1930-03-31

PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 46, to incorporate The Premier Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Mercier (Laurier-Outremont).

Permanent Court-Optional Clause

[Stage Direction]
PERMANENT COURT OP INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE, OPTIONAL CLAUSE	[DOT]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay on the table a copy of the declaration under article 36 of the statute of the permanent court of international justice, with respect to the optional clause which was signed at Geneva on September 20, 1929, on behalf of the Dominion of Canada.
This declaration covers only part of a foolscap sheet, and with the permission of the house I would suggest it be printed in Hansard so that it will be available for reference by members in that form.


Mr. BENNETT:: I think that is very
desirable, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: I submit that a number of copies should be printed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have just
suggested, and, the hon. leader of the opposition has agreed, that it might be preferable to print the declaration in Hansard; then it will be available to all hon. members.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: There are others besides members of the house who would like to get a copy.
The declaration follows:
Permanent Court Of International Justice Declaration made by the Hon. Raoul Dandurand, before signing the optional clause on behalf of His Majesty's government in Canada
Geneva, September 20, 1929.
On behalf of His Majesty's government in Canada and subject to ratification, I accept as compulsory "ipso facto" and without special convention, on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the court in conformity with article 36, paragraph 2, of the statute, for a period of ten years and thereafter until such time as notice may be given to terminate the acceptance, over all disputes arising after ratification of the present declaration with regard to situations or facts subsequent to said ratification, other than:
disputes in regard to which parties have agreed or shall agree to have recourse to some other method of peaceful settlement, and
disputes with the government of any other member of the league which is a member of the British commonwealth of nations, all of which disputes shall be settled in such manner as the parties have agreed or shall agree, and disputes with regard to questions which by international law fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Dominion of Canada,
and subject to the condition that His Majesty's government in Canada reserve the right to require that proceedings in the court 2419-69
shall be suspended in respect of any dispute which has been submitted to and is under consideration by the Council of the League of Nations, provided that notice to suspend is given after the dispute has been submitted to the council and is given within ten days of the notification of the initiation of the proceedings in the court, and provided also that such suspension shall be limited to a period of twelve months or such longer period as may be agreed by the parties to the dispute or determined by a decision of all the members of the council other than the parties to the dispute.
R. Dandurand. NATURAL RESOURCES



CORRESPONDENCE WITH MANITOBA, ALBERTA AND SASKATCHEWAN-ORDER FOR PRINTING

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg to lay on the table copies of the correspondence with respect to the transfer of the natural resources as they relate to the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan. This is the correspondence subsequent to that which was brought down last session. The correspondence with respect to Manitoba relates almost exclusively to the fixing of dates for a conference and it would not serve any useful purpose to have it reprinted; but I think the correspondence respecting Alberta and Saskatchewan should be printed and made available in that form.
I would move therefore:
That 1,500 copies be printed in English and 750	copies in	French	of the	correspondencebetween the governments of the Dominion and the province of Saskatchewan respecting the	transfer	of the	natural	resources of
Saskatchewan tabled this day; and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg to move:
That 1,500 copies be	printed	in English and750	copies in	French	of the	correspondence
between the governments of the Dominion and the province of Alberta respecting the transfer of the natural resources of Alberta tabled this day; and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weybum) moved:: That the select standing committee appointed to supervise the official reports of the debates of the House of Commons have leave to sit while the house is in session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, before the order



Printing o) Public Documents
of motion is proceeded with further, might I ask the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) if he does not think that in connection with matters of great public concern the correspondence and papers should be tabled without a formal motion. It has been the custom in England to print what is called a white paper containing such documents. It has occurred to me that correspondence in connection with the Economic conference, for instance, should be brought down as a matter of duty rather than in response to a motion. There are. other papers dealing with similar matters that it has been the custom in England, as I have said, to present to the house at once so that members might see them without a motion being made for the purpose. I think it is desirable in matters of great public importance to follow this practice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I agree with my hon.
friend as to the desirability of having important papers so tabled, but I would point out that where a number of copies are required for members of parliament, the formal motion to have them printed places the expense of the printing on parliament, rather than on one of the government departments. So long as my hon. friend will undertake not to criticize the department for expense to which it may be put in the printing, I will try to oblige him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend need not worry with respect to an important matter of that kind.



QUESTIONS

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

Herbert Bealey Adshead: What progress has been made and what action has been taken to ensure to civil servants in Canada, and all employees of the Dominion government, the eight-hour day?


Mr. HEENAN:: With respect to this question, Mr. Speaker, I assume that the hon. member (Mr. Adshead) has in mind two sets of employees, those in the government service and those engaged on government contracts. I may say that an order in council which was passed a few days ago gives the eight-hour day to the direct employees of the Dominion government. I am glad to table a minute of the privy council, and the order.
The documents follow:


P. C. 670
[Stage Direction]
Certified to be a true copy of a minute of a
meeting of the committee of the Privy 
Council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 27th March, 1930.
The committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 19th March, 1930, from the Minister of Labour, submitting as follows:
1.	That is was recognized in the labour part of the Treaty of Versailles and the corresponding provisions of the other treaties of peace, that the well-being-physical, moral and intellectual-of industrial wage earners is of supreme international importance, and that although differences of climate, habits and customs, economic principles and industrial traditions, make strict uniformity in the conditions of labour difficult of immediate attainment, there are methods and principles for regulating labour conditions which all industrial communities should endeavour to apply, so far as their special circumstances will permit.
2.	That approval was expressed in the peace treaties of the principle of the eight-hour working day.
3.	- That a draft convention was adopted at the first session of the conference of the international labour organization (League of Nations) in 1919 to limit hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight hours per day.
4.	That the draft convention above mentioned was referred in 1924 to the select standing committee on industrial and international relations of the House of Commons of Canada for examination and report.
5.	That on the recommendation of the committee on industrial and international relations of the House of Commons, approved by the House of Commons, the draft convention on hours of work in industrial undertakings was referred by Order in Council to the Supreme Court of Canada with a view to determining the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial authorities, respectively, on this subject.
6.	That the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada contained the following declaration: "The subject matter is generally within the competence of the legislatures of the provinces but the authority vested in these legislatures does not enable them to give the force of law to provisions such as those contained in the draft convention in relation to servants of the Dominion Government, or to legislate for those parts of Canada which are not within the boundaries of a province."
7.	That a report from the Civil Service Commission, which was submitted to your Excellency in Council under date of February 16, 1925, showed that the standard daily hours of work of monthly rate employees in the government departments are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., with an interval for luncheon and a half-holi-

Questions
day on Saturday, and that the standard hours of prevailing rate employees, numbering 1,576 in Ottawa and 18,264 outside Ottawa (of whom 12,247 were postmasters paid on percentage basis), are 44 hours per week, based on an eight-hour day for five days, and 4 hours, or a half-day, on Saturday. Certain exceptions to these standard hours of work were also noted in the report of the Civil Service Commission.
8.	That request has been made to the government for the granting of the eight-hour day to its own employees.
9.	That it is desirable that the principle of the eight-hour day should be applied to any branches of the public service of Canada in which it is not now observed.
The minister accordingly recommends that, except in cases where the work of employees is intermittent in character, or the application of this rule is not deemed to be practicable or in the public interest, the hours of work of any employees of the Dominion government who are still required to work more than eight hours daily be reduced to eight hours daily, with a half-holiday on Saturday.
The committee concur in the forgegoing recommendation and submit the same for approval.
E. J. Lemaire.
Clerk of the Privy Council.
6.	P. C. 684
At the Government House at Ottawa Thursday, the 27th day of March, 1930.
Present:
His Excellency
The Governor General in Council:
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of National Revenue, is pleased to order that the regulations established by order in council, dated 28th of July, 1903, respecting the extra service of customs officers, and all other orders inconsistent herewith, be cancelled on and from the 1st of April, 1930, and the following regulations, in regard to the attendance of customs and excise officers and their pay for overtime, and also in respect of the special services in the outside customs and excise services of the Department of National Revenue, shall be and the same are hereby made and established to take effect on and after the 1st of April, 1930;
1.	Customs-excise offices are to be kept open during days of business on Saturdays from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and on other days of business from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. except as otherwise ordered by the Minister of National Revenue. 2419-69J
These hours are to be prolonged so far as relates to the attendance and service of any particular officers or class of officers, without extra compensation to officers, whenever deemed by the Minister of National Revenue to be required by the necessities or interests of the public service.
The usual and ordinary hours of service for outdoor customs and excise officers shall be from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. with an allowance of one hour for lunch on all days of business. These hours may be changed, however, when necessary to meet special or peculiar conditions, or to enable staff to be employed more efficiently or economically.
2.	The Minister of National Revenue may pay out of moneys available for the purpose, an overtime allowance to customs and excise officers for services performed on holidays, and in excess of 8 working hours per day on other days when the salaries of the officers do not cover such services, under regulations prescribed by the Minister of National Revenue, but no overtime shall be paid for services of less than one half hour immediately following the officer's regular hours of duty.
The overtime allowance shall not exceed the rate or amount authorized by the Minister of National Revenue except in special cases approved by him.
3.	The following services shall be deemed to be special customs or excise services for which a reasonable compensation, as fixed from time to time by the Minister of National Revenue, shall be paid by the persons accommodated, to His Majesty, viz:-
(a)	Services performed by a customs or excise officer for which an overtime allowance is authorized to be paid, except as otherwise from time to time determined by the Minister of National Revenue.
(b)	Services of a customs officer performed outside of Canada at the request of the railway companies or others accommodated.
(c)	Services of customs officers on board moving trains and vessels performed at the request of the railway companies or others accommodated, unless otherwise directed by the minister.
(d)	Attendance of excise officers outside of their regular hours at licensed excise establishments.
(e)	Such other customs or excise service of a special character or class as may be granted with the approval of the Minister of National Revenue on application of the persons or others accommodated.
4.	Requests for customs or excise special service and for service outside the usual business days and hours shall be presented to the proper officer in sufficient time to enable him
Questions
[Stage Direction]
to make arrangements for the attendance of the necessary officers to perform the service if approved and acceded to.
5.	The charge for customs and excise special services shall be paid to the collector of the port having supervision of the services, who shall keep accounts and make returns thereof, and also of officers' overtime, as directed by the Minister of National Revenue. Collectors shall deposit all collections of charges for customs and excise special services to the credit of the Receiver General.
When the service is performed by an officer who is not attached to any port the charge for the services of such officer shall be paid direct to the department.
E. J. Lemaire,
Clerk of the Privy Council.

Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: 1.	What quantity of coal was used on the Canadian National Railways' lines during the calendar year 1929?
2.	What quantity of coal used on the Canadian National railways during the calendar year 1929 was Canadian coal?
3.	What quantity of coal used on the Canadian National railways during the calendar year 1929 was United States coal?


Mr. CRERAR:: Coal used on Canadian lines, 1929:
1.	5,103,600 net tons.
2.	2,920,600 net tons.
3.	2,183,000 net tons. Of this 1,000,000 net tons were supplied from Canadian National Railways' own mines at cost of production.


BROADCASTING STATIONS-LICENCES
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	Have applications been received by the Department of Marine for licences for broadcasting stations in Canada since September 11, 1929?
2.	If so, who are the applicants?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Applications made on regular application forms: J. S. Terry (for Leonard Hotel Broadcasting Company), St. Catharines, Ont.; Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Montreal, Que. (b) Applications made by letter-but no regular applications filed: Dougall Motor Car Company, Fort William, Ont.; C. V. Wetmore, Liverpool, N.S.; Canadian Marconi Company, Glace Bay, N.S.; Public Utilities Department, City of North Battleford, Sask.; G. A. Leadston, Jr., Guelph, Ont.; John Patterson, Brantford, Ont.; Donald C. Smith, Dartmouth, N.S.; Dunn Motors, Tisdale, Sask.

2.	(c) Inquiries by letter re obtaining licences or establishing stations: Carl Read & Company, Limited:, Belleville, Ont.; J. W. Long, Montreal, Que.; W. P. Roberts, Hanna, Alta.; Wood, Buchanan & MacDonald, (for clients at Edmonton, Alta.); Thos. B. Palmer, San Francisco, Calif, (states he is British subject) for station at Victoria, B.C.; T. C. Davis, Prince Albert, Sask.; H. H. Watson, Toronto, Ont.; Ralph C. Welch, Phippen, Sask.; A. D. Buchanan, Stayner, Ont.; The Melody Shop, New Waterford, N.S.; Paisley's Radio Sales & Service, Forest, Ont.; R. L. Morgan, Lindsay, Ont.; The'Standard Phonograph Accessories & Supply Company, Montreal, Que.; C. Hamilton, Riverside, Ont.; L. P. Pomerleau, St. Raymond, Co., Portneuf, Que.; McKay Radio Sales & Service, Summer-side, P.E.I.; A. Hunter, Sarnia, Ont.; J. H. McDonald, Toronto, Ont.; Isaac Glover, Ross-land, B.C.



VANCOUVER ISLAND


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Were tenders advertised for to be received up to December 7, 1929, for the construction of a houseboat for hydrographic survey, to be used on the coast of Vancouver island?
2.	If so, from whom were tenders received and what was the amount of each?
3.	Were the specifications revised after the tenders were opened?
i.	Were all of those who had tendered given an opportunity of tendering on the revised specifications ?
5.	Did the original specifications call for tenders for building and furnishing complete and for redocking at the end of the season?
6.	What was the estimate of the total cost of the boat, furnishings and service?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Public tenders were invited through newspapers in Victoria, Vancouver and Prince Rupert, B.C.
(b) The following tenders were received:
Tender
price
Vancouver Shipyards Ltd., Vancouver,
B.C	$ 28,000
Extra for copper sheathing, 13,350.
Dawe Shipyards Ltd., New Westminster, B.C	 29,778
Extra for copper sheathing, $3,825.
Extra for best grade lumber, $3,000.
Star Shipyard (Mercer's) Ltd., New
Westminster, B.C	 31,926
Extra for copper sheathing, $2,025.
Stornes & Sorenson Ltd., Vancouver,
B.C	
32,996

Questions
Tender
price
Extra for copper sheathing, S3,800, or copper sheathing and copper fastening, $7,400.
B.C. Marine Engineers & Shipbuilders,
Ltd., Vancouver, B.C	 34,933
Extra	for	copper	sheathing,	$3,394.Extra	for	copper	fastening,	$1,890.
Prince Rupert Dry Dock & Shipyard,
Prince Rupert, B.C	 38,500
Extra for copper sheathing, $4,500.
Extra for copper fastening, $2,000. Vancouver Drydock & Salvage Co.,
Ltd., North Vancouver, B.C	 38,750
Extra for copper sheathing, $3,500 Boeing Aircraft of Canada Ltd., Vancouver, B.C	 41,034
Extra	for	copper	sheathing,	$3,250Extra	for	copper	fastening,	$2,950.
Extra for copper fastening and
copper sheathing, $6,200.	.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Specifications included building and equipment as detailed. Re-docking at end of season called for.
6.	$30,000.



LABOUR DEPARTMENT-P. E. HARRISON

Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Is F. E. Harrison, Sr., wage investigator and mediator, who receives a salary of $3,360 under vote 15, civil government salaries, the same official as F. E. Harrison, Vancouver, who received $3,026.33 under vote 255, fair wages and inspection offices, travelling expenses, Auditor General's report, 1929, pages M-3 and M-7 ?
2.	What are the details of the payment referred to under vote 255?
3.	What are the details of the payment of $1,662.09 to F. E. Harrison, vote 260, administration old age pensions, travelling expenses?
4.	What are the details of the payment to E. S. H. Winn of $340.90 under vote mentioned in the preceding question?


Mr. HEENAN:: 1.	Yes.	-
2.	Mr. Harrison is fair wages officer and mediator of the Department of Labour with headquarters at Vancouver, B.C., and his territory comprises the four western provinces. The payment under this vote is to cover his travelling expenses while engaged in gathering information as to prevailing wage rates in western Canada, which information is used in connection with the preparation of schedules containing labour conditions-wages and hours -for insertion in specifications and contracts governing federal government construction work. This officer is required to visit the
various federal government undertakings in his territory during the period of construction and ascertain definitely that the wage schedule applicable to the particular work is posted in a conspicuous place on the work and is easily accessible to the workmen employed thereon; also to ascertain by investigation that these labour conditions are being fully complied with. Further, from time to time complaints are received of the non-observance of the labour conditions by certain contractors in respect to wages, hours and classifications, and these complaints necessitate the fair wages officer visiting the various works in question and, after investigation of the complaint, making whatever adjustment the circumstances may warrant. In addition a considerable amount of his time was occupied in dealing with labour disputes, particularly in connection with the mining area of Alberta, wherein he acted as mediator in adjusting strikes and disputes, as provided for in the Conciliation and Labour Act and the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.
3.	The payment referred to under this vote is to cover the travelling expenses of Mr. Harrison while engaged in auditing payments made under the Old Age Pensions Act in the provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
4.	Mr. E. S. H. Winn is chairman of the British Columbia Old Age Pensions Board and also the British Columbia representative on the Interprovincial Old Age Pensions Board. The expenses incurred under the vote mentioned were in connection with the attendance of Mr. Winn at a meeting of the Interprovincial Old Age Pensions Board held at Ottawa in October, 1928.



LABOUR GAZETTE CORRESPONDENTS

Mr. FRASER:: What services are performed by the undermentioned correspondents under vote 253, conciliation and labour accountant, Auditor General's report, 1929: J. M. Campbell $250, Prince Rupert: J. Chron, $225. Victoria: F. G. Perry $200, Fernie; H. Thornley $291.66, Vancouver; A. C. Williamson $300, Trail?


Peter Heenan: The correspondents of the Labour Gazette mentioned make a report to the department at the beginning of each month on retail prices; also from time to time on strikes and lockouts, industrial agreements, changes in wages and hours of labour, fatal industrial accidents; organization of labour unions, changes in officers of unions, activities of unions; organizations of employers, cooperative societies, etc.; other matters of industrial interest, including employee representation plans, profit-sharing, housing,
Questions

opening of industrial establishments, output of mines, and changes in industrial conditions.
The correspondent at Vancouver covers also the New Westminster district and the correspondent at Trail covers also the Nelson district.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-EMPLOYEES DISCHARGED

Mr. FERLAND:: How many employees of the Canadian National Railways have been laid off on account of reduction of staff in each shop of the central region during each of the past five
years ?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is not considered to be in the interest of the Canadian National Railways, nor in the public interest, to bring down information of this character.



CANADLAN BROADCASTINQ RIGHTS

Mr. WHITE (London):: 1.	Is Canada making efforts to extend her rights in the matter of more numerous channels for broadcasting?
2.	If so, what is the result of such negotiations with the United States?
3.	What is the cost of service rendered for the improvement of radio reception in each of the provinces of the dominion?
4.	What equipment and how many employees are there in each province in the above service?
5.	What revenue is derived from this service?
6.	What revenue is derived from radio receiving licences?
7.	What are the government's regulations and licence fees for broadcasting rights, by broadcasting companies ?
8.	Is the power of the various stations limited by government regulations? If so, what is the maximum?
9.	What is the maximum power allowed in the United States or is there any limiting legislation?
10.	What is the maximum power used in the United States?
11.	Is broadcasting in the United States under state control or under federal control?
12.	Have the separate states any control or voice in the matter?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1 and 2. The sovereign right of all nations to the use of every radio channel is recognized, thus Canada has always enjoyed the right to
allot any of the frequencies in the broadcast band to any radio broadcasting stations under its jurisdiction.
It is nevertheless recognized that until technical development progresses to the stage where radio interference can be eliminated, special arrangements between neighbouring countries are desirable in order to minimize such interference.
To this end, negotiations were entered into with the United States, immediately on the passing of the United States radio act in February, 1927, with a view to concluding a formal agreement for a division of the 96 available broadcast channels between Canada and that country.
The division demanded by the United States representatives, based primarily on the relative populations of the two countries, was not acceptable to the Canadian representatives, and the conference was therefore adjourned.
In December, 1928, Canada notified all nations subscribing to the Internationa] Radio Convention, through the medium of the International Radiotelegraph Bureau, Berne, as follows:-
"The question of the division of frequencies in the broadcast band between the broadcasting stations in the North America area has been the subject of negotiations between the interested countries, but, so far, no agreement has been reached. The International Radiotelegraph Convention of Washington, 1927, becomes effective on January 1, 1929, and in submitting Canada's list of broadcasting stations for publication in the official list, in accordance with the provisions of the convention, the Canadian administration has refrained from notifying the temporary and inadequate assignment on which its broadcasting stations are now operating and desires it to be understood that pending the consummation of an agreement between the administrations in the North America area in regard to broadcasting, the Canadian administration in no way waives the right it considers it enjoys under the International Radio Convention in regard to the use of a reasonable proportion of the broadcast frequencies available in the above mentioned area."
'Mr. Heenan.]

Questions
Service to broadcast listeners
Headquarters administration and special
investigations	
Prince Edward Island	
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	
Northwest Territories and Yukon	
Totals	
	Fiscal year
	1929-1930
Fiscal year	11 months
1928-1929	ending Feb., 1930
S 29,606 32	$ 27,249 60
476 21	311 73
7,469 48	7,301 45
7,669 77	6,953 01
20,493 32	20,871 21
48,606 50	48,271 32
9,117 41	8,727 53
9,647 17	11,148 25
6,550 98	6,810 79
10,610 19	9,381 11
	219 26
$150,247 35	$147,245 26
4.
m
o o
.	.1 &
Province	-*f J2
s a,
Headquarters administration and special investigation	 8
Prince Edward Island....	0
Nova Scotia	 2
New Brunswick	 4
Quebec	 12
Ontario	 29
Manitoba	 5
Saskatchewan	 8
Alberta	 4
British Columbia	 4
Yukon Territory	 0
Equipment
0	0
2	0
3	1
3	1
3	4
17	10
2	1
2	3
2	2
2	2
1	0
4 and	13
special research	
equipment 2	1
4	10
4	5
4	13
22	29
4	5
5	8
4	7
5	14
1	0
5.	Nil.
6.	Fiscal year 1928-1929: $262,337.05. Fiscal year 1929-1930, 11J months, to 15 March, 1930: $404,179.20.
7.	Nationality of licensees.-Licences for transmitting stations are issued only to British subjects or to companies incorporated under the laws of the Dominion of Canada or any of the provinces thereof. Licences for private receiving stations are issued to any person in Canada, irrespective of nationality.
Private commercial broadcasting licence.- Annual fee $50. Private commercial broadcasting licences may be granted to land stations
to be operated for the broadcasting by radiotelegraph or radiotelephone, of news, information, entertainment or other service.
The working of the station must be strictly limited to the hours prescribed in the licence and the station must use such wavelength as is specified therein.
The station must be operated by a person who is the holder of a first class or a radiotelephone certificate of proficiency in radio.
Amateur broadcasting licence.-Annual fee $10. Amateur broadcasting licences may be granted to recognized radio associations. They will not be granted to individuals. Such
Questions

licences will permit broadcasting on a wavelength of 250 metres at the hours and for the periods prescribed in the licence. The normal range of amateur broadcasting stations will be limited to 25 miles.
An association licensed to operate an amateur broadcasting station may, subject to the approval of the minister, authorize a station belonging to one of its members to broadcast on its behalf; such station whilst broadcasting shall use the call signal and wavelength alloted to the association. The association will be held responsible for the proper operation of the station in accordance with the provisions of the licence and the radio regulations.
8.	(a) In practice, ye3, depending on the location of the station; <b) no maximum.
9.	According to general order No. 42 of 7 September, 1928, issued by the federal radio commission, commercial stations are limited to a maximum of 100 kilowatts in day time and 50 kilowatts at night; there is no limit to the power which may be employed for experimental purposes.
10.	Commercially-50 kilowatts; experimentally-200 kilowatts.
11.	The Radio Act of 1927 vests control of radio in the United States in the Federal Radio Commission.
12.	So far as the department is aware-No.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES-MINERAL CLAIMS

Mr. PECK:: 1.	How many mineral claims have been located in the Northwest territories since January, 1926, in accordance with the quartz mining regulations?
2.	What is the approximate area covered by such locations?
3.	Have any locations been recognized by the Department of the Interior, or have anv special privileges been granted without full compliance with such regulations?
4.	If so, who are the holders of such privileges and what is the area of land included therein?
5.	Is any portion of the territories reserved by the government from mining exploration or location, and if so, what is that portion?


Mr. STEWART:: 1.	646 claims.
2.	32,300 acres.
3.	No.
4.	See answer to No. 3.
5.	Yes:-Coppermine reservation, comprising the area lying north of the 65th parallel of north latitude, and between the 105th and 116th degrees of west longitude, comprising the islands in and the territory adjacent to Coronation gulf and Bathurst inlet. Public notice has already been given to the fact that this
IMr. Cardin.]
reservation has been cancelled by order in council dated the 14th day of January, 1930, and that on the 1st day of July, 1930, the area will be again made available for disposal under the provisions of the mining regulations which are in force in the Northwest Territories of Canada.
Thelon game sanctuary, comprising approximately 15,000 square miles, described as follows"Commencing at the point on the southerly shore of Beverly lake where the left bank of Dubawnt river intersects the said southerly shore; thence southwesterly, following the height of land between the Dubawnt and Thelon rivers to its intersection with the sixty-third (63) parallel of north latitude; thence due west following the said sixty-third (63) parallel of north latitude to its intersection with the east shore of Artillery lake; thence northerly following the east shores of Artillery lake, Ptarmigan lake, and Clinton-Golden lake and connecting waterways to the sixty-fourth (64) parallel of north latitude; thence due east along the said sixty-fourth (64) parallel of north latitude to its intersection with the height of land between the waters of the Thelon and Back rivers; thence northeasterly following the said height of land to the portage between the Buchanan and Tibielik rivers; thence southeasterly following the west bank of the Tibielik river to Beverly lake; thence following the north shore of said lake to a point due north of the point of commencement; thence due south to the said point of commencement."
That portion of the Wood Buffalo park which extends into the Northwest Territories.



HOUSE OP COMMONS STAFF

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many persons are on the staff of the House of Commons; (a) permanent; (b) temporary ?
2.	In the case of temporary employees, how many of these are returned soldiers and how many civilians?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	(a) 83; (b) 369 (March 31, 1930).
2.	Returned soldiers-59; Civilians-310-including 185 females.



MONTREAL HARBOUR BRIDGE

Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: 1.	Has the new harbour bridge at Montreal been completed?
2.	If so, at what cost to the federal govern, ment?
3.	Has any portion of the said bridge been condemned on account of defective plans or construction?
4.	What are the present carrying charges, including interest on capital, etc., per day?
5.	On what date will the said bridge be opened for public use?

Unopposed, Motions for Papers


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No.
4.	There will be no carrying charges until the bridge is in operation. Interest on borrowings is charged to capital account until construction is completed.
5.	Date of opening bridge for public use has not yet been determined.



MONTREAL AND SOUTHERN COUNTIES RAILWAY

Mr. LAWSON:: Is the Montreal and Southern Counties railway controlled and/or operated by the Canadian National Railways?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The Montreal and Southern Counties railway is one of several of the separately-operated electric lines of the Canadian National railway company.



REVENUE FROM SALE OF MINING STOCKS

Mr. LADNER:: What is the total revenue by years of the government of Canada from the tax on sale of mining stocks from the time the act relating to the same came into force until the 1st of March, 1930, showing the total amount each year of such tax received from each province of Canada?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton) (for Mr. Euler):: It is impossible to furnish this information because the tax is payable by stamps such as are used for payment of other forms of excise tax. These stamps are purchased at post offices or banks and the object of their use is not disclosed when purchased.



LAND SETTLEMENT LITERATURE

Mr. CASGRAIN:: In what languages does the Department of the Interior publish literature telling of land suitable for settlement and the terms upon which homestead entries may be obtained?


Charles A. Stewart: Land settlement literature is published in English except where there is a demand for literature in the French language in which event an adequate French edition is published and distributed in reply to enquiries in French or on request for literature in French.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. BENOIT:: 1. On what date did the commission on farm loans begin its work?
2.	What is the yearly salary of the chairman of the commission?
3.	What is the yearly salary of the two other members of the commission?
4.	What is the yearly salary of the superintendent of the commission in each province?
5.	What is the yearly salary of the two assistant employees to the superintendent in each province?
6.	What is the total cost of the administration of the commission on farm loans during the last twelve months from March 1, 1929: (a) at Ottawa; (b) in each province?
7.	Has the commission contracted loans?
8.	If so, what is the amount of said loans and at what rate of interest were they made?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. QUINN:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters and other documents relating to the seizure of the motor boat Junior C, in or during the calendar year 1929, by the customs preventive service, and the release or resale of said motor boat to Guildford Harnish of Hubbards, in the county of Halifax, province of Nova Scotia.
MOTORBOAT NO. 174 Mr. ERNST:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, tenders and other documents relating to the seizure and detention of the motor ship or boat No. 174, in Northumberland straits, during the calendar year 1928.



MOTORBOATS OWNED BY DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS

Mr. ERNST:: For a return showing a list of all motor boats, motor ships and steamships owned or operated, under charter or otherwise, by the Department of Customs or the customs preventive service, in the province of Nova Scotia or in waters adjacent thereto, during the calendar years 1928 and 1929, including therein: (a) the age and cost of each of such boats or ships as is owned by the Department of Customs; (b) where and by whom each of such boats or ships were built; (c) if built by the department or purchased after construction; (d) if operated under charter, the respective charter price of each of such boats or ships so operated: (e) the cost of operation of each of such boats or ships; (f) the details of seizures made by each of such boats or ships during the calendar years 1928 and 1929.



JOHN MOSSMAN

William Gordon Ernst: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents relating to the discharge, dismissal or retirement of John Mossman of LaHave, in the county of Lunenburg, province of Nova Scotia, from the customs preventive service.



VICE-REGAL RAILWAY CARS

Mr. CAMPBELL:: For a return showing the expenditure on the vice-regal railway cars since January 1, 1923.
1090	COMMONS
Pensions and Soldiers Problems



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to confirm the agreement between the governments of the Dominion and the province of Saskatchewan dated 20th March, 1930, respecting the transfer of the natural resources of Saskatchewan.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting fair wages and hours for labour employed by contract or otherwise on public works of the Dominion of Canada.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: I should like to inquire from the Prime Minister if the government has under consideration any proposal for the taking over of any of the empire responsibilities in regard to the West Indies?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: None of which I am aware.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask whether the statement of the Governor General was authorized by the government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To what statement does my hon. friend refer?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The statement which His Excellency is reported to have made before the Empire Club of Toronto.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assume my hon. friend has reference to what I took to be a complimentary remark on the part of His Excellency with regard to the relations between Canada and the West Indies. The statement was made by His Excellency on his own responsibility.



PENSIONS AND SOLDIERS' PROBLEMS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the printing of the proceedings which have taken place before the committee on returned soldiers' problems, I find that 950 copies of the reports issued from day to day have been absorbed by the Canadian Legion, leaving a very small number for circulation among the members. As a matter of fact, some of the members have not been able to secure a copy at all. Of course it is desirable that the legion should circulate these reports as freely as possible, but in view of the fact that they represent only about 75,000 of the entire membership of the overseas forces, I think it will be agreed that something should be done to make it possible to circulate larger numbers of these reports. I am bound to say that the distribution office could give us no reasonable explanation as to why the members of parliament were not furnished with these reports, while 950 copies were absorbed by the legion, under someone's orders. It is not customary to deprive members of the house of the opportunity of getting at least one or two copies of important documents of this kind.


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: In
answer to my hon. friend I may say that I obtained permission to have 1,800 copies printed, 1,500 in English and 300 in French.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When was that done,
please?


Charles Gavan Power: I obtained permission without coming before the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To-day?


Charles Gavan Power: No, I obtained that permission some time last week, a day or so after my hon. friend brought the matter to my attention, and it was understood that that number would be printed. I was aware of the fact that the legion would require something like 900 copies, but I thought possibly the remaining 600 would be sufficient to meet the requirements of hon. members of this house. If my hon. friend desires me to do so, I will make inquiries as to the matter.

Interim Supply


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think I should say to
the hon. gentleman, who is chairman of the committee, that some arrangement should be made to reprint the proceedings of the first two or three meetings, which hon. members cannot get even to-day. I would not have mentioned this matter except for the fact that just a few moments ago the point was brought to my attention. Hon. members have been endeavouring to get copies and have been unable to secure them, and some of our members have not even seen a copy of the proceedings.


Charles Gavan Power: I was under the impression
that the 1,800 copies to be printed would include the proceedings of the first and second meetings. I will make inquiries, and if that has not been done I will bring the matter to the attention of the house.



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance):	Mr. Speaker, to-day is the last
day of the fiscal year, and it is necessary to make provision for interim supply for the coming fiscal year. Therefore, with the consent of the house, I would move that you do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider the granting of interim supply.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I merely rise to reserve the rights of those who, under our constitution, have the right to suggest that grievances should be remedied before supply is granted. I quite realize that supply must be granted; it is usual to do so. The Minister of Finance has mentioned the matter to us and we are quite agreeable that it shall be done, provided it is without prejudice to the rights of any member of the house to discuss any item, even though a portion of that item may have been granted by this interim supply bill.


Mr. DUNNING:: There is no question but that all the rights of everyone will be fully conserved.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.


Charles Avery Dunning: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $42,625,436.14, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted, as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1931, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1931.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. DUNNING moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Charles Avery Dunning: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31. 1931, the sum of $42,625,436.14 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 47 for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1931.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister, for Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 22, to amend the Indian Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Eskimo affairs.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: Will the hon. minister
explain the object of this bill?


Charles A. Stewart: Some years ago it was thought wise to place the Eskimos under the control of the Indian department but it has been found that this does not work out very acceptably as we have no Indian officers in the territory where the Eskimos are located. The officers of the Department of the Interior are located there and we are asking that the control of the Eskimos be placed under the Northwest Territories council and the Department of the Interior rather than under the Indian department.


Hugh Guthrie: Was the control under the
Northwest territories council?
Indian Act Amendment


Charles A. Stewart: Up until
three years ago.


Hugh Guthrie: What difficulty has been experienced in the interval?


Charles A. Stewart: The Royal Northwest Mounted Police are now located along Coronation gulf up in Baffin Land, in the territories frequented by the Eskimos, and they seem to offer at the present time the best agency to look after the Eskimos, and in addition to that the officers of the Department of the Interior are in that territory. I think it would work out much more acceptably to allow those officers and the mounted police to supervise whatever control is necessary over these people.


Hugh Guthrie: What is the Eskimo population?


Charles A. Stewart: We know that we have over four thousand Eskimos, although we are not sure about the number.


Hugh Guthrie: Has any census been taken?


Charles A. Stewart: Figures as to population have been obtained through our officers in the Northwest Territories, as well as the mounted police.


Hugh Guthrie: Are these people considered to be British subjects in all respects?


Charles A. Stewart: Apparently that is a ruling I am not competent to give.


Hugh Guthrie: A ruling made by whom?


Charles A. Stewart: They are assumed to be British subjects. As my hon. friend knows, we have taken over the control of the territory, which control has not been disputed in any particular except with respect to one small portion. The Danish government have presented a claim based upon the explorations made by Otto Sverdrup, and at the present time we are endeavouring to settle that claim.


Hugh Guthrie: What is the origin of these people, were they originally Indian?


Charles A. Stewart: Eskimo.


Hugh Guthrie: Or are they Mongolians; of what race are they?


Charles A. Stewart: I am afraid my hon. friend has asked me a question which I cannot answer.


Hugh Guthrie: A good deal would depend upon that.


Charles A. Stewart: There is a difference of opinion. Many hold that they are Mongolian but I do not think anyone can prove it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Some people say they are Scotch.


Mr. ARTHURS:: They are treated as wards of the government and not as full-fledged citizens; that is correct?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: I understand that the government hitherto has treated them as being originally an Indian tribe and for some time past has assumed the guardianship of these people in the same manner as it assumes guardianship over the Indians. Are these people entitled to the franchise where the Indian is not?


Charles A. Stewart: Well, our position with respect to the Eskimos and the territory over which they roam is that we claim that we own the territory, and therefore the residents in that territory must be Canadian. No treaties have been arranged with the Eskimos as with the Indians in other parts of Canada. These people are a nomadic race and are found in widely scattered territories. As my hon. friend knows, the Indians locate in some particular spot, but that is not true of the Eskimos. They return annually to their old camping grounds but so far we have not treated the Eskimos as we have the original Indians of Canada.


Mr. SPENCER:: To what territory is the hon. minister referring?


Charles A. Stewart: Coronation gulf, Melville island, Baffin Land and all the territory north.


Mr. SENN:: How many Eskimos are in that territory?


Charles A. Stewart: I have
answered that; we know there are about four thousand.


Hugh Guthrie: The minister did not answer my question; if the Eskimo were seeking a franchise in this country, would he be entitled to vote?


Charles A. Stewart: I imagine that he would be a citizen of the country unless the same process had been gone through as with the Indians; which has not been done up to the present time.


Hugh Guthrie: That has not been done up to date?


Charles A. Stewart: No.

Indian Act Amendment


Hugh Guthrie: They will continue to be wards of the government or of the Northwest Territories council as formerly?


Charles A. Stewart: I doubt if they would be considered wards of the government in the sense that the Indian is a ward. They are granted educational facilities, provided largely by the missionaries, the same as the Indians, and in times of necessity they are given relief. Outside of that, no treaty has been enacted which would designate them as aborigines of that territory.


James Arthurs: There are Indians in Canada with whom we have not negotiated a treaty.


Charles A. Stewart: Very few.


James Arthurs: But there are some?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


James Arthurs: The Eskimo would be in exactly the same position.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend would be correct in that.


James Arthurs: If one had the franchise then the other would have it?


Charles A. Stewart: Is my hon. friend concerned about the franchise?


James Arthurs: I just added that clause.


Charles A. Stewart: The Indian has not the right to the franchise until he is enfranchised.


James Arthurs: The minister argues that the Eskimo would have the franchise because he has not entered into a treaty with the government.


Charles A. Stewart: That is a very fine legal argument and one which I am not competent to answer.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Do I understand the
minister to say that Eskimos who are British subjects and wards of the government, exercise the franchise or have the right of exercising it?


Charles A. Stewart: So far as I am aware, there has never been an election, in which they could exercise the franchise.


William Gordon Ernst: Will they exercise it under the proposed enlargement of the Yukon territory as an electoral unit?


Charles A. Stewart: I have never heard the question raised before. I noticed in the press a few w'eeks ago, someone raised it, but I would much prefer to take the position suggested by my hon. friend that not all of these Eskimos, but some of them, have been subject to the bounty of the Canadian government and in every respect are treated as wards of the government, although one cannot, I think, legally say that they are wards. That is the point.


William Gordon Ernst: Would the minister consider them as wards of the government, entitled to the franchise?


Charles A. Stewart: I would not care to give my hon. friend an answer offhand on that point. I will make inquiry and be prepared to give an answer later, but I am not going to assume the responsibility of saying that the Eskimos would be enfranchised.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: I should like to call the minister's attention to this question which I asked on the tenth of March:
Are adult Eskimos, being British subjects, residents of Canada for the period required by Dominion Elections Act, qualified to vote at elections of a member of the House of Commons?
The minister's reply was:
Yes, Eskimos who are British subjects by birth or naturalization.


Charles A. Stewart: They would be identical with an enfranchised Indian in that respect. That is the position of an Indian when he is granted enfranchisement and foregoes the benefit of his tribal membership.


George Black: Would an Eskimo, in order to exercise the right of voting, have to be enfranchised the same as an Indian?


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
clear as to the status of an Eskimo. My difficulty is this: the Eskimo is there; to all intents and purposes he is a ward of the government so far as care in time of necessity is concerned, but I believe there is no treaty existing nor would I say that his status has been defined. If, however, he were enfranchised under his own name he would be in the same category as an Indian who had been enfranchised in exactly the same way.


George Black: Do I understand the minister to say that this answer given by him on the tenth of this month is not correct?


Charles A. Stewart: I think it is correct.


John Anderson Fraser: How does an Indian become enfranchised?
Indian Act Amendment


Charles A. Stewart: By consent of the band to which he belongs, by foregoing all the rights he holds as a member of the tribe .and becoming a citizen of the country, and by order in council.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Might I ask the minister whether the government considers, as a matter of principle, that Eskimos, who are wards of or who receive bounty from the government, could exercise the franchise?


Charles A. Stewart: I did not say that they were wards. I want my hon. friend to get my explanation correctly. What I say is that the Eskimos have in the past been in receipt of bounty from the Canadian government.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I included that in my
question.


Charles A. Stewart: What status that might or might not give them, I am not prepared to say. It is a strictly legal question, but I say that the Eskimos have not, to my knowledge, made any treaty with the Canadian government.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I was asking not as a
legal question but as a matter of principle or policy whether the minister considers that Eskimos who are receiving bounty or any kind of favour from the Canadian government, should exercise the franchise?


Charles A. Stewart: I shall have to leave that question to be answered by the Department of Justice. I cannot give a legal opinion on it.


William Gordon Ernst: As I understand the matter, Canada claims sovereignty roughly from the forty-ninth parallel to the northern portion of the continent, and any British subject resident within Canada, if he is in an electoral district, is entitled to vote. Is an Eskimo born within this area over which Canada claims sovereignty, a British subject?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Eskimos who are British subjects have certainly the right to vote, just as any other British subject. They are not Indians. In the Dominion Elections Act under qualifications of electors, there is an exception for Indians ordinarily resident on an Indian reservation. The Eskimos are not in that category. Moreover, they are not Indians. There is nothing to disqualify an Eskimo simply because he is an Eskimo. That is my first impression.


William Gordon Ernst: I would understand my hon. friend is speaking as Minister of Justice when he gives the opinion and would be prepared to stand by it.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is not altogether fair.


William Gordon Ernst: Quite fair.


Ernest Lapointe: He asks me what is my impression at the moment. I cannot give more than that. I have never given any consideration to the matter, but there is no doubt in my mind, speaking at the moment, that an Eskimo is not disqualified simply because he happens to be an Eskimo.


William Gordon Ernst: To follow the question a
little further, may I ask this:	If the bill
which affects the constituency of the Yukon passes the house and the Northwest Territories are incorporated with the Yukon as an electoral district, will these nomadic tribes who are receiving bounty occasionally from the government, be entitled to vote whether or not they have a permanent place of residence? It is a fact that they are objects of charity from time to time.


Ernest Lapointe: They will be entitled to vote if they do not fall under any of the exceptions which disqualify people from voting.


William Gordon Ernst: Is there any exception which would disqualify them?


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is free
to consult the Dominion Elections Act just as I am.


William Gordon Ernst: The Minister of Justice being so ready with his opinion as to the rights of British subjects, I thought he would be equally ready with information concerning the Dominion Elections Act.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend will see
under the rules that an hon. member is not entitled to ask legal advice of the Minister of Justice. That is not my function.


William Gordon Ernst: The question is of vital
interest to the house and I think it should be answered.


Ernest Lapointe: Perhaps I can have a
private talk with my hon. friend and give him all the enlightenment he desires.


George Black: I do not wish to
fee too persistent in regard to this matter, but the Minister of the Interior has gone officially on record as giving his opinion that Eskimos have the right to vote. They are qualified under the Dominion Elections Act. Do I take it that the Minister of Justice agrees with that?


Charles A. Stewart: When my
hon. friend says he is quoting me, I presume he is quoting an answer to a question?

Indian Act Amendment


George Black: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: There is a
definite statement that Eskimos who are British subjects are entitled to vote.


George Black: The question is:
Are adult Eskimos, being British subjects, residents of Canada for the period required by the Dominion Elections Act, qualified to vote at elections of a member of the House of Commons?
The minister replied:
Yes, Eskimos who are British subjects by birth or naturalization.
The question did not apply to United States or other foreign Eskimos; it was only Canadian Eskimos I was referring to.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend asked a very distinct question:	Are
Eskimos who are enfranchised entitled to vote? Certainly they are. Indians who are enfranchised are entitled to vote. That is the question he asked.


George Black: I said Eskimos
with the qualifications of other electors under the Dominion Elections Act. Then the government say that they are entitled to vote.


Mr. CANNON:: Unless they are excluded
under the act, how can they be prevented from voting?


William Gordon Ernst: Surely the Solicitor General with his fund of legal knowledge knows why they should be excluded.


Lucien Cannon: The Dominion Elections
Act recites very plainly who are electors and who are not, and unless a certain class of people are excluded under the act, they have a right to vote.


William Gordon Ernst: May I ask the Solicitor
General if the mere receipt of charity from the Dominion government is a bar to voting?


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is wrong about that.


William Gordon Ernst: I do not say that it is. In my opinion it is not.


Ernest Lapointe: May I read the section of the Dominion Elections Act which relates to persons supported by charity? Under section 30 persons are disqualified.
Who, at the time of an election, are prisoners undergoing punishment for criminal offences, or are patients in lunatic asylums, or are maintained in whole or in part as inmates receiving public charitable support or care in municipal poor houses or houses of industry, or are inmates receiving public charitable support, other than for war services, in any institution receiving aid from the government of a province under any statute in that behalf

for the whole period of such election.
Surely the Eskimos do not come in that class.


William Gordon Ernst: So they would be entitled to the franchise?


Ernest Lapointe: I think so.


William Gordon Ernst: That is exactly what I said, and I was trying to find out if the Minister of Justice agreed with me.


Ernest Lapointe: What is it the hon.
member is objecting to?


William Gordon Ernst: To their receiving the franchise and then receiving support from this government.


Mr. MANION:: The classes just read by the minister would not include the ordinary Indian.


Ernest Lapointe: The Indians come under another exception.


William Gordon Ernst: Does the Minister of Justice consider it sound in principle that a person who is in receipt of a bounty administered by officials of the government should be entitled to the franchise?


Ernest Lapointe: I have no opinion to offer as to that, except to say that it is the law.


William Gordon Ernst: Does the minister think it ought to be the law? It opens itself to the most vicious sort of abuses?


Ernest Lapointe: I am not in favour of restrictions as to the franchise, if my hon. friend wants to know.


William Gordon Ernst: Nor am I.


Mr. DONNELLY:: What would the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg say about the unemployed who are getting assistance from the government right along having the franchise? Would he exclude them?


William Gordon Ernst: I do not know any that are getting assistance from this government.


James J. Donnelly: It would not make any difference whether it was a Tory government or a Liberal government. If my hon. friend applied his principle to the unemployed who are receiving assistance from the government, a lot of Nova Scotia people would be disfranchised.


William Gordon Ernst: Many of them are, for municipal purposes.


James Arthurs: While this discussion is very interesting, I would remind the minister of my question regarding the position of Indians who are at present not under treaty.
Indian Act Amendment

A reading of the clause of the Dominion Elections Act just quoted by the Minister of Justice would indicate that any Indian who did not ordinarily reside on a reserve had the right of franchise.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh no.


James Arthurs: Any Indian not ordinarily resident upon a reserve is excepted from the disabilities applying to the Indian upon the reserve. I think I aan correct in that, and certainly the Indians who are not under treaty would very largely out-number the Eskimos of Canada. So all these arguments would apply equally to men living in the northern parts of this Dominion.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is wrong, if he will permit me. The Indians have not the franchise unless they are enfranchised.


William Gordon Ernst: And if they do not receive
a bounty.


Charles A. Stewart: They may.
They would not receive payments under the Indian Act.


William Gordon Ernst: That is what I mean.


Charles A. Stewart: They are
Canadian citizens with all the privileges of citizenship. But no Indian is entitled to the franchise until he is enfranchised. An Indian is debarred from the privileges of the franchise until he becomes an enfranchised Indian under the act.


James Arthurs: There is no question about the ordinary Indian residing in Canada being a Canadian, and I say that a band of Indians who have no treaty with the government, and never had, should be placed in the same position at least as the Eskimo. There can be no reason why the Eskimo should be preferred while the Indian, who is, to say the least, just as intelligent, should be debarred from the franchise.


Charles A. Stewart: The Indian
Act provides as to the steps that are to be taken to enfranchise an Indian, and he is not enfranchised until those steps are taken. The question that arises about the Eskimo is a different one altogether. An Eskimo would have to be construed to be an Indian and subjected to all the restrictions of the Indian Act, which he is not.


James Arthurs: If this act passes, the
Eskimo and the non-treaty Indian are in exactly the same position. There is absolutely no difference between them.
(Mr. Arthurs.]


Mr. MARCIL:: I am glad to hear this discussion about the Eskimos. Now that the eyes of Canada are turning towards the north it is interesting to note that public interest is being taken in these people. Many hon. members of this house are no doubt aware that two or three years ago Pere Duchaussois, of the Oblate order, published a book, entitled "Aux Glaces Polaires," which has had a very extensive circulation all through Europe, and has been crowned by the French Academy. The book gives a most complete account of that northern country from the historical perspective, and especially of the Eskimo proper. The Oblate fathers, under Mgr. Turquetil, have been carrying on missionary work there for many years, and so also have the Anglicans. I am glad to know that the government is now going to take a larger interest in these farthest removed inhabitants of the north. The hardships with which they have to contend are almost inconceivable and, as described by Pere Duchaussois in his book, are indeed a revelation. Modern science to-day has brought the radio to the Eskimos, and through the good offices of the Royal North West Mounted Police day by day they are being brought into closer touch with civilization. One reason perhaps more than any other why they should receive sympathy and assistance of Canada is that they have to endure great hardships. I think we should extend to them the inestimable privilege of being recognized as British subjects, entitled to all the privileges that come to those who enjoy British citizenship.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I have been looking into this bill very carefully. The minister draws a sharp distinction between the Eskimo and the Indian. Will he be good enough to tell us how he decides whether a person is an Eskimo or an Indian? What are the grounds of distinction?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think one would have very much difficulty in deciding which was an Indian and which was an Eskimo by the appearance. That is one test. Another is language; to some extent, also, their habits. After all, there is not so very much difference between an Englishman and a Scotchman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, yes.


George Halsey Perley: Everybody will
not agree with the minister there. What I really mean is this: There must be some description of an Indian and some description of an Eskimo. The minister says that a person could tell the difference between them by their appearance, but the minister himself is not going to decide which of these thousands of

Indian Act Amendment
people are Eskimos and which are Indians. He must lay down some rule or regulation by which the officials can decide whether a man is an Indian or an Eskimo. I take it that they are all children of the wild, nomadic tribes, living very differently from us, both the Indian and the Eskimo. I think the minister ought in specific words to draw the distinction between the two when the act makes such a difference between them.


James Arthurs: I would point out to the minister that outside the first clause of this bill there is no word relating to Eskimos, nor are they referred to in any part of the text. Section 1 provides:
Subsection 2 of section 4 of the Indian Act, chapter 98 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, is repealed.
That is the clause which places the care of Eskimos under the Indian department. According to the minister's statement, the bill is to empower him to direct the affairs of the Eskimos, but, as I say, except for the first section of the bill there is no reference to Eskimos, the other sections deal exclusively with Indians.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is referring to subsection 2 of section 4 of the Indian Act, which provides that the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs shall have charge of Eskimo affairs. There was never an37 provision made as to how that charge should be carried out, because we have not had the same contact with the Eskimo that we have had with the Indian. Prior to bringing the Eskimo under the control of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, our contact with him had been through the officials of the Northwest Territories branch. Even that was not a very drastic change, because the minister in charge of that branch is the Minister of the Interior. However, as to whether that had the effect of bringing the Eskimo entirely under the Indian Act, I am not prepared to say. As to the definition of an Eskimo there is no doubt that the racial distinction between even the most northern Indian and the Eskimo is very marked. I do not think anyone would have a great deal of difficulty in distinguishing one from the other.


George Halsey Perley: But the minister himself would not be making the distinction. Ho must have the Eskimo defined so that those who are administering Indian affairs may distinguish between the Eskimo and the Indian. They are both native races. I do not see how the minister can draft a definition which will hold water in all cases.


Mr. DICKIE:: Aside from the point that is being discussed at the moment, does the minister think the nomadic Eskimo has a sufficient knowledge of our institutions to cast an intelligent vote?


Charles A. Stewart: I was not
thinking about the question of voting prior to- the Eskimo being put in charge of the Indian department nor since; I was simply looking at as a matter of administration. If the Eskimo is conceded to have a vote, that is something I have given no attention to whatever. The question of enfranchising or disenfranchising the Eskimo never entered my mind. As I say,-it is simply a question of administration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I find it difficult to understand how the hon. minister can say that, if he looks at the explanation he has placed opposite section 1 of the bill. This is his explanatory note:
This repeal is due to the fact that by order of His Excellency the Governor General in Council, dated the 31st of August, 1927, and made in pursuance of the provisions of chapter. 6 8-9 George V. (1918) and the amendment thereto, chapter 23, 15-16 George Y. (1925) the charge of Eskimo affairs was transferred to the Commissioner of the Northwest territories, Department of the Interior.
So that at the moment it is in the hands of the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, but it was for a short period under the control of the Department of Indian Affairs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the point I am making is this: What authority did that give to repeal section 2 of the act? That act is in the revised statutes of 1927 which came into force in 1927. Subsection 2 of section 4 provides: The Superintendent General of Indian Affairs shall have charge of Eskimo affairs.
How' can an order in council passed antecedently to the date of these revised statutes repeal a provision of these statutes?


Charles A. Stewart: We could
not legally repeal it. We were doing it for administration purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not correct.


Charles A. Stewart: I agree with my hon. friend. We knew perfectly well that we had not power to override the statute, but as a matter of administration, to obviate the duplicating of officials, we have as a matter of fact been supervising Eskimo affairs by the North West Territories branch. We are simply asking the repeal of the section now.

Indian Act Amendment


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then what happens is this: The Minister of the Interior comes in to the House of Commons and says that under the authority of a statute passed in 1918 and of another passed in 1925, on the 31st August, 1927, which is over two years ago, he did an illegal thing and has been doing it ever since. Mr. LAPOINTE: In what way?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He says so; he says he knows it is illegal.


Charles A. Stewart: I did not say that.


Ernest Lapointe: Whether he said so or not, he was wrong.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was he? How could the governor in council in 1927 repeal the provisions of a statute that came into force as a part of the revised statutes of Canada a few months before under the authority of the statutes of 1918 and 1925?


Ernest Lapointe: Is my hon. friend sure it was a few months before? My impression is that the revised statutes of 1927 came into force only in December of that year. That would be after this transfer.


Lucien Cannon: The proclamation is the 22nd day of December, 1927. The order in council would have been passed in the summer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the revised statutes of Canada are those of 1927.


Lucien Cannon: I know; but the proclamation which put them into force is dated December, 1927.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly; that is my
point. I he statute came into force subsequent to the order in council, and the statute governs. Therefore the order in council is illegal. That is what the minister admits. I have now the statute before me. It is chapter 98 and it came into force, as the Solicitor General says, after August, 1927. I thought it was September; he says December. Subsection 4 of section 2 of the Indian Act, being chapter 98 reads as follows:
The Minister of the Interior, or the head of any other department appointed for that purpose by the governor in council, shall be the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, and shall as such, have the control and management ot the lands and property of the Indians in Canada.
Of the lands and property of the Indians in Canada. Subsection 2 reads:
The Superintendent General of Indian Affairs shall have charge of Eskimo affairs.
That section was passed before 1924. Now the Solicitor General says this statute was in force in December, 1927.
TMr. C. A. Stewart. ]


Lucien Cannon: That is the proclamation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the date?


Ernest Lapointe: Some time in December.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought so.


Ernest Lapointe: It has no effect whatsoever on this.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has all the effect in the world. How can the governor in council do something which the statute prohibits?


Ernest Lapointe: As soon as my hon.
friend gives me the floor, I will explain.


Lucien Cannon: That is in February of
1928.


Ernest Lapointe: Even if it were before I do not think it would matter. As the explanatory note says, this transfer of powers took place under the statute of 1948, during the good days of a government other than the present one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It says 192S, finally.


Ernest Lapointe: In 1918. In 1925 it
simply amended and made clearer the provisions of the statute of 1918.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Ernest Lapointe: In 1918 it was enacted that the governor in council shall have power to transfer any powers, duties or functions from one minister of the crown to another, and from one department to another, or to combine two departments under one minister, and so on. It was amended in 1925 to the effect that the duties and powers are to be exercised by the minister in the department to which the transfer of duties is made.
The 1925 statute simply states that when the powers conferred by the statutes of 1918 are exercised all the duties which were under the deputy minister or officers of the first department shall be exercised by the deputy minister and the officers of the second department. It is under those two statutes that in 1927 the Eskimo branch was transferred from the Department of Indian Affairs to the Department of the Interior. It was perfectly legal to do so, but I believe my hon. friend says it comes in conflict with the revised statutes of Canada. The Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) now hands me chapter 165 of the revised statutes of Canada, which reenact the statutes of 1918 and 1925.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Ernest Lapointe: At any time, whether before or after the proclamation putting into force the revised statutes of 1927, the gover-

Indian Act Amendment
nor in council has the authority to transfer one branch of a department to another department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Ernest Lapointe: And this has	been	done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not see	the	occasion
for the discussion on section 1 of this bill, which merely enacts the law as it stands at the present time. The effect of section 1 is merely to make this law coincide with the existing situation; this is an anomaly which is being repealed by section 1 of the present act. It is a condition which no longer exists.


Hugh Guthrie: Has the minister before him the statutes of 1924? This particular clause we are dealing with was not passed in 1925, but in 1924.


Ernest Lapointe: I think it was 1925.


Hugh Guthrie: Subsection 2 of section 4 of the Indian Act provides:
The Superintendent General of Indian Affairs shall take charge of Eskimo affairs.
That is the same as chapter 47, section 1, revised statutes of Ganada, 1924.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: It is 1924, and not 1925.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is talking about another statute. This was changed by the governor in council in 1927, acting in accordance with or under the authority of the statutes of 1925. It can be done at any time and in any department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry the minister
does not appreciate the point we are making. We fully agree with everything he has said, but he does not touch the point. The Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) sees it, however. The point is that the transfer of administration from one department to another is accomplished under the provisions of the statutes of 1918 and 1925, the substance of which we find in chapter 161 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927. Chapter 98, however, of the revised statutes of Canada deals with the Indians of the country; it is the Indian Act. Under the provisions of subsection 2, section 4, of that statute, it is positively enacted that the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs shall have charge of matters pertaining to Eskimos. That cannot be repealed, except by this parliament. The transfer of the administration to the Northwest Territories branch does not relieve the minister of his responsibility; on the contrary, he still has that responsibility. What we are endeavouring to 2419-70J
ascertain is why he is desirous of divesting himself of the authority which parliament placed upon him in 1924. That is the whole story. There is no variance between the Minister of Justice and ourselves.


Ernest Lapointe: That is the result the
Minister of the Interior wishes to effect by the present section of the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why?


Ernest Lapointe: To make it coincide with the present situation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. Let me illustrate it in this way. The Minister of Justice has under his control both the penitentiaries and the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. If he desired he could, by section 161 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, transfer the administration of the northwest mounted police to the Prime Minister, as was done, in fact, on one occasion. It is not competent, however, by order in council, to repeal this subsection of section 4 which affirmatively places the responsibility for the Eskimos in the hands of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. For what reason is this being done? It does not touch the administration, but it touches ministerial responsibilities, and as to who shall be the responsible minister in this house for the Eskimos. That subsection states that the Minister of the Interior or the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs is the responsible minister. Why must there be no responsible minister?


Ernest Lapointe: There is one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who is to be the responsible minister?


Ernest Lapointe: The Minister of the
Interior.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But he only gets it
under the section we are going to repeal. The transfer by the order in council for administration does not in any sense repeal the substantive section which places responsibility upon the minister.


Ernest Lapointe: He is repealing it now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who will be in charge of it?


Ernest Lapointe: He is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am speaking about
ministerial responsibility in this house. It says that the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs is responsible for the affairs of the Eskimos, and that he is the only minister in this house who is responsible. Until some other minister is made responsible, he must be.
Indian Act Amendment

Why change it and thereby shift the responsibility, if all this is going to increase responsibility? That section was put in in 1924 to deal with a situation abqut which the minister must have knowledge. The Minister of the Interior knows that the condition of the Eskimos was very acute, there was starvation among them, and he must recall that situation. Some of the missionaries brought it to the attention of the minister. I, myself, recall going to the minister and calling it to his attention. That being the position, what minister is going to be responsible when this section is repealed?


Charles A. Stewart: The administration of the Northwest Territories is under the control of the Minister of the Interior, who at the moment happens to be also the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statute says he shall be until someone else is appointed.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend now is arguing that since in 1927 the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs was mentioned as the responsible minister, and that since now we are giving official control to the North West Territories branch the Minister of the Interior should be specifically mentioned, I have no objection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister has grasped the point. Under our system of government there must be ministerial responsibility somewhere.


Ernest Lapointe: Then all my hon. friend desires is that in addition to this repeal there should be a section stating that the control is under the Minister of the Inerior?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe that should be done.


Ernest Lapointe: I think there would be no objection to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister sees the
point because, as the Solicitor General pointed out, the revised statutes did not come into force until February of 1928. That section now stands as the law, and of course the question of administration is very different from that of ministerial responsibility.
Now let us deal with the vital question involved, assuming that you repeal the statute. The Eskimos are nomads; they have no established communities in the sense in which the Indians were established when this country was discovered. Rightly or wrongly we think we have a better system than other countries have, because we have recognized the right of the aboriginal red man and his title, in
[Mr Bennett.]
part, to property in this country. When we made a treaty with the Indians we recognized them as distinct tribes; we enacted that they should have property rights in certain areas, and even yet we cannot part with those property rights without their consent, as the minister knows. For instance, if it is desirable for any purpose to secure 1,000 acres of land from a band of Indians, it requires a very great deal of effort and labour to bring about that result; they must be convened together in a certain way and they must have interpreters clearly to place before them what it is proposed to do.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend must remember that the act does give the superintendent general power in certain cases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is so; there are provisions which vest an arbitrary power in the superintendent general, to a certain extent, but the whole theory of the act is that, as far as possible, the Indians should be treated as proprietors of their reserves.
Now we come to the Eskimos. They have no treaties with us; they have no established reserves, as the minister knows, and I think a few moments ago he used two words which describe the situation very well. He said they were nomadic tribes. How can we, having assumed it, divest ourselves of responsibility by endeavouring to treat them as settled persons in certain communities? At the moment the responsibility for providing the Eskimos with a living rests with us, and the minister recalls that at very great expense he sent an expedition to that northern country to provide them with food and medicine, if I remember correctly, when they were not really able to make a living for themselves. I think I can safely say that they are an uncivilized class of people; they hardly live in tribes and they have not developed any form of settled life.


Charles A. Stewart: They may be broken up a very great deal; one can scarcely say they are in tribes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was coming to that. When we speak of them as a tribe we must remember that they have no settled communities in which they live, and I am told by those who have visited that country that during their summer they have no settled residences at all. They have no settlements, in the meaning of the term as it was used by the early pioneers with respect to the Indians. These people are not civilized as we use the word civilization. Whether or not the Indians are civilized is not the question. These

Indian Act Amendment
Eskimos are wards of this nation, and being wards the question of who assumes trusteeship for them becomes important.
At present the trustee is the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. That superintendent now proposes to divest himself of responsibility, saying that because the administration is vested with the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories it is going to be left with him, but that does not get away from the essential fact that the wardship continues. These people are wards of this nation, and when the other day I heard a discussion with regard to the Eskimo having a vote I knew that if my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior were not in this house, and if politics and such matters were forgotten, he would regard it as one of the hugest jokes he ever heard. These wards of the nation are scattered far and wide, over mount and stream and sea. They are here to-day and far away to-morrow, and I am sure the Minister of Justice must realize that such wards of the nation are not people who should be entrusted with the franchise, because they are not a part of our civilized country.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely this question
should be discussed in connection with the Dominion Elections Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No doubt that is correct, but at the same time it arises here, because we are divesting ourselves of a wardship and we are not naming the responsible minister who will communicate to this house the conduct of his wardship. It is quite clear that the order in council transferring the administration of this matter to the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories covers the matter of administration, but it does not get away from the essential question of the responsibility for the wardship of these people.


Charles A. Stewart: I quite agree with my hon. friend. I do not care to discuss the question of the enfranchisement of the Eskimo; to be very frank, it never occurred to me that such a question would arise. There is no doubt that if distress arises among these people, to that extent they are wards of the Canadian government, and if we allowed famine or pestilence to run riot among them we would be called to account. They are not Indians as we know Indians, with chiefs and councils and all the paraphernalia which has been set up by the Indians for the management of their affairs. These people congregate in small family groups; no doubt they have leaders, but apparently in discussing matters of importance with our officials they all speak, each for himself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have no chiefs.


Charles A. Stewart: Not that I am aware of, as the Indians have, through whom they speak and do their business with the officials of the government. That is one reason for the difficulty in applying the Indian Act to the Eskimos. It is merely a matter of administration; we are seeking to take care of these people in times of distress, which fortunately are very infrequent, since they appear to be able to look after themselves fairly well. However, in the summer season, or even any other season of the year, they are liable to travel two or three hundred miles and locate themselves in another place; they have no particular habitations which they call their camping grounds or reserves.


Hugh Guthrie: Did I understand the minister to say that the Danish government had made some claim that these people were citizens of Denmark?


Charles A. Stewart: No; they have made some claim to territory there. Many years ago a Danish explorer conducted an expedition among the islands south of Melville island and explored some territory there. Some claim has been made to that territory. It is not a very serious matter, and we are attempting to adjust it.


Hugh Guthrie: You mean it was a claim for territory?
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton)): Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: Not with regard to the citizenship of the people?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall section 1 carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think another section should be substituted for this.


Charles A. Stewart: If that is necessary to meet the wishes of my hon. friend it will need to be done in an amendment to the Northwest Territories Act. This is merely designed to take it out of the Indian Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There must be some responsibility somewhere.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will
allow me, chapter 103, which deals with the Department of the Interior, states in section 4 that the Minister of the Interior shall have the control and management of the affairs of the Northwest Territories and of the Yukon territory. I think that is wide enough to cover it.
Indian Act Amendment


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is because I doubt whether or not that is wide enough that I brought up this matter, and I understand it was for that reason that the section was put in its present form in 1924. In that year subsection 2 of section 4 was added to meet some doubts which arose over the very point the minister has just brought up.


George Black: What is the object of the change; why transfer the control of the Eskimos from the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs to the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories. The Commissioner of the Northwest Territories is the Deputy Minister of the Department of the Interior; both the deputy minister and the minister have their offices in Ottawa, and it seems to me that the Department of Indian Affairs is the proper branch to have control of the Eskimos.


Charles A. Stewart: The Eskimo question covers a much wider territory than is covered by the Indian question. The Eskimos are all along Coronation gulf and are over in Baffin land, in which country there are no Indians; the Eskimos are found also away to the north on Melville island. This embraces a completely northern territory, in which we have the officers of the Northwest Territories council and of the mounted police, and up to the present time we have found it much more convenient and advantageous to handle the matter in this way. The officers of the Northwest Territories branch and of the mounted police at present are looking after the Eskimos. The officers of the Indian department, while they go down the Mackenzie river, only come in contact with the Eskimos who come to Aklavik on the most westerly side of Coronation gulf. At the present moment all the administration given to the Eskimos is given by the officers of the Northwest Territories and by the mounted police who work very closely together.


George Black: Are any schools
being conducted for the education of the Eskimos?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


George Black: For instance, in
the duties of the franchise?


Charles A. Stewart: I think my hon. friend is unduly alarmed about this franchise business. That is a matter which can be discussed thoroughly when the bill is introduced to add this territory to the Yukon.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Did I understand the
minister to say that schools similar to the Indian schools will be inaugurated for the Eskimos.


Charles A. Stewart: The Anglican church has been working among the Eskimos for many years.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: That is a private work.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. The
hon. member will understand that this is a very difficult problem with the tribes moving about as they do, but we have given some thought to the establishment of permanent schools such as we have now for Indian education.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: With regard to the Indian schools; what class of teacher is provided, and is any religious instruction given?


Charles A. Stewart: Undoubtedly there is religious instruction given in the schools. About 51 per cent of the work carried on by the boarding schools is in the hands of the Oblate order, and the sisters of that order do the teaching. Anglican schools are conducted in the same manner, except that the men and women are hired by the church. The Presbyterian, and formerly the Methodist schools were carried on in the same way, and naturally there is religious instruction given. The curriculum is governed by the provincial laws.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Do I understand that
public funds are being expended for religious instruction?


Charles A. Stewart: No, I would not say that public funds are being voted for that purpose. The grants are made on the understanding that the schools will be conducted according to the provincial laws, but it would be absolutely wrong to say that no religious instruction is given.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Public grants are made
for that purpose.


Charles A. Stewart: They receive the grants for the purpose of educating the children, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the Solicitor
General (Mr. Cannon) has put his finger upon the only contention which we are making at the moment in connection with this matter. He has stated that the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories is not a minister responsible to this house nor to the country, he is a deputy minister who is a paid official of the crown. A minister has responsibility to one or either of the houses of parliament, and inasmuch as in 1924 it was thought desirable that a responsible minister should be charged with the obligation of administering the affairs of the Eskimos, it would seem to

Indian Act Amendment
mo that some designation would be desirable, which would continue the sense of ministerial responsibility.


Lucien Cannon: Previously the Indian Act stated who was responsible for the Eskimos, but we have now an order in council instead of an act of parliament, and my hon. friend has doubts as to whether or not the act covering the Department of the Interior is wide enough.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was thought it was not in 1924, and it was thought desirable to make it clear that a minister in either house of parliament should be the person responsible for the administration, or shall I say the minister in charge rather than the administrator, because there is a clear distinction between administration and ministerial responsibility.


Charles A. Stewart: It is my intention to ask for an amendment to the Northwest Territories Act. All we are asking here is merely the repealing of what we did in 1927 in regard to the Indian Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This would be the act in which it would appear because they are wards of the nation. After all, the Indian Act is merely a code for dealing with the wards of the nation. They are called Indians in one instance, and Eskimos in another, both aborigines of this country. They are both wards of the nation and they are both covered by the Indian Act, which is a code only to deal with the conduct of the business of the wards of the nation as between the wards and the state. That is the reason I am drawing this point to the attention of the minister.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon.
friend's convention were right, all that would be necessary to be done would be to add to the subsection that the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, be repealed and that the control be placed under the Minister of the Interior.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except that it is not usual to deal with a statute in that way.


Charles A. Stewart: I confess
that my hon. friend has confused me. I would consider that the Northwest Territories Act would have to be amended. If my hon. friend would allow this section to stand, we will look into it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I desired to make it clear to my hon. friend, as it is a legal matter. Subsection 2 says:
The Superintendent General of Indian Affairs shall have charge of Eskimo affairs.
Instead of a minister we have now an officer, and if it is desired to follow the principle of ministerial responsibility, then there should be a substitution.
Section stands.
On section 2-Annuities and interest applied to maintenance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a very drastic
change.


Charles A. Stewart: It merely
gives us the right to transfer the moneys set aside. The present subsection reads:
The superintendent general may apply the whole or any part of the annuities and interest moneys of Indian children attending an industrial or boarding school to the maintenance of such school or to the maintenance of the children themselves.
It is merely widening the powers. The annuities and interest moneys of Indian children attending industrial or boarding schools are not required for and not applied to the maintenance of such schools, and the provision for such application is eliminated in the amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the minister
realizes the seriousness of the situation. In four or five lines he changes a whole principle in connection with the appropriation of public money. Under the section as it existed before, a school was to be maintained and public funds went to maintain the school. This will enable the department to farm them out, a most pernicious practice.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is wrong.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To pay somebody for
them.


Charles A. Stewart: May I explain the difficulty? In the last five years, finding that those boarding schools particularly were in great difficulties financially, we have taken over the schools and their equipment in their entirety and the government have become responsible for them. There is no further charge upon the pupils, the Indians or anyone else for the maintenance of those schools. The teaching of course is still undertaken by the churches, and per capita grants made to assist in the tuition. All we are trying to do is to make applicable to the teaching the annuities that formerly were applied to the maintenance of those schools, sometimes to the construction of them, of course always, I will admit, largely under the control of the tribes themselves. [DOT]


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Are the Indians consulted as to the religion they want their children to be taught?


Charles A. Stewart: The Indians are always consulted. Seldom if ever do we take a child from an Indian family, unless the family are leading a vicious life, and place it in a school in opposition to their wishes.
Indian Act Amendment


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Are they consulted as to the kind of religion they want their children taught ?


Charles A. Stewart: Always.


Mr. NEILL:: I should like to ask whether a situation like this would not obtain: if some piece of Indian territory or reserve is needed for a public purpose such as a railway, the consent of the band has to be obtained. They are paid so much of the sum, I think it is 50 per cent, in cash and the balance is put into their fund. There is always great difficulty in getting the Indians to sign because they say-"What is the use of our signing? We get only 50 per cent and the other 50 per cent you take and keep. You use it for relief; now you are using it for schools." The government is going to make it more difficult to get Indians to agree to this sort of thing. The interest on the money has been used to pay for relief and the department pays for relief in any case. The next time the Indians are asked to give up land, they will say: "What is the use? They are going to take half of our money and use it for themselves." That is the way the Indian will look at the matter and I must say there is a good deal of truth in it.


Mr. SMOKE:: This section and a number of subsequent sections seem to have general application to all Indians throughout the Dominion of Canada. In my constituency and in that of my hon. friend from Haldi-mand (Mr. Senn) there is what is ordinarily called an Indian reserve. It is not really an Indian reserve such as those existing in other parts of the country because the land upon which these Indians live was ceded to them by King George III in the latter part of the eighteenth century. These Indians were not native Canadian Indians; they were New York Indians or Indians from the other side of the line who took the part of the British crown in the revolutionary war and when Britain lost that war they were granted by Governor Haldimand of Canada the right to come over here, take six miles wide on either side of the Grand river from mouth to source and occupy it in the same way as they occupied lands over in New York state. That was a treaty. From that day to this they have had a certain measure of self-government recognized by every authority. It is true that their measure of self-government has been encroached upon from time to time by the Dominion parliament and that there has been considerable dissatisfaction amongst these Indians on that account. The Indians of the Six Nations are as civilized as the 
white men around them. They follow our way of life. They have some peculiar customs of their own, traditional customs, to which they are greatly attached. They do not like their rights to be encroached upon. I would ask the Minister of the Interior whether the Six Nations Indian council, which has charge of the administration of affairs of that band, have been consulted with regard to this legislation, and whether their approval has been obtained.


Charles A. Stewart: They have
not, because I do not see any reason for consulting the Six Nations Indians or any other band of Indians unless the legislation is going to interfere with their administration. The question of education is not one in regard to which we have been consulting the Indians. We have been endeavouring to have the Indian Act amended so as to give the Indian child the same class of education that he would receive were he attending a public school in the province in which he is located. Moreover, the government of Canada are providing all the money; they are building the schools; they are maintaining them; they are giving grants for the teaching and so far as I know, outside of the annuities that are paid under treaty, rvhich annuities are used for educational purposes, the Indians are given all those privileges wffiich, if I may say so frankly, their white brothers do not enjoy without paying for. I am of course not making any complaint in that regard. The Six Nations Indians are not treated differently from any other band.


Franklin Smoke: I maintain that they should be treated differently because they are in a different class. The Indians elsewhere in the country formerly inhabited the whole country and as time went on reserves were set aside for them. This was not a reserve set aside for Indians; this was a parcel of land ceded to them and their method of government was conceded to them. They are in an entirely different position from that of other Indians in Canada; they are in a class by themselves.
I wish the Minister of the Interior and indeed, every hon. member, would make a study of the history of the Six Nations Indians. It is very little known. They have in this country, as they believe and as I believe, rights which are not recognized, and when legislation is introduced affecting the rights of the Six Nations Indians, they should be consulted because they have a council which has control of the administration of their own affairs. I think the consideration of this bill ought to be

Indian Act Amendment
deferred until it lias been submitted to them and approved at least by the members of the council.


Charles A. Stewart: If that
method were adopted we would have a very difficult time passing any legislation for the control and benefit of Indians. The Six Nations Indians are consulted on all matters that affect them personally, just as is the case with every other band. They are getting the same class of education, the same assistance from the government. I am not going to enter into an argument this afternoon with mjr hon. friend about the status of the Six Nations Indians although I do not agree with him at all. I simply say that they get exactly the same treatment under the Indian Act as any other Indian band in Canada receives. If my hon. friend contends that the Six Nations Indians have a right to be consulted about any amendment to the act and none of the other tribes has that right, I cannot agree with him. I want to say frankly to my hon. friend that these few amendments are all in the interests of the Indian and Indian education, and for the betterment of the social welfare of the Indians, and if they have to be delayed until all the Indian tribes and their councils are consulted, there will never be any legislation pass this house.


Franklin Smoke: The minister does not get my point at all. It is only the Six Nations Indians that occupy that peculiar position. All the other Indians in the country were natives of this country as far back as we can go, but that is not the case with the Six Nations Indians. They came here under a treaty, and I do think that, as they have a council which deals with the administration of their own affairs, they ought to be consulted with regard to any legislation proposed by this parliament.


George Black: Under the section as it stands the Superintendent General can apply the whole or any part of the interest moneys of Indian children attending an industrial or boarding school to the maintenance of such school or to the maintenance of the children themselves. That is, it is optional with the superintendent general to apply the money to the maintenance either of the school or of the children. By the proposed amendment the minister is reducing his own powers; he is preventing himself from devoting that money to the maintenance of the school. Cases might arise where it would be desirable to devote part of the money to the maintenance of the school. What is the specific object in curtailing the minister's power in that respect?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think that there is really very much need for the amendment, but the reason for it is that we no longer require these moneys for the maintenance of the schools because we have undertaken their construction and maintenance as government institutions for the religious organizations that are carrying on the teaching. That is not true with respect to the day schools, but a great number of them have been constructed by the government. The boarding schools, however, where the pupils are brought and kept for a period each year under the control of the principal of the school, are all now constructed and maintained by the government.


George Black: Is the government running the boarding schools?


Charles A. Stewart: We construct and maintain them.


George Black: And the day
schools?


Charles A. Stewart: We furnish them, but are not responsible for their whole maintenance.


George Black: Is the government actually conducting these boarding schools?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, in the sense that we build and equip the schools, but the churches then take control of them, and we give them a per capita grant for each child. Formerly the churches built the schools and were doing practically all the work.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is that per capita grant sufficient to pay all the teachers' salaries?


Charles A. Stewart: I doubt if it would be. It is a pretty expensive proposition carrying on a school in these northern territories. I could not answer that question definitely.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Do the churches contribute something?


Charles A. Stewart: The churches have been contributing very generously for Indian work.


Air. COOTE:: Is it not a fact that the main purpose of that per capita grant is to provide for the maintenance of the child, for its food and clothing?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: So far as I am concerned I think that this particular amendment is quite in order. In my opinion the old act gave the minister more power than he should have had in fairness to the Indian.
Indian Act Amendment


Alan Webster Neill: I quite agree with the last speaker. I would go a little further and take this section out altogether. Why should the minister have power to take somebody else's money

for that is what it really comes to- and apply it against the Indian's will to some object which the government believes for the good of the child? We made a deal with the Indians. I am speaking more particularly of British Columbia, where I was agent for ten years, and I am familiar with the workings of the Indian mind. We agreed to educate them, to take care of their sick and destitue, and to give them a certain amount of medical relief. That was the understood bargain. Then we gave them a life interest in certain reserves. It is a little doubtful what their ultimate destination is, but the reserves may be used by the Indians as long as they like. On occasion the Indian has to sign away a piece of his territory, and what does he get in return? A sum of money, say $5,000. It is often necessary to get the Indian's consent, and now that he is becoming educated it is becoming more and more difficult to get him to sign away his land. Of that $5,000, $2,500 in cash goes to the members of the band, and the other $2,500 is put into a fund which accumulates and draws interest, I think, at 3 per cent. Then this is what I object to. From time to time there are relief bills incurred by the Indian agent, and the Indian department takes that accumulated interest fund and uses it for paying those relief bills. If the Indians had not given their consent to their property being taken those relief bills would have been paid just the same and to the same extent. The Indian begins to find out these things and says: WTiat is the use of signing away our land, because we get only half of what we sell it for anyway, and the rest goes into a fund out of which bills are paid that would have been paid by the government in any case. I had understood that this money was applied only to relief. It is applied now, I find, to maintaining the children. We made a bargain with the Indians, and we should live up to it, and not take this circuitous means of taking away a piece of his land. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get the Indians to sign. I could give the names and dates of cases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why change it at all? As the act now stands you can use the money ior rebuilding the school or maintaining the children.


Charles A. Stewart: I could have saved myself a good deal of discussion if I had left the clause alone. The only reason for this amendment is that the officials of the 
department desired to have it in view of the fact that we are now assuming full responsibility for the building and equipping of the schools.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But you do not operate the school. You hand it over to somebody else, and since you do that, why deprive yourself of the discretion you now have in case you want to operate the school yourself? That is what I cannot understand.


Charles A. Stewart: Indian education is fairly well defined. It is given over to the churches which have been carrying on this work for generations. Our assistance is now to a large extent a matter of providing buildings and equipment, together with a per capita grant for each child, which goes equally to all the Christian churches engaged in this work. May I say in reply to my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni that it took no small sum of money to build and equip all these schools, and it is going to cost a lot of money in the future. If a child who is attending this school is in receipt of an annuity, and is provided with an education and clothing and transportation to and from home, surely it is not too much to ask that you have the authority to apply towards that service such portion of the annuity as that child wrould have in any case. My hon. friend (Mr. Neill) has in mind another matter, not education. He has in mind the disposition of interest on money derived from the sale of Indian lands-sales made sometimes against the advice, if I may put it that way, of the Indian council themselves.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: Of course
the Indian council never want to spend money on any object that might bring them some benefit unless they are going to see the benefit come directly to themselves. My hon. friend makes the statement that Indian debts could be paid under this section.


Alan Webster Neill: No, not Indian debts; Indian department debts. You come along and take away the moneys they have accumulated in lieu of their land; that is just what you are taking. If you had confined the amendment to annuities I would not have had the same ground for complaint; but it says "annuities and interest moneys." "Interest moneys" would cover the case of a band that has two or three thousand dollars, on which interest has accumulated: you use the interest to pay relief bills which you are obligated under the law to pay in any case. It applies equally to schooling; the argument is the same.

Indian Act Amendment


Charles A. Stewart: Surely my
hon. friend will admit that if we have to incur expenditure for the relief of Indians- and, as my hon. friend knows, we cannot take the funds of another band and apply them to relieve the band in distress-this is reasonable. We are dealing only with the money standing to the credit of the band which for the time being is in need of relief. I think we are entitled to take that money to assist the band.


Alan Webster Neill: No. That is exactly the
point that I do not think I have been able to get the minister to see. Now we have arrived at the point of divergence. He says it is quite right to take the funds of the band to pay for their relief. On the face of it it seems so. But this money is something which has been exchanged in lieu of their land. As one Indian said to me, "It is all the same as if you took a piece of our land, because you are going to pay the relief whether we have a fund or not." You have obligated yourselves to do that. You get in exchange for the Indians' land a sum of money, and you propose to pay your Indian department obligations out of that money. At once the Indians will say, "Well, we have been tricked. We signed for the transfer, but we will never sign for another."


George Gibson Coote: What is the source of these
annuities? This information might help to clear up the point.


Charles A. Stewart: Strictly
speaking annuities are moneys we have agreed to pay per capita annually for all time to the Indians in exchange for ceding their right to a very large territory. That is the source of annuities in one sense of the word. But my hon. friend is quite right here-there is an addition of the words "interest moneys." Of course those annuities are on a per capita basis, all the members of the band are participants. They are left with their reserve plus their annuities. That is, a certain territory is set aside upon which the Indians are located, and this territory is known as the reserve of that particular band. They have given up their right to all the surrounding territory for the annuities and this particular reserve. Now, the interest that my hon. friend speaks about is the result of further sales of their reserve.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes.
M.r. STEWART (Edmonton): The interest accrues on the capital amount received from the sale of a (particular portion of the reserve. Hence my hon. friend argues that if the Indians of that band find themseiives in distress,
the interest fund should not be used by the
government to alleviate their distress; rather the government should find money from the revenues of the crown for that purpose and 'leave tihe interest fund intact. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot agree with him in that respect.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Will this section
apply to the Six Nations Indians?


Charles A. Stewart: We have applied thie Indian Aic-t in its entirety to the Six Nations Indians.


Arthur Edward Ross: Then I agree with the member for Brant (Mr. Smoke) that the 'Six Nations Indians should be given special consideration.


Charles A. Stewart: Would my hon. friend suggest taking them out from the jurisdiction of the Indian Act- altogether and allowing them to be Canadian citizens in the fuill sense of the word?


Arthur Edward Ross: The minister pointed out that Indian legislation covers every Indian in Canada. I would point out that the Six Nations Indians have a different status altogether from other Indian tribes. I agree witlh the merhber for Brant that the legislation should refer to specific bands, not to every Indian with whom you make a treaty.


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
agree with my hon. friend.


Arthur Edward Ross: That is all right, we have different views.


George Gibson Coote: Is an annuity what is commonly called treaty money?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: Then I agree with my hon. friend from Coimox-AAberni (Mr. Neill), I do not think treaty money should foe used for education. That is one of the treaty obligations of the government.


Charles A. Stewart: That is quite true of recent treaties, but there are considerable differences in the treaties made with the various Indian tribes with respect to what may or may not be done.


George Gibson Coote: I understand the educational provisions of the Indian Act are compulsory.


Alan Webster Neill: Hear, hear.


George Gibson Coote: They were put in the act not because of any treaty obligations. We are obligated to pay them treaty money or annuities, and it does seem to me that this
nos
Indian Act Amendment

proposed legislation might very well be considered by the Indian as a violation of his treaty, if we deliberately take his treaty money or annuity to pay for the care of his children in school.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Alan Webster Neill: On division.
On section 3-Children from seven to sixteen to attend school.


Charles A. Stewart: This, xMr. Chairman, is merely extending the School age one year.


George Gibson Coote: Two years ago I was interviewed by a number of chiefs of the Blood Indian reserve. They complained that the children were taken from them at too young an age. They think the children should be left with them for' another two years. As I understand iit, at the age of seven years they are placed in these boar-ding schools, and can return to their parents only once a year unless the consent of the principal of the school is given to their going home oftener. A child taken from home at the early age of seven years and kept at boarding school .until sixteen might scarcely know his parents when he returned home. That is the view of the Indians. It seems to me there is a good deal of reason in their contention. I bring it to the attention of the minister now that this section is being changed. I notice the new section provides:
that where it has been made to appear to the satisfaction of the superintendent general that it would be detrimental to any particular Indian child to have it discharged from school on attaining the full age of sixteen years, the superintendent general may direct that such child be detained at school for such further period as may seem to be advisable, but not beyond the full age of eighteen years, and in such ease the provisions of this section with respect to truancy shall apply to such child and its parents, guardians or persons with whom such child resides during such further period of school attendance.
The explanation of that is given on the next page. I must agree that the purpose of this amendment seems to indicate a step in the right direction, namely the safeguarding of those Indian children who have been in boarding schools until they have reached the age of sixteen. At the expiration of their school term there is no proper home to which they may go. I think, in general, this criticism might be levelled at our educational policy. Having kept them in our schools and separated them from their parents from the ages of seven to sixteen, we turn them loose from school and send them back to the 
Indian reserves. As I see the system, viewing it from the outside, we attempt to civilize the Indian child, and to make a white boy of an Indian boy. When he has. reached the age of sixteen we send him back to the Indian reserve, with no provision for him and very little possibility that he will continue to live in the atmosphere in which he has been brought up in the school. I think our effort is largely thrown away.
I was impressed with an article which appeared in the August, 1929, issue of the Literary Digest. It refers to the American Indian, but to some extent I think it would apply to the Indians of Canada and their relation to our educational policy. I shall read one or two sentences from this article:
Reversion to the blanket and a primitive way of living is said to be the tragic lot of the educated young Indian. It has been the policy of the government, we are told, to send the young Indian back to the reservation on the theory that he would leaven the whole lump; but experience shows, instead, that the returned student is forced by custom and example to drop all that he has learned, and to shed his civilization with his white man's clothes.
It would be unfair to say that that applies entirely, in our own country; but, very often it does apply. There are instances given which appear in the explanatory notes on the opposite page of this amendment to the Indian Act. The note to which I have reference says:
As an instance, an Indian whose wife was dead and who was eking out an existence begging in the streets of a city demanded the release of his daughter from a residential school at the expiration of school age, which was refused.
In my opinion, the refusal was quite proper. Under the amendment the principal of the school may keep the child two years longer, but if the father is still desirous of taking her away when she reaches the age of eighteen, she is not in a much better position. True, she is older, but what future is there for that young child upon which we have spent so much money? We have given her religious and scholastic education; yve have protected and sheltered her from the effects of her Indian environment from the time she was seven until she reached the age of eighteen. When she is turned loose from the industrial or boarding school, however, what will become of her; what is becoming of the Indian boys and girls we are turning out to-day?
I think our educational system is falling down in that it does not provide some means whereby these children upon whom we have spent so much money can go on living in what we term a civilized way, rather than

Indian Act Amendment
returning to the Indian way. From this statement I do not wish to leave the impression that I begrudge one cent of the money spent to educate the Indian children. We have kept them in the schools from the time they were seven years old, during which time they have been taught subjects that would not enable them to earn their own living in the way an Indian is supposed to live. They are not fitted for the life of an Indian by the training they receive in our school; we have trained them in a direction other than that. Yet in the great majority of cases when they leave our schools at the age of fifteen of sixteen they go right back to the reserves; there does not seem to be anything else for them to do. The result is, as this writer whose words I have read to you has said, that in a few days the blanket of civilization with which we have clothed them through all these years is stripped from them. In some cases they go back and live in wigwams, and while we may have taught them the use of the toothbrush and the bathtub, such articles of toilet are not available after they leave school. One might imagine that the young Indian would have to withstand ridicule from his Indian friends if he persisted in the use of the toothbrush upon his return to the wigwam. I know the minister is interested, and I want to have the interest of the whole house in the problem of dealing with the Indians from the time they leave the industrial school. I think a start should be made by establishing an employment agency in the industrial school, so that before the children are allowed to leave, the authorities might endeavour to find the proper places in which to put the young Indian boys and girls. During the time such employment was sought, these children could remain in the schools. It is a difficult problem, but one which in fairness to the Indians and to ourselves we should endeavour to solve. We should see that these children are given a chance to live in the way we have taught them during their term in the industrial schools. If such is not done, I think we will be doing an injury to the Indians.


Franklin Smoke: There are some points in
the remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat to which I must take exception. He has outlined conditions very different from those which exist in the Six Nations reserve at Brantford. Much of what he has said in connection with Indians with whom he is familiar do not apply to the tribe to which I have reference. Many of the Six Nations Indians are good farmers. I do not object to the schooling or education they receive, nor do I think that the education they
get on the reserve will spoil them when it is necessary for them to go back to help on their fathers' farms. They are real farmers in the counties of Brant and Haldimand; they are not nomadic tribes. I just want to dissociate myself and the Six Nations Indians from the class referred to by the last speaker.


Charles A. Stewart: I think the Six Nations Indians might be taken as a pretty fair criterion of what can be accomplished with all our plains Indians. One must remember that in the northwest and in the prairie provinces it is only a few years since all the Indians were hunting for a livelihood, and it is rather a difficult thing to change their mode of living almost over night. However, having visited the Six Nations Indians on a number of occasions I came to the conclusion that the Indians could be taught to be good agriculturists. You can scarcely tell when you are on or off that reserve, so far as farming methods are concerned; the Indian is almost as good as the white man there. On the File Hills reservation in Saskatchewan and on the Blood Indian reserve in Alberta we have been trying the experiment of providing some assistance for those young people who will take up agriculture, in order to permit them to construct houses, get married and take up farming operations on the reserve, and I think this is working out fairly satisfactory.
However, I must say frankly that when you get off the plains and into the wooded areas all over Canada, it is most difficult to know what to do with these young boys and girls. The churches do frequently take them and endeavour to give them secondary education. Many of them are very bright and intelligent; some of them take technical training and do well, but I must admit that we cannot find occupations of that character for very many pupils from the wooded areas. Naturally they are somewhat handicapped as young men and women going in among their white brothers and sisters in the ordinary vocations which are open to them. I have been giving that matter very serious thought in the hope that we might establish some scheme that would take care of these boys and girls when they leave the schools, give them training that would enable them to continue to follow the good influences to which they were subjected at the schools, and eventually-although one hardly dare say this -become enfranchised citizens in the real sense of the word and take upon themselves the full responsibilities of citizenship. However, I am not able at the present time to
mo
Indian Act Amendment

offer any concrete solution of that problem; I can only say that we are giving it very serious consideration.


Mr. DUPUIS:: I should like to know
whether many of these Indians who have gone to school until the age of seventeen or eighteen have asked to be emancipated in order to enjoy the civil rights of the white people of this country?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, an
ever-increasing number of the Indians have been asking for enfranchisement.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Not at
that age.


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: That would be later in life?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: I thought
the hon. member referred to the time they left the schools.


Charles A. Stewart: They could not be enfranchised until they became of age.


Vincent Dupuis: What I was getting at was whether, through their education, the Indians were more desirous of enjoying the civil rights of the country.


Charles A. Stewart: I think I can answer that in one word; yes.


George Gibson Coote: Has the department ever
considered the possibility or advisability of picking out some of the more promising young Indians, which might be done on the recommendation of the teachers in the school, and giving them further education, perhaps in the technical schools? Would it not be possible to spend a little more money and send some of these young men to the technical schools in their own province, after which they might secure work on their own reserves or perhaps in adjacent towns?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, we
have been giving that matter consideration.


Alan Webster Neill: I think in justice to the department I should go on record as being of opinion that the department is doing a good and satisfactory work in teaching these children. Something was said about the boarding schools. For many years I saw the work of the day schools on the reserves, and I must say that the department has shown wisdom in practically abandoning those schools. They were utterly useless; the Indians moved 
around so much that by the time the teacher got a child at one fishing station and gave him a few lessons, the family moved away and the children learned practically nothing. They forgot what little they had been taught beiore the teachers got hold of them again for another few days. In the boarding schools, however, they are kept from the time they are about seven years of age until they are sixteen. They get home for a month or so in the summer time and they are not subject to any more restrictions than are imposed upon white children in other boarding schools.
The condition to which my hon. friend referred in quoting from the Literary Digest was true, perhaps, of what you might call the first generation of educated Indians. So far as we could judge, they went back to the dirty, filthy conditions under which their fathers and mothers lived, but there was some difference, and when you came to the children of those people you found a very marked difference. Now when these children leave the schools they go back to homes where the conditions approximate those which obtained in the schools. In the old days, when they got a little bit advanced they would buy some white man's furniture; they would put it in the front room, where there was a board floor, and then they would live in the woodshed where there was a dirt floor and under all conditions which had prevailed during the time of their ancestors. The second generation, however, has progressed beyond that stage; they have stoves, gramaphones, sewing machines and all the rest of it, and when these children go out into the world they are much more able to compete with white people. Their parents realize that. In the old days it was necessary to use compulsion in order to get these people to send their children to school, but now they are anxious to do so because they know the children must learn the white man's language in order to prosper.
It has been suggested that they should be given some advanced education along technical lines. Our industrial schools do give them that education; they are taught such trades as shoemaking and carpentering, and every industrial school must have at least one technical instructor. Beyond that I would not go. After all, our subject is to make these people good Indians, and if we accomplish that object we are doing all that is required. In the coast district of British Columbia these children take up the occupations of their parents; they carry on fishing or work in canneries, and they are much better equipped to do that, and receive higher wages and live under greatly improved conditions, in consequence of the education

Indian Act Amendment
they receive. I think the amendments suggested here are to the advantage of the Indians themselves.


George Gibson Coote: Could the minister tell us
just how long these Indians are kept in the boarding schools and what vacations they get each year?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot give my hon. friend the period of vacation, but we try to give them an annual holiday in order to permit them to visit their parents.


Alan Webster Neill: They get one month each
year, in addition to a short holiday at Christmas.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-removal of cattle.
John Anderson Fraser: What is the explanation of
section 4?


Charles A. Stewart: It simply
provides that in all cases the cattle either in charge of or owned by the individual will not be disposed of without the consent of the agent. Later on this is made a little more emphatic.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
On section 7-produce unlawfully possessed.
George Gibson Coote: I should like the minister to make an explanation, which would apply to all these sections, as to why these changes are being made.


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps I
might take section 42 as an example. The old section read:
If any such grain or root crops, or other produce as aforesaid, are unlawfully in the possession of any person within the intent and meaning of this part, or of any regulations made by the governor in council under this part, any person acting under the authority, either general or special, of the superintendent general, may, with such assistance in that behalf as he thinks necessary, seize and take possession of the same; and he shall deal therewith as the superintendent general, or any officer or person thereunto by him authorized, directs.
The repealed section provided that the superintendent general might order seizure of grain or root crops, or other produce unlawfully in the possession of any person; the amendment extends the provision to include the seizure of cattle or other animals. Our greatest difficulty is in the preventing of trafficking with the Indian where actual possession of his crop is obtained without the knowledge of the agent. In nine cases out of
*ten the Indian makes a very improvident deal. It is not our desire to be arbitrary but rather to protect the interests of the Indian himself. We have pretty wide powers in this respect, but once in a while a shrewd individual will make a deal with an Indian and will remove the material from the reserve. We want to be in a position to follow that up and get possession of the Indian's property.


George Gibson Coote: Has not the agent the power to prevent the sale of any goods raised on the reserve?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, but
there is some doubt of our control after those goods have been removed from the reserve.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-farms on Indian reserves.
Franklin Smoke: Does the minister contemplate applying this section to the Six Nations Indians, because they are farmers?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Franklin Smoke: 'Why make laws applying to them?


Charles A. Stewart: We have not been in the habit of eliminating the Six Nations Indians from the Indian Act. It might as well be said that it is not necessary to apply the educational clause to those Indians, and yet they want that clause applied. This section would allow us to establish farms, mostly in the western provinces. We have one farm at the present time which was organized during the period of the war when there was a need for greater production, and that farm has been kept in operation for the purposes of providing seed. Our difficulty has been that while the accounts are audited by the Auditor General we have to return into the general revenue whatever receipts may be obtained and then ask for a vote from supply for the purpose of carrying on. We are asking that the accounts continue to be audited by the Auditor General but that we be given permission to use the money for the operation of the farm. We accumulated a very considerable amount in reserve and we asked the permission of parliament to use some of it for the purpose of establishing these young people upon farms, but what we are asking now is simply that we be allowed to use this money as a revolving fund for the purpose of carrying on the farm.


John Anderson Fraser: How far does the minister expect this section will go? Will he be permitted to go upon any Indian reserve, iD
Indian Act Amendment

British Columbia for instance, and hire men to instruct the Indians who may be upon that particular reserve?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


John Anderson Fraser: The section would indicate a very wide power.	.


Charles A. Stewart: We ask only for the power to use the moneys derived from this farm, which will be operated by the agent and the farm instructor. This farm is located near Regina and no additional officers will be required for the operation.


John Anderson Fraser: It would look to me as though you could go upon any Indian reserve and hire any person to give instructions to the Indians.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend will understand that if we are to operate this farm we must hire Indians altogether to do the work. Those Indians expect to be paid every night and it would be very convenient to have this farm operated as is any other farm, that we be permitted to utilize the receipts in order to carry on the ordinary farm work. The accounts would continue to be audited by the Auditor General; I am not suggesting any departure in that connection.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-amusements on the Sabbath.
Franklin Smoke: The Six Nations Indians, as the term implies, are a group of tribes, some of the Indians being Christians and some pagans. These Indians are entitled to continue their customs, and they were given that privilege when they were brought to Canada by the British government in about the year 1780. I am not advocating a loose Sabbath or anything of that sort, but so far as the pagan Indians are concerned, they do not know what the Sabbath is, or at least they are not supposed to know. I am informed that in the township of Tuscarora, and in some of the adjoining townships, they have carried on sports on Sundays. I have not heard of any disturbance being created, and I would like to know if the government has received any complaints from the Indian council in that regard. I can quite understand the minister's anxiety to pass legislation of this kind, but these people are very sensitive and I do not think there should be any undue interference with what they consider to be their just rights and privileges.


Charles A. Stewart: We are
asking that we be given some control over

games conducted on the reserve, which games are quite frequently organized by other than the Indians themselves.


Franklin Smoke: Has the minister received
any complaints?


Charles A. Stewart: I have
received very strong complaints against the Six Nations Indians, although not lately.


Franklin Smoke: By the Indians themselves?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, by the Christian Indians who reside upon the reserve.


Franklin Smoke: That does not apply at all.


Charles A. Stewart: Collections
were made at the games, and liquor was distributed and the Indians became intoxicated. I do not think my hon. friend can deny that as I have the direct evidence of the police themselves.


Franklin Smoke: I am not denying it.


Charles A. Stewart: This legislation is not aimed at the Six Nations Indians. I am asking simply that we be given some control so that such conditions will not exist at these games. To be quite frank, I do not think there is any more harm in an Indian playing baseball on Sunday than there is in a white man playing golf, and if it is left to my discretion I would not say that I would stop these games. I am going to stop the bringing of liquor there.


Franklin Smoke: That is not referred to in the bill.


Charles A. Stewart: No, but
that is the purpose of hawing some control. We wish simply to have control of some of the vicious practices that grow up around those games, not with the desire to stop them.


Edward Joseph Garland: I entirely agree with the criticism of the hon. member for Brant. I think one of the great weaknesses of what we call our modern civilization is that we are in many oases attempting to thrust down the throats of many citizens of the country Christianity by law. You cannot do that; you cannot make people Christian by law, nor can you make them observe the Sabbath in accordance with the tenets of the Lord's Day Alliance.


Robert James Manion: Religion.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think my hon. friend corrects me properly.

Indian Act Amendment


Charles A. Stewart: I hope my hon. friend is not going to argue that the pagan religion is the only effective one for the Indians.


Edward Joseph Garland: While I agree that the minister will administer the act fairly, vrhat about those who have charge of the administration of it, those who are under him, those who are out there and who may be subject to the ultra moral influences of some religious organization? Frankly I have no objection to healthy young men and women playing innocent, good games on the Sabbath, if you like, after they have gone to church, if they are churchgoers; but I cannot for the life of me agree to a policy of restricting youth especially either to long walks or to complete silence within their homes. We might as well go back to Scotland in some of the worst days in its history if we are going to adopt a policy of that kind. I do not think it should be applied to the Indians especially when we who are so particularly moral in respect to observance of the Sabbath, as the minister has indicated, sometimes make a good deal of money and very often have a very hectic and unpleasant time playing golf on Sundays. I have known perfectly good Christian gentlemen, after church or sometimes without going to church, quite frequently to go out and puit up a substantial bet on every hole they played. It is all right for them to do that, but not for an Indian to play a game of baseball. As long as the minister is personally supervising the interpretation of the act I believe it is safe to leave it in his hands, but I do not think it is safe to leave i;t in the act, because we are quite certain the minister will not personally administer the act; it will be left in the hands of a local agent or supervisor.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 10 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
On section 15-certificate of analyst to be accepted as prima facie evidence.
George Gibson Coote: Would the minister kindly advise the committee just whait is the need of clauses 14 and 15? Have there been recent occurrences which make this necessary?


Charles A. Stewart: This is really to bring our act into conformity with the provincial act. Clause 15 is drafted from the Alberta act so as to bring this act into conformity with the provincial legislation. I am told that it is working ouit very satisfactorily. I confess it looks a little drastic to accept a certificate as to the contents of a bottle of liquor, for example, without bringing a man 2419-71
into court, but I understand this has been done for the purpose of better enforcement of the law and that no serious complaint has arisen with respect to it. Liquor is one of the things with which we have a great deal of trouble on an Indian reserve and we want to bring the law into conformity at least with the law of the province.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
On section 16-Indian wasting his time in a pool room.
George Gibson Coote: Would the minister give an explanation of this?


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend has visited Macleod he has got a full explanation. One of the difficulties we have in keeping the Indians farming in the communities where we are making some progress with them, is that they waste so much time loitering around the pool rooms in the towns, and if there is an agricultural fair within a hundred miles we have a most difficult time in keeping them at work on the reserve. It is true we have been guilty to some extent in allowing them to become part of the show at those agricultural fairs, and possibly we should not blame them too much for going, but if we have not some control-perhaps my hon. friend thinks this is drastic-we shall not be able to keep the young men particularly, and the old men as well, from engaging in games of chance within a pool room.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I am convinced now
that we are producing too much farm produce in any case, so why get so fussy about keeping the Indians at work? When we have to regulate how many hours they shall stay in a pool room, who is going to have the say as to the right number of hours? I suppose the white man's amount will be the correct number of hours, and then the Indians must go back to the farm. I think a section like that is ridiculous. It would be better if they never worked at all than to force them to do it. This will open the way for persecution. The same thing is true about the games; they are not to do this or that. Anybody who has ever taught children knows that the more not-to-do's you have, the worse it is for the children. I think these two clauses are unsound.


Charles A. Stewart: All I can
say is that I wish my hon. friend had the job of looking after the Indians. If she had, she would find that a lot of things that appear to be unsound are absolutely sound. I know at times the complaint is made that the Indians are treated too drastically, but one

Indian Act Amendment

must bear in mind that the Dominion of Canada is spending a great deal of money on them.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: It is their country.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is their
own money.


Charles A. Stewart: Possibly that charge may be laid too, but hon. members do not want the Indians to remain in the condition in which they are to-day; they expect the department to show some progress with them. That is what we are endeavouring to bring about, and we are simply asking for authority to control a situation that is very serious from the standpoint of administration. There are two things that do more to injure the Indians than any others. One of them is liquor, and it is the worst influence in any community. If my hon. friend thinks an Indian can loiter around a pool room without coming into contact with liquor, all I can say is that she does not know the Indian as well as I do. The proper place for an Indian is on a reserve or in a school. Neither the white man nor the Indian gets much good out of his association with a pool room.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: If we are going to discuss what is the proper place for an Indian, then we should say at once that it would be to allow him to live his natural life. We have made that impossible. I do not want the impression to be gathered that I should like the Indian to have liquor or to be in a pool room, but by saying how long he is to remain in it and that he must get out at a certain time we are putting into the hands of some official a great deal of power which may be used ini a very high-handed way. If the Indian race is a degenerate race, I am afraid that the whole effort is wasted. It may or may not be that a remnant of .the race can be saved; I am not convinced one way or the other.


John Anderson Fraser: You are imposing a penalty on the pood room proprietor for allowing an interdicted Indian to pllay pool. How is the pool room proprietor to know that the Indian is interdicted? Are you going to placard the Indian?


Charles A. Stewart: You do not placard an interdict fo.r liquor.


George Gibson Coote: I did not ask for an explanation of this section with the idela of apposing it. I did hope that the minister wou>ld explain the first few lines of it. It seems to me it needs a little explanation, at least, to one who mlay not be familiar with the act. It says:

Where it is made to appear in open court that any Indian, summoned before such court, by inordinate frequenting of poolroom either on or off an Indian reserve.
I wonder if there is any provision in the few for summoning ain Indian belcause he frequents a pool room too mulch. That was the point that I thought needed explanation. While on my feet, let me say that no one regrets more than I do seeing these young Indians spending so much time around pool rooms. It is possibly because we have not completed our job of educating them, and have turned them loose from the schools without providing a place for them to go. For fear I may have been misunderstood, I want to say that I have visited quite a number of these industrial schools and have a great admiration for the men and women who are teaching in them. They are doing a fine work, the very best they can. My whole criticism is that our system does not go far enough. It does not carry the Indian up until he has reached the age of manhood or maturity. Perhaps the minister would make a very brief explanation of just how he is going to summon the Indian into court; and is there any act under which a judge can say that the Indian is spending an inordinate amount of time in the pool room?


Mr. CHAPLIN:: What is inordinate?


An hon. MEMBER:: Ten hours a day.


Charles A. Stewart: I think my hon. friend gets a pretty fair explanation from the wording of the clause itself. The act will make it an offence, not a criminal offence, for which you can summon the Indian to appear in court, and the magistrate will be the judge of what is inordinate. If the Indian is loitering away his time in a pool room to the extent that his family is suffering in consequence, the magistrate will be the one to decide what the penalty shall be. It is left entirely to his discretion.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, there is one phase of the application of this section to which I would direct the attention of the committee. In my province in the vicinity of the Blackfeet reservation the farmers are accustomed to hiring young Indians in the fall for harvest work and threshing. During the threshing if rain or snow interrupts operations the whole crew goes to town. There the men have only two

Indian Act Amendment
places to resort to, the pool room and the beer parlour. This section would prohibit them from using the pool rooms. It looks to me as if it would put a premium on the use of beer parlours.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh no.


Edward Joseph Garland: I know that is not the intention, but unless they sit on the steps of the hotel in cold weather, and of course they will not do that, they have only the two places to which I have referred to go to. Frankly, I think this section is going too far. I have no objection to the minister providing himself with ample powers to prevent abuse of their privileges by the Indians themselves, or for the protection of the family, or even of the tribe; but this section confers a power which will be exercised by some agent or local supervisor to determine what is the proper number of hours for an Indian to spend in a pool room-whether Tom Longcloak or Eagle Feather spent too much time there yesterday, and if either does the same to-day to report it to a magistrate, who shall forbid the owner of the pool room to allow the Indian to enter it again for a certain time. This may be all very well, but who is to determine the proper number of hours that the Indian may spend in the pool room-the minister?


Charles A. Stewart: Certainly
not. Hon. gentlemen are getting excited about a situation that does not exist. A careful reading of the section will disclose the fact that the Indian must of necessity have neglected his family by staying in the pool room.


Edward Joseph Garland: Who is to determine "neglect"?


Charles A. Stewart: The magistrate.


Edward Joseph Garland: But the
magistrate would determine that only after complaint to him by somebody else.


Charles A. Stewart: That is perfectly proper. The same thing would apply in the case of a drunken white man. The magistrate decides whether or not he should be put on what we used to call the Indian list; I do not know what it is called to-day. If Indians loiter to the extent of neglecting their duties to their families, they would be subject to this section. Surely that is ample protection for the Indians and some protection for the owner of the pool room. The owner of the pool room would be notified that in 2413-714
the opinion of the magistrate the Indians were spending too much time there to the detriment of their families. That is all.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Should not that provision apply to any Canadian citizen? He is supposed to know a good deal better than an Indian what he should do.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Especially a member of parliament.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Why should not the magistrate decide that James Smith is neglecting his family by resorting to the local pool rooms and prohibit him continuing that neglect?


Charles A. Stewart: He would, if someone laid a complaint against James Smith. For instance, if a man is using so much liquor that he is neglecting his family, he can always be haled into court.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: But why introduce this section?	.


Charles A. Stewart: The Indian Act applies to Indians.


Mr. CAHILL:: Before the bill leaves the committee I wish to ask the minister a question pertaining to a reserve in my constituency. In the township of Nedellia is the county of Temiskaming there is a reserve occupied by a small number of Indians. It is two miles across by six miles long and in the centre of a well-settled district. The settlers are very anxious to have the reserve removed-if possible-of course, always with the intention of reimbursing the Indians for the land they may abandon. The settlers desire this because the Indians are not making any roads through the reserve, and therefore, it is necessary to travel considerable distances to get to and from town or church, which is very inconvenient for the settlers. I understand the matter has been before the minister on several occasions and I should like to know if he is making any progress towards its settlement.


Charles A. Stewart: This is one of many matters affecting Indian reserves in the province of Quebec that we are now considering with the provincial government. My hon. friend will remember that we got a settlement of these matters with the Ontario government, and the proceeds of the sale of the land is used for the benefit of the interested Indians in that province; but in the province of Quebec we have not yet reached a settlement. We are hoping to make a satisfactory arrangement that will enable us to clear up this matter.
Indian Act Amendment


Mr. IRVINE:: Is a pool room the only place in respect of which an Indian would become liable to punishment if he frequented it too much? There are other ways in which he might waste his time, for instance, standing on the sidewalk or sitting under a tree. Are the latter things all right, and must he waste his time in a pool room to be arraigned?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think my hon. friend is serious.


William Irvine: I am.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would
rather waste my time in a pool room than outside on a cold day.


Charles A. Stewart: I think my hon. friends know full well that it is pretty difficult to keep an Indian working-


William Irvine: Or to keep anybody working.


Charles A. Stewart: -just a little more difficult than it is to keep the white man, unless we have provisions for restraining him to some extent. We do not wish to discipline him, because we have provided in this clause that a magistrate must deal with the case- not a superintendent general; not an agent. It may be done, however, by one or two magistrates in the district, and will have the same effect upon the owner of the pool room. There are already in the act a great many provisions for restraining the Indian and endeavouring to get him to obey the laws. This is one of the little difficulties, not provided for in the Indian Act, that we encounter from time to time, and I am asking for the amendment so that we may be able to lessen the difficulty. I do not claim for a moment that the white man has any more right to frequent a pool room than an Indian; that is not the point. But if the Indian persists in spending all his time there, as he frequently does, we want some means of restraining him. That is all we ask. May I add that I am informed that not a very large number of Indians need such restraint. After all, these restrictions are not for the general body of Indians, any more than our laws are for the general body of white men; they are for the Indians that we cannot control without special provision.


William Irvine: I object to it on the ground of the exception we take in regard to Indians. I do not think we ought to pass a law, even against Indians, which we would not dare to pass against white men.
JMr. C. A. Stewart.]


Charles A. Stewart: May I say
to my hon. friend that if the white man loiters in a pool room to the detriment of his family he will find himself in trouble.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17-control of public games on the Sabbath.
William Irvine: This is going even further.
The aim of this section appears to be to control the Indian on the Sabbath day. May I ask the minister why these extremes Are requested? What is his explanation?


Charles A. Stewart: We are
simply adding to the powers of the council. I will read the powers that are within the control of the council, which is an elected body of the Indians themselves. This amendment affects section 185, subsection 1, revised statutes of Canada, 1927:
The council may, by by-law, rule or regulation, approved and confirmed by the superintendent general provided that the religious denomination to which the teacher or teachers of the school or schools established on the reserve shall belong, shall be that of the majority of the Indians resident on the reserve; but the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority on the reserve may also have a separate school or schools, with the approval of and under regulations made by the governor in council.
Then they make regulations and by-laws in recpect to various things-health, order, disorderly conduct, subdivision of reserve, trespass, school houses, roads, public works, watercourses, removal of trespassers, et cetera. It is in regard to this latter subject to which section 17 of the new act refers. The section in the revised statutes referring to the removal of trespassers reads:
The removal and punishment of persons trespassing upon the reserve or frequenting it for improper purposes-
This is under the control of the council. To that we add the provision outlined in section 17 which gives the council of the band the right to control or prohibit participation in sports, games, athletic tests or other such amusements on the Sabbath day.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: It prohibits the Indians from engaging in sports on the Sabbath day?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. To that extent the council have control on the reserves. It is simply an additional power to the ones they already have, such as revenue, assessments, rates, payment of Indian's share on his default, appeals, et cetera. It is adding somewhat to the powers of the Indian council.

Indian Act Amendment


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I note that at the side it
says:
Serious complaints have been made with respect to the assembling of boisterous and undesirable crowds on Indian reserves-
May I ask who are the undesirable crowds?


Charles A. Stewart: Usually they are from the outside.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: White men.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, white men.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: And because the white men misbehave themselves you are going to prohibit the playing of baseball by the Indians on Sundays.


Charles A. Stewart: No; it is not prohibitory unless the council says so.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: But it is because of the bad conduct of white men.


Charles A. Stewart: And there may be other reasons.


Franklin Smoke: Again I take exception to the remarks in connection with Indians generally. In most of the reserves throughout the country I fancy the Indians compose a homogeneous band; they all belong to one particular tribe. In the Six Nations reserve, situated near Brantford, there are six different Indian nationalities. I am not sure that I can name them all, but I can remember at last four of them, namely, the Onondagas, Cayugas, Tuscaroras and Mohawks-there are two others. There we find six separate nations, one or more of which is pagan. They have different ideas from those of Christian people, and I do not think it would be fair if the council of the Six Nations was allowed to legislate in matters of conscience in regard to the pagan members of the Six Nations band.


William Irvine: I was wondering if the Indians would be subjected to regulation if they took up the playing of golf. A great many of our distinguished citizens enjoy a game of golf on Sunday. I do not see why we should interfere with the Indian's Sunday golf, or any other game he chooses to indulge in; as a matter of fact, we ought to encourage him to play. I must express my approval of the remarks made by the previous speaker; it surely would not be fair for. this parliament to pass legislation which would give the council the right to dictate against the thought and conscience of certain groups of Indians.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: The intention here is simply to turn over a certain responsibility
to a council of the reserve, the same as this government or a provincial government, would delegate to cities, towns and villages certain rights in respect to the regulation of their own territory. Surely we should be able to do that. We are taking nothing away from them, and if the majority of their people, as represented by their council, say they do not want a certain thing done on a certain reserve, certainly we should give them power to prohibit.


Charles A. Stewart: That is right. May I point out to my hon. friend that the Indian council is elected; it is a democratic institution and my hon. friend is strong for democratic institutions. In addition to the other regulating clauses under which the council operates, we are simply providing that this shall be within their power. They need not stop a baseball game on Sunday, if the council are in agreement. They act just as the council acts in any other municipality.


Edward Joseph Garland: Has each
reserve a council?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, and
if there are no councils this will not be effective, because these powers are given only to the councils.


Mr. BARBER:: There is another matter
I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. Apparently the amendments before us tighten up the law to protect the Indian from the white man, which I think every hon. member will agree should be done. However, there are a number of us in the west who feel that some provision should be made for the protection of white people from the Indians. I refer particularly to a matter which has been presented to the government by several of the public bodies of our province; I refer to motor accidents. There have been several very bad accidents in our province caused by the reckless driving of Indians. A careful driver may go out on the road and be hit by a car driven by an Indian; his car may be badly damaged, but he has no chance of collecting damages. On the other hand, if he hits a car driven by an Indian and damages it, he must make good that damage. The resolutions which have been forwarded to the department by the good roads league, the board of trade, and other organizations, point out that under section 106 of the Indian Act an Indian has the right to sue for debts due him, or in respect of any tort or wrong inflicted upon him, or to compel the performance of contracts with him. No provision is made in the Indian Act whereby Indians cam
Indian Act Amendment

be sued for any wrong inflicted by them, and these resolutions have requested amendments to the Indian Act granting permission to an aggrieved person to sue an Indian for damages, or to compel them to assume the liability assumed by other users of the highway. I should like to get some expression from the minister as to whether consideration has been given this question.


Charles A. Stewart: This introduces an entirely new feature, to which we will have to pay considerable attention. We have made laws in order to prevent an Indian from getting into difficulty with his creditors, but just how far we can go in making him liable to the civil actions to which my hon. friend has referred I am not prepared to say. There are cases where the Indian could pay damages, but I am afraid such cases are not very numerous. After all, the Indian is a ward of the government, and if damages were assessed against him I imagine it would become the responsibility of the government to pay those damages. However, I promise my hon. friend to give the question some thought. We have given it some attention, but it is a very difficult and knotty point.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: Section 1 was allowed to stand.
On section 1-Eskimo affairs.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend the
leader of the opposition suggested that there should be some amendment replacing what is being taken away, but I would direct his attention to the fact that this subsection was added to the Indian Act. We could not very well put in the Indian Act a subsection stating that the Eskimos are under the Minister of the Interior. Prior to that amendment of 1924, they were under the Minister of the Interior, because they belong to the northwest. The statute concerning the Department of the Interior states that the Minister of the Interior has supervision over all the affairs of the Northwest Territories. I think if this subsection disappears the situation will be as it was before 1924. If there is any need of an amendment I will consider the matter with the Minister of the Interior, but the amendment will have to be made to some other act. I really think section 1 should carry as it is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Justice
has overlooked the fact that in 1924 this parliament brought the Eskimos under the provirMr. Barber.]
sions of the Indian Act, and thereby established the responsibility of a minister to the House of Commons for their affairs.


Ernest Lapointe: But that responsibility
existed before that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Previously the Eskimos
did not figure in the matter at all.


Ernest Lapointe: They were living in the
Northwest Territories, surely?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but it was not until about 1924 that the very serious condition of their affairs was drawn to the attention of this parliament and of the people of Canada. As a matter of fact, these people were starving, and it became essential that they should receive some attention, as wards of the nation. It was thought desirable then that they should be brought under ministerial responsibility; that was done and the minister mentioned was the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. As it now stands, we are repealing this section which the revisers of the statute put in the Indian Act, rightly or wrongly. They placed it as oiie of the subsections of an act dealing with Indians. We are now repealing that subsection and we have not made any head of government responsible to this parliament for the administration of the affairs of the Eskimos. If the amendment was properly made in 1924, presumably under the advice of my hon. friend, obviously its repeal with respect to the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs will necessitate the naming of some official in his place to assume that ministerial responsibility.


Ernest Lapointe: But not necessarily in
this act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it were desirable to
place it in this act in the one instance it might be equally desirable to replace it in this act.


Ernest Lapointe: This act relates only to
the Department of Indian Affairs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, but it does not relate any more to the Department of Indian Affairs to-day than it did in 1924, when parliament thought it desirable to place this amendment in the Indian Act. Now when you take away the responsibility of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, it would be logical to replace in the act the name of the official who is to assume responsibility. That is all.


Ernest Lapointe: But surely my hon. friend realizes that it would look ludicrous to mention some other minister in the Indian Act, with regard to Eskimos. I think if it is necessary to make an amendment it would be necessary to amend the Department of the Interior Act, for instance, or the Northwest Territories Act.

Manitoba Boundary


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have before us a real situation in connection with the breaking up of the Department of the Interior, if one might so call it, and one has to exercise considerable care, I suggest, in order to see that the duties which are being discharged with respect to the Northwest Territories are not placed in the hands of new officials, for the purpose of creating new offices or continuing old ones. I am quite content to have the minister deal with it as he desires, but there is no ministerial responsibility, as it now stands with the repeal of that section.


Charles A. Stewart: I should
think the amendment, if one is required, should be to the Northwest Territories Act, because the Eskimos will be under the provisions of that act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 42, to provide for the extension of the boundary of the province of Manitoba in the northwest angle inlet of Lake of the Woods.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-boundaries extended.
Hugh Guthrie: Has the imperial government any interest in this block of land as ordnance land or otherwise, and will it be necessary for the imperial government to ratify this agreement?


Charles A. Stewart: I would not think so. This two and a half acres is a plot of land covered by the indenture of the lake of the Woods where it crosses and recrosses the boundary between Manitoba and Ontario.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This land belonged formerly to the United States.


Charles A. Stewart: It was supposed to, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The surveyors finally indicated that it belonged to Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: Quite right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And as between Manitoba and Ontario it is to go to Manitoba?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the statute require ratification?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think so because it came to Canada by a treaty ratified by His Majesty the King.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The surveyors simply determined where the line should be.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Schedules A and B agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, before Your Honour leaves the chair and the house resolves itself into committee of supply, I would like to discuss a question which I consider to be of the utmost importance, and one which should be brought to the attention of parliament. Since the house has been in session, many days have been spent in the discussion of question of importance. We have discussed questions pertaining to butter, to eggs, and to cheese, and while I would not for a moment try to belittle the importance of those matters, I do not think they can compare in importance to the subject I wish to bring to the attention of the house, namely, the unemployment and under-employment which exists at the present time in the Dominion of Canada. Important as this matter is, not a day has been devoted to the discussion of it since parliament met on February 20.
It may be said, and no doubt will be said during the course of this discussion, that this is not a federal question, that it belongs to the provinces and does not concern this House of Commons. But parliament cannot evade its responsibility to the people. If time can be spent in discussing the questions to which I have just referred, then I think we can spend a little time in discussing this important matter. We owe a duty to the men and women who happen to find themselves out of work. It may be said that we have no legal responsibility towards these people. I cannot admit that. I contend that if there is no legal responsibility there is not an hon. member of this house who will say that we have not a moral responsibility in the matter. It will possibly be claimed! that the British North

Unemployment-Mr. Heaps
America Act grants certain jurisdictions and creates certain lines of demarcation between the provincial and the federal governments. I am almost sick and tired of listening to definitions of the British North America Act. Every time a social question of importance is brought before this house the British North America Act is trotted out to show that we cannot do a certain thing. I am beginning to think that instead of calling it the B.N.A. act we should call it the B.A.N. act.


An hon. MEMBER:: Explain.


Abraham Albert Heaps: As I have said on a previous occasion, the British North America Act was made for the people of the Dominion of Canada; the people of Canada were not made for the British North America Act.
Within the last few days this house has been very busy in making friendly gestures towards the people to the south of us. I have no objection whatever to friendly gestures being made to people in other parts of the world; in fact as a member of the Labour party I always try to cultivate kindly feelings between the people in different parts of the world. But if we can make friendly gestures which will cost the national exchequer of this country about $10,000,000 per year, then we can afford to make a friendly gesture to the unemployed people in the Dominion of Canada. My constituents are to a very large extent men or women who have to work for wages; if they do not work they cannot eat, and to them this question of unemployment is a very vital one. Am I to go back to my constituents at the end of this session and tell them that parliament sat by idly while they suffered? Am I to tell them that no action is to be taken with regard to this very important question of unemployment? Parliament could well afford to devote its time and energy to doing something for the people of this Dominion in order to alleviate the conditions which some unfortunately now find themselves in. I realize that the government have done something in regard to finding work. I am now accepting the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to a delegation from the western provinces which waited upon him a few days ago when he said that the government was going ahead with public works as fast as it could and that the Canadian National Railways were doing the same-a few men being laid off but otherwise the work proceeding as if everything were normal. That, however, does not begin to touch the question of unemployment in the Dominion. The government have not dealt with unemployment in a direct sense; they have merely pre-
vented it from getting worse than it is at the present time. I want to see parliament take some action that will deal with this question which arises year after year, because hardly a year goes by without this question of unemployment coming before parliament in one form or another.
The average workingman to-day is not the same as the workingman of twenty or thirty years ago. He is beginning to study; he is studying economics and when he is out of work he wants to know the reason why. That is a phase of the matter which we cannot lightly pass over. He sees that all around him are the material things of life. He himself has produced all the things that go towards making life worth while; but suddenly he finds himself out of work; he is face to face with poverty and in many cases does not know where his next meal is to come from. In parliament we protect practically all our industries, all our financial institutions, and the working people would like to know why we cannot give some protection to the workingman. When I use the term "protection" I do not use it in the sense of increased tariffs; I am using it in an entirely different sense. The workingman has the right to security in life in exactly the same way as we give security to capital.


William Irvine: How does the hon. member propose to do that?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will come to that in a few moments if my hon. friend will permit me to continue my argument.
We give, for instance, protection to our railways; we almost guarantee them a certain fixed return on their capital. We give certain concessions to our banks. We give tariff protection to our industries, but what does parliament give to our working people? Practically nothing at all; and to-night as a representative of the working people of Canada I want to try to impress upon parliament the necessity of our doing something on their behalf.
Why, in the first place, is a person employed?-and now I am coming to the answer to some of the questions put by the hon member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine). A person is employed because his services are required in order that the employer may profit from his labour. If a man cannot be gainfully employed, his services are, generally speaking, not required. In periods of depression labour cannot be gainfully employed; hence we have the unemployment problem on our hands. We do not have unemployment periodically as we used to have it many years ago, but it is an ever-recurring problem year after year. Why is it a recurring problem? Years ago it was

Unemployment-Mr. Heaps
claimed that cycles of depression would come once every five or seven years, but with the increasing use of machinery, with the speeding-up process to which labour has been subjected in recent years, production has increased by leaps and bounds and in a very short period during a year we can produce enough to satisfy all human requirements. When I say "enough to satisfy human requirements" I limit that statement by the qualification "in accordance with the purchasing power which the masses happen to possess". It is claimed by economists that during the past twenty years production has approximately doubled, but wages, that is, real wages, have remained almost stationary. That means that the position of the workingman has become relatively worse instead of better. When production becomes greater and greater, when we are able to produce more of the things of life, the position of the workingman should be better, but we find that it is exactly the reverse. At the present time, when we have an over-production of everything, we have the greatest poverty and want and what applies to the workingman applies equally at this time to our farmers. It requires to-day a smaller number of men to produce a given quantity of commodities and that is why less labour is required. As less labour is required, it is only natural that the amount of unemployment prevalent throughout the Dominion should become greater and greater.
In order to overcome the difficulty which confronts us on account of the ever-increasing productivity of the machine and the vast amount of unemployment that prevails in Canada as well as in other parts of the world, two things are required. One is a decreased working day and the other is an increased purchasing power on the part of the masses in order that they may consume more of the commodities which they themselves produce. Even if these two things come about, we shall still have quite an amount of unemployment in Canada.
These two questions cannot by any stretch of the imagination be claimed to be provincial in character. They are national; in fact, I can say they are international in character. Consequently it would be almost absurd for us to expect provincial governments to be able to deal with such questions and I can hardly expect nine provincial governments to deal with them. So far as I am able to judge, the provincial governments have all requested that the federal parliament take some action in regard to the matter. What action can we hope for?
I believe, in spite of its many drawbacks, in spite of its many handicaps, we shall ultimately have to come to a system of unemployment insurance. I cannot for the life of me see how any one particular province can of its own volition, inaugurate within its own boundaries a satisfactory system of unemployment insurance; it is practically impossible for them to do so. I wish, therefore, to deal with the question of unemployment insurance, not only from the aspect of the immediate problem itself, but also having regard to the impression that has gone throughout the country that parliament will do something along that particular line. In 1919 a federal commission was appointed by the then government. This commission had among its members many well known gentlemen, the chairman being the late Mr. Justice Mathers of the province of Manitoba. The commission travelled throughout the length and breadth of Canada, and after taking most voluminous evidence in all part3 of the Dominion, it recommended the following:
We recommend 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.
But ever since the year 1919 nothing has been done in a practical way to implement the recommendations of the royal commission of that year.
In the year 1924, we had hopes that something further was to be done. The Dominion government of that day had a large conference gathered from all parts of the Dominion, sitting at Ottawa, to discuss the question of unemployment. But when the conference had finished its labours nothing further was done.
I have referred earlier in my remarks to the question of interprovincial jurisdiction, and in this connection I should like, if I may, to refer to the platform of the Liberal party in the year 1921. I hope I shall be pardoned for making this reference, but I presume that the party in power to-day have not by any means changed their opinions since this platform was adopted. They issued in October 1921 a small booklet known as Publication No. 7. This is what they had to say in regard to social insurance:
That in so far as may be practicable, having regard to 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
Unemployment-Mr. Heaps

effort should be made to overcome any question of jurisdiction between the Dominion and the provinces by effective cooperation between the several governments.
I heartily subscribe, Mr. Speaker, to that particular clause of the Liberal party platform of 1921.


Mr. MacNUTT:: That was only a chart.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am coming in a moment
to the Conservative chart. I sincerely hope that the government have not gone back on their platform of that year, and that on this question of unemployment insurance they will earnestly endeavour to overcome any difficulty over jurisdiction as between the provinces and the Dominion.
In order to make things even as between the two major parties in this house, I wish to quote from the labour policy adopted by the Conservative party in the city of Winnipeg in November, 1927. I do not know whether it was the environment and bracing air of the city of Winnipeg that impelled our friends of the Conservative party to include this particular clause in their platform. Nevertheless, I am glad to see it there, and I hope that they will stay with it to the bitter end. Section 9 of that platform, dealing with capital and labour, says:
So far as is practicable, to support social legislation designed to conserve human life, health and temperance, to relieve distress during periods of unemployment, sickness and old age; to encourage uniformity in labour laws throughout Canada and the wider spread of technical education, both in industry and agriculture.


Edward Joseph Garland: "So far as
is practicable."


Abraham Albert Heaps: So far as that little proviso
is concerned, it would not be very difficult to overcome the problem of jurisdiction as between the provinces and the Dominion. I feel satisfied if the two major parties would only attempt to solve this question of jurisdiction it could be solved just as easily as it was in the case of old age pensions. I am sure that exactly the same jurisdiction problem could arise and would have arisen, if anybody had wanted to raise it, in regard to old age pensions. But where there was a will there was a way; the jurisdiction difficulty was overcome, and at the present time, according to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) there are 34,000 aged people in this Dominion drawing the old age pension-This in spite of all jurisdiction difficulties.
The question of unemployment insurance has been raised year after year ever since I have been in this house. This is my fifth session in parliament. In the very first session

that I was here my hon. friend and colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) and I wrote a letter to the present Prime Minister and to the then leader of the opposition. I show you, Mr. Speaker, that the unemployment situation was even then, a very serious one, my colleague and I stressed it as being one of the most important questions with which we thought parliament had to deal. We addressed a very short communication to the two leaders under date of January 7, 1926, as follows:
As representatives of Labour in the House of Commons, may we ask whether it is your intention to introduce, at this session, legislation with regard to (a) provision for the unemployed; (b) old age pensions.
(Signed) J. S. Woodsworth.
A. A. Heaps.
From the right hon. Prime Minister we received a very sympathetic reply, and not many days later, on January 28, 1926, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) had this to say in the House of Commons, in answer to a question from my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill):
This question of unemployment relief is a difficult one in this country owing to the fact that we have a division of powers between federal, provincial and municipal authorities. It has been fdit that the problem primarily is one of local responsibility, but the government is willing in case of serious emergency, when a grave situation exists, to cooperate with the provincial and local authorities, and to bear a share of relief work or other relief measures which have to be adopted to meet a serious situation of that character, and we shall ask parliament to give us authority to that effect.
That was in 1926. If there was a grave emergency as regards unemployment in the early part of the winter of 1926, the emergency in 1930 is a great deal more grave than it was four years ago; and if the emergency of 1926 prompted the federal government to give assistance to the municipal bodies and provincial governments, there is a thousand times more reason for giving that assistance to-day. I think I am correctly interpreting the intentions of the government as then expressed when I say that this was only a temporary measure of relief, looking forward to a more definite scheme dealing with the whole question of unemployment.


William Gordon Ernst: May I ask how many unemployed there are in the city of Winnipeg to-day, and how many are on part time?


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is almost impossible for
me to say definitely how many people in Winnipeg are at present out of work or only partly employed. The figures vary-some say ten thousand; some say more. According to

Unemployment-Mr. Heaps
statements that I have heard made by people who are competent to judge, ten thousand would not be exaggerating the situation so far as Winnipeg and its immediate surburbs are concerned.
Further, Mr. Speaker, in 1927 I introduced a motion for a committee to go into the question of unemployment insurance. Unfortunately some of my hon. friends opposite were very talkative on that occasion, and the discussion was not concluded at six o'clock, so that the motion went to the bottom of the order paper and could not again be discussed during that session. But in 1928 we had a committee appointed by this house to deal with the question of unemployment insurance. What did that committee report? I am going to read just one clause:
That the evidence of the justice department makes it clear that the responsibility for such legislation rests on the provincial authorities, it being within their jurisdiction under the provisions of the British North America Act, but that it would be within the power of parliament to contribute by grant to such provinces as adopted such legislation, following the precedent set in the matter of technical education, highway construction, and, more recently the Old Age Pensions Act.
In other words, when the committee reported in 1928 it claimed that parliament was competent to make grants to any system of unemployment insurance in exactly the same way as at the present time we make grants to the system of old age pensions adopted by many of the provinces.
But we come to 1929, last year, when again the same resolution was submitted to the committee on industrial and international relations. Their report considerably whittled down the report of the year previous. Let me quote this paragraph:
Your committee recognizes that, while it is highly desirable that such legislation should be uniform in all the provinces, and while social insurance has a federal aspect, nevertheless according to the Department of Justice under our constitution legislative jurisdiction in relation to the establishment of a compulsory system of unemployment insurance is vested exclusively in the provincial legislatures.
Not a word about the right of this parliament to make grants to the provincial governments in order to assist the establishment of unemployment insurance in the Dominion. The report also contained the following:
That the federal government be requested to bring the subject matter of this reference before the next federal-provincial conference, and your committee suggests when the agenda for such a conference is being arranged that the provincial governments be invited to send representatives of the employer and employee to discuss the subject matter of this report.
Now, Mr. Speaker, any ordinary person reading that section of the report would be under the impression that it was the intention of parliament to do something in regard to the question of unemployment insurance and in some way give relief to persons who happen to be out of work.
During last winter two conferences were called in Winnipeg to deal with the question of unemployment in western Canada. One conference was called in November, and the other in January. As a result of those conferences a delegation came from western Canada to Ottawa and interviewed the government. In a statement which the right hon. Prime Minister made to this delegation the impression was broadcast that the government was sympathetic and willing to do something to speed forward unemployment insurance. This is what he is reported to have said according to the Ottawa Evening Citizen of February 27:
Eventually Canada will have a system of unemployment insurance. This was the only constructive way to deal with the unemployment situation and be hoped it would soon be possible to work out an insurance plan. Seasonal measures in the way of relief and public works were of no permanent assistance and an insurance plan offered the only constructive way of avoiding distress. Under it those who employed them would be compelled to contribute to a fund during their periods of employment and the insured would receive benefits when out of work.
A statement of this character, Mr. Speaker, would give an impression particularly to the working people of Canada, that the government had it in mind to deal with this question, which we regard as one of the most vital confronting the Dominion at the present time. A few days later my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre asked a question of the right hon. Prime Minister in relation to his statement made to the delegation, and in his answer he seemed to some extent to retract -if I may use the term-something of what he had said a few days previously:	I quote
the question and answer:
Mr. Woodsworth:	As I understaud the
statement, it was to the effect that the federal government was very much concerned in the matters of unemployment and believed that one of the solutions was a system of unemployment insurance, and that the government would be willing to take any steps possible towards bringing about an understanding between the provinces and the federal government. I want to know if the government would be willing to undertake the calling of a special conference so that this matter can be expedited.
Mr. Mackenzie King:	My recollection is that
a special committee of this house considered this question last session and brought to the house a renort to the effect that unemployment
Unemployment-Mr. Heaps

insurance was necessarily a matter with which provincial governments rather than the federal government would have to deal. I think I expressed the view yesterday that in my opinion a system of unemployment insurance would be a constructive way to deal with the unemployment problem, to which system not only the employer and the governments concerned would contribute, but the worker also. If the provinces make a move in this matter and it appears that the federal government can be of assistance in helping to bring about uniformity as between the provinces of any plan proposed, or can cooperate in other ways in any discussion on the subject, we shall be glad upon invitation to take the matter under consideration.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this statement of the Prime Minister went far enough; it contained too many reservations. First of all, he states that he is prepared to discuss this question with the provinces on an invitation from them. I claim, sir, that it should be the duty of the federal government to bring about a conference with the provincial governments. He cannot expect nine provincial governments to call the federal government into consultation. I think it would be far easier and would show more sympathetic consideration on the part of the government if they themselves called the nine provincial governments into conference to discuss the question. He also said that this is primarily a provincial question. I have always refused to admit that, and I claim the federal government have just as much responsibility in respect to this question as any of our provincial governments, in fact their responsibility is greater.
Now I want to go a little further and come to a statement made more recently. I turn to my good friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan). On the 14th day of March he made a speech in the city of London, Ontario, and evidently it was a very good speech. I want to thank him for it, because on asking a question of him a couple of days subsequently he told me to read the London Advertiser and he would stand behind everything he said on that particular occasion as there reported. In compliance with the invitation extended to me by the Minister of Labour, I am going to read extracts from his London speech. Evidently the people of London thought it was a^ very good one, and I shall read what the London Advertiser thought of it. In its columns I find the following:
Mr. Heenan, in a powerful address full of practical illustrations drawn from his daily contact with the problems of the worker and spiced with wit and humour, held the attention of an enthusiastic audience.

In that moment of exuberance, and with the enthusiastic backing of an audience of workers in the city of London, he spoke thus:
I believe during the times of depression the workers have some claim to a portion of the profits made by their labour during favourable years.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is that statement?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes, that is what appears
here.
In a word, I believe, as the Prime Minister stated in his book entitled Industry and Humanity, "where the interests of industry and humanity conflict, industry must give way."
I quite agree with the statements of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour. To continue with the quotations:
So I believe that the time has come when the employers and the workers, and if necessary the governments, should contribute to a fund in order to provide insurance against unemployment.
I feel when the Minister of Labour made that statement to the working people of the city of London he had in mind the federal government, as well as the provincial government. The quotation further states:
A system could be inaugurated in this country which would be suitable to Canadian needs.
Remember, he says "Canadian needs," not provincial needs.
Take, for example, our Canadian railroad workers; in the summer time there are upwards of two hundred thousand men employed, and during the winter periods there are about twenty-five thousand of those workers laid off for several months. The wages of all railway-men average about $130 per month.
I must say that I do not agree with that statement. According to my information, and from reading an examination of the figures furnished by our Labour department and the bureau of statistics I find that the average wage paid by railroads in this country, from the highest to the lowest, is about 55 or 56 cents per hour. Further, I know cases in the city of Winnipeg where railwaymen have kept a check of the higher scaled trades, such as machinists, and they tell me the average monthly pay was $113. When you consider that there are men working on the railroad for 35 or 45 cents an hour, you will realize that there must be vast numbers whose average wage is not over $15 a week. However, I shall read further:
This would not be too hard on either and if necessary, the governments could assist.
I agree with him in this respect. His next statement is:

Unemployment-Mr. Heaps
This system could be extended to workers in every industry and would provide a permanent system.
I agree with that. Unemployment insurance would provide a permanent system whereby men who happened to be out of work would not have to go begging. They would have an insurance fund to fall back upon, the same as exists in other parts of the world. At this juncture I want to point out that although it would be better for the unemployed, a system of unemployment insurance will not cure the problems of unemployment. The minister continued:
The workers of Canada are entitled to a permanent system. The House of Commons unanimously has already endorsed such a system. Parliament has also declared it is a provincial matter, and the government has taken the matter up with the provinces, hut notwithstanding the fact that it is a provincial obligation the Prime Minister has stated that if the provinces so desire his government is prepared to cooperate with them in establishing a uniform system.
The last statement is rather significant, and in my view very important. I am in favour of uniform legislation when it comes down to social questions. I do not believe the people of one province should be treated better or worse than the people of a neighbouring province. It is so in the case of the Old Age Pensions Act. This parliament was anxious to have uniform legislation, and so far as uniformity is concerned I do not think anybody would agree to repeal that legislation.


Mr. SPEAKER:: May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he intends to conclude his remarks by moving an amendment?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes, I intend to move an amendment in a few minutes. The Minister of Labour went on to say:
As far as I am concerned, I will make every effort and the Prime Minister will hack me up to see that the labouring man who is out of work for any period of the year will have a right to expect and to receive a share of the profits he helped to make.
I believe when the Minister of Labour made this statement to the people of the city of London, Ontario, he had in mind that the federal parliament would compel employers of labour to contribute something out of their profits towards an unemployment insurance scheme. In the speech to which the Minister of Labour directed my attention there is no place in which he states that it is entirely a provincial matter or that the federal government would not assume its responsibility with regard to it. If I am to make an exact interpretation of the minister's speech I would say it meant that the federal government was
prepared to proceed with a scheme of federal unemployment insurance. Not only that, but it would indicate that the federal government would see to it that the scheme was uniform throughout the length and breadth of Canada. Uniformity of this character is absolutely essential in a plan involving unemployment insurance, just as it is in the case of old age pensions. It would be impossible to have a system of unemployment insurance confined to any particular province; such a system would have to be operative in at least five of the provinces before it could become workable in Canada.
I do not wish to say much more, Mr. Speaker, in regard to what has been said out of the house by members of the government. I would like to make one or two comments, however, in regard to parliament itself. We have been discussing questions in this house for the past five or six weeks which touch only a very small proportion of the people of this country. There is no question which affects Canadians so vitally as does that of unemployment and under employment. In this country at the present time I would say there must be one hundred thousand people suffering from the effects of these two conditions. Let each man who is unemployed be said to represent three people, we have a total of three hundred thousand people who are suffering, three hundred thousand people who want to know what parliament intend to do in connection wth this very important question.
There is another problem involved in this matter of unemployment insurance. To-day a man's security in bis employment is not nearly what it was fifteen or twenty years ago. He never knows when some new invention or some new piece of machinery will be brought into the factory to take his place. I venture to say that if a proper census could be taken of the turnover of labour in industry it would show a greater number than we realize at the present time. I know figures have been presented in this house to show that more people are employed in industry now than were employed five or six years ago, but even those figures do not present an actual picture of the state of affairs. What I should like to know is how many hours people have been employed in industry over a given period. There we might find a different story. I believe the index figure for March 1 was about 106; there was a considerable reduction from February 1. It may be possible to show that that figure of 106 compares favourably with the figure of perhaps 95 ten years ago, but it might be shown also that the 95 figure means more hours than the 106. Our bureau
Unemployment-Mr. Heaps

of statistics does not give us any data on that important feature of our employment situation in Canada. For instance, we know that in the railroad shops and in many other subsidiary industries men were laid off not by hundreds but by thousands, yet these men were part of those employed during 1929 and perhaps part of those employed during 1930. The result is that although the index number is higher, not knowing the number of hours these men worked during the year we cannot get an accurate picture of the situation.
The federal government, in conjunction with the provincial governments, spent a great deal of money in collecting these statistics, yet we have no way of finding out how may men are out of employment in Canada. We have some idea of how many men are employed, but there are no figures to show how many men are unemployed. One of the officials of the Department of Labour has said that when there is the greatest number of men out of work there are the fewest registrations with the employment bureaus or, as I sometimes call them, the unemployment bureaus. That is so because the men claim there is no use going to these places because there is no work for them. So we have no means of knowing how great our unemployment problem may be, except from the relief which is extended by our municipal authorities, and if we gauge the unemployment situation this year by the relief extended by our municipal and provincial authorities it will be seen that this is one of the worst unemployment years we have had in this Dominion for twenty years past.
This is not a problem which comes occasionally, perhaps once every ten or fifteen years. It is an annual problem, and I feel that this house will be derelict in its duty if we do not take some definite action in order to deal with what is obviously a great national question. The Minister of Justice stated that a nemergency existed ini the year 1926. If that was so, the emergency is very much greater this year, and the problem of unemployment should not be passed over in this house year after year. Hon. members should not be required to get up in- their places and ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour what they intend doing about the unemployment situation, only to be told that it is a provincial problem. It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that a problem which affects the well-being of the people of this country is a federal problem. If pigs or cattle in any province of this Dominion became sick, our Department of Agriculture would send expert after expert and spend federal money freely in order to find out the cause and cure of that

illness, but when we have human beings suffering, we are told it is not a federal question. I should like to know how long a human being has not been considered an equally valuable asset as a cow or a pig.


Mr. BRADY:: I should like to ask the hon. member one question if I may. What countries have social insurance legislation at present?


Abraham Albert Heaps: It would take a long time to enumerate them all, but I might point out that South Africa was one of the last dominions to adopt legislation of this kind. In 1926 the government of South Africa appointed a commission to inquire into the question of social insurance, and that commission reported in favour of old age pensions, sickness, invalidity and unemployment insurance. All those recommendations were adopted with the exception of unemployment insurance, and if I am not mistaken the recommendation dealing with unemployment insurance was one of the last parts of that report to be adopted as a federal measure. I believe that in Australia they have had similar insurance as a provincial measure, but now in that country they are considering bringing in a federal measure in order to do away with the question of provincial jurisdiction. When a dominion such as South Africa, sparsely populated and with conditions very much akin to those existing here-and the same could be said with regard to Australia-has adopted insurance of this kind as a federal measure, there is no reason in the world why this federal parliament should not follow such a lead.
In Europe most countries have schemes of this character. Great Britain has had unemployment insurance since 1911, and although different commissions have inquired into the question of this insurance, the last being the Blanesburgh commission, whose report was published in 1925, they have all found in favour of social insurances. The last report stated in effect that social insurance had become an integral part of the social structure of the British Isles. Why Canada should be more backward than the other parts of the British Empire is something I do not know. If every other part of this commonwealth of nations has adopted social insurance generally as a federal responsibility, there is no reason why this parliament should not do the same thing through this federal government, just as we did with regard to old age pensions.
I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that the working people of this country were beginning to study these problems; they are trying to understand these economic questions and are taking an interest in the activities of both

Unemployment-Mr. Adshead
federal and provincial parliaments. To them unemployment is the important question. When we go back to our constituents they say to us, "What have you done as a member of parliament on the question of the unemployment situation?" The reply will be: "We have not done anything, because .some question of interprovincial jurisdiction has arisen and it is contended that is not our sphere." They will go then to the provincial member, who will say, "We have discussed this question in the provincial legislature and we think the federal government should assume responsibility for this matter because it is federal in character." There we have the passing of the buck as between one government and another. What will the average workingman have to say? We have a responsibility in this regard and if we do not desire to bring parliament and democratic government into disrepute, this parliament should act in the interests of the common people. Can any hon. member go back to his constituency and face his electors and honestly say that because of some question of jurisdiction parliament refuses to assume responsibility?
We hope that when the hon. Minister of Labour and the right hon. the Prime Minister take part in this debate they will measure up to their responsibilities and not be afraid to say that parliament owes a certain duty to the people of the Dominion of Canada. I hope that the hundreds of thousands of people who are looking towards this House of Commons will not be disappointed in the discussion which is to follow and can look forward to some action by the ministers of the crown.
For these reasons, I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland):
That all the words after "that" be struck out, and the following be substituted:
"in the opinion of this house the government should take immediate action to deal with the question of unemployment."
Mr. PI B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary): Mr. Speaker, I think it devolves upon all Labour members of the house to take part in the discussion of a question of this kind. First of all, I wish to comment somewhat along the lines adopted by the hon. member who has just moved this resolution (Mr. Heaps), when he quoted the remarks of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) in a speech delivered at London. The minister was not giving utterance to a mere pious wish or sentiment when he said:
T will utilize my every effort and the premier will back me up to see that the labouring man who is out of work for any period of the year will have a right to expect and to receive a share of the profits he helped make.
That was the statement of a responsible minister of this country-that the government would do something along the line of unemployment insurance. It cannot be regarded as a personal wish or personal statement of a minister of the crown when he said that the Prime Minister himself was with him in the matter. The Minister of Labour has made no denial or rebuttal of that statement, and so we can regard it as being correct. He went on to say:
The workers who are unemployed

Not only does he go on to say this himself, but he is speaking for the government and it is responsible for his statement. He said:
The workers who are unemployed for perhaps two or three months of the year constituted an essential unit in the industrial life of the nation for the remaining period and the country should recognize their rights.
He went on to say:
Those who oppose progress and social legislation of any kind will call it the dole. It is not that. It is a measure of protection to which the workers are entitled.
The Minister of Labour laid out a course which was to be followed by the government, and the Prime Minister has given his assent. I hope that the minister and the Prime Minister will have something to say in this debate, and relieve the house of any doubt it may have as to what the minister said.
At times I have been twitted in this house, especially by my hon. friends to my right, of being more liberal in my practices than I should be; in fact the hon. member for Park-dale (Mr. Spence) said the other day that I should be on the other side of the house. I have great pleasure in referring to some of the Liberal principles which were enunciated in 1919, and which should revive the drooping spirits of those Liberals who remained true to Liberalism. I suppose there are a few who stiil stand by the principles enunciated in that year when they were in opposition. There is an old saying:
When the devil was sick, the devil a saint would be,
But when the devil was well, the devil a bit cared he.
I have no desire to apply that principle to my hon. friends across the house, but when parties are out of office they are very apt to make some very fine declarations and state-

Unemployment-Mr. Adshead
ments to catch the ear of the country and after they have been in power for some time they appear to forget them. Many things said in conventions are forgotten in the house. I would like to quote a few things said at that memorable convention in 1919, made memorable by the fact that the Prime Minister made some very nice speeches and presented some excellent resolutions. Speaking to the question of labour, the Prime Minister made this statement:
The guiding principle that labour should not be regarded as a commodity or article of commerce-
That is, that labour is not a thing to be bought and sold, that it is something more than a commodity. That was the first statement of my hon. friend the Prime Minister, and then he went on to state the various proposals which the Liberal party were going to bring into effect after they assumed the reins of office. The Prime Minister went on to say:
That in so far as may be practicable, having regard for Canada's financial position, an adequate system of insurance against unemployment,-
That is the very thing the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) was talking about, and is the very thing about which the minister spoke in the city of London. Some ten years save elapsed since these words were uttered by the Prime Minister:
*-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;-
I would like my hon. friends on the other side of the house to notice particularly that when the Prime Minister was speaking in 1919 he did not seem to have any idea that difficulty would be met in getting over the British North America Act. He went on to say:
-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.
At that time the Prime Minister seemed to think that any obstacle offered by the British North America Act to social legislation could be very easily overcome.


William Irvine: Do I understand the hon.
member to say that the Prime Minister declared in 1919 that labour was not a commodity to be sold on the market?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I am simply quoting what the Prime Minister said, that labour should not be regarded as a commodity or as an article of commerce.


William Irvine: It cannot be said that labour is a commodity on the market.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I suppose they are going to take such steps as will make it not a commodity.


William Irvine: Have those steps been
taken?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The hon. member had
better ask the Prime Minister. Let me quote something further. Speaking to these excellent resolutions which were introduced, the Prime Minister said:
The Liberal party of Canada, in accepting this program in its entirety to-night, is taking a position which, in the course of time, will be regarded as historic; it is declaring itself the first political party in any country in the world to accept this program, and to ask its followers to join with other nations in carrying it out.
That was ten years ago.
Not only does the resolution recognize that the labour problem is a world problem.
I want to commend that statement to my hon. friends on the other side. It is not a provincial problem; it is not even solely a national problem; it is according to the Prime Minister, a world problem. He goes on:
It recognizes also that the labour problem is a human problem. The resolution is based on the assumption that human personality is more important than any considerations of property. It is founded on the belief that ethical and human considerations ought to stand above considerations which are purely business or material.
Then follows a very expressive sentence which I wish we could live up to more fully:
It is an expresion of the belief-
That was the Prime Minister's belief and I hope it is still.
-that industry exists for the sake of humanity, not humanity for the sake of industry.
I might quote a good deal more in that connection, but I think I have given enough to show the point of view from which my friends of the Liberal party and the Prime Minister were looking at the matter of unemployment insurance and many other pieces of social legislation which he proposed to introduce when the party got into power. Of that social legislation all we have is the old age pension, which was obtained after a good deal of struggle. I 'hope what I have said to-night will help to revive the memories of those pious declarations.

Unemployment-Mr. Adshead
In connection with the question of unemployment itself, as early as December last I wired to the Prime Minister as follows:
Unemployment here acute but most certainly it is right and just that federal government should bear cost of unemployed destitute immigrants of 1929 brought out by Immigration department. I have asked this for three years.
And then, referring to the conditions in the city of Calgary at that particular time, I said:
Churches fed 275 at dinner to-day, not all immigrants. Those immigrants awaiting deportation should be speedily dealt with but cost of their maintenance should not be borne by city or private people.
Unemployment in Calgary was acute at that particular time, and I received a letter today stating that the unemployment situation there at present is serious. To show how acute unemployment was at that time and is even now, I may say that the men who were fed were not the only ones out of employment, but they were men who were actually starving, who had nothing to eat and nowhere to lie. The first persons who took the matter up were the ladies of the Labour party in Calgary, and they fed 200 men. The next who took it up were the women of the Conservative League of the city of Calgary who undertook for a week to feed 300 men. The number had begun to increase. After they had done this for a week, the ladies of the Liberal League took it up and they fed these 300 men for another week. Finally the matter became so acute that the churches took it up.


William Irvine: Did they all give it up?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I do not know. They carried on the work at least as far as their finances would permit, and the question became so serious that they asked me to wire not only the Prime Minister but the Immigration department and the Labour department. I think the Minister of Labour received a telegram pointing out the seriousness of the unemployment situation in Calgary at that particular time. So far did the question of unemployment and destitution go that our good policemen in the station of the Canadian Pacific allowed these men as far as they could to sleep in the smoking room and about the station until such time as they were compelled to turn them out into the cold. Then, with the thermometer at twenty below zero, the men went into the streets with their coat collars turned up and got into any niche in which they could to find shelter for the night. Even a minister of that city telephoned to me saying: "I am sending some men up to you. I have kept them as long as I could. I have allowed them to sleep in 2419-72
the study of my church, and now as you are member for East Calgary, I am going to send them to you to see what you can do." Being member for East Calgary I did what I could. The citizens of Calgary have had to bear a burden which rightfully belongs to the federal government and perhaps to the provincial government.
I notice the following in the press, and I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he is acquainted with this fact, if it is a fact:
Ottawa, January 20.-Immigration to Canada of continentals of south and southeastern Europe, that is to say of single men, will be limited this year to 8,000.
An arrangement has been made allocating 4.000 of these each to Canadian Pacific and Canadian National.
I want to know whether this is intended to increase unemployment, or where these 8,000 men are going. My experience has been that upon arriving in the city of Calgary after the prorogation of parliament, I have found a large number of these men taking work right in the city and swelling the number of the unemployed. I can give some statements in this regard. Last year, I think it was, I was standing on the street and I saw a number of men, evidently foreigners-or at least men who could not speak the English language; I do not know whether or not all men who cannot speak English are foreigners. I wondered what they were talking about. They were close to the employment bureau and apparently one of them could speak English. I went over and asked them what the trouble was. These men were recent immigrants, brought into Alberta by the railway companies under conditions which I have just read. We were told by the then Acting Minister of Immigration that there were ploughs and teams waiting for every man who came in; that they were all going to work on the farms and that none of them would work in the cities. He assured me time and again that conditions of employment in the cities would not be in the least affected by the thousands of men who were brought in. I took these men into the Dominion Labour Bureau and took with me a copy, sworn to as to its accuracy, of the document they were reading. They had been under the impression-and the document bore it out-that they were to be engaged by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for at least two months to work on the extra gangs there at thirty cents an hour. In order that the railway company might be quite sure of its position, it got each man to

Unemployment-Mr. Adshead

sign this document, which I will read; because they could not understand how it was that after being engaged for two months they were all discharged after working for three weeks, and another bunch were hired to work on the extra gang. This is the document:
Contract to work made by the undersigned with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
Particulars as to work:
(a)	Capacity in which engaged.-Extra gang.
(b)	Locality.-Beddington.
(c)	Rate of wages of actual work.-30 cents per hour.
(d)	Board.-$6 per week.
(e)	Transportation.-Free one way.
(f)	Deductions-medical fee.-$1.50 a month.
(g)	Duration of work.-Two months.
That was the item which these immigrants could not understand. They could not realize why they should not have two months' work when the document stated two months. But there was a little joker in the deck, as there generally is with labour contracts of that sort. It goes on to say:
1.	I declare that I am competent to work in the capacity described above, and if not found competent by the foreman in charge I agree to accept such work as such foreman finds me capable of, at the ruling rate of wages of the company for such work, in the locality mentioned above.
2.	I agree to work for a period of not less than the probable duration of work as set out above (two months).
Now comes the joker. These men were foreigners who did not understand and could not speak the English language. Here is the joker clause:
I agree that no notice of termination of my engagement shall be required to be given by the company.
So they agree to work for two months, if required, and if the company does not want them, they can discharge them at any time. After three weeks' work these men were discharged and helped to swell the ranks of the unemployed in the city of Calgary. Further, I want to draw attention to the binding nature of this agreement and to the penalties that were to be exacted if the men did not live up to it. The following clause was added, and no doubt was very fully explained to the men who were engaged:
Extract from the ordinance respecting master and servants, section 2:
"Any person engaged, bound or hired whether as clerk, journeyman apprentice, servant, labourer or otherwise howsoever guilty of drunkenness or of absenting himself day or night without leave from his proper service or employment or of refusing or neglecting to perform his just duties or to obey the lawful commands of his master or of dissipating his employer's property or effects, shall be deemed 
guilty of a violation of his contract, and upon summary conviction of one or more of the said violations forfeit and pay such sum of money not exceeding $30 as to the justice or magistrate seems meet, together with the costs of the prosecution; and in default thereof forthwith shall be imprisoned for any period not exceeding one month unless the fine imposed and costs, together with the costs of commitment and conveying such person to the place of imprisonment, be sooner paid."


William Irvine: Why not crucify them at once?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: No doubt. I am quoting from a sworn copy of the agreement, and it was no doubt impressed on these men that if they did not work for the full two months, if required, they would be liable to fine or imprisonment. But the company had the right to discharge them at any time they liked. So I ask the Minister of Labour: What are the conditions under which these eight thousand men are coming out to Canada this spring? According to the notice, they start to come about first of March. Are these immigrants, the bringing in of whom by the railways has been sanctioned by the government, going to work on the farm? Are they going where the government supposes they will go, or will their cases be just a repetition of those I have just cited? As soon as I go back to Calgary shall I find these men engaged in work at far less wages than the average worker will accept, thus aggravating the unemployment situation?
I want to give further proof of my statement that when these men come in with a guarantee that they are going to work on the farm, the government, or the Immigration department, which is the same thing, do not know where they are going. Unless some complaint is made, unless somebody draws attention to the fact that these men are not where they should be, the department takes no steps to see that they go where they are supposed to go. I have in my hand a letter that confirms exactly what I have said. Here was a man who was brought out to work on a farm. He signed to go on a farm, the same way that all these men I have spoken of signed to go on a farm. But he never left the city of Calgary, and the Immigration department knew nothing at all about his whereabouts or what he was doing until his case was brought to their attention. This man also helped to swell the ranks of the unemployed. I wrote to the department with a view to getting him deported, after he had been in the city of Calgary for two years. I wish to read the reply I got, and it shows conclusively that the department did not

Unemployment-Mr. Adshead
know where this man was or what he was doing, although he had been brought out to go on a farm. The department said:
Our records show that this man came to Canada to work on the farm. Our records show further that he was brought up on a farm, is fully experienced, and was accompanied to Canada by his wife, a twenty-one year old son, a fifteen year old son, and two smaller children. The two older boys were said to be experienced at farm work. There is no reason at all why this man and his family should not by now have become well on the way to a successful settlement on the land.
Certainly if he had been on the farm for two years, and had had previous experience in farming, there should be no reason why he should not be well settled on the land at the end of that time. The letter continues:
But I take it from your letter that he has been at city work and presumably has not made any effort along agricultural lines. However, we will deal with the case.
Four or five weeks later that man was deported. He had been maintained at the city's expense. What I want to bring out is the fact that that man came out with his wife and family to farm. The department knew that he came out to farm, and stated that he would be placed on a farm, but after having made that statement they knew nothing whatever of his whereabouts or what he was doing until I wrote to them that he had been in the city of Calgary for two years, and asked to have him deported because he was useless and was adding to the ranks of the unemployed.


George Gibson Coote: WThat country did he come
from?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I think he came from the old country. His name was John Kidd.
There is another complaint which I have in connection with the unemployment situation, although I understand that the government are not going to grant any more assisted passages. In the past these assisted immigrants have helped to swell the ranks of the unemployed. They come out here supposedly to go on the farms, but they finally land up in the cities. I have a list here of twenty men, farm immigrants, who in the months of December came into the city of Calgary. Some of them got jobs, others tried to get jobs; others joined the ranks of the unemployed and had to get relief from the city. In order to have some of these men deported I asked the city authorities to give them city relief for a week because the Immigration department absolutely refuse to consider deporting these men until they become a public charge. So we had to resort to that expedient before I could apply to the Immigration department to 2419-72i
have them deported. In the meantime, of course, they were swelling the ranks of the unemployed, while others of them were taking work that Canadians resident in the city should have had. I wrote to the Immigration department, and also wired to the Prime Minister to the same effect, asking that some recompense be made to the city and to those who had maintained these men for periods varying from a week to six weeks and two months, and I got this standard reply from the department. It is a peculiar reply, and I would like the Minister of Labour to take note of it. We asked the department to reimburse us the cost of looking after these men whom we were not instrumental in bringing to this country, but the department denied all responsibility. We had to expend several thousand dollars on relief measures. To every such request this is the stock answer we get. It would be humourous but for the tragic circumstances. This is the stereotyped reply:
I venture to suggest that the amount of money spent by the city of Calgary in a few cases-
That is, these numerous immigrants.
-is comparatively small, and further that the same is infinitesimal as compared with the benefit which your city must derive from these immigrants who locate within its borders.
The benefit which we have received from these trainees, these men who came out to farm but eventually landed in our city and finally had to be deported!


Edward Joseph Garland: Who signed that letter?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: That is signed by F. C.
Blair, and is dated December 29, last year. I said it was a stock answer, and this is confirmed by another letter which I received. In fact one would imagine that the form was typed and pasted on the wall for use whenever a request is received by the department from a municipality for reimbursement of money spent on stranded immigrants. The other letter is signed by Mr. Egan. Let me quote it:
I venture to suggest-
The same wording precisely.
-that the amount of money spent by the city of Calgary in a few such cases is comparatively small, and further that the same is infinitesimal as compared with the benefit which your city must derive from these immigrants who locate within its borders.
Both Mr. Egan and Mr. Blair use the same
stereotype form.
I thoroughly agree with the statement of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister that humanity does not exist for industry, but that industry exists for the sake of humanity; that

Unemployment-Mr. Adshead
the human element is the most important. He took the human side of the question. But it is just the lack of that human side which causes the trouble we have in connection with unemployment. For instance, in the city of Calgary last year-and this is typical of many such cases throughout the Dominion-the Canadian Pacific Railway Company without a moment's notice, without any consideration for -their employees, without any consultation with them, discharged them, and those men are still in the city of Calgary without employment and in distress. Now, in view of this and similar cases I ask the Prime Minister, what does he think about labour not being a commodity when great corporations are allowed to discharge their men because they know that in the spring they can get a fresh supply? Those veiy corporations take excellent care of their machines, simply because they regard them as far more valuable than their workmen.
I submit, sir, that it is the duty of the government to implement their promises made in the platform of 1919, even though nine years have elapsed since that platform was published to the Dominion. I trust the Minister of Labour will put his best foot forward to have those promises implemented. Indeed, I think it is up to the government to state to the house how they intend to give effect to the speech made by my hon. friend the Minister of Labour at London, for as a responsible minister of the crown that speech of his is binding on his colleagues in the cabinet.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-'couata):: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is of the utmost importance to each province of the Dominion that we should consider the causes of unemployment. My hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) said that unemployment is not only provincial, it is a federal matter. I believe that it is also an international matter, because it has been studied even by the League of Nations. I see my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) laughing. Let me assure him that unemployment is too serious a matter to laugh at, and I am surprised to see my young friend, who is a man of intelligence, laugh at so serious a problem-a problem that cannot be solved by jokes or laughter. During the past winter I noticed in the New York Times a very sad picture which I place at the disposal of every hon. member. Underneath it is printed the following :
The unemployed of Australia start a slave market. Men out of work in Sydney offer themselves to the lowest bidder in an effort to find employment for themselves.

It discloses a situation infinitely worse than that which prevails here. I wonder if my friend from Queens-Lunenburg could get a fair price for his services in Australia.


William Gordon Ernst: If the hon. member is referring to me, I may say I was laughing at him, not at the problem of unemployment.


Jean-François Pouliot: When my hon. friend
laughs it makes a general disturbance in the house. In all countries, Mr. Speaker, the social order must be preserved, and any disturbance in that order affects the whole structure. We all remember the great economic disturbance following the war during the period of readjustment. Gradually the world got back to normal. But there is another disturbance of the social order, a continuing disturbance, caused by the shift of our rural population to the cities. People who live happily in the country are attracted by the mirage-like lure of the big cities, and they leave their healthful country surroundings for a stuffy tenement in the city. When those people, either through lack of initiative or of qualifications, fail to find work they become very much embarrassed and eventually are a source of trouble to the community. Then again the constant improvement in machinery displaces more and more men, still further aggravating the unemployment problem. The increased power of our modern freight and passenger engines means that a single train crew can do the work which a few years ago, with the lighter motive power then in use, would have given work to many more train crews.
There is yet another cause of unemployment. In this country we have what are called international unions. I must say that I am in favour of national unions, or Canadian unions. I spoke of the Canadian spirit in this house the other day and arising out of that I ask you how those union heads, who reside in the United States, could have the interests of Canadians at heart. International unions, as a whole, cannot show the Canadian spirit that we may expect from local organizations. What is the effect of unions of an international nature? The effect is that when they have not enough men within their ranks to attend to the work they have in hand, they call people in from the United States to do that work, merely because they are members of the unions, and thereby they discriminate against our Canadian citizens. To my mind this is an incorrect practice, and if something could be done to improve the conditions in this respect it would be highly beneficial to the community. It constitutes the worst kind

Unemployment-Mr. Poulvot
of discrimination. We have people who can do a certain type of work; they are able workers, but camnot obtain employment because they do not belong to a union. Instead of giving employment to Canadians the union leaders call in men from the United States.
I think theTe should be more humanity, not only in industry but in labour, so that such things could be prevented in the future.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour and their colleagues are very much interested in the welfare of the working men of this country. The Prime Minister was the editor of the first number of the Labour Gazette. He has been deputy minister and Minister of Labour, and he has taken great interest in all labour questions. May I say to my hon. friend the Minister of Labour, who has risen from the ranks, that it is a great compliment to organized labour when the head of a government consults labour as to a representative from its ranks to act as a minister in the cabinet. My hon. friend the Minister of Labour is equal to his task, and I am glad to see in this evening's papers that the government is doing its part to fulfil the treaty with respect to labour to the extent of recommending the universal adoption of an eight-hour working day in Canada. An order in council is being introduced to-day, as we have noticed in the papers, to the effect that the government employees will not work more than eight hours a day, and will receive pay for overtime after eight hours' work has been performed. It is because we have such real and sincere friends of labour in the government that the Prime Minister said to the president and chairman of the board of the Canadian National Railways that even if the expenditure was higher, the men who have been working for some time for the Canadian National Railways should continue to be given work. The same instructions have been given with regard to the Department of Public Works, and we find the Acting Minister of Imimgration (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton) stating that subsidies to transportation companies which are used for the purposes of immigration will not be renewed this year. Transportation companies will receive no premiums to bring immigrants to Canada to take the place of our own people.
The Old Age Pension Act represents one of the most generous gestures made by this parliament. It is a fine thought when we consider that the old people who are destitute will be helped. I consider it is the duty of the state to give help to those who cannot earn a livelihood because of their advanced years. With this in mind the federal government passed legislation which was accepted by all the provinces from British Columbia to Ontario.
Last year I had occasion to bring before this house the question of low salaries in Quebec. I did so conscientiously to bring the attention of the whole country to the situation as it existed in that province. I mention that fact, Mr. Speaker, because when I referred to the subject last year some hon. members in the far corner of the house said they thought it would be rather inappropriate to discuss the matter, because there was a function in the city of Hull that evening and it was their opinion that the matter should not be before the house. To my mind, the question of low salaries is one of the utmost importance in Canada. I bring it before the house because this is the place where we can more easily broadcast matters of national importance. The situation of the working men in Quebec was very unsatisfactory. A year ago I took the opportunity to speak to the house on that subject, and hon. members were kind enough to listen to my remarks. For the satisfaction of my hon. friends in the far comer of the house may I say that there: has been a change in the province of Quebec. I would not say that the change has resulted from what I said, but I shall tell you of what took place. First of all, there was the genera] report for the year 1929, by the Minister of Public Works and Labour of the province of Quebec. This report, dealing with the minimum wage law for women, was brought down on the 2nd of July, 1929. The speech referred to was delivered on June 12, and two or three weeks later that report was sent to the minister. They had been working on the matter for three years, but almost directly after that little speech they published the report and sent it to the minister.
That is a very small thing, perhaps, but there is more to be said. Last year complaint was made that the Minister of Labour for Quebec had no information as to the wages paid the working men in that province. In 1928 a list of questions was sent to 454 different labour groups, and answers were received from only 245. In 1929, 466 groups were questioned, and answers were received from 280, an increase of 35. That is not much, but it shows good will on the part of these people, and I am surprised that the minister was not sufficiently interested to send his officials to the leaders of the unions in order to get more complete information.
There is something else which brings consolation. A provincial member of the Quebec legislature drafted a minimum wage law for

Unemployment-Mr. Pouliot
men. The matter was discussed by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association; they considered the bill which was introduced in the legislature by Mr. Aime Guertin, member for Hull. During the discussion by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association reference was made to a judgment of the supreme court in regard to a minimum wage law for men in British Columbia, and the association was under the impression that that minimum wage law was declared ultra vires. As a matter of fact it was only an order of the board of adjustment that was declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court of Canada, which said that the board misconceived the nature and scope of its function, and the order which was made was declared ultra vires and invalid. The decision was given in the case of the International Timber Company against Field, judgment being rendered by the Chief Justice. The act itself was not declared ultra vires.
The most extraordinary feature, Mr. Speaker, is that the federated trades council of Quebec declared that a minimum wage enacted by statute would cause great difficulty, and might be taken as the maximum wage by the employers. These people declared themselves opposed to the establishment by statute of a minimum wage for working men. The minimum wage law introduced by Mr. Guertin is referred to in the Montreal Gazette of March 22, where Mr. Guertin is quoted as saying:
This act shall apply to the provincial government as well as to the municipal school corporations.
Then the Gazette goes on to say:
It is on this latter clause that the bill will be found out of order, since it affects the revenues of the jjrovince and, therefore, can only be brought down by a minister with a companion resolution. In drawing up the bill this fact _ is emphasized, because the clause is placed within brackets, as done with government bills accompanied by resolutions. The result will be, therefore, that there may not be even a debate on the principle involved.
As a matter of fact, the minimum wage bill was ruled out of order, and the Ottawa Citizen of March 27 has the following to say:
Because it involved the expenditure of public funds, Speaker Bouchard ruled out of order the bill of Aime Guertin, Conservative, Hull, to the effect that there be established a minimum wage rate for men of 35 cents an hour. The speaker called the attention of Mr. Guertin to the clause which provides that employees of the provincial government come under the act, suggesting a change be made before he made his ruling definite.
Mr. Guertin argued the point, refusing to withdraw the clause. The bill was ruled out of order.

Mr. Guertin has put a motion on the order paper to the effect that "this house invites the government to introduce at the next session an act to fix the minimum salary of certain classes of male workers."
That is quite an improvement. We have not succeeded yet; the question has not been decided, but it is under consideration, and the day will come when the province of Quebec will have by all means a minimum wage law for men. As I stated last year, the maximum wages in Montreal for nine trades are lower than the average wage paid for the same work in twelve important cities from coast to coast.
The other day I was speaking on immigration, and a friend of mine for whom I have much respect said that a remark I made was nonsense. Perhaps that word may be a boomerang. At the time I said there was only one minimum wage law for men, and that was in British Columbia. Another member, who is not here and whose name I will not mention, said there was one in Alberta, and the other hon. gentleman stated there was one in Ontario for men and women as well. I said that if such laws were in effect in Alberta and in Ontario I did not know about it, and I wired the Minister of Labour for Ontario as follows:
Hon. F. E. Godfrey,
Minister of Health and Labour,
Toronto.
Please wire me if there is minimum wage law for men and women in Ontario and, if so, since when is it in force.
That wire was dated March 24, and Mr. Godfrey was good enough to answer me by wire the same day, as follows:
Minimum wage law in Ontario applies to women only. In force now.
Evidently the hon. member who interjected the remark about Ontario forgot that the law applied only to women. I have here a copy of the Ontario act, which is headed, "An act to provide for a minimum wage board with power to regulate in certain cases the minimum wages of women and girls." Can men be considered as being women and girls? I have also the orders of the minimum wage board regarding the employment of women in the province of Ontario, and they will convince my hon. friend that it is dangerous to make preposterous statements.
Apparently some good has come out of the exposure made in the House of Commons as to the terrible state of affairs which exists in the province of Quebec. That province claimed at first that the Old Age Pension Act was ultra vires, tout they seem to have changed

Unemployment-Mr. Church
their minds. The speech from the throne delivered to the Quebec legislature on January 7 last contains this paragraph:
Several social problems of great importance are now up for consideration. Attempts have been made with more or less success to solve some of these in the other provinces and abroad. My ministers do not wish to be behind hand and intend to submit to you a bill appointing a commission composed of economists, to study the various systems of social insurance, of foster homes for children, of old age pensions and several other similar social questions. My ministers think that an exhaustive consideration of these different problems, in the light of experience gained elsewhere, will lead to their satisfactory solution.
I would point out to my hon. friends in the far corner of the house that that province considers this matter to be within its scope. In accordance with that speech fiom the throne a bill has been presented to the provincial house, and the provincial Minister of Labour has said that within three months the commission provided for will come into existence. I hope that that commission will not be used as a smoke screen in an effort to make the people believe that the government is coming to their rescue when in fact it does not intend to do anything. Conditions in Quebec are very bad; my hon. friends know that the day labourer is paid only from $2 to S2.50 per day, while the average is much higher in the other provinces. I do not intend to read the statistics which I gave last year to the house, but is not this matter taken as a whole worthy of due consideration?
Congestion in the big cities is brought about by the influx of people from the country, and one means of preventing unemployment would be to demonstrate to the country people that they would be much better off if they remained on the farms. They would be more independent and happier; during the bad years they would have at least sufficient to live on, and during the good years they would be farther ahead.
I take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for North Winnipeg and the hon. member for East Calgary on the manner in which they have discussed this question. It is not a matter to be discussed with heat; it should be considered calmly and with the idea of obtaining results. The hon. member for North Winnipeg said that it was the duty of the government to call a conference of the nine provinces in order that this matter might be studied. That would seem to prove that he himself is inclined to believe that the matter is one which comes within the provincial jurisdiction, because if it did not the government would have no
reason to call a conference. Even if there is no vote upon his motion I believe he has attained his object, because 'he has brought this matter to the attention of the country, as I, in my very humble way, did last year regarding the low wages paid in Quebec. When such matters as these are discussed with moderation there is not a man in the country who is not interested in them and who does not give consideration to the best way of remedying the conditions.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, this matter of unemployment is one regarding which every large municipality has made representations to the house during the past three or four months. This government seems to be unlike any other government the world over, because they have simply sat down and fiddled with this question and have made a political football out of it. The first duty of a government is to look after the health, welfare and comfort of its people, but I begin to wonder whether or not we are living in a Christian country when we see this government treating human beings in such a manner. If we should love our neighbours as overselves, then before this parliament closes the government should do something about unemployment. Nine-tenths of the time of the Labour government of Great Britain is taken up in the consideration of the unemployment problem. The United States government, under the administration of Mr. Hoover, has appointed an economic committee composed of the brightest minds in labouring, manufacturing, agricultural, railway and other fields, to meet at Washington in an endeavour to solve the problem of unemployment.
No effort has been made to solve that question in this country. We have a Labour department, but it does not exist so far as unemployment is concerned. Unemployment has never been as bad since confederation as it is at the present time in the large municipalities in this country. Delegations have met the government, but no results have been obtained. The government shelters itself behind technicalities. The house was told a few years ago that unemployment was a matter for the provinces and the municipalities; last session the word "municipality" was struck out, and we were told that it was a matter for the provinces alone-the government refuse to answer the question at all this present session. While I have a high regard for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) I contend that he has failed utterly to conceive what the government's duty is to
Unemployment-Mr. Church

the unemployed of this country. The government shelters itself behind that celebrated document the British North America Act, which act would appear to be preventing this country from solving any of its economic problems. Unemployment should be the charge of the federal authorities for the reason that they make the tariff; they are in control of the banking laws, the immigration laws and many other items which are set out in section 91 of the British North America Act as being under federal jurisdiction. They say:	We
have had a meeting with the provincial authorities. We seem to have provincial government in the federal sense as regards not only water powers but every other problem. The provinces seem to be running the country because in regard to everything we propose, it seems that we must consult the provinces. This particular question has been made a political football of by the government. The resolution moved by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) is long overdue in the house. We have been here for five or six weeks and we have not had time in this chamber to take up the most important problem confronting Canada to-day, namely, the unemployment situation as it affects all the provinces of confederation.
The minister relies on the index system. The index system has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. I can show as regards industries in Toronto where this is the case. I know a man who received two weeks' employment in his industry during 1929, and who is listed as having been employed all the year round. According to reports, the British system and the United States system have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. As an index of employment it is far from being accurate. It covers only a few industries; it does not cover the key industries at all. The government send down a form and the industries fill it out. Some of the men may be working only five or six days or a couple of weeks in the year, but they are listed as being employed all the year round. The government say that there is practically no unemployment. All I can find out that the government have been doing during the past five or six years in regard to the unemployment situation is that they have established an unemployment bureau in Ottawa. They have provided an "ambassador" cure for unemployment, and they are sending out over the seven seas ambassadors to different countries, hoping by that method to cure unemployment. That is all the government have done. Since this government have been in power 1,300,000 people have gone to the United States and 
the exodus is still going on. We hear talk about the exodus of raw material. What about the exodus of Canadians who are going to the United States to-day and draining this country of its people? From the last issue of the University of Toronto Monthly I found that of the graduating class in medicine sixty-one stayed in Canada, fifty-seven went to the United States and fifteen to other foreign countries. In other words, 50 to 55 per cent went out of the country. The other day I saw a line-up of 347 men in Toronto on Yonge street near Gerrard, a long line of young men in front of a religious mission, waiting to get a bite to eat at the lunch hour. Anybody passing in the street car could have seen the crowd. In other parts of the country soup kitchens were opened up last winter. The government are asleep at the switch. When you ask them to solve any problem, what do they say? They say: We have nothing to do with it; it is a matter for the provinces, the municipalities.
It is the present tariff policy of the government that has put the workers out on the street, because that is where they are owing to the pan-American tariff of the government. As for their immigration policy, they cannot provide jobs for the men we have in this country now and they are still bringing them in. The first thing we ought to do is to set up an all-Canadian policy and to give jobs for the native-born Canadians, instead of having them to go to the United States to help build up that country. In the cities of Buffalo, Cleveland, Erie, Pennsylvania, Toledo and Detroit we have on the United States border of Lake Erie a cluster of cities that are becoming the largest Canadian cities we have. As Senator Couzens said, Detroit is becoming the third largest Canadian city. This process is going on all the time and immigration is to blame. No other province is suffering more than Ontario from unemployment at the present time. Ontario is losing thousands of its citizens in its cities and towns. The city of Toronto is spending $12,000,000 to $13,000,000 a year in maintaining its children in public and high schools and many of these children who are now ten or twelve years of age will, in the next five or six years, be going over bag and baggage to the United States looking for positions. Ontario has been a dumping ground for1 dairy produce, agricultural produce, coming in from the United States, but the government refuse to do anything; they sit still and say: We have nothing to do with unemployment. The minister says: I will find a permanent cure for it-unemployment insurance. The report of the royal

Unemployment-Mr. Church
commission in the United States shows that it is not a permanent cure for unemployment. It is a policy of robbing Peter to pay Paul, and imposing an additional burden on srtuggling industry. I believe in the principle of unemployment insurance, but in this country we have a state of affairs which is quite different from that of other countries. The policy of the government seems to be that nothing that can be purchased in the United States should be bought in Canada, especially eastern Canada, and that anything that cannot be purchased in the United States should be bought preferably in Europe, the first preference being given to Germany.
The Labour department has fallen down; it might as well close up shop for all the help it has been to the toilers and workers of Canada. The Labour department has failed to fulfil the functions for which it was created, namely to look after labour in the country, create jobs and protect the workers. The Alien Labour Act to-day is a dead letter. A couple of years ago when Sir Henry Drayton, then member for West York, was away, I wrote a letter to the minister. Some nurserymen in Sir Henry Drayton's riding complained that thirty-six workers had been brought in from southern Europe to work in the gardens of West York. I could not get a reply, but I found out afterwards that the minister said in the house that the question of the enforcement of the Alien Labour Act was a matter for the attention of the provincial attorney general. Anything to get out from under! Is it any wonder we have unemployment in Canada?
The other day the Prime Minister said at a dinner that freedom, equality and the end of privilege constituted the policy of twentieth century Liberalism. Yet he says: We have nothing to do with the condition and lot of the people among whom we live; unemployment is a matter for somebody else. Is freedom one of the principles of twentieth century Liberalism? Economic slavery to the United States is what the workers have in place of freedom. That is what the policy of the present government has given instead of freedom. Equality! There is no such thing as equality in this country. The government have a tariff policy of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Talk about the end of privilege in this country 1 Did you ever hear anything like it in your life? They give away the Seven Sisters falls, the Beauharnois water powers and the other water powers of the country. It looks to me as if the government to-day is a government of big interests and appetites instead of a government of freedom, equality and the end of privilege. The
twentieth century Liberals were told the other night by one of them who was making a speech in eulogy of the Prime Minister: Liberalism is the open road. Yes, Liberalism is the open road to the United States. The policy of the government has been responsible for the unemployment existing in this country to-day. Liberalism has been the open road for hundreds of thousands of our working people who have had to leave this country to seek a living in the United States. There has been no concerted effort on the part of this government to deal with this problem in a constructive way.
I have before me the report of the committee on education and labour of the United States congress, presided over by Senator Couzens, of Detroit. The committee was charged with considering the question of unemployment and ascertaining what the causes were. They found that unemployment may be divided under three heads. I would like to give a few examples of what that committee found in that great country to the south where our young men had to go to look for a living.
The committee find, first of all, that there is cyclical unemployment, unemployment that occurs in a cycle, just like children have diphtheria or the measles. That kind of unemployment is with us most of the time, and how to deal with that form of unemployment is the first duty of the government. A wise and up-to-date government will declare active war on unemployment all the time it is in office, because the government of the day is charged with the responsibility of dealing with this problem. The problem must be faced and dealt with in a large and constructive manner that will redound to the benefit of the toilers in this country.
Secondly, there is seasonal unemployment, which comes on us periodically. They are tackling that problem in the United States to-day, and they have a solution for it. I have already referred to the evidence given by Mr. Willard, president of the Baltimore and Ohio Railway before the senate committee. He said:
It is a dangerous thing to have a large number of unemployed men and women-dangerous to society as a whole-dangerous to the individuals who constitute society. When men who are willing and able to work and want to work are unable to obtain work, we need not be surprised if they steal before they starve. Certainly I do not approve of stealing, but if I had to make the choice between stealing and starving, I would surely not choose to starve-and in that respect I do not think I am much unlike the average individual.
The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, as one of the units of society, ought to recognize and carry whatever responsibility rests upon it as
Unemployment-Mr. Church

a large employer, and I think, Mr. Chairman, that it was due to our recognition in part of the obligation which I have just been discussing, that we of the Baltimore and Ohio developed a quickened sense of the importance of anything which had to do with the stabilization of employment. I do not hesitate to say that I should personally feel very much ashamed if it were made clear to me that the Baltimore and Ohio Company was not doing all that it could and ought to do, having due regard for the interests of the owners of the property while other employers of labour were fully meeting similar obligations.
The views which I have just expressed concerning this matter are in large degree held by all employers of labour at the present time. In any event I think there is a more universal appreciation of the obligation resting on employers because of our economic system than ever before, and this has led to what I may refer to as a changed point of view, of a changed state of mind, and it is due to that state of mind, in my opinion, more than to any other single thing that the efforts have been made in recent years, which certainly have been made by employers in all lines of business, to deal with this matter in a more constructive manner.
The third cause of unemployment is technological. It is caused chiefly through the introduction of machines that supplant the worker. Men find that their skill is no longer needed. Let me give you a few examples as found in this report:
Seven men now do the work which formerly required 60 to perform in easting pig iron; 2 men now do the work which formerly required 128 to perform in loading pig iron; one man replaces 42 in operating open-hearth furnaces.
In machine and railway repair shops one man replaces 25 skilled machinists with a gang of 5 or 10 semi-automatic machines; 4 men can now do in 3 to 7 hours what it formerly took 8 men 3 weeks to perform in repair work on locomotives, due to the oxyacetylene torch. Fifteen years ago it took 15 to 30 hours to turn one pair of locomotive tires; now it takes 8 hours to turn 6 pairs with same number of men by use of modern processes.
A brick-making machine in Chicago makes 40,000 bricks per hour. It formerly took one man 8 hours to make 450.
The most up-to-date automatic bottle-making machine makes in one hour what it would take more than 41 workers to make by hand in the manufacture of 4 ounce oval prescription bottles. In 25 and 40 watt electric bulbs the man-hour output of the automatic machine is more than thirty-one times that of the hand process.
In New York from 1914 to 1925 the number of workers in the paper-box industry decreased 32 per cent, while the output per wage earner increased 121 per cent.
Thousands of skilled musicians with a life's training behind them are being thrown out of employment by the advent of the talking movie. In the field of news transportation the Simplex and the Multiplex machines have eliminated the need of trained telegraphers, and to-day by the mere process of typing a message at the sending office, the message is automatically printed at the receiving office. Many thousands of trained telegraphers have been made unneces-

sary during the last few years as a result of this new device. In the printing trades new inventions in typesetting threaten to make possible the setting of type in innumerable offices scattered as many as 500 miles away by the manipulation of keys in a central plant.
That is what they call technological unemployment. It is evident that in the United States they are dealing with this problem of unemployment in a large, constructive way, conducting an active warfare not only on cyclical unemployment, but on seasonal unemployment, and on this newer form, technological unemployment. They are to-day getting results in the United States. The report of this committee has been presented and adopted by congress.
On motion of Mr. Church the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, April 1, 1930