Britain; a director of the womens' section of the National Service Department during 1917; is at the present time a member of the Industrial Court-I think an appointment made under the present government in England- and has served on different commissions dealing with industrial and other problems. As there was very little time in which to give instructions to any person, it seemed to me that no one was better qualified-and I still hold that view, having regard to all the circumstances-to represent the minister in an effective way with regard to the questions that are likely to come up during these three or four days meetings of the governing board.
Perhaps I ought to mention another circumstance, I had in mind at the time I made the suggestion of Mrs. Carruthers' name. Only a short time ago, I had a conversation with the president of the Women's National Council of Canada, and she mentioned to me that at a recent meeting of the council the committee had desired the attention of the government to be drawn to the desirability of having a woman represent Canada, as occasion might afford opportunity, at one of these international conferences in Geneva. It seemed to me that Mrs. Carruthers, with her knowledge of labour legislation and industrial questions, would be particularly suitable as a woman to fill that place during this brief period. I might also mention that the questions coming up for consideration at the meetings have to do largely with problems relating to women's work in industry. Altogether, these circumstances seemed to render it advisable to suggest the name of this particular lady to represent Canada. Had we sent anyone from this side it would have been an entirely new departure.
I may say that Colonel Carnegie, who represented us on three previous occasions, is not a Canadian. He was employed here in Canada, during the period of the war, with the Imperial Munitions Board. After his return to England he published a book dealing with industrial questions, relating in part to matters in this country. I think his appointment to represent the Minister of Labour was regarded as a very good one, and that he did splendid service in that capacity. Mrs. Carruthers is in much the same position. She is not a Canadian but is familiar with Canadian law and Canadian conditions, and I think, will be distinctly helpful to our country in representing lit at this particular meeting of the International Conference.


Arthur Meighen: I cannot say that I am
much impressed by the defence of the government in regard to the appointment of Mrs. Carruthers. I do not think, in the first place, that a knowledge of Canada, of Canadian labour conditions and employment conditions, can be gained by a study of provincial or Dominion statutes. It can be gained by residence in this country, by contact with actual affairs and by study resulting from that contact. Such advantages and such qualifications Mrs. Carruthers, no matter how brilliant she may be, cannot possibly possess. Such- qualifications Colonel Carnegie did possess. Though not a Canadian, he lived here through very strenuous periods and was himself very closely associated with questions such as this. But Colonel Carnegie is not the only one. I think Mr. Obed Smith, a Canadian residing in London, represented us on previous similar occasions. I know of no reason why Obed Smith or Colonel Carnegie could not have accepted the position. Apparently no name was suggested and none of them was communicated with.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mentioned a moment ago

perhaps my right hon. friend was not in the House-that I did suggest Colonel Carnegie before I suggested Mrs. Carruthers.


Arthur Meighen: I though the hon. member said "Cunningham."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. Carnegie.


Arthur Meighen: I think the Prime Minister made a mistake; I think he said "Cunningham." Then Colonel Carnegie was suggested by the Prime Minister and rejected by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) I did not know who Colonel Cunningham was, but I understand now. Apparently the Minister of Labour did not want Colonel Carnegie, I do not know why. However, Mr. Obed Smith was in England, and as far as I know his duties were there. Why he could not have represented the country I do not know. Certainly there could have been no political objection, which usually weighs heavily with the government, to the appointment of Obed Smith. The request came and was received on the 6th March. The government could have ascertained if Mr. Pacaud could have attended. No objection could have been taken to him. They could have ascertained in a day or two whether he could have attended. A long letter was written to Mr. Pacaud which he received on the 20th and answered on the 21st. There was no delay on his part. The delay was occasioned by the methods adopted

Supply-Labour
by the government. But even after the delay there was plenty of time to have had a Canadian gentleman, and plenty of time to have had a Canadian woman appointed, if a woman were more desirable than a man. But no, an English woman politician, who forsooth had written a book, must represent this country. I have no knowledge of this woman. She has, I suppose, written this book-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a self evident limitation of the right hon. member's knowledge, unfortunately.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and I have many
limitations of the same kind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: She has written a book
on Canadian law, provincial and federal. I doubt if very many in this country have had the advantage of a perusal of that book. I have not, but I repeat that that is a long way from qualifying to represent us on this important body. Besides, as everybody knows she is a member of a large coal-owning family in that country. That does not disqualify her, but it would at least tend to give her views, or perhaps a leaning, away from what would make her a fair judge of labour conditions, even in her own land, to say nothing of being a judge of conditions in this country. The appointment seems to me one of the most remarkable things the government has done, and when I say that I make a very strong statement indeed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must confess to a sense of gratification in not viewing these and kindred matters in as narrow and small-minded a way as my right hon. friend. I think when the leader of a great party has to take exception to a woman's appointment to deal with industrial matters on the ground that she belongs to a family which happens to be associated with a certain coal industry, he can be left to the measure of his own view of the situation. If my hon. friend, instead of having to confess his ignorance as to what Mrs. Carruthers has accomplished in the field of industrial relations, had a knowledge of her position in England and the esteem in which she is held among the working people there, he would be pleased to stand up in this House and say that Canada was fortunate in having one of Mrs. Carruthers' large sympathies and wide knowledge of industrial problems, to represent us at the conference in Geneva. More than that, 1 hope this country is large enough in its outlook to be prepared, when opportunity offers, to extend something in the nature of
a recognition by courtesy to those who are helping to make the work and industrial position of this country known throughout different parts of the world. Mrs. Carruthers, as I have intimated, has helped to make Canada's labour laws known throughout the dominions of the British Empire and known to other countries, and wh,en opportunity comes to recognize a service of that kind in so slight a way as this, I cannot but express my amazement that the leader of a great party should find it necessary to take exception in this House on grounds so small as those my right hon. friend has just mentioned.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Can the minister tell me if, under one of the orders in council, the mattei of old age pensions was not found to be peculiarly within the jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament? I am referring to the order in council, I think, of November, 1920- I am not sure of the date.


James Murdock: I do not think an order in council could deal with the question ol old age pensions. My hon. friend possibly refers to the eight-hour day matter. That possibly could have been dealt with by order in council applying to the federal government works, such as railroads and so forth, but in any case the question of old age pensions is not one emanating from the International Labour Conference, and, therefore, it is not one of those matters that can be dealt with in order to determine what we are going to do in our relations between the provinces and the federal government, although it is still all important for somebody to determine what is to be done with it.


Mr. SPENCER:: Is it a fact that during the session an hon. member brought up the matter of old age pensions in this House, and that the Prime Minister made the statement that the government was giving it favourable consideration? Would not that in itself prove that they considered it a federal matter?


James Murdock: I do not want my hon. friend to understand me as taking the position that old age pensions is not a matter the federal government should deal with. I do not take that position. I rather incline to the view, from all the information I have received, that it is a matter that this federal government could deal with, if and when it is prepared to do so, when it finds that the money is available for this purpose and a proper method of dealing with it can be devised.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Several times
during the course of the debate this afternoon the minister has referred to the divided juris-
Supply-Labour

diction of the Dominion and the provinces with respect to labour matters. There has not been, as I understand it, any very clear or concise statement of the line of demarcation or division between those authorities. Could the minister give the committee a short, clear statement of the jurisdiction of this parliament and the jurisdiction of the provinces in this matter?


James Murdock: My hon. friend of course appreciates that all of that information has been laid on the Table of the House by the previous government and this one, indicating the line of division between the provincial and the federal authority as alleged by the Department of Justice. . I am quite sure that that hon. gentleman would be better informed if he would read the decisions of the Justice department as regards these matters, from documents already laid on the Table of the House, than he would in listening to me as an ordinary layman undertaking to give my views as to where federal authority ceased and provincial authority commenced. But I can, for the information of my hon. friend, deal with one particular question as it has been presented to us. Take the draft convention limiting the hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week. That is the one in which the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) has, on several occasions, expressed great interest, which I know he feels.
The object of the draft convention is to secure the adoption of a maximum working day of eight hours and week of forty-eight hours for persons employed in any public or private industrial undertaking. Various exceptions to this proposed rule will be noted in the text of the draft convention. In an order in council of November 8, 1920,-
Which my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Shaw) referred to a moment ago.
-adopted on the report of the Minister of Justice, it was declared that the proposals of this draft convention involved legislation which is competent to parliament in so far as Dominion works and undertakings are affected, but which the provincial legislatures have otherwise the power to enact and apply generally and comprehensively. The proposals contained in this draft convention could probably be made effective by order in council in so far as regards hours of labour in Dominion works and undertakings are concerned.
That is the ruling received on that particular question from the Justice department and some time ago placed on the Table of the House.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Are there any other rulings which the minister could give to the committee?


James Murdock: They are all here. All of them have been dealt with excepting what took place at the last conference.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How many of them are there?


James Murdock: There are many pages of these, if my hon. friend wants to go into them.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I just wanted, if I could, to get some clear, concise statement in a general way outlining the division of authority. It is quite clear that as regards public works, this Dominion has jurisdiction.


James Murdock: I would not care to be charged with undertaking to give a concise statement in a general way on an important legal question of this kind, defining the dual responsibilities as between federal and provincial authorities. I would rather read from the written legal definition given to us by the Justice department, and my hon. friend has, for these many months, had access to that on the Table of this House.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My reason for asking the minister that question was that I would gather from his statement that he had made a special study of the matter as Minister of Labour, and that he had referred on different occasions to this division of authority.


James Murdock: My hon. friend is correct in his supposition that, within the limits of time at my disposal, I have made a special study of all these questions that are of interest to the Department of Labour.


Mr. HALBERT:: Supposing the Dominion government had full power, does the minister think it would be an excellent thing in the interest of Canada to introduce an eight-hour day for all the people of Canada under present conditions?


James Murdock: That, my hon. friend
will concede is under the circumstances, an hypothetical question and rather an unfair one to me, although my hon. friend does not intend it to be so. My hon. friend would naturally know where my sympathies might be on a matter of that kind. At the moment, though, I am only one member of a
5	p.m. government, undertaking to represent many and varied interests throughout Canada, all of which are entitled to equally fair consideration for their viewpoints and their interests involved. Therefore, it is not specially a question of my per-

Supply-Labour
sonal inclinations, judgment or desires on some particular matter that is going to govern.


Arthur Meighen: Has the hon. gentleman any recollection at this late date of the engagements with respect to labour legislation made by the Liberal convention of 1919? Could he give the committee what those engagements were-I wonder if he has any idea of them at all-and then tell us whether they are now repudiated or just forgotten?


James Murdock: I did not have the privilege or pleasure of attending the convention my right hon. friend speaks of. As a matter of fact, it was held in advance of the time that I was born into the political arena, and while I have read what my right hon. friend refers to, I would rather let someone more fully informed and equally interested in those matters answer the question of my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: I would think the minister is the one who ought to be best informed and best able to answer. He is the Minister of Labour. Surely, he did not assume his duties without thoroughly acquainting himself with the obligations of the party with which he was connecting himself, as regards that special subject. I am asking him now only with respect to labour matters, for instance, old age pensions, women's pensions, the eight-hour day, all those cognate subjects. The minister is the one who should be best acquainted with those, because he must have studied them. He must have come to some conclusion as to his obligations in respect of those engagements. I ask him: What is his recollection of them? Has he any at all? Can he give the committee a rational statement of what he is committed to as labour leader in respect of those matters? If he can, what does he intend to do about the matter?


James Murdock: I do not, for one moment, expect that any statement that I might make would be regarded by my right hon. friend as a rational statement.


Arthur Meighen: If it is rational, it would.


James Murdock: I have already, on several occasions in the discussion of these estimates, indicated what was being done or what was hoped to be done in connection with old age pensions; I have indicated the position that we find ourselves in as regards the eight-hour day, forty-eight hour week convention, emananting from the 1919 International Labour Conference at Washington.


Arthur Meighen: Is our position now different from what it was in August, 1919?


James Murdock: I would hold that our position and desires are not one whit different. The question is only one of time and reasonably consistent opportunity, having regard to the rights and interests of all concerned. As regards the matter of old age pensions, no one knows better than my right hon. friend that it would mean the assumption of an enormous burden of additional financial responsibilities to Canada, were we to undertake to adopt at the moment an old age pension scheme. No one in this House, not even the member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) would be more delighted than I would be to know that it was possible to do that right now, but that is a question for parliament to determine. I have repeatedly stated that these matters have been and are being given all possible consideration with a view of seeing what can be done.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that I am much enlightened.' I have not had even a pretence of an answer to the question I asked. The minister did presume to say what the government's policy now is, and if I got his words correctly it is this:	To do what is
most consistent under all the circumstances with the general public interest. That is the government's policy.


James Murdock: That is only your definition of it-and I never knew you to get anything right.


Arthur Meighen: I tried to repeat the minister's exact words. Perhaps he said satisfactory instead of consistent. Now will he give us again in his own words-and I will guarantee to get them exact-that fine specific definition of government policy which he gave us a moment ago.


James Murdock: My right hon. friend has asked for so much and changed his question so often that really I do not know, and I do not think anyone else in the House knows, what it is he wants. Personally, I think what he wants is to delay, to haggle and try to get something that he can make capital of, and possibly present a view that was never intended. Now, I wish him luck in his undertaking.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I can give my right hon. friend the information he asks for. It is well-known to him, but perhaps he will not mind my quoting the resolution of the Liberal convention in the exact language in which it was passed.

Supply-Labour


Arthur Meighen: I am glad the Prime
Minister knows what I am asking for. The Minister of Labour has just got through saying that nobody does know what I want.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The resolution is as follows:
Resolved that the committee recommends that the National Liberal Convention accept in their entirety as a part of the Liberal platform, in the spirit they have been framed and in so far as the special circumstances of the country will permit, the terms of the labour convention and general principles associated with the League of Nations and incorporation in the conditions of Peace.
These methods and principles for regulating labour conditions so set forth in the treaty are as follows:
First.-The guiding principle that labour should not be regarded merely as a commodity or article of commerce.
Second.-The right of association for all lawful purposes by the employed as well as by the employers.
Third.-The payment to the employed of a wage adequate to maintain a reasonable standard of life as this is understood in their time and country.
Fourth.-The adoption of an 8-hour day or a 48-hour week as the standard to be aimed at where it has not already been attained.
Fifth.-The adoption of a weekly rest of at least twenty-four hours, which should include Sunday wherever practicable.
Sixth.-The abolition of child labour and the imposition of such limitations on the labour of young persons as shall permit the continuation of their education and assure their proper physical development.
Seventh.-The principle that men and women should receive equal remuneration for work of equal value.
Eighth.-The standard set by law in each country with respect to the conditions of labour should have due regard to the equitable economic treatment of all workers lawfully resident therein.
Ninth.-Each state should make provision for a system of inspection in which women should take part, in order to ensure the enforcement of the laws and regulations for the protection of the employed.
And further resolved
1.	That the introduction into the government of industry or principles of representation whereby labour and the community, as well as capital, may be represented in industrial control, and their interests safeguarded and promoted in the shaping of industrial policies.
2.	That in so far as may be practicable, having regard for Canada's financial position,-
And here I might draw the attention of my right hon. friend to the words just used by the Minister of Labour. I think they are almost identical with those used in referring to this question.
-an adequate system of insurance against unemployment, sickness, dependence in old age, and other disability, which would include old age pensions, widows' pensions, and maternity benefits, should be instituted by the federal government in conjunction with the governments of the several provinces; and that on matters pertaining to industrial and social legislation an effort should be made to overcome any question of jurisdiction between the Dominion and the provinces by effective co-operation between the several governments.
3.	The representation of labour on federal commissions pertaining to labour matters.
4.	Effective legislation for the conservation of human life and health.

5.	The representation of labour on the board of directors of the Canadian National Railwa$rs.
6.	That the system of re-training soldiers, unfitted for their past work because of physical injuries, be extended to disabled workers in industry.
7.	More effective restriction of Chinese immigration.
8.	The federal incorporation of co-operative associations.
9.	The acceptance of the principle of proportional
representation.	/
10.	Immediate and drastic action by the government with respect to the high cost of living and profiteering.
11.	Restoration of the control of the executive by parliament, and of parliament, by the people through a discontinuance of government by order in council and a just franchise and its exercise under free conditions.
If my right hon. friend will be quite frank he will agree with me that some of the features of this resolution have already been carried out-some of the planks in this platform if he wishes to so term them.


Arthur Meighen: Which one?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: First I put administration by parliamentary government instead of by an autocratic executive. Then I think my right hon. friend will agree that we have representation of labour on the Board of Directors of the Canadian National Railways. I could mention others. These "planks" have already or are being carried into effect.	For example, more effective restriction of Chinese immigration is in course	of being dealt	with, there
being legislation before the House at the present time with that end in view. And, "in so far as may be practicable having regard to Canada's financial position," the government will continue to put into effect one by one the several clauses of this resolution passed at the Liberal convention.


Arthur Meighen: The resolution, as will be seen, affirms, subject to some pretty vague conditions, adherence to the International Labour Congress charter. That, of course meant nothing because Canada's adherence had already been given long before. Then the resolution goes on and recites, I think, about eleven commitments of the Liberal party. The Prime Minister says they have carried into effect the last-parliamentary government is restored; order in council government is gone. The returns brought down in this House show that in the first three months of my right hon. friend's administration-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said parliamentary government had replaced an autocratic executive.


Arthur Meighen: -there were more orders in council passed than in any three months before in the history of the country, and I venture to say that the year 1922 will show

Supply-Labour
more orders in council, and more extreme orders in council, passed by this government than ever were passed in any year in our history.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not want to interrupt my right hon. friend, but that question was asked and answered in the House yesterday. The returns were given and showed that the orders in council last year were fewer than those of the preceding year.


Arthur Meighen: By about what?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not saying by about what. I am answering my right hon. friend's statement.


Arthur Meighen: I will look into it. I have not seen the return. But I will undertake to say that it will show one of the largest returns of orders in council passed in the history of this country. But if the number were twice, or half, as large it would not make one iota of difference; the number of orders in council only represents the number of decisions, small or great, which the government makes in accordance with the legislation of parliament. But this government time and again-and at this point I am not criticizing-has gone beyond legislation, and has presumed to act in the belief that the circumstances warranted such action and to wait for legislation in the future. It has done just the same as every other government, but in cases more extreme than even under the exigencies of war were ever acted on before. The fact is that all this talk about the restoration of responsible government was just so much froth and fury in the absence of any categorical indictment of the government against which it was raised.
Then the Prime Minister says, "Oh, but we have appointed a labour director on the National Railway Board." The previous government stated over and over again that on the reorganization of the Canadian National Railway Company and. the bringing in of the Grand Trunk there would be a director appointed directly representing labour. Subsequent to the passing of this resolution the Liberal party in parliament set to work to state just specifically what that resolution meant. A motion was made by a member of the present government, by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) that two representatives should be appointed to the National Railway Board representing labour.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend is wrong again. The motion that he has reference to by the hon. Minister of
105*
Marine and Fisheries that labour should be represented on the board of directors was a resolution moved in this parliament before the Liberal convention was held at all.


Arthur Meighen: I was pretty certain it was later. Anyway it makes it worse if it was before, because if so this resolution was merely to implement that. That stands as a parliamentary pledge of the Liberal party and is entirely consistent with the resolution of the convention. It was moved by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that there be two representatives, and that those representatives be recommended by the employees of the system. Does anyone dispute the correctness of that? Moved by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, seconded by an hon. member whose name at the moment I forget, and supported by the entire Liberal party in the House-save, I think, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), who at that time was seated about half way on his road across the House. That resolution pledged the party and called upon the government then and there to appoint two directors representing labour.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend quote that, resolution?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I will give the resolution. There were to be two representatives, recommended by the employees of the system. What was done to carry that out? One man was appointed. He is a labour man; against him as a labour man I say not a word. But he certainly was not recommended by the employees of the system; he is not on the system at all', and never was, so far as I know. And he is one, not two; so there is a direct, a flagrant violation of the commitment of the party in this House. That is the extent to which that undertaking has been complied with; the others they simply forgot-said the time was not opportune. Well, the situation in the country is just the same as in 1919 they declared it was, because their resolutions and the other pages of their proceedings abound with statements that the country is overloaded with the burden of debt, and that-by intimation if not in so many words- it is on the road to collapse and bankruptcy. That was the condition declared by themselves to exist, when all these things were held out to the labour population of Canada. In a word, the so-called principles that were embalmed in these resolutions of the - convention were not really principles, but only baits.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Do I understand that my right hon. friend is taking ex-
Supply-Labour

ception to the appointment of the president of the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress to represent labour on the Board of Directors of the Canadian National Railways?


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister understands exactly what I said; I could not have made myself clearer. I say his appointment is in no way a fulfilment of the pledge .that the Liberal party made in this House, of the motion that they supported.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is my hon. friend taking exception to the appointment, or does he endorse it?


Arthur Meighen: I have nothing against Mr. Tom Moore at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my right hon. friend endorse it?


Arthur Meighen: There was nothing in the world to prevent our appointing him; we had never committed ourselves to anything else. I am neither endorsing nor supporting it; I say it is a violation of the commitment made by the opposition of that time, now the government of the day. The Prime Minister's effort is only an imitation of the effort of his follower from Hants (Mr. Martell) to get away from the point we are discussing and to try to trail the discussion into something else.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it is not.


Arthur Meighen: Will the Minister of Labour tell us one concrete step that his government has taken, or, to put it more liberally, one concrete step they expect to take, even within the next two years, to fulfil in any substantial way the labour pledges of his government?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Joint Industrial Councils, $10,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: How is this money being spent, and what is the reason for the reduction?


James Murdock: The expenditure under
this head for the ten months ended January 31, 1923 was $3,102.48. The appropriation is needed to meet changes arising out of work done for the promotion of a system of joint industrial councils as between employers and workmen. The system is largely identical with that known in Great Britain as the Whitley Councils and is thought likely to be helpful in meeting difficult situations arising out of the industrial unrest. The appropriation is intended to meet charges for printing, stationery, travelling expenses and temporary .assistance. The appropriation had been $15,-

000.	During the past year or two the department has found it inadvisable unduly to press, through the assistance of officers of the department at least, the creation of these industrial councils. We found a commendable desire on the part of employers and workmen in many of the industrial activities throughout Canada to get together. The department have always been ready to give assistance or advice in furthering the joint industrial council idea, but it is thought that $10,000 will be sufficient for the coming fiscal year, particularly in view of the fact that there has not been opportunity for the expansion of the proposed effort that might have been expected when the matter was originally before parliament.


James Shaver Woodsworth: How many industrial councils have actually been organized during the past twelve months?


James Murdock: None. Only one or
two could be called joint industrial councils under this proposed plan or the Whitley Council plan, and they have not been very active. There is no necessity of adopting the joint industrial plan where there is a disposition on the part of workers and employers to get together and straighten out their own differences. That is the condition we have sought to bring about and to maintain, rather than to press a plan which in many cases has appeared to be objectionable to employers and to employees.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Has any effort been made to institute these councils in any of the government departments?


James Murdock: Representations have
been made in the form of memoranda submitted by local civil service organizations rather favouring the industrial council idea. I understand there is a joint industrial council in the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. So far as many of the other departments are concerned-I know this applies to the Printing bureau, with some seven hundred employees, and the Labour department-there is no employee who has not ample opportunity to present any views or representations he may. wish to make to the minister or to the deputy minister.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister would hardly claim that was an industrial council. As I understand it, the very basis of an industrial council is, as was very well expressed in the document the Prime Minister read, that labour in the community as well as capital should be represented in industrial control. I take it that merely the fact of mak-

Supply-Labour
ing representations or having the right to make representations to the governing body does not constitute carrying out the principle of industrial councils.


James Murdock: Parliament is maintaining industrial control here.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) will be impressed with the progress made in carrying out that resolution. He must be impressed with the answer of the Minister of Labour.
I rose to draw attention to the return to which the Prime Minister called my attention a moment ago, the orders in council passed in 1921 and 1922. The question was asked by the hon. member for Fort William:
(1)	What were the number passed in the year ending December 31, 1921?
(2)	What were the number passed in the year ending December 31, 1923?
The answer appearing in Hansard is as follows: (1) Year 1921, 5,861; (2) March, 1922, 5,621. I do not know what the significance is, and no one else can tell, of that word "March," but it would look to me as if the number given for 1922 was only from March onward.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think March appears at all.


Arthur Meighen: The word is here in Hansard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There was no March in the reply. That is a misprint.


Arthur Meighen: It would look as if it was from March onward, or that the figures were given to the end of the fiscal year in each case, in which case there would be no comparison as between the two governments At all events, it will be seen by these figures the progress that has been made in the "restoration of responsible government."


William Charles Good: Did I understand the minister to say that out of the $15,000 voted last year only some $3,000 was expended?


James Murdock: $3,102.14 up to January 31st.


William Charles Good: May I inquire then as to the significance of asking for $10,000 this year? There seems to be a considerable expansion of the work in contemplation.


James Murdock: The vote was $15,000
last year, but as I have just intimated to my hon. friend for Centre Winnipeg there were not the opportunities last year that it was believed there might be to extend the efforts in connection with joint industrial councils. It is hoped and believed that there may be
greater opportunities to do something in that desired direction this year, and that more sympathy will be shown by employers and workers in this connection. Therefore it is thought that about $5,000 off the estimate of last year, of which only $3,000 odd has been spent, would be about right. That would leave a margin of $10,000 with which to work during the next fiscal year, in the event of our having greater opportunities than we had last year of doing something in the desired direction.


William Charles Good: I suppose that the principle is that we should have plenty of money to draw on in case the opportunity should present itself.


James Murdock: That we should have a sufficient amount so as not to handicap possible results that might otherwise not be secured.' I discussed that particular phase when dealing with the Annuities branch question a little while ago.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the government contemplate introducing any legislation this session looking to the carrying out of this idea of the joint control of industry?


James Murdock: That matter also is under consideration, but I think it is only fair to my hon. friend to say that my personal opinion is that there will not be any legislation of that kind initiated at this session of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, $35,000.
William Alves Boys: That was arranged to stand over, I think. There are some members who are not here, having gone away for the Easter recess, who want an opportunity of addressing themselves to this item.
Item stands.


William Alves Boys: In connection with the appropriations not required for 1923-1924, I thought there was to be some discussion of that, but whether that be so or not, I understood the minister to say that there was nothing expended last year on unemployment relief. Were any applications received for unemployment relief?


James Murdock: My hon. friend misunderstood me. There has been a great deal of money expended for unemploym/cnt relief during the past fiscal year, but it was decided that for this last winter it was unnecessary to adopt any plan of co-operation with the municipalities and provincial governments such as was in effect during the two previous
165G
Supply-Labour

winters, and that is the reason we are not asking for any appropriation this year on account of unemployment relief. There is already in the funds up to the 31st of March some $380,000 odd of the amount voted by parliament last year in the Supplementary Estimates. That vote has not been all used, and will not be used, I might say.


William Alves Boys: I appreciate that, but I do not understand the item as it appears here. It is for $1,300,000. In the Supplementary Estimates for unemployment relief it was $1,200,-
000.	If you have spent all of that but $300,000 odd I do not see how you can have as large an item as you have now opposite the heading " Appropriations not required; for 1923-1924."


James Murdock: The sum of $100,000 was voted in the Main Estimates, and then 1 asked for $1,200,000 in the Supplementary Estimates to meet liabilities that it was said had accrued. That makes $1,300,000. As a matter of fact, the estimates that were given to ua were rather over-estimates, and we found out that actually it cost us about $400,000 less than was estimated.


William Alves Boys: That accounts for $400,000. Where did the other $900,000 go? The item as it stands now is $1,300,000.


James Murdock: With $902,000 expended, and approximately $400,000 still remaining unexpended, you get $1,300,000.


William Alves Boys: But if you have spent it, you require it.


James Murdock: Oh, no. We are not engaging in any unemployment relief whatever this winter. We do not propose to. It is regarded as unnecessary to do so. We are not asking for any unemployment relief funds.


William Alves Boys: I understand that all right. I may be very stupid, but I cannot appreciate the minister's explanation. You get $1,300,000, and spend $900,000. That leaves $400,000. 1 could understand this item for Appropriations not Required standing at $400,000 but if you have spent the money you certainly must require it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend has not gathered the form in which the estimates are presented. Last year there was an item for unemployment relief. This year there is none. This is a comparison of the estimates of last year with the estimates of this year. Last year the total estimate came to $1,300,000. This year we are not asking for anything for unemployment relief, so 
compared with last years' estimate the amount not required is what was voted last year. That is the explanation.


James Murdock: At page 49 my hon.
friend will notice two columns, one for the present fiscal year and one for the coming year. In the column for the coming year, he will notice, a blank opposite the item " Appropriations not Required for 1923-1924" and $1,-
300,000	as the vote for 1922-1923. That amount is not required this year and is therefore carried over into the " Decrease " column.


Arthur Meighen: I promised a moment ago to give the Prime Minister the resolution that was voted for by his party on the motion of the hon. member now the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I find the date is April 23, 1919. That was three or four months prior to the celebrated convention. It reads as follows-and I ask hon. members to compare it with my words given from memory. It was an amendment to be added to a clause of the Canadian National Railways Act, in these words:
At least two of the directors shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the employees of the Canadian National Railways.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend will observe that the resolution adopted when the Liberal convention was held was the resolution on which the party appealed to the country. It called for representation of labour on the directorate of the Canadian National Railways and that has been carried out by the appointment of the president of the Trades and Labour Congress to that position.


Arthur Meighen: What a facile organization this party is? Here is a particular resolution of the party voted for and supported by the Prime Minister and every present member of the government. Three months afterwards their policy in this regard takes another form. It is only about two weeks possibly three weeks, since we were informed by the same government that where there was a difference between the resolution of the party in convention and the parliamentary commitments in the House, the latter governs.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It depends
upon when the matter is proposed.


Arthur Meighen: It depends entirely on what the subject is. They deal with it in another shape when they come to parliament, and the Minister of Finance tells us that is what is to govern, although they may have voted for another policy in convention. On

Supply-Labour
the other hand the Prime Minister tells us it is the policy in convention that governs. Again I say what a facile organization! In other words what a sham?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Marcil, Bonaven-ture):: I would like to remind the committee that there is nothing before it at present. (Vhat item shall be called?


James Murdock: The Civil Government estimates to be found on page 84.
Salaries, $231,735; contingencies, $45,500.


George Newcombe Gordon: The details are to be found on page 35 of the reprinted Estimates.


Mr. LADNER:: I wanted to ask the minister if I understood him rightly in saying that no provision would be made by the government with respect to unemployment for the next year, or for the contingency of unemployment. I did not quite catch his answer on that point.


James Murdock: We are not asking the
government to vote any money at this time on account of possible unemployment for the future or for the present.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is there any provision for unemployment should the situation require assistance in any portion of Canada, or has the government decided to leave that question in the hands of the provincial governments?


James Murdock: We do not anticipate any condition of unemployment that will warrant the participation of the federal government, either now or in the immediate future, and therefore parliament is not being asked to vote any more money on that account. We think that "Day by day, in every way Canada is getting better and better."


Arthur Meighen: The United States is relieving the minister of very much trouble in that regard.	*


James Murdock: Yes, and no other one gentleman in the Dominion of Canada is more responsible for that fact than is my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: For the policy?


James Murdock: We find my right hon. friend, the leader of a once great party, who is accepting 814,000 of the people's money, standing on the floor of parliament the other night and making the statement, which Hansard will show, that children are dying, and that many suffered and died during the past winter. The statement is absolutely exaggerated and absolutely unfair to Canada, and it is just such statements as that on the part of my right hon. friend, and others like him, that are giving workmen the belief that this Dominion is not a proper country to live in and driving them out to seek employment elsewhere. My right hon. friend is the best advertising medium that Uncle Sam has today in taking from Canada the good citizens that know and love the country and would like to remain here if they were only given a square deal. No immigration agent that the United States ever sent to Regina-as we heard of the other night-or to any other part of the Dominion has been able to do as effective and splendid work in the nature of disgusting Canadians with their own country and turning them loose to seek their fortunes elsewhere as my right hon. friend has done. He can take the chief credit to himself of being the best immigration officer that Uncle Sam has on this continent at the present time.


Arthur Meighen: I appear to have started something. I must say that these fine orations from the Minister of Labour are rather diverting. My latest crime is that I stated in the House, I think three weeks ago, that because of the position we found ourselves in last winter in respect of the coal needs of the poor there had been deaths of children. That is true.


James Murdock: Will my right hon. friend please read the exact language he used.


Arthur Meighen: Read it? Does the
minister think I carry the newspapers of the country around with me?


James Murdock: Oh no, read Hansard.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, Hansard? That u what I stated and that is what appears in Hansard, that children had died, and there have been a lot of deaths, because of inability to provide fuel under the conditions which have prevailed during this last hard winter. The minister says that is an awful thing to say, and that it is the cause of the denudation of the cities of this country by our artisan population who have gone to the United States. Well, I do not like to be disrespectful but I think if the consummation of nonsense was ever reached in the world's history it was reached in this last sentence. The men have gone there by the thousands because there is no work. It is unfortunate. I drew attention to it during the debate on the Address, and I stated that I did not attribute the condition wholly to this government, if at all. These things follow in cycles from world conditions and special conditions in the
1G5S
Supply-Labour

country, in respect to which the ^government has only partial control. But I do hold the government responsible for some of the unfortunate circumstances that exist to-day. A government policy can have a substantial effect in curing a situation. No word of pessimism as to this country has ever escaped my lips in this House or in the Dominion.


James Murdock: Nonsense.


Arthur Meighen: The leaders of hon. gentlemen opposite in 1921 declared to the world that we were in the throes of bankruptcy, that even our own men were getting frightened, that we owed so much we could not maintain any longer our integrity as a country; and then they wonder that they did not have any immigration in 1922. No prophecies of that kind or of any kind have been made by me. I am not afraid to state conditions as they exist and as I know them.


James Murdock: Did the right hon. member not, on various platforms in October and November of 1921, prophesy with loud acclaim that if certain things happened the factories of the various towns and cities of Ontario and Canada would be closed?


Arthur Meighen: Surely.


James Murdock: And that the workmen
would be out of work?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


James Murdock: Was it true?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, certainly it was
true, but hon. gentlemen took care that these things did not happen, at the expense of their plighted word. Undoubtedly it was true. If we had seventeen classes of articles on the free list to-day there would be scores of factories in this Dominion closed beyond any * question, and no one knows it better than the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding). That is what I stated, and hon. gentlemen opposite now point to the factories which are open and say, "Look at them, the prophecies of Mr. Meighen have proved false by the events." No, what proved false was the government. These hon. gentlemen proved false to what they pledged themselves to do in this couhtry, and then they boast of their own duplicity, and point to the condition of the country under the policy now in effect.


Robert Forke: This is very entertaining,
but we are not getting very far with the estimates.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The question I asked a *
moment ago was turned into an occasion for a declamation by the minister. Now I seek fMr. Meighen.]
full information. I am trying to find out from the government if it is their policy to leave the solution of the question of unemployment with the provinces. The minister has told us that it is not anticipated that there, will be unemployment. I ask the question purely with a desire to get information, in order that the people in that province who are interested will know, when the crisis arises, where they must go to find employment.


James Murdock: On the 22nd day of December last, after very careful consideration by the government, a telegram was sent to the Prime Minister of British Columbia and a similar telegram to the Prime Minister of Manitoba, in answer to representations they had made to this federal government on the question of unemployment, indicating to these Prime Ministers the view that there was no general condition of unemployment in effect comparable in any way to that in effect during the two preceding winters, and no condition of unemployment which, in the judgment of the government, would warrant the participation of the federal government in a joint unemployment relief scheme such as had been in effect during the past two winters, the telegram indicating, as orders in council had previously indicated, that the question of unemployment relief was primarily One of municipal and provincial concern. The government has maintained that position on the general question of unemployment since that time, and, as a matter of fact, we have seen no great reason for changing that position. So far as British Columbia is concerned, I do not at this moment recall any word that we have received from authorities in British Columbia taking exception to that declaration of our position. It is true that in Manitoba we have received from the Mayor of Winnipeg, and various other representative gentlemen in that province, numerous requests indicating their desire that we should participate in assisting to relieve the conditions of unemployment which it was stated were in effect in Winnipeg. We did not however believe that it was advisable or necessary that the federal government should participate in any unemployment relief scheme, with, of course, one exception provided for in Order No. 220 which was laid on the Table of the House some time ago and which provides that where in certain municipalities relief organizations, composed in part of charitable and soldier organizations with representatives of the municipality, were participating in the relief of unemployed returned men, the federal government would, under the conditions recited in the

Wreck of Alaskan
order in council, pay one-third of the expenditure. Under that order in council we paid out some few thousand dollars, probably not more than ten thousand dollars, since the order in council was passed some weeks ago. Our view is that the conditions which I have just referred to are going to improve rather than get worse, and that there is no necessity at this time, for us to consider such a question as asking for money with which to deal with unemployment, which we do not believe will be general in effect.


George Newcombe Gordon: Carried.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would like to
clear up a certain matter. Is the contention of the city of Winnipeg set forth in the following resolution correct?
And whereas at a conference called by the federal government in September, 1922, a resolution was unanimously passed to the effect that should abnormal unemployment exist during the winter the provincial and federal governments should jointly meet the situation in a manner similar to that followed during the winter of 1921-22.
Is that contention correct? Was that resolution unanimously passed?


James Murdock: No, that contention is not altogether correct, but it would probably take some few minutes to explain the situation, and I am told the House desires a few minutes before rising. Therefore, I move the committee rise and report progress. I will have that information for my hon. friend next time we meet.


Arthur Meighen: The item under discussion was hot carried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was carried a. few minutes ago.


George Newcombe Gordon: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no. The minister
suggested that the committee rise.
Progress reported.


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES FOR
[Stage Direction]
1922-	3.
A message from his Excellency the Governor General, transmitting Supplementary Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1923, was presented by Hon. W. S. Fielding, (Minister of Finance) read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and referred to the Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
1923-	4
A message from His Excellency the Governor General, transmitting Supplementary Estimates lor the year ending March 31.
1924, was presented by Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance) read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and referred to the Committee of Supply.

Arthur Meighen: What business will be taken up on Monday the 9th April?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We will continue in Committee of Supply, taking up the estimates of the departments that have already been considered; Trade and Commerce, Public Works, and Labour

one of the three.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Monday, April 9, 1923