1927-03-16

ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the House that I have received1 the following message from the Senate:
Resolved that a message be sent to the House of Commons by one of the clerks at the table to acquaint that House that the name of the Hon. Mr. Murphy has been added to the list of the members of the special committee appointed to inquire into the claims of the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia.

First report of the committee appointed to consider Bill No. 105, to amend the Food and Drugs Act, 1920.-Mr. Howden.
BELL TELEPHONE-GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY CONTRACT Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	I promised to lay
on the table some information for the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) respecting the agreement between the Bell Telephone Company of Canada and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, of 1913,'which I now do.



BANKING AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the name of Mr. Laflamme be substituted for that of Mr. Rheaume on the select standing committee on banking and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. W. E. TUMMON (South Hastings):: I have the honour of presenting to this House, Mr. Speaker, a copy of a resolution passed by the city council of the city of Belleville, also a copy of a resolution passed by the council of the town of Deseronto, praying that this House do not grant renewal of the charter of the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company, known as Bill No. 78.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. BEAUBIEN:: 1.	What year was the present car ferry established between Cape Tormentine, New Brunswick, and Borden. Prince Edward Island?
2.	How many trips did this car ferry make annually from the year it was placed in service to December, 1926?
3.	How many passengers were carried annually during the same period?
4.	How many tons of freight were carried annually during the same period?
5.	How many head of live stock were carried during the above mentioned period?
6.	How many bags of mail were carried during the said period?
7.	How many automobiles were carried during this period?
8.	What have been the losses or profits of the operation of this car ferry, annually, since its being put into operation?


Hon. Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	1917
2.	1917, 50; 1918, 1,011; 1919, 1,444; 1920, 1,638; 1921, 1,506; 1922, 1,642; 1923, 1,543; 1924, 1,584; 1925, 2,050; 1926, 2,486.
3.	Records prior to 1924 no longer available: 1924, 52,271; 1925, 61,292; 1926, 63,603.
4.	5 and 6. As this is a car ferry handling trains across the Strait, without breaking bulk or transshipment, no record is kept of freight or mail passing through.
7.	No records prior to 1923: 1923, 1,562; 1924, 2,395; 1925, 3,368; 1926, 4,299.
8.	There is no profit and loss account connected with the operation of the car ferry. The revenues from passengers and freight are train revenues and so accounted. Cost of operation of the'car ferry service is given in separate statement attached.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS ATLANTIC REGION
[Stage Direction]
Statement in Connection with the Operation of S.S. "P. E. Island" Car Ferry from Beginning of Service until 31st December, 1926 1 2 3 4 5
1	Operation of the
Boat	
2	Operating Borden
Terminals	
3	Operating Borden
Wharf	
4	Operating Tormentine Terminals...
5	Operating Tormentine Wharf	
Total	
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924	1925	1926	Total$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.7,423 17	125,252 59	147,215 62	228,443 21	198,026 14	179,884 02	197,269 88	190,270 78	188,363 32	221,646 44	1,683,795 173,331 36	37,875 75	31,196 97	42,445 77	30,156 30	29,283 52	28,039 79	16,945 70	9,652 70	8,156 73	237,084 5922,295 83	29,746 70	26,574 72	36,203 45	32,939 50	31,372 27	24,236 28	27,118 01	30,937 29	261,424 05139 04	4,926 26	4,943 82	6,106 89	7,356 78	6,501 95	6,184 82	6,834 57	7,772 12	7,790 51	58,556 76839 27	18,927 44	23,363 98	27,414 54	32,462 96	23,813 48	29,702 79	25,588 20	23,039 99	28,808 21	233,960 8611,732 84	209,277 87	236,467 09	330,985 13	304,205 63	272,422 47	292,569 55	263,875 53	255,946 14	297,339 18	2,474,821 43
Questions
Questions

Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	How many cars of grain were unloaded in the port of Vancouver during the months of September, October, November, December, and January, in each of the years 1922-23-24-252G, and January, 1927?
2.	Has the attention of the government been called to certain evidence recently given before the railway commission that some 2,500 cars of grain were being held back from forwarding to the coast owing to congestion at that point and for lack of shipping?
3.	Have any steps been taken by the government to secure shipping for the removal of grain freely offered for shipment via Vancouver? If so, what?


Hon. Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Department of Railways and Canals-
Cars of Grain Handled by Canadian National Railways to Vancouver, B.C.
Month	1922	1923	1924	1925	1926	1927Sept	
Oct	73 308 466 437 590	53 552 343 598 2,244	140 2,746 3,827 1,690 839	40 1,160 1,777 1,689 3,646	652 855 2,420 822	Nov	
Dec	
Jan	
1,683
	1,874	4,749	3,790	9,242	8,312	1,683
2.	The Canadian National railway management reports that on account of the large volume of tough and damp grain moving to Vancouver and the limited drying facilities, it was necessary to inaugurate some system for the purpose of avoiding blockade of grain and the consequent possibility of advantage being taken of the situation by speculators in moving grain to Vancouver without at the same time making provisions for steamship accommodation. The arrangement was originally advocated 'by the Vancouver harbour commissioners, grain trade at Vancouver and terminal railways. Cars are not accepted for shipment to Vancouver except on permit from the railway company. This is considered to be the only satisfactory method for shippers and carriers alike. The control of the situation is not in the hands of the Canadian
National railways, but rather in the capacity of the elevator to dry and handle shipments and also the number of available ships.
3.	The Canadian Government Merchant Marine take the maximum quantity of grain offering for their steamers sailing from Vancouver.
Department of Trade and Commerce-
1.	September, 1922, 143; October, 1.192; November, 1,373; December, 2,211; January
1923,	2,260.
September,	1923,	151;	October,	2.216;
November, 2,203; December, 4,803; January,
1924,	5,179.
September,	1924,	293;	October,	2,722;
November, 3,413; December, 2,914; January
1925,	2,831.
September,	1925,	371;	October,	5,427;
November, 6,938; December, 4,334; January
1926,	6,888.
September,	1926,	168;	October,	4,582;
November, 3,651; December, 4,085; January
1927,	3,464.
2 and 3. No information.


IMPORTATION OP MOTION PICTURE FILMS
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	How many motion picture films were im-poi ted into Canada during each of the years 1922 to 1926, inclusive, and from what countries ?
2.	What is the rate of duty on the said films ?
3.	Does the Department of Customs exercise any supervision or censorship over the said films so as to prevent the entry to Canada of motion pictures, (a) of an obscene character; (b) calculated to prejudice the public mind against Canadian and British sentiment; (c) of an aggressive pro-foreign type including propaganda antagonistic to Canadian interests; (d) falsely interpreting Canadian life?
4.	How many motion picture films were produced in Canada during the same period and how often were they exhibited?
5.	Has the government considered the advisability of having a careful detailed survey made of the motion picture films exhibited in Canada?


Hon. Mr. RINFRET:: 


NUMBER 1
[Stage Direction]
Statement of Imforts by Countries of Cinematograph on Moving Picture Films, Positives, One and One-Eighth Inches in Width and Over, During Each
of the Fiscal Years Ended March 31st. 1922 to 1926
Country	1922	1923	1924	1925	1926	Feet	Value	Feet	Value	Feet	Value	Feet	Value	Feet	Value$	$	$	$	$United Kingdom	452,546	29,640 100	296,241	21,463	924,495	72,293	309,150	23,870	286,158	23,0896,000	609	8,938	715France	118,287	8,384	53,513	4,210	16,948	1,317	69,445	5,557	14,764	1,0611,850	118	21,311	1,718	1,635	131	153	12630	32	1,000	80	3,000	240	United States	20,382,417	1,716,161	18,875,452	1,524,069	19,848,022	1,626,644	22,291,820	1,797,089	23,593,221	1,898,698800	40Total	20,954,250	1,754,285	19,227,686	1,549,892	20,817,776	1,702,661	22,675,050	1,827,487	23,904,034	1,923,615
Questions
Questions
[Stage Direction]
2.	Rates of Duty Preferential: 1922, 2 cents per linear foot;
1923,	2 cents per linear foot to May 23, 1922; li cents per linear foot from May 24, 1922;
1924,	1J cents per linear foot; 1925,1| cents per linear foot; 1926, 1J cents per linear foot. Treaty: 1922, 3 cents per linear foot; 1923, 3 cents per linear foot; 1924, 3 cents per linear foot to September 4, 1923; 1J cents per linear foot from September 5, 1923; 1925, If cents per linear foot; 1926, 1J cents per linear foot. General: 1922, 3 cents per linear foot; 1923, 3 cents per linear foot; 1924, 3 cents per linear foot; 1925, 3 cents per linear foot; 1926, 3 cents per linear foot.
Preferential rates apply to: United Kingdom, Bermuda, British India. Treaty rates apply to: France, Italy, Japan. General rates apply to: China, Germany, United States, Alaska.
3.	Motion picture films of an immoral or indecent or treasonable or seditious character are prohibited importation by item 1201, schedule C of the Customs tariff. Censorship is controlled by the province.
4.	There is not sufficient information available to enable an answer to be given to this question.
5.	No.

Mr. CASSELMAN:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Department of Agriculture to make use of vaccination for the prevention of tuberculosis in cattle, in addition to, or as a substitute for the present system of slaughtering diseased cattle?
2.	Is the government aware that this method has been used in Switzerland since 1917, in England since 1923, and has been introduced in the western states?
3.	If so, what are the known results?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	No.
2.	The government is not aware that any system of vaccination for the prevention of tuberculosis has been in use in Switzerland since 1917, nor in England since 1923. The government is, however, aware that a secret alleged cure for tuberculosis has been advertised and talked about in Switzerland and England as well as elsewhere for some years. Th:s is known as the Spahlinger treatment. This treatment has been greatly lauded by some people, and just as warmly condemned by others, and, since the treatment'is a secret one, there does not seem to be any way of deciding on its merits or demerits. The government is not aware that the Spahlinger treatment has been officially recognized in the United States or any other country. It

might, however, be added that the Calmette system of vaccination for the prevention of tuberculosis in cattle and in human beings has been given wide publicity and many scientists are at present studying the claims for this vaccine in many countries, including Canada and the United States.
3.	See answer to No. 2.


Mr. CHURCH:: What are the names of the officials, if any, appointed to office, either temporarily or permanently, at the Toronto post office and custom house, or removed from office at the instance or request of, (a) Liberal candidates defeated at the last election, or Liberal members of parliament; (b) Conservative members; fe) Progressive members or defeated candidates; (d) Labour, defeated candidates; (e) defeated candidates of other parties?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: No such employees were taken on or dismissed during period specified in inquiry.


RADIO BROADCASTING REGULATIONS
Mr. SPENCER:: _ 1. Are there any restrictions to anyone installing a radio broadcasting station in the cities of Calgary or Edmonton, or both?
2.	What would be the cost of license in each ease ?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes. All stations in these cities are subject to the regular restrictions set cut in the Radiotelegraph Act and regulations issued thereunder, which apply to all stations in the Dominion of Canada.
2.	$50 per annum.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-BAGGAGE
[Stage Direction]
agents' uniforms Mr. PRICE:
1.	Are station baggage agents on the Atlantic region of the Canadian National railways refused uniforms while those serving on the central and western regions are provided with same ?
2.	If so, why?
Hon. Mr. DUNNING:: The practices with respect to supplying uniforms to baggage agents and other employees were established before consolidation, and vary as between different regions and, to some extent, on the same region. The attention of the management has been directed to the complaint of baggage agents on the Atlantic region in this connection.


IMPORTED MILITARY STORES-DUTIES PAID
Mr. CHARTERS:: 1.	What was the amount of duty and sales tax, if any, paid by the Department of National Defence on imported arms, equipment.

Questions
clothing, etc., for the use of active militia during the following fiscal years:	1919-20,
1920-	21.	1921-22,	1922-23,	1923-24,	1924-25,
1925.-26 and 1926-27 to date?
2.	What was the amount of duty and sales tax paid by units of the active militia for the same fiscal years?


Hon. Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	1919-20, $45,251.94; 1920-21, $20,003.1 S;
1921-	22, $29,734.76; 1922-23, $24,834.16; 1923-24,
$9,758.36; 1924-25, $24,455.66; 1925-26, $16,596.62;	1926-27 (to February ?S,	1927),

2.	No information.


COST OF WELLAND CANAL
Mr. SENN:: 1.	What has been the cost of construction of that part of the new or Welland ship canal lying between the city of Welland and Port Colborne, up to date?
2.	What amount including the sum placed in the estimates for 1927-28 is necessary to complete this section of the canal?
3.	What amount of money not included in the above estimates will be necessary to make the harbour and entrance at Port Colborne safe for the entry of boats such as the Welland ship canal is designed to accommodate?


Hon. Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Approximately $12,735,000.
2.	Approximately $13,766,000.
3.	Harbour work at Port Colborne is included in estimates referred to in Answer No. 2.


HARROW EXPERIMENTAL FARM
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	What was the cost of operating the Harrow, Ontario, Experimental farm for the year 1926?
2.	What returns did the farm make?
3.	Who is the superintendent of the farm?
4.	What salary is paid him?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	$22,582.03.
2.	$14,641.39.
3.	Mr. Henry Alonzo Freeman.
4.	$2,400 per annum.


REPAIRS TO ESSEX COUNTY PIERS
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	When repairs were made to the piers at Kingsville, Leamington, and Pelee island, Ontario, why was the lumber for same not purchased in Essex county despite the fact that there are reputable lumber dealers in the said county?
2.	Does the patronage of the member from Antigonish-Guysborougli extend as far west and south as Essex south?
3.	In view of the fact that the estimates contain a $5,000 appropriation for repairs to piers in Essex county, will the department make an attempt to purchase material as close
to the work as possible regardless of what political opinions are held by the lumber dealers of the county?
4.	Have tenders for lumber for repairs in Essex county ever been asked for from Conklin or Ludlam lumber companies of Kingsville, and Leamington, Ontario, respectively, or from the Smith Lumber Company of Harrow, Ontario?
5.	If so, were they on the same equality as other firms, and subject to the same consideration?


Hon. Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Because the prices asked by lumber dealers in Essex county were considerably higher than those quoted by lumber dealers elsewhere, and in other cases no prices at all were submitted by dealers in that county.
2.	The patronage in this as in other ridings is controlled by the government.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes, tenders have been asked for from Conklin Planing Mills and Ludlam-Ainslie Lumber Company, but not from Smith Lumber Company of Harrow, Ontario, whose name does not appear in the Canada Gazetteer or Fraser's Directory of Lumber Industries.
5.	Yes.


GREAT LAKES LEVELS
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	Having regard to sessional paper No. 118, question No. 1, has any department of the government kept any record of the levels of the great lakes or any part thereof, for all or part of the last ten years?
2.	If so, what does such report show as above or below zero?
3.	What is zero for each of the great lakes?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Since 1910 precise records, of the levels of the great lakes, have been kept under the hydrographic survey branch of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The records are computed from hourly readings obtained by maintaining automatic water gauges on each lake.
In addition to the above, copies of all other authentic water levels (from staff and automatic gauges) of the great lakes, since 1860, have been obtained from both Canadian and American sources. These records have been compiled to a relative basis for comparison with the later records.
2.	On the great lakes the yearly mean surface elevations have shown an almost constant lowering of the surface from 1916 and 1919 to the present year of 1926, as follows:
Feet
Lake	Superior	
1916-1926	Loss	2.40Lake	Huron	
1918-1926	Loss	3.19Lake	Erie	1919-1926	Loss	1.80Lake	Ontario	
1919-1926	Loss	1.84
Questions

During 1926, record low-water levels were established for each of the great lakes.
3.	All surface elevations of the great lakes are in feet above mean sea level and are referred to the United States lake survey levels of 1903 adjustment.


GOLD AND SILVER COINAGE
[Stage Direction]
M.r BARBER:
1.	In wliat years was Canadian gold coin struck by the Royal Mint?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to resume gold coinage?
3.	What was the amount of silver coin struck by the Royal Mint during the years 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 192G?
4.	What was the amount of silver coin issued during the same five years?
5.	What was the amount of silver coin in circulation during the same five years?
6.	Has the government taken any action toward remitting or exporting American silver coin?
7.	If not, why not?
8.	If so, when and what action has been taken, and what amount has been exported?
Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	1912, 1913 and 1914.
2.	Yes, if demand warrants it.
3.	1922, 1923, 1924, 1925 and 1926-nil. 8
4.
1922		 $24,000
1923		 28,000
1924		
1925		 14,000
1926		 50,000
5.
Average circulation,	1922	
$26,632,500Average circulation,	1923	
26,537,800Average circulation,	1924	
26,495,300Average circulation,	1925	
26,337,400Average circulation,	1926	
26,124,4006.	Yes.7.	Answered by No. 6.
8. Since June 15, 1926, United States coin has been accepted at the offices of the Assistant Receivers General and up to March 8, 1927, $1,422,500 has been exported.


GEORGE H. W'ORDEN
Mr. JONES:: 1.	Was one George H. Worden, postmaster at Starkeys, Queens county, New Brunswick, dismissed by tile present government?
2.	If so, who recommended dismissal, and on what charges?
3.	Were there any charges against the said Mr. Worden?
4.	If so, by whom were they made?
5.	What was the salary of the said postmaster?
[Mr. Cardin.1


Hon. Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Doctor D. H. McAlister. Dismissal on ground of better location needed.
3.	No.
4.	Covered by No. 3.
5.	Salary and allowances, $86.


BIENFAIT-ESTEVAN LIGNITE COAL AREA
Mr. McKENZIE:: 1.	To what extent is lignite coal from the Bienfait-Estevan coal area being used for heating the federally owned or occupied buildings in southern Saskatchewan and southwestern Manitoba?
2.	Has it given satisfaction and proven an economical fuel where used?
3.	If it is not being used in all the federal buildings in this area, is there any reason why it should not be used in all such buildings within a reasonable distance of the said mines?


Hon. Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Used in the public buildings at Estevan and Weyburn, Saskatchewan, and is being tried out this year in the public building at Virden, Manitoba.
2.	Yes, at Estevan and Weyburn. No report yet received from Virden.
. 3. No, provided it could be delivered at a price which would compare favourably with that of other coal, on the basis of calorific - value.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN'S LEAMINGTON ONION WAREHOUSE


Mr. BENOIT:: 1.	How many private cars were leased or owned by the government and what were they named or numbered, from 1911 to 1921, inclusive?
2.	What was the total cost of said cars and the amount expended during the said period of years in making repairs or changes to such cars?
3.	What was the cost of operating same during the calendar years above mentioned?
4.	Was 'anything paid for hauling or shunting of said cars during each of the said years? If so. how much ?
5.	Where were the said cars located, how many at Montreal, how many at Ottawa, and how many elsewhere?
6.	Had any oi the departments of the government or ministers of the same, cars for their particular use, and what were the names and numbers of such cars and the departments and ministers making use of the same?
7.	Were any of the cars referred to placed at the disposal of other ministers or other persons during the last five years of that period? If so, when and by whom?
8.	Do any of the railways in Canada or in the United States make any charge for transportation or handling of said cars? If so, what is the rate, and do the companies in Canada by courtesy dead head said cars?


GOVERNMENT MOTOR CARS
Mr. BENOIT:: 1.	How many motor cars were purchased for the use of the several departments of the government, of what make were the said cars, what did each cost, and when were respective purchases made, from 1911 to 1921, inclusive?
2.	During above period how many automobiles were purchased for the personal use of the cabinet ministers, of what make was each car, when purchased and what was the cost of each?
3.	What was the amount expended for maintenance and repairs of cars referred to in questions one and two?
4.	During above period how many chauffeurs were paid out of the public treasury for driving the cars used by the ministers of the crown, and how much have such services cost in salaries and uniforms.
5.	Were the chauffeurs referred to in previous question permitted to avail themselves of the ministers' automobiles for their personal use, and that of their friends?


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD
Mr. GARDINER:: 1. How many soldier settlers are there in the Calgary district who have received loans from the Soldier Settlement Board?
2.	How many of these loans were for the purchase of land, stock, and implements?
3.	How many of these loans were for the purchase of stock and implements only?
4.	How many seizures of crops or grain were made by the Soldier Settlement Board in this district in the crop year of 1926-1927?
5.	How many chattel mortgages were secured on crops or grain in the Calgary district for the crop year 1926-1927?
6.	How many soldier settlers in the Calgary district have paid their annual payments in full for the current year?
7.	The number of settlers in arrears in this district to date who were not asked for a chattel mortgage or whose crops were not seized?
8.	The reason why crops or grain were not seized or chattel mortgages secured where the payments to the board were in arrears?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS NATURAL RESOURCES OF MANITOBA

Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: For a return of all correspondence of whatsoever character that has passed between the Dominion government or any minister or officer of the Dominion government and the Premier of Manitoba or any minister of officer of the government of Manitoba since the year 1920 to date, and having reference to the turning over to the province of Manitoba of its natural resources.



QUEBEC POSTMASTERS

Mr. CAHAN:: For a return showing:
1.	The names and addresses of each and every postmaster in each and every electoral district of the province of Quebec who has been dismissed from office since September 25, 1925.
2.	The persons and their addresses on whose charge or complaint each such dismissal was made and the grounds set forth in each such charge or complaint.
3.	The names of the postmasters who received copies of the said charges or complaints so made against them and were given an opportunity to present their defence against such charges or complaints.
4.	The amount of the annual salary or revenue being received by each postmaster so dismissed.
5.	The names and addresses of those who have been appointed to fill the offices so vacated by the postmasters who have been so dismissed.
6.	The names and addresses of those on whose recommendations the new appointments were made.



ILE HAUTE LAND LEASE

Mr. MacLAREN:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, leases, reports and other correspondence or communications between the government of Canada or any official of the government, since January 1, 1922. relating to the granting of a lease of land on the lie Haute, bay of Fundy, to Sidney Kerr of St. John, New Brunswick.
Unemployment Insurance



NOVA SCOTIA POSTMASTERS

Mr. ERNST:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, and all other documents or correspondence between the Postmaster General, or any official or officials of the Postmaster General's department, and any other person or persons, relating to the dismissal of Brunswick Rhodenizer, postmaster of Upper Branch, Lunenburg county, and the appointment of a successor in office; the dismissal of James Backman, the postmaster at Aspoto-gan, Lunenburg county, and the appointment of a successor: the dismissal of M. A. Harlow, postmaster at North Brookfield, Queens county, and the appointment of a successor.



RABIES IN CANADA

Mr. GUERIN:: 1.	For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents in the possession of the ^government which are supposed to prove the existence of rabies in the country.
2.	A copy of all orders issued by any department of the government in connection with the supposed outbreak of the disease.
3.	A return showing how many persons are supposed to have been infected, and what the mortality has been to date.



HASTINGS MILL SITE

Mr. COOTE:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the Vancouver harbour board or the government, and the former owners or their agents or any other parties, regarding the purchase of the Hastings mill site.



SEIZURE OF S. S. WESTERN

William Gordon Ernst: For a copy of all letters, telegrams or other correspondence between the Department of Customs, or any official thereof, or the Department of Justice, or any official thereof, and any person or persons, whether employees of such departments or not, relating to the seizure of the ss. Western and the disposal of the cargo of the said steamship, in or about the months of November, December, 1926, and January, 1927.


James Alexander Robb: In the absence of my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), we will allow this to pass subject to any reservations as to what may be considered in the department as confidential. I am not sure that there is anything confidential, but there may be.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the committee on industrial and international relations 
be instructed to investigate and report on the establishment of a system of insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion which I have before the House at the present time asks the House of Commons to submit this particular question for investigation to one of the standing committees. I do not expect that a committee which would investigate a question of such magnitude and importance, would be able to do anything with it during this session or even during two or three sessions. The matters involved are fairly large and cover a very wide territory. It is, however, approximately twenty years ago that the question of old age pensions was referred to a select committee of this House, and even at this date old age pensions have not become a fact in Canada but are still under review before one of the houses of parliament. I hope that the proposal I am introducing on this occasion will not take as long to become the law of the land as is likely to be the case with old age pensions. Legislation along the line which I have in my motion is already in effect in many parts of the British Empire. In Great Britain unemployment insurance has been an established fact since 1911, and I believe it was about the same year that similar legislation became effective in Australia. In other parts of the world they already have unemployment as well as sickness and invalidity insurance, and I think Canada is behind the times in not having on its statute books legislation the same as they have elsewhere.
I believe this question is not new to the Liberal nor the Conservative party, because both of those parties have had it as a party-matter under consideration in years gone by. In 1919 the Conservative party appointed a royal commission to investigate the question of industrial conditions in the Dominion of Canada. It was a very representative commission composed of employers, employees and others, and was presided over by Chief Justice Mathers of the Province of Manitoba. At page 6 of its report I find the following:
The chief causes of unrest may be enumerated as follows:
And the first cause given is:
Unemployment and the fear of unemployment.
The commission recommended:
Immediate inquiry by expert boards into the following subjects, with a view to early legislation:
(a) State insurance against unemployment, sickness, invalidity and old age.
This was in the early part of 1919. Not to be outdone, my friends of the Liberal paity

Unemployment Insurance
went one better and at their convention in August, 1919, passed resolutions of a similar nature. I am extremely sorry that the right hon. Prime Minister is not in his seat, for I would give anything this afternoon to hear him deliver in this House exactly the same speech that he gave before the Liberal convention. No doubt as a result of his eloquent appeal to his fellow Liberals on that occasion, the following resolution was passed.
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 incorporated in the conditions of peace.
The convention further resolved:
That in so far as may be practicable, having regard for Canada's financial position, 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 cooperation between the several governments.
And it was also further resolved in the fourth paragraph that there should be:
Effective legislation for the conservation of human life and health.
So, Mr. Speaker, my resolution follows out exactly the platform adopted at the convention of the Liberal party in 1919, and is along the line's of the recommendations of the royal commission appointed by the Conservative government of that day.
I wish now, Sir, to refer to another royal commission which investigated this question. I do not propose this afternoon to deal with unemployment insurance itself, but to emphasize the necessity at this particular juncture of having the subject matter of my resolution referred to the committee on industrial and international relations for investigation and report. During the last sixteen years unemployment insurance has been in effect in Great Britain, and there were some who doubted the wisdom of such legislation. Last year the Conservative government, of Mr. Baldwin appointed a royal commission to inquire into the question and report to parliament thereon. The commission was presided over by Lord Blanesburgh, and its personnel was of a fairly representative character. It was not until about four weeks ago that the commission presented its report, to the effect
that unemployment insurance has become a permanent feature of the code of social legislation in Great Britain, and that although there had been complaints made in regard to the administration of the act, particularly in regard to what is termed the "dole" system, those complaints were not substantiated before the commission. In fact the report states that no evidence had been adduced to prove that, the act had been in any way abused. Indeed, the commission endorses the principle of the legislation. In view of its havirg been in effect in Great Britain for sixteen years, I do not think Canada should be so far behind the old country in such social legislation.
As an excuse for lack of action along this line it may be pleaded that the conflict of jurisdiction as between the provinces and the Dominion precludes our legislating in this regard. Personally I think, as the Liberal party thought in 1919, that that difficulty should be overcome, and I believe it could be overcome if a committee took this matter in hand as I propose. The insurance of workers against sickness and unemployment is of the utmost importance to our Canadian working people. Last session the government set up a Tariff Advisory Board to inquire into industry, to give an opportunity for those who want higher protection to plead their case before it. In other words, the government set up a commission that was solely concerned with industry and the capital invested in it. While we give ample consideration to industry, we give very little to the most vital factor in industry-the human element. For many months in this House the main bone of contention between the two old parties is protection for industries, and hardly ever do we hear any plea for the protection of our men and women. I think it is time that a little more attention was given by parliament to the human factor in industry.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Do I understand the hon. member to say that this government set up a tariff board with the sole purpose of giving tariff protection to industry?


Abraham Albert Heaps: No, my hon. friend is mistaken. I never used the word "sole" in that way.


Malcolm McLean: I distinctly heard the word "sole" used.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Then it was never intended. I think words are being put in my mouth that I never intended to use. I said the Tariff Advisory Board was set up last year for the purpose of giving industry an opportunity to ask for more protection. I added
Unemployment Insurance

that we set up these commissions to give people an opportunity to appear and ask for more protection, but we do nothing along the same lines to afford protection to the human element in industry. I am trying to point out the different way in which we have treated these two factors in industry-the human and the capitalistic. We are prepared to give all kinds of protection to the one, but none to the other.


Mr. McMILLAN:: Does the hon. gentleman think this tariff board-


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Order!
Stand up if you want to ask a question.


Thomas McMillan: Excuse me. Does the hon. gentleman mean to convey the idea that the tariff board was set up in the interests of capital rather than of labour?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker, I am confident that my hon, friend knows a little better than he would have us think he does. All tariff protection in this country is for the benefit of capital, and nothing else.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes. When applicants appear before the tariff board for more protection for industry they are applying for more protection for capital. A large delegation representative of 2,000 employees in a certain industry in Ontario came to my office to interview me yesterday. This industry I speak of is well protected.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where is it?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Never mind where it is. It
is a fairly large industry in Ontario.
An hen. MEMBER:	Where?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not mind saying it is
in the constituency of Algoma, and, as I say, it employs about 2,000 men. .


Mr. SIMPSON:: What industry is that?


Abraham Albert Heaps: The Algoma Steel Corporation. The men in that industry were working on two shifts of eleven and thirteen hours respectively, and their wages run from 35 to 521- cents per hour. How much protection did those workers enjoy? We are pleading for the government to take some action to improve the conditions under which these people have to work. And the same conditions have existed in the province of Nova Scotia. As a matter of fact it will be found, no matter where you go in Canada, that so far as the labour end of industry is concerned there has been no protection whatever.


Thomas Edward Simpson: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the men connected with the Algoma Steel Corporation were not in favour of protection for the steel industry?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I did not say that, but I
may reply to the hon. gentleman by illustration. When the slaves of the southern United States were about to be freed they themselves fought on the side of their masters, and you may find these men in Algoma believing protection to be of some advantage to them, although so far it has done them no good.
As I said at the outset, I do not intend to discuss this resolution at great length. I have brought the matter up in the hope or having it referred to one of the standing committees. During the past two years we have established a committee on industrial relations which is fairly competent to handle such a question. It is high time that we placed, on the statute books of this country social legislation of the character that has been in effect in other parts of the empire for the past fifteen or twenty years, and I hope that on this occasion the government will in no way oppose the reference of this question to the standing committee on industrial relations, who have every facility for making a complete study of the situation and whose report might lead to useful action and satisfactory results.


Mr. C. R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):: As chairman of the committee on industrial and international relations, I have listened with interest to what the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) has had to say on this subject. The ideas which he has submitted to the House this afternoon were discussed by members of this House before that committee last year, and while as a Liberal I am not opposed to any resolution of this nature, while I am prepared to admit that the Liberal party is considerably interested in resolutions on which legislation making for social justice can be based, I must say that the argument of my hon. friend in regard to the tariff board does not appeal to me. The hon. gentleman touched on the relations of industry and humanity, and I fail to see how the one can be separated from the other. The welfare of industry and that of humanity are wrapped up in each other, at least to a large degree. The tariff board wa3 set up by this government as a means of securing all the facts so as to determine fairly and equitably whether the tariff in any instance should be raised, lowered or eliminated. It is just possible that in some industries protection might be altogether removed, and if so, it is the duty of the tariff board to obtain all the evidence available and

Unemployment Insurance
present all the facts to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) who can take the matter up with the House as a whole and have it dealt with by recommendation in that way. In some instances the evidence adduced' before the board might lead to the raising of the tariff or the lowering of it, but whatever it might lead to there is no doubt about it that the best way in which any tariff proposal can be investigated or any tariff grievance remedied is through the instrumentality of just such a board which can deal rationally and successfully with the whole question of tariffs. I do not think it will be seriously questioned that the welfare of humanity, the good of the race, and the progress of industry are interdependent. This being so, the Liberal party in creating the tariff board has shown a desire to put industry and the individual employee upon a sound basis.
The resolution before us to-day is important, but it is not necessary to discuss the tariff board in order to come to a decision regarding this motion. Last year there came before the House a similar social resolution, as I may term it, to the following effect:
That in the opinion of this House, a wage sufficient to provide for a reasonable standard of living should constitute a legal minimum wage.
The subject suggested by that resolution was considered for about two months by the select committee on industrial relations. It was a wide resolution and one that called for close attention if it was to be wisely reported upon. The committee considered it for two months or so, and drew up a report which was presented on June 16 and concurred in on June 30th, the day before dissolution. The report of that committee is before parliament and the people of the country. Its final recommendation proposed two things, first:
That, a conference of provincial and Dominion representatives intimately in touch with labour conditions throughout Canada be held in the near future to consult as to the best means to be employed of giving effect to the labour provisions of the treaties of peace.
That was the first recommendation; the other was that 10,000 copies of the report should be printed and distributed throughout the country in order that men and women in touch with labour conditions might study the subject and be apprised that so far as this parliament, at least was concerned, there was no reluctance tc discuss social legislation and to report conclusively thereon. It will be observed that the main part of the report recommends the submission of the question to an interprovincial conference. I understand that interprovincial conference is being held this year, 3264D-80
and I wondered if the hon. member for North Winnipeg would not think it the wiser course to have this resolution taken up then, and to allow that conference to deal with it for this year. This resolution is very closely connected with the one with which we dealt last year, and there is no reason why the interprovincial conference should not deal with it. We have just put through one piece of social legislation, the old age pension bill; that question first came up twenty years ago, and ever since we have been discussing it and developing public opinion until it could be sanctioned by this House. That bill is now before the Senate, and while it is there I would think it perhaps better not to prejudice the upper chamber against too much social legislation; I think perhaps this matter should be dealt with for the present by the conference this summer, and then if necessary it could be taken up here next year. The hour of the session is getting quite late; it will take two or three months to investigate this question and while we could start it this year of course we could not hope for a final report, so I would recommend that this action be taken.
Before taking my seat, Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize the fact that as a member of this House and of the Liberal party I sympathize with legislation of this kind. I gave last year's resolution all the support possible, and in the days to come I will be only too willing to cooperate with any hon. members who are interested in further social legislation of this kind. But while I hope we will not have to deal with too much of this legislation, because it means an expense to the country and from a financial point of view we can only deal with a certain amount at one time, I am sure hon. members on both sides of the House will be only too glad to give such a resolution as this their hearty approval.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is the hon.. member speaking for the government?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am speaking as a member of the Liberal party; I am not dealing with the question as to whether the government is taking this view of the question or not. Does that satisfy my hon. friend.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am not
sure that it does; I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman but he asked me a question. It does not satisfy me, if the hon. gentleman is expressing the thoughts of the Liberal party.

Unemployment Insurance


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I did not think it would satisfy the hon. member, but I cannot help that. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat that while the old age pension bill is before the Senate it might be wise to have this resolution referred to the interprovincial conference which will take place during this coming summer. Further, since we expect that bill to become law, there will be a certain financial obligation connected with it, and since it is possible to go too far in work of this kind1, I would suggest that we make haste slowly. Haste means nothing but delay. I think the best thing to do with this resolution is to permit the interprovincial conference to deal with it.


Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: In support of this resolution I may say that the question of unemployment was first thrust upon my notice in 1913, when a motley crowd appeared on the streets of the city of Calgary with banners reading, "Shall we work, starve or steal?" We endeavoured to provide work for those men, and ever since that day the question of unemployment has been not only before the city of Calgary but before every city in the Dominion and the Dominion government as well. If you do not look upon the question from a humanitarian standpoint but from the dollars and cents side only,-and I am not going to take up the time of the House in discussing the question except to urge that it be referred to a committee-even from a financial standpoint it would be worth while. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) might give us the figures to show what this condition is costing Canada year by year. Last year in Calgary alone it cost this government in the neighbourhood of $5,000, and I know it cost more in Edmonton and in other cities throughout Canada. So at will be seen that even from a financial standpoint it would be worth while to refer a question of this kind to a committee of this House in order that it may receive due consideration and that some solution may be found. Whether we want it or not, that question is before us and will always be before us, and the probabilities are that the financial burden will increase instead of diminish unless we meet it in a non-partisan way and attempt to solve the difficulty. Therefore I urge that this parliament refer this question to the consideration of the committee.
Mr. ,T. G. BOSS (Moose Jaw):	I have
only a few words to add to what has already been said in regard to this resolution. I am in favour of any measure which will assist the working men of this country, but before 
this resolution goes to committee I would like to say something I endeavoured to say the other night when we were discussing the estimates. Before this country starts any new system of unemployment insurance, and before we undertake any expenditures of money in connection with sickness or disability insurance for workmen, I think we should first of all look into the cases of the returned men who have not been provided for by the government. There are a great many men in Canada who came back from overseas under certain disadvantages, and under our present system many of these men have been turned down and are receiving no pension or a very small amount so that some of them are actually on the verge of starvation. Under our law as it is at present these men have to show that their disability is connected with their overseas service. In the minds of those who have seen a great many of these cases there is no doubt that the trouble is actually connected with their overseas service, but it is impossible to prove that or to show that the disability has been continuous or, as they say, to prove continuity. Before we start to spend money on others in this country I say we should look after every returned man and every widow who is destitute. I have been endeavouring for over a year to have some four or five cases taken up by the Board of Pension Commissioners, by the appeal board and by the department, but so far I have had very little success. If this resolution goes to committee I believe this matter should first be looked into. We ought to look after our people who are to-day destitute on account of the war. When you go to these departments and go to the board they tell you, "Well, if you allow that case you let in fifty or a hundred others and that will cost this country millions and millions of dollars." I believe that no matter how much it costs this country we owe these people justice, and even if we have to spend millions of dollars let us carry out the deal we made with them when they enlisted, and look after them.
My hon. friend spoke of the dole system.
I hope we will never see the day in Canada when that will be needed. In my opinion it has not proved a very great success in other countries and I think has undermined labour to a great extent in these countries.
My hon. friend also spoke of the immigration into Canada. It seems that some hon. gentlemen in that corner of the House are afraid to let people come into this country.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Who mentioned that question in this discussion?

Unemployment Insurance


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: I think you
mentioned, it, did you not?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not think so.


John Gordon Ross: I think that in
talking of unemployment insurance you did.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No.


John Gordon Ross: I was not
referring particularly to the hon. member's remarks, but time and again members in that corner of the House rise and ask questions of the Minister of Immigration in that connection; they seem to be afraid to let people come into this country.


Mr. IRVINE:: Is there any relationship
between immigration and unemployment in this country?


John Gordon Ross: No doubt there
is, but I point out that several hon. gentlemen in that corner came into this country as immigrants at one time, and they have not done too badly since coming to Canada. If we had had an immigration policy that excluded people from this country at the time our forefathers came here, when there was nothing to offer them in the way of employment-had they been shut out at that time Canada would never have become the country it is to-day, nor could it attain in the future to the country it is destined to be. People of the white race who are healthy should be allowed into Canada, any number of them. We can assimilate them. But one of our great troubles in Canada to-day in regard to immigration is the fact that practically every province in the Dominion is calling for more immigration but will not itself look after its unemployed. It wants to force the Dominion government to bring people here and when they are brought the first excuse advanced is that they are not the right class of people.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Is the hon. gentleman aware that a very considerable number of the people that have to be supported in the city of Winnipeg come from the province of .Saskatchewan after the harvest is over?


John Gordon Ross: I think it is
entirely unnecessary to reply to that question. As a matter of fact, Saskatchewan has always had less unemployment than any other province.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, because the unemployed are getting out of the province.


John Gordon Ross: The people
spoken of as coming after the harvesting of the crops are not people from Saskatchewan.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We have to support a number of them during the winter.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River); What an argument!


John Gordon Ross: If we allowed
the provinces of this Dominion to say what kind of people they wanted, and if we secured that Class of people on the condition that after they had been brought in by the Dominion the provincial governments would look after them, we would not have any further cry for immigration from those provinces, and we would not have any cry on account of the kind of people that come here. The whole trouble is that the provincial governments like to put this matter up to the Dominion but will not do their own part in looking after those people after they come here.
As I said before I am in favour of this resolution going to committee, but I think the first thing that should be looked into is the condition to-day of the returned men, and of the wives and children of the soldiers who went overseas. That phase of the matter should first be investigated by the committee and then by this House, and if necessary we must spend the money needed in looking after these people.


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not intend to delay the House veiy long on this question. I simply want to congratulate the last speaker (Mr. Ross, Moose Jaw) on his intention to support the motion, and to suggest that it was with considerable regret that I listened to the ultra-Toiy argument of the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh). It is very disappointing to me to find-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: May I ask my hon.
friend a question? Is he an apostle in the matter of interpretation of Tory propaganda and arguments?


Edward Joseph Garland: I have listened to Tory argument in this House for six years and am a fairly good judlge of its character.


Mr. JACOBS:: Will the hon. member say in what part of the House he heard it?


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon.
gentleman raises a point that is very well taken. It is difficult indeed after listening to the hon. member for North Battleford, and sometimes to the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), to -tell what corner of the chamber should be assigned to them. When a member of the Liberal party, particularly one from the wide open -spaces in the west on
Unemployment Insurance

an innocent motion of this nature which simply asks for a committee of investigation raises the argument " Hush, hush, you might spoil the sleep of the Senate," it makes me tired. Why worry about the effect on the Senate of resolutions that are discussed in this House? That is not our business. We have no dealings with those gentlemen, at least I .hope we do not-we are supposed not to have. The idea of raiisng the argument that we should not, when a question is discussed in this House, send it to a committee for consideration for fear it might prejudice the Senate against the old age pensions bill! I am sure the Senate will be delighted to know that the hon. gentleman is so solicitous of their mental condition.
Another point the hon. gentleman raised was that last year social legislation of this character was discussed before the industrial relations committee. What was discussed there was the question of a minimum wage, and that alone. We discussed the question for two months and as a result of that discussion brought in some recommendations which the hon. gentleman has read, the principal one having reference to a conference of the provinces. This resolution is much wider in scope. It calls for relief for the labouring people of this country through the establishment of insurance against unemployment and insurance against sickness and invalidity. I remember very distinctly reading not very long ago a speech made by the leader of the party to which my hon. friend belongs. The Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King made a speech which for its marvellous oratory, for its wonderful appeal to the human mind from the point of view of humanity, and for its understanding of the human element in the industrial world, has seldom if ever been equalled, certainly not in this country. And yet I find hon. members in his party to-day rejecting the theories which their leader has put forth, when they have an opportunity to practise them. After all a time does come in the history of men and parties when action must be taken upon those wonderful thoughts and theories which they develop usually in their youth and discard in later years, I am sony to say. But the time has now come when the Liberal party ought to show at least some sympathy towards labour and labour conditions in this country. I do not expect any from my hon. Mends to the right-I may be entirely surprised, I hope I shall be; I have been from time to time surprised at some quite advanced views of gentlemen to my right, and I think they are coming along very well, but in this matter I do not expect much support- so I am appealing to

the Liberal party not to be false to its pledges and recreant to the statements and promises it gave to the public in the resolutions which it passed at the Liberal convention in 1919. That is not too much to ask and the problem is an enormous one. I can perhaps here illustrate the point by quoting from Mr. Arthur Kit-son, a man who has won world-wide recognition, first as a banker, then as an economist, and in England itself as president of the Banking Reform League. His remarks with respect to unemployment are as follows:
It is quite certain that the need for labour must become less and less with the growth of inventions and the increase in industrial efficiency.
How true that is, Mr. Speaker, only those of us who go through the factories of this country can readily realize. Not long ago I was in the city of Montreal going through some of the cotton mills there, and I saw in those factories great looms, thousands and thousands of them, replacing hundreds of men and women, and now being operated bv children-yes, and I am afraid in some cases children not of the full age of sixteen. We saw an example there of the displacement of labour created by the inventions to which Mr. Kitson refers. He goes on:
Indeed, the real problem we have to solve is not so much that of finding constant employ. ment for our people, as our supplying them with life's necessities and comforts out of the abundance of goods created.
There is no difficulty about producing today. We have developed that almost to perfection. Whatever new thing comes along, we rapidly develop mass production of it. In agriculture, and in the cotton mills themselves, this country with only a fraction of its present population could produce not only as much or more than it is producing to-day, but could supply everyone with all of these goods that they need if only they had the means of purchasing them. He goes on:
Even to-day the labour of less than ten per cent of the population will readily suffice to maintain the entire inhabitants of this country in a high state of comfort. Suppose-
And this is an argument which must appeal:
Suppose discoveries and inventions during the next half century result in the displacement of all manual labour by machinery; must the bulk of the world's inhabitants then perish?
Is the Malthusian doctrine to be accepted and the Christian doctrine abandoned? That is the only inference that can be drawn from the attitude of hon. gentlemen who would oppose legislation to meet the conditions

Unemployment Insurance
which they see around them, and which are intensifying every day. I understand that an ancestor of mine committed a sin at one time.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Surely not.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am
afraid so. He might indeed be an ancestor of my hon. friend. His name, I think, was Adam. It is true the hon. gentleman may have come from some other source, but I had not suspected that, not being a believer in the Darwinian theory. However, Adam, I am informed, did sin, and as his punishment, shall I say, it was decreed that he and his children should henceforth earn their bread by the sweat of their brow. That was a form of punishment. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have in our cities to-day, we have right here in the city of Ottawa, men and women praying to God for a chance to have sweat on their brow so that they might live. These things can hardly be justified in what we call a Christian country, yet so cold-blooded have we become in the great march of commercialism, in the bitterness of the competitive struggle between great groups of financiers, that the sense of equity and justice to humanity is almost entirely lost.
One of the great reasons for the vast amount of unemployment is the wrong distribution of the products of labour. Altogether too much goes to entrenched capital. Too much goes to the owner of the factory, and too little to the man who does the actual work. If there was less unemployment at what is called the top of society, there would be a great deal less unemployment at the bottom. That is another phase that might be considered by the committee.
I do not wish to delay the House any longer. All I do ask is that hon. members take into consideration, in a manner which will do justice to themselves hereafter, this resolution of a simple nature, which only asks for an investigation. If it took two months to examine the minimum wage recommendation of last year, and if after two months of that investigation hon. gentlemen found that the committee referred the question for further consideration to an dnterprovincial conference, surely no harm could be done and much good might result if we referred this broader question to a committee for consideration during the next two months. The force of that suggestion is perhaps considerably added to when the House knows that the industrial relations committee, of which I am a mem-32649-81
ber, has not had a meeting this year and is at the present time doing nothing. We might as well do something with our morning hours, and it would as well have the advantage of keeping some of our friends from becoming too deeply inoculated with Toryism through idleness.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a few words to express my hearty support of this resolution. The hon. member who introduced it (Mr. Heaps) made what I thought was a casual allusion to the tariff board, merely in an illustrative way, and that has somewhat diverted the tone of the debate. There is no parallel, no comparison between the two.
Dealing with the resolution itself, we can remember that when the old age pension legislation was before the House an effort was made to have it more inclusive, to take in people of a certain age who were invalids, and particularly those who were blind, also a certain class of soldiers; but it was not thought desirable to mix up too many subjects in that bill. Now here is an opportunity to discuss some of those questions separately. The resolution proposes that the committee be instructed to consider a system of insurance against employment, sickness and invalidity. Blindness, of course, would be covered by that; also chronic disease. It is wide enough, I think, to cover the cases mentioned by my hon. friend from Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross), who points out that there is a class of soldiers not now eligible for a pension but who, as soon as they reach a certain age, will be requiring assistance. All these cases, I think, would be covered by this resolution.
The hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) suggested that this question might better be referred to the interprovincial conference to be held this fall. That might be a desirable thing to do, but I do not think it would do any harm to first refer the question to a committee which could give it a preliminary look-over, so to speak, and then if we found there was not time to deal with it thoroughly, we could refer the question, or some phases of it, to the interprovincial conference.
Another hon. member suggested that owing to our having passed the old age pension bill, if we passed this resolution also there might be danger of seeming in the eyes of another House to be determined to drain the exchequer with social obligations of this kind. There is not the slightest fear on that ground. To begin with,, the resolution does not call

Unemployment Insurance

for the expenditure of money for that purpose. It simply says that the committee be instructed "to investigate and report on the establishment of a system of insurance against unemployment," et cetera, which would necessarily be of a contributory character, because insurance involves the principle of a beneficiary contributing partially or entirely to the benefits he receives. The main idea of this and similar resolutions which are of a practical character is educational. As the hon. member who introduced this resolution very wisely said, it took us twenty years of committee work to get the old age pension scheme brought to a head. I hope it will not take us so long to bring some phases of this question to a head, but certainly let us get it to a committee, where we can get the facts and the evidence to enable us to deal more thoroughly with the situation on a later occasion. If I might use the word, I would almost say that those who have the interests of labour at heart should indulge in a little mild propaganda, and I think we could " propagand," to coin a word, without infringing on truth and veracity as is so often done by those who plead for special interests in this House.


Mr. F. W. GEBSHAW (Medicine Hat):: I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. member who introduced this resolution (Mr. Heaps), and I agree with practically all that he said. I do not wish to stress this problem for sentimental reasons; it will easily stand on its own footing from a practical and businesslike standpoint. I am not at all afraid of having too much social legislation on the statute books as from my knowledge of affairs I believe that is a very Temote danger indeed.
Someone has mentioned the question of cost in connection with this proposal. I am sure that we will all agree, having in mind the accomplishments of the Great war, that the people of Canada can accomplish a great deal if the necessity is urgent and is impressed upon them to a sufficient extent. Most of the provinces have workmen's compensation boards, the aim of which is to put a man who has been injured as nearly as is humanly possible into the position in which he was before the accident. His salary, limited it is true, will continue and his hospital and medical attention will be provided. If there is any permanent disability, that is estimated and provided for. Therefore, as regards accidents I think the people are fairly well provided for by the various workmens com-

pensation acts. This resolution, however, suggests dealing with cases of unemployment, sickness and invalidity, and I am convinced that misfortunes of that kind are not amply provided for.
We have, it is true, various forms of insurance. The insurance companies in Canada have done a great service to our people. To get insurance, though, we require considerable capital to start with and a good deal of money to keep up the premiums, and many people in Canada to-day find it hard enough to get along and provide their families and themselves with the ordinary necessities of life, so that quite often they have not a surplus to invest in insurance, although such an investment brings good results. We also have the Canadian government annuities, and I am only sorry that the advantages of those annuities do not appeal more to the people generally. I believe a system of advertising should be undertaken, and I understand the minister has something of the kind in mind. But instead of putting up posters in post offices and other prominent places, the department should mail a short letter or pamphlet to the head of each family, so that he or she may read it over carefully at home and see just what the benefits of an annuity would be. The annuities which we have are truly very costly. They are supposed to be figured out on a 4 per cent basis in accordance with mortality statistics provided by the British offices. Those statistics were compiled a long time ago, and I believe somewhat better terms might be given in connection with those annuities, because we must remember that when an annuity is taken out, if the annuitant dies the principal sum is lost, so that the returns paid quarterly or half-yearly should amount to a little more than interest on the principal sum, and at the present time they do not amount to much more than that.
I believe if some system could be worked out as is suggested in the resolution, many people would not be humiliated by having to accept charity. No one wishes to accept charity, and if at the time they were able to afford to pay a small premium to protect themselves against the calamity of unemployment or sickness or invalidity which comes on through no fault of their own, that would be a great advantage.
In connection with our old age pension scheme, I am sure we are all in favour of a contributory scheme, and a scheme of the kind proposed by the hon. member would be a contributory scheme. It would allow us to

Unemployment Insurance
obtain the benefits, not when a certain age had been reached, but at the time when those benefits would be most needed, that is at the time of sickness or invalidity or unemployment. For these reasons I am heartily in favour of the sentiments expressed by the mover of the resolution.


Mr. L. P. BANCROFT (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely in favour of the resolution moved by the 'hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), and I think the House should allow it to go before the committee on industrial relations rather than send the whole broad question directly to the provincial conference as has been suggested. It would be better to have some concrete proposals worked out iby the committee to present to that conference rather than to give it the whole broad question of unemployment insurance to discuss. Therefore, I am in favour of this resolution going to the committee.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely opposed to the motion of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) for it bears the stamp of the best philanthropy. However, I think that whosoever has in mind the welfare of his country should avoid to burden it with too heavy liabilities. Our present duty lies in meeting our indebtedness and reducing taxation, which, let us not forget, weighs heavier on the workman.
Let me, Sir, draw the attention of the House to our system of immigration. No doubt the government will pursue their sound policy on immigration by enforcing the act such as it at present exists, that is to say, by admitting only a select immigration. By only admitting to this country foreigners for whom positions have already been found, we would not be called upon to discuss an insurance scheme on behalf of destitute persons, and by being careful to admit into Canada but people sound of body and mind, we would render almost useless the enactment of the second part of the motion of the hon. member for North Winnipeg.
Let me also, Sir, point out to the hon. members of this House, the fact that pursuant to section 92 of the British North America Act, there exists in our constitution a proviso granting to provinces the right of establishing charitable institutions; previously to agreeing to the resolution at present before the House, I think, we should concur with the views expressed by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) and
32649-81,}
have interprovincial conferences. Like the hon. member for North Winnipeg, I greatly sympathize with the class of people who labour, suffer and strive hard, but, as I previously mentioned we should not burden our country with too heavy liabilities; we should strive to reduce our debt and taxation, and thereby lighten the taxes which ever since the war burden all classes of our population and more especially the labouring class,


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I
say that I regard this a? a very important question, because as the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) has well said,, there is nothing so disturbing amongst the labouring people of this or any other country as the fear of unemployment. This question, however, has been the subjeot of investigations by many bodies, all of whom have made varying recommendations in regard to it. Some have recommended unemployment insurance through labour unions; others have suggested methods of providing more employment; while one commission that I had in mind recommended the transfer of men from one portion of the country to the other to meet conditions of seasonal unemployment. In a word, already we have on record such a volume of data that I do not think any additional information could be secured by the adoption of this resolution, but I have no objection to that course. I had the honour a year or more ago of moving a similar resolution on the floor of the Ontario legislature. Premier Ferguson at that time took the position that although the subject was within the jurisdiction of the province, he thought that Ontario ought not to embark on an unemployment scheme unless the other provinces did likewise, but he undertook to ask the Dominion government to call a conference to discuss this and other questions.
The member for North Winnipeg referred to certain utterances by the right hon. Prime Minister at the time of the adoption of the Liberal platform in 1919. I am sorry I had to leave the House at the time because I missed the opportunity of hearing whether he favoured the particular part of that platform dealing with this subject. Let me quote the particular resolution in this connection:
That in so far as may be practicable, having regard for Canada's financial position, 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-
Unemployment Insurance


William Irvine: Seeing that the minister
has just read the platform of the Liberal party which was drawn up at the national convention in 1919, would he indicate to the House how much has been done towards implementing it, and how much of it the government have discovered to be practicable?


Peter Heenan: The minister has not yet
[DOT]got far enough into his duties to ascertain all that has been done or all that is practicable to foe done in this connection. But I *do know that some of the things enumerated in that platform are to-day in operation in some of ithe provinces, no matter to whom 'credit is due for that condition of affairs. I do not say that we have gone too far or even far enough. I say that this is the platform as enunciated by the Prime Minister to be carried out by the Dominion in connection with the provinces. The premier of Ontario has also declared himself in favour of the same policy.
I think very great credit is due to the hon. member for North Winnipeg for moving this resolution, and on behalf of the government I can promise him that its subject matter will be submitted to the interprovincial conference which is to meet here during the coming summer.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does not the minister think
from practical experience that it would be far preferable to have something concrete to submit to the conference rather than just a bald question?


Peter Heenan: I take it for granted that the hon. member means that the committee on industrial and international relations would draw up something of a concrete nature for submission to that conference?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes.


Peter Heenan: I have already pointed out that I think we have available all the data that can be secured on this proposition. If, however, it is considered that the committee referred to can gather any further data I may say on behalf of the government that we have no objection whatever to the adoption of the resolution.


William Irvine: The committee could
review the data which the minister says is available and bring in a recommendation on the subject matter of the resolution.


Peter Heenan: Like old age pensions,
unemployment insurance has been recommended for a great many years, but personally I vrould rather see it in operation than read all the recommendations that may be made in regard to it.


William Irvine: That is all right.


Peter Heenan: I think there is something
in the remarks of the hon. member behind me that we should be careful not-I think I will not proceed further along that line.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister is getting
on dangerous ground.


Peter Heenan: I recognize that some
method should be devised for dealing with unemployment. Whether that purpose can be attained by transferring men from one part of the Dominion to another according to the conditions of employment prevailing I know not; but I do know from practical experience that the present system is not in the best interests either of the working classes or of the country at large. I mean the granting of relief to our unemployed in one industry and the bringing in of immigrants to meet the demand for industrial labour in another industry. If the committee could devise a system of moving our unemployed to those sections where there is a demand for labour I think its work would be well worth while. In conclusion, I wish to say that so far as the government is concerned there is no objection to this matter being referred to the committee on industrial and international relations.


Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, I am not much in favour of this resolution. It is true the purpose of the resolution is simply to refer unemployment insurance to a committee, and on general principles I am not opposed to such action, in fact I am generally in favour of it. But in the last two weeks I have heard arguments from the other side of the House stating that to refer a question to a committee is tantamount to the adoption of the principle involved.


Mr. BENNETT:: That is only in connection with a bill; this is a resolution.


Edward James Young: For my part
I am not prepared to admit the principle.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the hon, member
object to this subject being referred to a committee because such action would involve the adoption of the principle of the resolution?


Edward James Young: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will the hon. member take
the same stand in regard to the Georgian bay canal?

Unemployment Insurance


Edward James Young: That is different.
I may be in favour of that principle. I do not favour the principle of this resolution because I do not see the need for it in this country. It is true that after a dull season in t'he old) country unemployment insurance may be needed, but their conditions are entirely different from ours. They have a small densely populated island and have developed its natural resources to the fullest extent of our present knowledge of science and industry. There the people have been taught from their infancy to work at one thing, and one thing only. If any of* their industries is slack for a time, the people engaged therein are inevitably thrown out of employment and by reason of their specialized training they cannot get employment in any other industry. They are not aible to adapt themselves to any other work that can be had in the country. There might be some justification for the dole system in the old country, but in Canada the problem is different. We have vast natural resources awaiting development, and if a man cannot find) employment at one thing he can find it at another. There are seasonable occupations which pay big wages. A man can go to the harvest field and earn from five to seven dollars a day and when harvest and threshing are over he is out of employment. Does anyone expect such a man to receive a dole until he is able to find some other work? If he is thrifty he will have saved money against the time of unemployment. The same thing is true of the lumber camps. Men go into the woods in winter and get board and a certain amount of money, and if in the spring they happen to be unemployed they ought to have enough money saved, if they have been careful, to keep them until something else turns up. They do not need insurance against unemployment. They ought to be able to find some other form of employment, and in any case they should have money enough to keep them going until they do get other work to do. The problem in England is different. Here it is simply a matter of adaptability. The people are more adaptable and more ready to take on some other form of employment. It is merely a case of moving from one place to another to find something to work at.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Does the hon. gentleman
contend that the thousands of dollars paid out by the minister last year in unemployment relief was wrongfully spent?


Edward James Young: No, I would not say that; the circumstances might have been unusual. I do not suggest that, even if a man has been foolish and has squandered his
money, help should be refused him, but I do not think we should say to such a man, "If you are foolish and squander your money you may look to us for help." I think it would be unwise to set up an institution which would virtually invite men to be wasteful.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Members of parliament?


Edward James Young: Members of parliament too, yes. When we are turned out I do not expect any old age pension or unemployment allowance. If members of parliament were given an assurance that their jobs were permanent they might no doubt all vote for such a measure. Seriously, however,
I cannot see that there is any need for such a measure as is proposed. As I have pointed out, we have a people who are capable of adapting themselves to the circumstances in which they happen to be at any time, and they ought to save enough money to take care of themselves when they are out of work.


Alan Webster Neill: Would not the hon. gentleman's argument apply, as regards the unemployment dole, to sickness, invalidism and blindness?


Edward James Young: Sickness, invalidism and blindness do not come within the province of this government. According to the British North America Act, section 92, subsection 7

The establishment, maintenance and management of hospitals, asylums, charities and eleemosynary institutions in and for the province, other than marine hospital.
-are matters that rest with the provinces and with which this government has no right to interfere.


Alan Webster Neill: The same is true of old1 age
pensions.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is the hon. member aware that his own party in 1919 unanimously adopted the very thing asked1 for in this resolution?


Mr. BROWN:: Does not my hon. friend
allow a man to be independent of his party?


Edward Joseph Garland: By all
means, but let him declare himself.


Edward James Young: I was not at
the convention of 1919 which drew up the platform, and I had no part or parcel in that platform. I am merely expressing my own views to-day. I am not speaking for the government nor, indeed, am I speaking for the Liberal party. I do not know that this is a
Unemployment Insurance

government measure. My hon. friends will agree that a man has a right occasionally to differ from his party.


Mir.  J. E. LETELLIER@Compton) (Translation: Mr. Speaker, it affords me much
pleasure to have the opportunity of expressing m3' views on this resolution No. 15, which the House at present has under consideration. How is it possible to imagine that the government can grant every request of the country -among others tax reduction-and at the same time establish pensions for old age, the blind, workmen and destitute people over the whole country? I consider it absurd. Personally, and in principle, I would be willing to support such a measure, however, I realize that, at present, it is not practical to request the government, after considerably reducing taxation, to establish pension funds to meet, again I repeat-all demands of the country and factions being organized throughout Canada.
I lately received on behalf of the Montreal Blind Association, a request to kindly prevail on the Prime Minister to create pensions for the blind. In principle, I consider that it would be an essential necessity for this class of people who have practically no other means of earning a living and who are often placed in institutions, without even having the hope of relying on the support of some relative, because a great number of them have none.
I was glad to hear, a short while ago, my hon. colleague for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) move that these important measures be referred to the inter-provincial conference; and I add that we must not forget that our municipal authorities throughout the countiy have this duty and very ably look after the poor within their limits. Moreover, we have benevolent societies in most of our municipalities, and further, section 92, paragraph 7, of the British North America Act gives the right to organize charitable institutions. We, therefore, have sufficient protection in this regard not only in the parishes of our province but throughout all the provinces of the Dominion. Consequently I am confident that the present government will enact all the measures necessary to meet the needs of all. Resolution No. 15, which appears on the orders of the day, moved by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), is certainly worthy of serious consideration on the part of the government, however, I add that in my humble opinion, the government is not, at present, in a position to acquiesce to these appeals. So long as the people of this

country insist that the hon. Minister of Finance should endeavour by every possible means to decrease our debt, and at the same time reduce taxation, it would be imposing an enormous task on his shoulders to have him also find resources so as to establish pension funds of this nature in the course of the present session. I say the time is not opportune. Perhaps next session; as a possibility, but not as a certainty, I hope, together with the hon. members not only on the government side but also those included in all parties of this House, that in the near future, if not next session, tit least the third session of this parliament, the hon. Minister of Finance will succeed-with the ability that distinguishes him and the support of his eminent colleagues-in finding ways and means to enact legislation which will bring happiness to our workmen as well as to the destitute people in this country.


Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this debate until a few moments ago. I think we owe a good deal to the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) for having brought this very important matter before the House. I think it is no less important than even the Georgian bay canal. I was rather disappointed with my good friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young): "Consistency, thou art a jewel." I cannot see the difference between sending a measure of this kind to *committee and sending a measure such as the Georgian bay canal charter. Personally I am prepared to support the sending of the Georgian bay canal charter to committee; I do so on principle, and I want to see this motion go to committee on exactly the same basis.
I rose more particularly to support the suggestion of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross). I have on file I think some fifteen or twenty applications from returned soldiers covering a period of some four or five years; these men have become disabled no doubt through war service but can get no consideration whatever under the present act governing pensions to soldiers. I do think either amendment to that act or new legislation is long overdue; these soldiers who now find themselves disabled due to war service should be looked after.
I think this very important piece of legislation now before us should go to the committee on industrial and international relations, and I also think it would be most unfortunate to throw a measure of this kind, with no previous consideration, into the interprovincial conference which may take place some time in the near future, because there

Unemployment Insurance
will be so many matters coming up for consideration then that the conference will not have time to consider in detail a measure of this kind. Apparently this committee is desirous of something to do and is willing to take this matter into consideration, so I think we should let it go to it and see what it can do to prepare this question for the consideration of that conference. I heartily support the resolution.


William Irvine: I am very glad to note the expressions of sympathy just made by hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to this resolution. I merely rise to express the hope that they will not kill it with kindness, because I notice that it is getting towards six o'clock which has sounded the death knell of many an aspiration, so I hope we will save what we have to say until this question comes before the committee.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: I
just wish to add a few words while this question is before the House. I think the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) entirely misunderstands the purpose and intention of this resolution. I do not give it my support on the understanding that it is another means of building up a dole system in this country; my support is given because I believe it will make a dole system unnecessary; I think that is the very intention of the resolution. I understand that if we establish something along the lines suggested by this resolution in Canada, it would be a contributory system. The official figures for Canada and the Urited States show that about 90 per cent of the men and women who die do not leave a cent behind them, and they have probably had nothing with which to provide for their old age. Under these circumstances it seems to me absolutely necessary to have some kind of an insurance system which will provide for sickness, indigence and possibly unemployment. Unemployment is something that we do not have to consider on the farms, of course; indeed, we are bothered more with over-employment, as the hon. member for Weyburn knows. I would wish, however, to refer particularly to the question of insurance and to say that I think this government might assist in the establishment of some kind of insurance which will lower to some degree at least the cost of protection to-day. I am not criticizing the insurance companies for the enormous profits they have made, because they have done a good service, but at present we who wish to lay something aside for our old age or to
provide for our families in case of our early death, find that we must use the present insurance companies. I think if something were built up by the government on the same line followed by the insurance companies, a contributory system, somfething in which there would be no profits earned but in which all the receipts would be disbursed to the holders of the policies, we would' do more for the people of Canada than we can do in any other way in the line of providing insurance against old age and infirmities.
I have here the last copy of the Canada Year Book; that is, for the year 1925, and I wish to quote a few figures showing the profits earned by our life insurance companies, to show what might be done by a contributory system built up by the government. For the year 1920 our Canadian life insurance companies showed an excess of income over expenditure of almost $40,000,000; for 1921 the figure was $47,000,000; for 1922, $50,000,000; for 1923, $60,000,000 and for 1924, $68000,000 of an actual surplus. If you go over these figures right back to confederation you will find a tremendous surplus every year; in fact during that whole period I think it will be found that only about 50 per cent of the money paid in in premiums is returned to the policy holders or their dependents. I would suggest that if this resolution is sent to the committee they take into consideration tome sort of a contributory system, perhaps on the lines of the old age annuities. The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) might just as well have referred to our old age annuity system as a dole system; I think the committee should have an opportunity to discuss this question and devise some means of meeting the situation that way, therefore I wish to give my support to the resolution.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I think it only proper that, someone from this side of the House should have something to say on this resolution. It is not a new resolution as far as I am concerned. I have in my hand a volume of the Hansard of 1921 in which I am recorded as speaking in favour of a resolution of this kind. I do not very'often find myself in harmony with the ideas of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), I do not think he is very often sound in his ideas, and I am not just sure that I am in harmony with him in the present case. He has in fact not presented any ideas to the House. All he has done has been to present a kind of blanket resolution in which he asks for the appointment of a committee to go in
Unemployment Insurance

search of some definite ideas. However, I am in favour of this country making some provision for a class of people who, from the nature of our climatic conditions and seasonal industries, find themselves at certain times of the year out of employment. I think that the necessity for such provision is the keynote to and practically the only excuse for a resolution of this kind. We have in Canada many industries which of necessity must be classified as seasonal industries. For example, we have the lumbering industry, which is carried on to a large extent in my own constituency, where for five or six months of the year there is steady employment after which the men engaged in it find themselves out of work and for two or three months have a hard job to make a living. I think a somewhat similar condition exists in the west. Every summer we have a call from the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba for help to harvest the crops. We all know that those men are engaged in that work for sixty or ninety days. Then they are turned loose on the labour market, and for practically a month or two months they find themselves out of employment. Now I imagine every hon. member knows that the main thing in making a living is to have steady employment even if it is at a lower wage. A man who has steady employment without the necessity of travelling from one province to another, or from one part of a province to another, incurring expense in the shape of hotel bills and railway fares, is much better off than the person who, from necessity, has to follow a seasonal occupation. That is the class in Canada for whom I think we shall ultimately have to make some provision. I do think, and I have made this statement before, that a country as big as Canada, with its vast resources and small population, ought to be one of the wealthiest in the world. Unfortunately we have climatic conditions to face and those conditions practically bring about seasonal occupation. I am prepared to support legislation at this time in the interest of the man who is engaged in a seasonal occupation, but I want to place myself upon record as being strongly opposed to building up in this country a pauper class dependent upon the government for assistance.
That brings me back to a point mentioned by the last speaker. If legislation of this kind is going to be enacted there must be contributions by the individual himself. We cannot introduce into Canada anything pertaining to the dole system of Great Britain. That system is unnecessary here. It is derogatory to the development of a sound national sentiment and is repugnant to a self-respecting, CMr. McGibbon.]
independent- and hardworking people. Independence is one of the things we should seek to inculcate in the Canadian character. The man who deserves to be encouraged is the man who is independent of his neighbour, independent of the government, independent of anybody, and who relies upon bis own resources. I supported legislation of this character in 1921. I rather -think, although I have not had the time to go through Hansard, that I supported' the principle even before then. At the same time there is a danger that such assistance may encourage certain of our population in the towns and cities to live on the government, a condition which is derogatory to self-respect and not conducive to the formation of a healthy national character. I support the principle which underides this proposal but at the same time I point out these drawbacks. In a country with such vast resources and such a small population there should not be any need for providing for such cases if we had a proper national policy.


Mr. G. D. MORIN (Bagot) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to briefly state my views on the resolution No. 15. I shall consider it from three different points of view. First, constitutional; secondly, moral; and thirdly, economical.
First, constitutional. The British North America Act seems to provide for such cases -I mean of philanthropy-as those unfortunate enough to be without means. I think that the fathers of confederation were well inspired when they left the provinces with full power to dispose of these questions regarding public Charity. As I glance over this resolution, I come to the conclusion that if the fathers of confederation had then foreseen not so much the state of poverty, as the economic need which the country would have to face, they would again have been justified in making provision for provincial autonomy in connection with questions of such import. Indeed, the principle of provincial autonomy is justified not only from the economic viewpoint but also if we consider the more immediate interest we take as regards our poor and those who are destitute. Each province having its own government, its own clergy entrusted with the duty of enlightening the people, can better sort out those who are destitute and need public assistance. I state that each particular province is better able to determine those whom they must support with public -money, and, that the Dominion government cannot act for each separately.
As to its moral merit? We, in the province of Quebec particularly-I am better

Unemployment Insurance
acquainted with the people of Quebec than with those of the other provinces-I state that from the moral viewpoint we should object to the principle of this resolution, because it is rather of a nature to diminish the sense of responsibility within the family circle. Should this resolution become law it would point out to the children that they need not concern themselves about the future welfare of their parents, that they have but to look after themselves. This state insurance would provide for their parents when sick or unable to work. Therefore, as to the moral viewpoint of this resolution I cannot feel very enthusiastic.
Furthermore, the resolution mentions unemployment, illness and disability.
Mr. Speaker, as regards unemployment: whosoever becomes the victim of unemployment, in this country, does so because he has no desire to work; he really refuses work. I state in this House, if there be destitute people victims of unemployment, send them to my riding of Bagot, an essentially farming county which I have the honour to represent, and I pledge myself to find them work if they are willing to stick to it. In my opinion, Sir, if this resolution 'be enacted it will increase unemployment, and therefore it is vicious in its nature.
So far as illness and disability are concerned, it seems to me that each province should be able to look after itself. The province of Quebec is favoured in this regard. We have our charitable institutions; municipalities, our own municipal regulations, and, thank God, should illness or disability prevail among our citizens we have no fear of the future. What of the economic viewpoint? We might discourse at length on this subject. Federal legislation might be enacted, so to speak, throughout the country, but it would necessitate much more organization and would cost enormously more than would a provincial act which would provide for each individual case. As stated a short while ago by my hon. colleague, the member for Compton (Mr. Letellier), does the financial situation of the country allow us to indulge to that extent in new undertakings? Does the situation with regard to the settlement of our public debt allow us to venture on so dangerous grounds? We already have enacted legislation which will entail a very large expenditure. Lately we enacted legislation which will in the opinion of a number of members, bring on unheard of expenditures for each of the provinces, an act almost inapplicable with regard to the maritime provinces and other provinces of the Dominion. Shall we be drawn into another scheme which will be of a nature to impoverish us considerably? I state, Sir,-without any fear-that in principle I am against this resolution and that I am very strongly opposed to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make only half a dozen observations with respect to this matter. A year ago I ventured to suggest to this House that the only equitable way in which we would ever attain the ends we sought was by an insurance scheme that would involve contributions by all those who desired benefits. I had given some little attention to the matter, and I arrived at that conclusion very definitely. I believe it will induce thrift, initiative; it will induce a man no longer to be looking to the state for everything, but rather encourage him to depend upon his own industry and his own thrift.
This resolution-which is so vastly different from a bill, as my hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young), when he takes the trouble to ascertain, Will learn-is based upon what? The assumption that a scheme of insurance may be devised by which every person who holds a policy of such insurance may have the definite promise that in time of unemployment or of sickness or invalidity he would be the recipient of some benefits; that is all. That policy can only be purchased by the payment of a premium, and if we encourage such thrift as will involve the payment of a premium from youth up to middle age, or during the period that he is able to pay it, we shall only be doing what is now being done by large industrial concerns. During the last few years the largest insurance companies in the world have been issuing pension policies, and the premiums are based upon actuarial figures. In the same way insurance against sickness and invalidity is now being issued under group policies which many of the industrial concerns are taking out in insurance companies.
But there is something further. We have in this Dominion an annuity system, and I know that at least one of the very greatest industrial concerns in the city of Montreal, in the province of Quebec, is now carefully studying the whole situation to determine whether or not it shall avail itself for each of its employees of the provisions of our annuity system. If that is done, the result will be that every one of the employees of that enterprise will have in his hands a policy, for it is an annuity policy, issued by the government of Canada at a premium of which he may pay the whole or part, depending upon the arrangement made between him and his employer. The result will be that
Unemployment Insurance

he will have an annuity certain on reaching a certain age, or his wife an annuity certain in the event of his death, and in the event of illness or invalidity there may come to him certain benefits. Those benefits would not come under the Canadian annuity system, but only under additional insurance carried by the company itself, or by taking out a policy in one of the stock or mutual companies of the country. That is the position with respect to that.
This resolution merely asks that this matter be investigated. I am certain that sooner or later this problem must be carefully studied. Nothing could be worse for this Dominion than to create a dole system. Nothing could be worse for Canada than to induce men to believe that they could look upon the state as something from which they could obtain benefits without making corresponding payments. Compensations and payments are the corollaries of one another; one is the complement of the other, and the payments made with respect to premiums for an insurance policy issued by the state against unemployment, sickness or invalidity, represent the savings made by the individual for the purpose of having the benefits to which I have referred. I think the modern thought and modern tendency, having regard to the great development that is taking place in industrial life and the relation the state bears to industry, has completely changed from what it was half a century ago, and there is an ever-increasing tendency on the part of those responsible for government and those responsible for industry to provide means whereby with contributions made by industry itself or by the state, the premiums are not entirely borne by the insured. Hence it is that this matter now engaged the attention of this parliament.	.
With respect to the constitutional attitude, the relations between the provinces and the Dominion, that is not important at this moment. It is sufficient to say that the matter is of such national importance that it is worthy of engaging the attention of a committee. It is only necessary to say further, that the younger a country is when it commences to encourage habits of thrift and saving and industry on the part of its people, the better it is for the country as it attains middle and old age, and the only regret of those in charge of these matters in the older countries is that they have not been able to establish such a scheme in days gone by, for the longer it is put off, the more difficult it becomes because of the greater average age of the population and the greater num-

bers employed in industry. We have this opportunity to inquire into this matter, the fundamental words of this resolution being, "the establishment of a system of insurance against" certain defined things, which, as I say, involves the payment of premiums. And to the extent to which premiums should be paid, just as in workmen's compensation cases we have payments made by industry; to the extent to which in the development of that idea industry and the state should contribute to the premiums which maintain that policy, to that extent it is necessary that this matter be investigated and determined by a committee.
I was rather surprised at an observation made by an hon. member in that corner of the House that he did not look to this party for assistance. Anyone who reads his history and who knows the development of social legislation in England will have learned that the first man who ever attained the rank of privy councillor in the labour ranks of England was one who, having investigated this matter said:	We have received more
in five years from the Conservative party than in fifty years from the Liberals. He would know that the hearts and minds of the Conservative party are in unison in demanding, so far as lies within their power, that everything possible be done to encourage the practice of thrift, the saving of money, the development of initiative and industry', and the taking care of men in their old age, so that they may be happy and proud and able to look their fellows in the face without realizing that they are recipients of charity or bounty.


Mr. J. J. E. GUERIN (St. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the arguments that have been brought forward in support of this resolution, but I cannot convince myself that the resolution is seriously meant to bring about any positive action on the part of the committee, because the resolution conveys no specific instructions to that committee. I notice that it asks that the committee on industrial and international relations make a study of the question. Studies are very indefinite things; a study might last a week, a month, a year or a century. If any serious study were to be made, some plan would be laid down and something said in regard1 to how and when and what they were to study.
Why refer the matter to the committee on industrial and international relations? I cannot understand the reason. If the matter were to be seriously studied or contemplated, it should be laid before a special and eminent

Unemployment Insurance
committee of members of this House and not before any special standing committee which I doubt meets once in a whole session. I doubt whether this committee has met yet this year, and I am pretty well satisfied that the meetings of this committee during the previous session were few and far between. If they are to meet as frequently in the future as they have met in the past, I must come to the conclusion that the motion as presented is a very innocuous one and is designed simply to afford some imaginative consolation to certain gentlemen in their ardent efforts to make the citizens in general believe that they are the leaders of thought is so far as liberality is concerned. We are all seeking to do the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of people, and it is our duty to do all we can to relieve the needs of our fellowmen. But we are constitutionally established in such a way that we do very well when we attend to our own business. The duty of looking after the individual and the family is a matter which pertains essentially to the provinces, and I do not think we would be quite within our realm if we were to interfere with matters that did not pertain to our affairs.
In Quebec there has been no great anxiety in regard to lack of employment. As the hon. member for Bagot (Mr. Morin) has stated, if anybody wants work, let him go to Bagot or to some other county throughout Quebec and he will find that he will get work right away. Nobody in this country has ever yet died of starvation. It is a thing unheard of in Canada and no one in this country is in such a state that he cannot live comfortably. Our province especially takes every care of indigents. We have institutions of every description to look after those who are in need, and I cannot see that it is at all necessary for us to make any profound1 study as regards the best mode of establishing insurance against unemployment. Those who are unemployed are generally those who are not thrifty, and those who are not thrifty are not going to contribute to an insurance scheme that is calculated to give them a salary when they lose the employment in which they are at the moment occupied.
It does not seem serious to propose that we should undertake a study to find out means of establishing an insurance scheme to get people who are not thrifty to contribute in order to provide them with just what they require as a result of their lack of thrift. The whole situation is most illogical, and df anything were to be done in order to improve the social state in this country, it would be put into some
more cogent form; it would be put into the hands of a certain number of gentlemen who understand this mode of insurance better and who could evolve something that would be for the benefit of the people in general. We have had too much of this socialistic doctrine served out to us in order to make us feel that there are some people who are really more inclined to be benevolent to their fellowmen than others.
Judging from the complexion of this House, I have no hesitation in saying that every hon. member here ds prompted by the same feelings of benevolence, kindness, anxiety, and indeed worry over the welfare of his fellow-man. I do not think it ds necessary that we should get any lesson from a distant or an eccentric portion of our country to tell us what, the rest of Canada has failed in doing ever since the foundation of this country We are very sensitive people; we do not like to be criticized; we do not like to be given to understand that we are lax in doing our duty. We have always tried to do our duty as best we can, as fellow citizens of a great country. I am afraid' that if we adopt what I may term a universal panacea for unemployment we shall attract those people who feel that they will be provided for whether they work or not.
The granting of doles is really the most baneful system that any country can put in operation. Unfortunately Great Britain instituted the system in response to the cry of the socialistic population following the post-war troubles. Hundreds of thousands of her people were without employment and in indigent circumstances, and something had to be done. But a dole system is very soon abused, and to-day you will find in Great Britain that although various positions are advertised the opportunities for employment are not embraced by those in receipt of the dole; they prefer it to work. We do not want, anything of that kind here.
The spirit of internationalism does not appeal to me at all. We have had too much of that spirit evinced throughout the country, particularly in the city of Montreal. On the 1st of May every year our internationalists parade the streets singing anthems in praise of the blessings of internationalism. They never think of hoisting the Union Jack; they prefer to carry the red flag of anarchy, of disorder, of disunion-and we are supposed to stand by and admire it.
I am anxious indeed to see some form of legislation to provide for our indigent people, but I am very much opposed to anything of a socialistic character being enacted which will deceive our people and moreover deceive pros-
Unemployment Insurance

pective immigrants. We have had too many people who have not been in tthe habit of working in their native land come here without the Slightest expectation of working. I cannot walk through the streets of our city without being stopped two or three times in every block by those who want help. That is not natural in this country where there is work for everybody and where our charitable institutions are available to relieve those in need. I may say that during the two years I was chief magistrate of Montreal begging was absolutely forbidden within the city, and anybody who offended was sent to gaol, with the result that begging was abolished com-pletety. But lately I find the old trouble has reappeared. I believe the people who beg do so rather from a desire to make a little additional money rather than from absolute necessity.
To put our people in the category of those who will be provided for in case of need takes away from their independence. I remember very well that when I was in London on the occasion of the funeral of King Edward I called on the Right Hon. John Bums, the representative of labour in the ministry of the day. I desired to ascertain exactly how it was that the British authorities worked out their system of providing pure milk for little children. At that time we did not have a similar system perfected in this country. John Burns said1 to me: "I want you to bear one thing in mind more than any other-do not pauperize your people. No matter how insignificant a sum is required, do not give the milk away. If the people have not a halfpenny for the milk let them get some of their neighbours to come to their assistance. The spirit of independence is naturally paramount in every man's breast and he does not want to become a pauper or a beggar."
I feel that there is something more than insurance against unemployment at the bottom of this resolution. I think it has a tendency to create a socialistic atmosphere that is not at all agreeable to our citizens. We are an independent people and proud, and it is repugnant to us to have to appeal to the government for the necessities of life. Moreover, we are a brotherly people and' inclined to help each other. It is not necessary for the state to undertake to do what We regard as our duty. I am sure there is not a member of this House but would resent the idea of being deprived of the opportunity of doing a charitable act, and I think the same is true of our people generally. After all, charity is a virtue that we all like to practise, and if the opportunity is taken from us

by the state we are deprived of discharging our bounden duty towards our fellow men. This whole proposition apparently had its inception in the mind of someone who was very well disposed towards his fellow men, but who preferred that other people should put into practice his very generous sentiments. In other words, instead of practising the virtue that we all love to practise, hp would have the state dispense charity and in that way relieve himself and others of the bounden dirty of being charitable.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an appeal for my province-Quebec. The province of Quebec is probably the most liberally governed of our provinces. It does not hesitate to look at facts, and is not to be confused or stampeded by any cry that may be raised by any sect or sex or class. We have had the cooperation of the ladies in electing the members to this most august assembly but we are denied that privilege when it comes to electing representatives to our own little family gathering, the legislature in which we look after the intimate matters connected with the home. After all, the provincial government's function is to see to the integrity and well being, the maintenance and comfort of the home, and on that account we have not allowed ourselves to be prevented from practising the virtue of temperance, for instance. In media statu-the middle course-is the one condition in which we may practise any virtue. But if one is to be taken by the throat and ordered to do such and such a thing, whether one likes it or not, one is robbed of the opportunity of practising any virtue. It is partly from religious compunction as well as from philanthropic feelings towards our neighbours who come to visit us that we thought it just as well not to be. over-enthusiastic in regard to total abstinence.
We look after our poor and give most generously to hospitals, and we provide for the indigent. But we have not yet begun to endow people about to die. We are doing all that can be humanly expected of a well organized and properly constituted government.. I am very proud of the province of Quebec, as I am sure every one of my colleagues here is, because it has shown such toleration and good judgment and such fair dealing in the past. We have no misgivings for the future so far as our citizens are concerned, and I can say therefore in all seriousness that unless something more definite is elaborated to enable us to form some judgment in the matter I shall have to vote against the resolution.

Unemployment Insurance


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-
Mr. OSCAR L. BOULANGER (Bellechasse) (Translation):	Mr. Chairman, you will not
be astonished should I make use of my maternal tongue in making my bow in this House.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) has the floor.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is
it not a rule of the House that speakers shall be heard alternately in relation to their position?


John Frederick Johnston: There is no such rule.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is it not the custom?


John Frederick Johnston: That custom has been followed, but in this instance I saw the hon. member for Bellechasse first.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Did Mr. Speaker look on this side?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. member for Bellechasse has the floor.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I make a motion?


John Frederick Johnston: No.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If I may, I move that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) be declared to have the floor.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I move that motion?


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. gentleman is in order in making such a motion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no motion.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: The hon. member for Bellechasse had the floor and he is entitled to speak.


John Frederick Johnston: I first saw the member for Bellechasse and he has the right to the floor.


Mr. BOULANGER (Translation):: As I had just stated, you will not be astonished should I make use of my maternal tongue in making my debut in this House. However, I have no apologies to make for speaking French here, it is an acknowledged right and we esteem it an honour to claim that right, when the opportunity presents itself, because there are privileges which may be forgotten by disuse. I had no intention to take part in this debate but certain phases were introduced into the discussion which interest me. I do not know if-	.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I rise to a point of order. A few moments ago I moved that the floor be given to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I should like to know on what ground that motion was rejected by Mr. Deputy Speaker.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I am sorry that this unfortunate incident has occurred but my hon. friend is obviously out of order. So far as I can recollect, when two members rise at the same time the one whom the Speaker first sees proceeds, but there may be a motion to give the floor to the other member. In this case, however, the member for Bellechasse had the floor. He had begun to deliver his speech when my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) made his motion, a minute or two afterwards. Surely it would be contrary to the rules to entertain such a motion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I say that I rose before the hon. member opposite? I was standing and had begun to address the Chair before he rose to speak.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is, I think, a
fairly well understood practice in this House that the debate shall alternate. An hon. member had spoken on the other side and naturally I expected that I should have the opportunity next on this side. I was prepared, and contrary to all ordinary customs and courtesies of the House, the Speaker deliberately turned-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -to the hon. gentleman on the other side.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: May I say a few words
on the subject? There is no point of order and what my hon. friend has said is not within the rules of the House. The point that was discussed was this, whether the hon. gentleman who has resumed his seat (Mr. Woodsworth) or my hon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) was the one who was seen first. I was sitting on this side of the House and I know very well that the hon. member for Bellechasse was the first'to get up and to be recognized by the Deputy Speaker. The Deputy Speaker declared that he had seen the hon. member for Bellechasse before observing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the matter is therefore settled. The member for Bellechasse has the floor and I do not see why the member for Winnipeg North Centre should be allowed to come in and raise a point of order. At any rate the point of order has
Unemployment Insurance

been discussed and disposed of by the Deputy Speaker, who allowed the hon. member for Bellechasse to proceed. I think the hon. member is in order.


John Frederick Johnston: Do any other hon. members desire to speak to the point of order? I understand that two hon. members of the House in the course of a debate rose simultaneously. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre first claimed the right to speak, but the Deputy Speaker decided that he had seen the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) first. If the point of order was raised then it has been settled, or an appeal should have (been taken from the ruling of the Chair or a motion made that the member for Winnpieg North Centre be now heard. No appeal was taken and I do not see how the point of order can now be revived as it has already been decided. Might I recall to hon. members of the House rule 17, which reads as follows:
When two or more members rise to speak, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who first rose in his place: but a motion may be made that any member who has risen "be now heard," or "do now speak," which motion shall be forthwith put without debate.
Under paragraph 208 of that rule will be found the following:
As a matter of courtesy a new member-
That is the case of the hon. member for Bellechasse;
*-who has not yet spoken in the House is usually called in preference to other members rising at the same time; but this privilege will not be conceded unless claimed within the parliament to which the member was first returned.
That is exactly the case of the hon. member for Bellechasse. Everyone knows that the Chair is fair to all sides, and it has happened quite frequently that I have intervened with the whips of the ministerial party and of His Majesty's opposition in order to give the third party, comprising various groups, fair play in the debate. But as the ministerial party and the opposition are more numerous than the third party, naturally it is to be expected that during a debate more speakers from those two parties will be heard, but generally speaking I alternate between the three parties, and that is what I intend to do in the future. The principle of fairness must be applied to all parties in the House. In the meantime I will ask the hon. member for Bellechasse, who is a new member and a decided acquisition to the House, to proceed.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
[Mr. Casgrain.J


Abraham Albert Heaps: The point I raised was in
connection with the ruling of the Deputy Speaker. Immediately after the Deputy Speaker had refused the floor to my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) I did challenge his ruling by moving a motion, and I do not know how else a ruling could be challenged. Without expressing any reason, the Deputy Speaker merely called upon the hon. gentleman whom you now ask to proceed, and I desire to know upon what ruling he refused my motion.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: There was no motion
made; a point of order was raised and settled, and the hon. member for Bellechasse proceeded.


Hewitt Bostock: I am informed by the
Clerk of the House that the motion was made when the member for Bellechasse had already commenced to speak. The point can be best ascertained by consulting the scroll of the House.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Not only was a motion made, but I think the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) supported it.


Hewitt Bostock: I have explained the
ruling, and I hope hon. members will accept it in good faith.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Am I allowed-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The point is
settled. No member can be interrupted unless by his leave, and at present the hon member for Bellechasse has the floor.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would respectfully appeal
from the ruling of the chair.


Hewitt Bostock: There can be no appeal
because there is no ruling.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I do not know, Sir, whether I am in order in alluding to your ruling, however, I wish to thank you for the kind and too flattering words expressed in my behalf.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Have I the right to appeal
the ruling of the chair?


Hewitt Bostock: I simply stated what the Deputy Speaker, who preceded me in the chair, had done. I understand there was a point of order raised and that it was ruled upon, so there is nothing more to say; there is no appeal from the decision. I hope my hon. friend will understand that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does Your Honour say that
I cannot appeal now?

Unemployment Insurance


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend cannot
appeal now.


Hewitt Bostock: I have already explained
the rules of the House.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Can I not appeal?


Hewitt Bostock: I ask the hon. gentleman
to kindly preserve order in the House.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Now,
Sir, that calm has been restored over the disturbed waters, I trust that I may be allowed to follow up the remarks which I was about to make to the House. I was stating, when interrupted, that certain views introduced into this debate, especially, interested me.
These views were propounded by the hon. member for . Laval-Two .Mountains (Mr. Lacombe), in connection with immigration.
If I well understood the member for Laval-Two Mountains, he stated that if our immigrants were selected with care, if we only admitted into Canada people willing to work-people sound of body and soul-it would have been unnecessary for the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) to move the present resolution. I am interested in this question because this very day, I received a request from a number of my constituents, asking me to exert pressure on the government and especially on the Minister of Immigration with a view to affording the same advantages, the same favours and the same assistance to the citizens of eastern Canada who wished to settle in the west, as those afforded to immigrants from Europe. If the same assistance was given to the citizens of eastern Canada, in order to help them to settle in western Canada, our people would never think of asking for the enactment of the resolution we are at present discussing, for the simple reason that the people of eastern Canada have some pride and self-confidence and rely only on the work of their hands or brain to earn their living, and, therefore do not depend on the government to support either their families or themselves.
To assist European immigration, we already spend large sums so as to reimburse them of part of their travelling expenses and also to enable them to reach western Canada. Loans are even made to them so as to allow them to purchase land, farming implements and all that is needed to settle on the land. Taking into account, Sir, all these expenditures made to help immigration, taking also into account the outlay which we must further make to assist our fellow-citizens of
the maritime provinces who claim that they are greatly in need of government assistance in the present crisis, considering the disbursements which we have to make to meet our war debt, rescue those who suffered on the battlefields or elsewhere as an aftermath of the war, develop our natural resources, I state that the time is not ripe and the country cannot afford the additional amounts necessary to enact legislation based on a resolution of this nature. We are told: It is not a question of the government assuming all the expenses necessitated by the enactment of this resolution. Very well. Even supposing the recipients are made to contribute, it is nevertheless true that the greatest portion of the money which will constitute the funds of this insurance will come from the treasury of Canada. In the riding which I have the honour to represent and in the province of Quebec as a whole, we do not need a resolution of this nature, we do not need the enactment of a government insurance scheme for our sick people, our unemployed and for those who are destitute. Why, Sir? Because, in the county of Bellechasse and in the province of Quebec, we are good Christians and we practise the maxim of Christ: Help one another. We do not live in opulence in my county, but there is no great poverty. All our citizens are good people and live comfortably; and should it happen that one of our neighbours becomes destitute, falls sick or is out of work, his friends put their hands in their pockets and help him through those unfortunate days. I do not wish tc infer that our friends haling from the west are less good Christians than we are, but it strikes me that if they would only put into practice as we do in the province of Quebec, this Gospel truth: Help one another, they would not come before the House and ask the government to supplement their own personal liabilities, those they should themselves discharge towards their neighbours. It is time, Sir, to put a stop to this desire of placing all the burdens, both those of the community and individual, on the shoulders of the government; it is time to react against this continuous appeal to the public treasury in favour of such and such a scheme more or less fantastic, more or less well conceived or thought out; it is time that we should react against these schemes that only tend to increase the country's debt when our finances at present are far from being flourishing.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.



END OF VOLUME I