1931-04-29

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 28, consideration of the proposed motion of Mr. Bourassa, the amendment thereto of Mr. Bennett and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Euler.
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the motion now pending with regard to hon. members voting or not voting on motions before the house, as this matter is subject to a conference now being initiated with a view to arriving at some compromise, I ask the unanimous consent of the house that the motion stand until after such conference is held.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, before the consent of the house is given, may I ask the hon. minister who has just taken his seat (Mr. Cahan) the nature of the conference, and who will be members thereof?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The conference was suggested near the close of the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa)

and the amendments which were moved thereto. I understand that the conference is to take place between the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), the right hon, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Clerk of the House, and is being held with a view to drafting a compromise amendment to be submitted to the house.


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not think a conference of that nature would fill the bill at all; I am afraid it would be wholly unfair to the hon. members in this corner of the house. This debate originated as a result of certain action which we took and which was completely in accordance with the rules of the house, although utterly misunderstood by both the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition. A motion having been introduced to remedy the rules to cover a mistake made by these hon. gentlemen and to prevent its recurrence, the hon. members responsible for the initiation of the debate are apparently to be left out of the conference.
I am sure that after due reflection the hon. minister will see the fairness and justice of taking into consideration the requirements of this group and that at least one of our members should be a representative at that conference.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think it would meet with the approval of the house to include the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), the leader of the third party.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: And also the mover of the motion (Mr. Bourassa).


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, they both might be
added to that committee.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon. member for Acadia informs me that with that understanding our group will be satisfied. I thank the Prime Minister for having included the hon. member for Labelle.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker, it may further serve to relieve the minds of my hon. friends in the other corner if I tell them that I knew nothing of the proposed [DOT] conference until this moment. I am pleased to know I am to be invited to participate, and I am very happy to accept.


Mr. JACOBS:: May I suggest that the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) be included also in that conference? I do not know whether the word "Waterloo" signifies anything to the hon. member for Labelle, but I think we ought to have a Waterloo in it.

Questions


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suggest that the conference will be complete if it includes the hon. member for Labelle, as he has very definite views with regard to the nature of the amendment which should be proposed to the house,


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the unanimous wish of the house that the motion stand?
Motion stands.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. BERTRAND:: Has the Dominion government come to an understanding with the provinces in connection with their respective rights as to water-powers of navigable waters between the provinces, if so, when?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If I may answer the
question verbally, the answer is, no.


ASSISTANCE TO AGRICULTURE
Mr MacLEAN:: 1.	Has an organization been formed to assist agriculture in Canada with an amount of money available for assistance to farms?
2.	If so, what amount of money is available for this fund?
3.	By whom is the money advanced for this fund?
4.	Is this assistance available to all sections and provinces in Canada?
5.	If not, why?
6.	What amount is to be given to each applicant?
7.	How is the fund to be handled and what constitutes a legitimate applicant?
S.	Ts the fund in operation at the present time ?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This question, is rather
vague in its terms. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will say exactly what he means, because there 'are many organizations which assist agriculture in Canada. It is difficult to answer the question as it stands.


Mr. MacLEAN:: The question refers to
the organization proposed as a means of assisting agriculture in western Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are many such
organizations.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I have in mind the
organization referred to by the Prime Minister in his speech in Regina.
Question stands.
BEAUHARNOIS LIGHT, HEAT & POWER COMPANY


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Has the government received any notice to the effect that the Beauharnois Light, Heat & Power Company has applied to the government of the province of Quebec for permission and has been granted the right to divert an additional 30,000 cubic feet of water per second through the Beauharnois canal?
2.	Do the plans already filed by the Beauharnois Light, Heat & Power Company and approved by the government, enable the company to divert the above mentioned 30,000 cubic feet of water per second through its canal ?
3.	If it is necessary for the government to approve of the plans of the Beauharnois Light, Heat & Power Company to allow them to divert this additional 30,000 cubic feet of water per second, is it the intention of the government to approve of such plans without giving the house an opportunity of considering the said application?
4.	Does the government approve and concur in the granting by the province of Quebec to the Beauharnois Light, Heat & Power Company of the right to divert the said 30,000 cubic feet of water per second through the Beauharnois canal?
5.	In whom is the legal title to this 30,000 cubic feet of water vested?
6.	Is the government of the opinion that P.C. No. 442, dated March 8, 1929, is legal and valid in so far as it purports to grant the rights and privileges therein contained to the Beauharnois Light, Heat & Power Company?


Mr. GARDINER:: When this question was last called, the Prime Minister took exception to some of the questions involved in it because of the fact that they were legal in character. For that reason he said they could not be answered. With the permission of the house, I would ask that numbers 4, 5 and 6 be dropped and that the others be allowed to stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 4, 5 and 6?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6
of question 6 are withdrawn.


Robert Gardiner: Yes, dropped.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The remainder of question 6 stands.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I may say that question 3 was the worst of the lot:
Is it the intention of the government to approve of such plans without giving the house an opportunity of considering the said application?
That is a question which is governed by law and one that does not call for an answer. Intentions are not matters of question.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Question stands.
Questions


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, Mr. Speaker; I
submit that number 3 must be stricken out.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, if you
will allow the question to stand as submitted by myself, I will reconsider number 3; but I cannot see the argument of the Prime Minister at the moment.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6
dropped; the remainder of the question stands.
Question as amended stands.


MB. H. G. BOULAY
Sir EUGENE FISET:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to implement the following public promises made by its candidate in the county of Rimouski, Mr. H. G. Boulay, if his leader came to power, namely: (a) to reduce the salary of Sir Henry Thornton to $15,000 per annum; (b) to reduce the salaries of all vice-presidents and other high officials of the Canadian National Railways, including general managers of divisions, by 50 per cent; (c) to provide on all dining and buffet cars, pullman parlour cars, first and second class cars, being operated between Ottawa and Montreal, Montreal and Halifax, only employees who speak fluently French and English ?
2.	Has any request been received by the Minister of Railways and Canals, or by Sir Henry Thornton, or any other high officials of the Canadian National Railways, from Mr. H. G. Boulay, asking that a large portion, if not all, of the sub-staff and railway employees employed on trains operating between Ottawa and Montreal, Montreal and Halifax, be compelled to speak both French and English?
3.	If so, what action does the honourable minister or _ the executive of the Canadian National Railways intend to take?


Mr. MANION:: In regard to question number 12, the Prime Minister pointed out some days ago what I think was correct, namely, that this is not a proper question for the order paper; and you yourself, Mr. Speaker, said that the question should be dropped. It is still, however, on the order paper. It is not one that we can answer, nor is it a proper question for the order paper.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: I understand that
during my absence the minister asked that the question be dropped. In view of his request, and as this is about the best answer I could possibly obtain to my question, I have no objection to the question being dropped.
Question dropped.


VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSION-PURCHASE OP BARGE
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Did the Vancouver Board of Harbour Commissioners recently purchase a railway barge?

2.	If so, was this barge purchased in the United States?
3.	Who arranged such purchase?
4.	What are the dimensions of this barge?
5.	When was this barge originally constructed ?
6.	What was the purchase price?
7.	What was the cost of towing this barge to Vancouver?
8.	What was the cost of insurance on the said barge?
9.	From whom was the barge acquired?
10.	Was the barge acquired from an American corporation or through an agency?
11.	In whose name was the barge cleared through the American customs?
12.	To whom was the insurance on the barge paid ?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I have explained, this question can be answered only in the manner indicated yesterday, by sending a letter to the harbour commissioners and presenting their reply to the house. The government has no direct control over the commission in the sense implied by these questions. If the hon. gentleman desires that we should write a letter,, sending a copy of the questions and submitting an answer to the house, we will do so.


Mr. POWER:: In the meanwhile, if I may suggest it, why not make it an order for return?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If that is acceptable, it
may stand as an order for return.
Question stands as order for return.


WRECKING PLANTS
Mr. PLUNKETT:: 1.	How much money by way of subsidies has been voted yearly from 1921 to 1930, inclusive, for wrecking plants in the province of British Columbia?
2.	How much money by way of subsidies has been voted yearly from 1921 to 1930, inclusive, for wrecking plants in the province of Quebec?
3.	What is the tonnage of the ships of the wrecking plant and total amount of investment exclusive of subsidies from federal government for the province of British Columbia?
4.	What is the tonnage of the ships of the wrecking plant and total amount of investment exclusive of subsidies from federal government for the province of Quebec?
5.	What is the total amount of money lost
in wrecks by shipping interests from 1921 to 1930.	inclusive,	upon	which	the	subsidized
wrecking plant of the province of British Columbia was engaged?
6.	What is the total amount of money lost
in wrecks by shipping interests from 1921 to 1930.	inclusive,	upon	which	the	subsidized
wrecking plant of the province of Quebec wa* engaged ?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This must stand as an
order for return, as I said the other day, in view of the number of questions and the years covered.
Question stands as order for return.

Questions


PROVINCIAL LIQUOR COMMISSIONS, CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What was the total amount paid, by way of customs and excise levy, during the fiscal year of 1930-1931, by each of the various provinces of Canada, through their liquor commissions?
2.	What was the gallonage upon which said payments were made?
3.	Has the total amount payable by each province been received?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has not been the custom in times past-certainly not without the consent of the provinces-to disclose the business of the various provinces with departments in relation to the moneys they pay to the Dominion. General information of course is available from the provinces themselves at some time or other. There is no reason why the hon. member should not be able to obtain the information, but as I say it has long been the custom not to make public the affairs of the provinces in the conduct of business with the various departments of the public service.


Mr. DUFF:: That applies to individuals
and not to the provinces. The province is a public body, and I think the question should be answered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is
perhaps aware that the matter was the subject of litigation by the province of British Columbia, and the case finally went to the privy council. It is not the province that carried on the business, but the various commissions, and they stand exactly in the same position as individuals. If it is the opinion of the house that the custom should be departed from in the case of provinces or commissions, an effort will be made to get the information; but I am only indicating what the rule has been in days past.


William Duff: I will drop the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Thank you.
Question dropped.


TORONTO SOLDIERS' ADVISER
Mr. GRAY:: 1.	Has Mr. A. Conroy, formerly official soldiers' adviser for the district of Toronto, been dismissed from his position in the Department of Pensions and National Health?
2.	Is the government aware that Mr. Conroy was employed for over thirteen years by the departments of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment and of Pensions and National Health?
3.	Is the department aware that Mr. Conroy himself and two of his sons served in the late war?
4.	In view of his war record and services will the government take steps to reinstate this official?


Mt. MacLAREN:: The first three queries
of this question are in order, but number 4 should be dropped. It is not a proper question.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Paragraph 4 of the question is dropped.
Question stands.


CHARLEVOIX-SAGUENAY CENSUS COMMISSIONERS
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Who was appointed census commissioner for the electoral division of Charlevoix-Saguenay?
2.	By whom was he recommended?
3.	What are his age, occupation, and residence?
4.	What salary is he paid?
5.	What persons were appointed by him as census enumerators in each parish of the said counties ?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Mr. L. A. Bouliane, N.P., of La Malbaie, Que., was appointed for the county of Charlevoix and Mr. Alfred Larouche (Wenceslas) of Grandes Bergeronnes, Que., for the county of Saguenay.
2.	Appointed by the Honourable the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
3.	Mr. Bouliane, commissioner for Charlevoix, is a notary, 68 years of age, and resides at La Malbaie, Que. Mr. Larouche (Wenceslas) commissioner for Saguenay, is a contractor, about 33 years of age, and resides at Grandes Bergeronnes, Que.
4.	Each commissioner allowed an allowance of $600 to cover organization expenses and for viseing of the returns made by the enumerators; checking them and forwarding to Ottawa; verification of enumerators' accounts and the general supervision of the census within the district over which they are appointed as commissioner the following rates are provided:
One cent for each name on the "population" schedule;
Three cents for each "agricultural" schedule;
One cent for each entry on the "animal and animal products, not on farm" schedule;
One cent for each record of blind and deaf persons;
One cent for each record of merchandising and service establishment.
5.	Enumerators have not yet been appointed.

Questions


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-COAL
Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: 1.	What quantity of coal was consumed by the Canadian National Railways in Canada in the fiscal year 1930-1931, stating countries of


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Fiscal year, April 30, 1930, to March
Kind of Coal
Bituminous	
Anthracite	
Sub-bituminous	
Lignite	
2.	719,600 net tons.
origin and amounts from each; also specify varieties?
2.	What quantity of coal was consumed by the Canadian National Railways on their lines in the United States during the fiscal year 1930-1931?
31, 1931:
Country of Origin
Canada United States Great Britain Net Tons NetTons	Net Tons
2,433,300	1,937,500	7,900....	9,900	-50,400	....	-161,300	....	-


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-HOTEL AT VANCOUVER
Mr. SWANSTON:: When was the construction of the Canadian National Railways hotel at Vancouver authorized, and (a) what is the estimated cost; (b) how much has been expended to date?


Robert James Manion: August 7, 1926. (a) $8,791,912.71; (b) $3,730,224.13.


C.G.S. DRUID
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Is the C.G.S. Druid in commission and carrying on work for the Department of Marine?
2.	Has the department obtained for this vessel the ordinary certificates covering hull and boiler inspections?
3.	If not, why is she allowed to remain in commission?
Mr. DURANLE.AU:
1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	The Dniid was required for laying buoys before the contemplated boiler repairs could be put in hand. It is expected that the ship will be taken out of commission shortly for boiler repairs. In the meantime she is operating under reduced boiler pressure. She is not considered unsafe.


REPARATIONS COMMISSION
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	How many claims are still to be heard by the war claims commissioner?
2.	What was the total amount paid, including interest, in the year 1930, according to the Friel report; and in the year 1931, according to the McDougall interim report?
3.	What is the total amount of claims still to be examined?
I Mr. Stevens.]
4.	When is Commissioner McDougall expected to present his final report?
5.	Will the government ask for authorization to pay at once the sums recommended in this final report?


Mr. CABAN:: 1.	There are 457 cases yet to be reported on, of which 308 have already been heard, leaving a balance of 149 cases. If, however, jurisdiction is admitted in the claims arising out of the Armenian massacres which were filed in 11920-1, there will be in addition 271 cases yet to be reported upon.
2.	Payments made under the Friel report during the year 1930 total, with interest, $23,048.41. Payments made under the McDougall interim report in the year 1931 total, with interest, $555,948.75.
3.	Most of the claims filed are for unstated amounts and, therefore, this question is answered by No. 1.
4.	The final report is expected to be completed before the end of the present calendar year.
5.	It will depend upon whether and to what extent the governor in council approves such report.


DEPARTMENT OF MARINE-DISMISSALS IN BONAVENTURE
Mr. MARGIL:: 1.	What dismissals were made by the Department of Marine in the county of Bonaventure?
2.	What are the names of those who were dismissed, and the reason of their dismissal?
3.	Does the government intend to give to those who were dismissed the opportunity of enjoying the benefits of the pension fund?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Two dismissals were made since 28th July, 1930.

Question*
2.	John W. Billingsley, keeper of the wharf light at New Carlisle, dismissed on the ground of neglect of duty.
Louis Bujold, lightkeeper at Carleton light-station, dismissed on the ground of political partisanship.
3.	They were not contributors under the Civil Service Superannuation Act, 19tJ4, and are not eligible for superannuation.


NOVA SCOTIA PORT PHYSICIANS
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	How many port physicians in Nova Scotia have been dismissed since August 1, 1930?
2.	How many have been appointed since that time and what are their names and addresses?
3.	How many have been placed upon the mileage system of payment in lieu of salary and what are their names and addresses?


Mr. MacLAREN:: 1.	Ten.
2.	Eleven:
Dr. Dugald Stewart, Bridgewater, N.S.
Dr. T. R. Ford, Liverpool, N.S.
Dr. D. A. Morrison, Louisburg, NJ3.
Dr. R. McK. Saundera, Lunenburg, N.S.
Dr. R. H. Sutherland, Pictou, N.S.
Dr. J. A. MacDonald, St. Peters, NS.
Dr. S. W. Williamson, Yarmouth, N.S.
Dr. B. A. LeBlanc, Arichat, N.S.
Dr. W. N. Cochran, Mahone Bay, N.S.
Dr. H. E. Kelley, Middleton, N.S.
Dr. C. S. Cavanagh, Port Mulgrave, N.S.
3.	None on mileage system. The following have been placed upon a fee system of payment in lieu of salary:
Dr. L. B. Braine, Annapolis Royal, NS.
Dr. G. W. Brown, Clark's Harbour, N.S.
Dr. E. E. Bissett, Windsor, N.S.
Dr. L. P. Churchill, Shelburne, N.S.
Dr. C. J. Fox, Pubnico, N.S.
Dr. F. L. Hill, Port Grevilfe, NS.
Dr. F. E. Rice, Sandy Cove, NS.
Dr. G. K. Smith, Hantsport, NS.
Dr. A. F. Weir, Freeport, N.S.


ST. JACQUES, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Has Mr. Joseph Levesque, postmaster at St. Jacques, Montcalm county, Quebec, been relieved of his duties?
2.	If so, for what reasons?
3.	Who complained against Mr. Levesque?
4.	Who asked for his dismissal?
5.	Has the department named an acting postmaster to replace Mr. Levesque?
6.	What is the name of the temporary postmaster at St. Jacques, Montcalm county, Quebec?
7.	At whose request was this nomination made?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Dismissal authorized but transfer not yet reported.
2.	Active political partisanship.
3.	Notary J. E. E. Marion.
4.	Notary J. E. E. Marion.
5.	Yes.
6.	Miss E. Marion.
7.	Instructions of Postmaster General.


HOUSE OF COMMONS STAFF-RETURNED SOLDIERS
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What are the names of the returned soldiers employed on the permanent staff of the House of Commons?
2.	What are their present occupations?


Murray MacLaren: L	Name-Position,
Coghill, H. J., sergeant-at-arms.
Bissonnette, A. E., clerk, grade 3.
Chevassu, J. P. A., parliamentary translator.
Corkett, E. W., assistant postmaster.
de la Durantaye, R., parliamentary translator.
Gabard, M., editor of French debates and chief of French reporting staff.
Girard, R., parliamentary translator.
Howe, J., assistant parliamentary reporter.
Jarvis, H. A., departmental accountant, grade 2.
Lamb, Chas. E., parliamentary translator.
McEvoy, T. L., committee clerk.
Ollivier, P. M., joint law clerk.
Vallieres, H., parliamentary translator.
Porteous, R. W., clerk.
Fairnie, Andrew, confidential messenger.
Wheeler, Albert, parliamentary doorkeeper.
2. Answered by No. 1.


THREE THOUSAND FAMILY SCHEME-DEPORTATIONS
Mr. SPENCER:: How many people coming to Canada under the 3,000 family scheme have been deported?


Mr. GORDON:: Five hundred and sixty-eight persons including men, women and children.


DISMISSALS OF POSTMASTERS IN BONAVENTURE COUNTY
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	How many postmasters were [DOT]dismissed from their duties in the county of Bonaventure since July 28, 1930?
2.	What are their names and where were they located?
3.	What are the names and addresses of persons who made complaints against the said postmasters?
Questions

4.	Were inquiries held before the dismissal of the said postmasters?
5.	If so, by whom were the inquiries held?
6.	What salaries or fees were paid to the inquiry commissioner in each case?
7.	Why were these postmasters dismissed?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	One.
2.	Albert Cleary, St. Jules de Maria.
3.	Complaints were made concerning the location of the office by Rev. Father J. A. D'Auteuil, Mrs. B. L. Lawliss, Mr. Edson Willett.
4.	Yes.
5.	District superintendent of postal service, Quebec.
6.	No special salary or fees.
7.	On account of inconvenient location of the post office.
PUBLIC WrOEKS EXPENDITURES IN CASPE


Mr. BRASSET:: 1.	What are the amounts of money voted by the Department of Public Works during the session of 1930 to be expended in each municipality of the county of Gaspe, including Magdalen islands ?
2.	What sums were expended from those amounts during the session of 1930, and in what municipalities?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1 and 2. The appropriations voted during the session of 1930 for the electoral district of Gaspe are as follows. (The records of the department do not show the municipality) -*	Appropriations 1930-31
Anse a Beaufils, breakwater repairs	
Anse a Louise, wharf	
Anse a Louise, approach to wharf	
Anse a Griffon, wharf	
Anse a Valleau, extension to jetty	
Anse du Cap, wharf repairs	
Anse St. Jean, wharf repairs	
Barachois de Malbaie, breastwork	
Cap aux Os, wharf extension	
Chloridormes, wharf	
Douglastown, wharf extension	
Etang du Nord, breakwater, wharf to complete-	
Grande Anse, wharf	
Grand Entree, M.I., pilework extension	
Grande Riviere, rebuilding and extending .breastwork..
Grande Vallee, jetty and breastwork	
Grosse Isle (Keating Point), landing pier	
Jersey Cove, slipway-repairs and improvements	
Mont Louis, wharf extension	
Mont Louis, repairs to wharf and approach	
Peninsula, wharf extension	
Petit Cap, breakwater	
Petite Riviere Est, breakwater repairs	
Pointe St. Pierre, breakwater, wharf replacement	
Riviere a la Marte, to purchase and repair wharf.. ..
Riviere au Renard, wharf extension and repairs	
Ste. Adelaide de Pabos, wharf repairs	
Ste. Anne des Monts, wharf repairs	
Ste. Anne des Monts, river wharf repairs	
St. Joachim Tourelle, wharf extension	
Magdalen islands, telephone service-general repairs and improvements	
Voted		Expended	
1 2,500	00	$ 2,295	9232,011	45	32,012	455,000	00	4,443	0038,000	00	37,999	606,000	00	6,004	202,500	00	2,503	891,300	00	1,324	642,000	oo	2,005	644,500	00	4,479	4915,000	00	277	412,500	00	2,544	8510,000	00	8.318	2834,780	00	34,779	804,500	00	4,473	272,700	00	2,732	934,600	00	4,591	201,500	00	1,500	002,500	oo	2,502	8910,000	00	277	981,500	00	1,457	475,000	00	4,936	6731,000	oo	25,429	783.000	oo	2.862	715,000	00	4,695	566,000	00	6,000	4049,500	00	43,873	532,100	00	2.098	8235,000	00	12,324	723,500	00	3,509	3523,629	24	23,594	965,000	00	5,146	68$352,120	69	$290,998	15
i[Mf. Marcil.]

Questions as Orders for Returns


PAYMENTS TO DOMINION STEEL AND COAL CORPORATION
Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	What amounts have been paid out by the Dominion government under 20-21 George V, chapter 6, an act to place Canadian coal used in the manufacture of iron or steel on a basis of equality with imported coal?
2.	To whom have such payments been made and how much has each payee received?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	In. 1930-31, 8135,209.23.
2.	The total amount stated above was paid to the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation Ltd., of Sydney, Nova Scotia.


ST. ISIDORE, QUE., POSTMISTRESS
Mr. GAGNON:: 1 Was Mrs Laura D. Morency appointed as postmistress of St. Isidore, county of Dorchester, by the Civil Service Commission m 1921?	. .	,	, .
2.	Did she lose her position, and why?
3.	WTere one or several complaints made against her, and if so, by whom?
4.	Was an inquiry held, and if not, why ?
5.	On whose recommendation was her successor appointed?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes. In March 1927, on account of active
political partisanship.	_
3.	and 4. No investigation. Action was taken on statement of member of parliament that to his personal knowledge the postmistress had acted as a political partisan.
5.	Hon. Lucien Cannon.


GRANTS TO CANADIAN SOCIAL HYGIENE COUNCIL
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	When was the first Dominion grant given to the Canadian Social Hygiene Council?
2.	In rvhat years has the grant been given since that date, and what amount in each year respectively?


Mr. MacLAREN:: 1. In fiscal year 1919-1920;
2. Fiscal years:
1919-	20	
1920-	21	
1921-	22	
1922-	23	
1923-	24	
1924-	25	
1925-	26	
1926-	27	
1927-	28	
1928-	29	
1929-	30	
1930-	31	
- FULL-TIME HEALTH UNITS


Henry Elvins Spencer: How many associations, national or local have passed resolutions in favour of full time health units, and notified the Department of Health of their action in this regard?


Murray MacLaren: National associations,
two.


IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS
Henry Elvins Spencer: Referring to order in council P.C. 695, section 1, which reads:-
"A British subject

who has sufficient
means to maintain himself until employment is created."
1.	What sum of money is supposed to be sufficient ?
Referring to section 4 which reads:-
"An agriculturist having sufficient means to farm in Canada."
2.	(a) Who is to be the judge as to sufficient means; (b) what is the sum required to farm in Canada?


Henry Elvins Spencer: Dropped.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. REID:: 1.	Did the Vancouver harbour commissioners enter into an agreement with any engineer, or engineers, in regard to the cost of a new pier on part of the property known as the Hastings mill site?
2.	If so, what were the names of the engineers consulted?
3.	Was any agreement entered into as to the payment by percentage of estimated cost?
4.	What was the total estimate of cost of the principal designs submitted by the said engineers concerned?
5.	Have any amounts of money been paid these engineers on this account to March 31, 1931?
6.	Have any efforts been made by the Vancouver harbour commissioners to terminate such agreement?
7.	Have any attempts been made by the Vancouver harbour commissioners to settle the matter out of court?
8.	What is the basis and amount of proposed
settlement?	_
9.	Are any of the engineers concerned paid for any other service by the Vancouver harbour commission?
10.	If so, what are their names, service rendered. and amounts paid to each up to March 31, 1931?


BRITISH COLUMBIA WRACKING PLANTS
Mr. PLUNKETT:: 1. How much money by way of subsidies has been voted yearly from 1921 to 1930, inclusive, for wrecking plants in the province of British Columbia?

Unopposed Motions for Papers

2.	How much money by way of subsidies has been voted yearly from 1921 to 1930, inclusive, for wrecking plants in the province of Quebec?
3.	What is the tonnage of the ships of the wrecking plant and total amount of investment exclusive of subsidies from federal government for the province of British Columbia?
4.	What is the tonnage of the ships of the wrecking plant and total amount of investment exclusive of subsidies from federal government for the province of Quebec?
5.	What is the total amount of money lost in wrecks by shipping interests from 1921 to 1930, inclusive, upon which the subsidized wrecking plant of the province of British Columbia was engaged?
6.	What is the total amount of money lost in wrecks by shipping interests from 1921 to 1930, inclusive, upon which the subsidized wrecking plant of the province of Quebec was engaged?



GOVERNOR GENERAL-HALIFAX DELEGATION

Mr. WOODSWORTH:: What were the principal items and the total cost of the official delegation to Halifax to welcome the Governor General?



PRINCE AND PRINCESS TAKAMATSU


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the notices of motions are
proceeded with, Mr. Speaker, I think it might be an appropriate moment for me to state to the house that Their Imperial Highnesses the Prince and Princess Takamatsu of Japan will arrive in the city of Ottawa at twelve o'clock noon of Saturday next. They and their staff and suite are the official guests of Canada, my predecessors in office having very properly invited them to be the guests of Canada while they were in this Dominion. They have been making a tour of the world and are now in the province of Quebec. They will reach Montreal this evening, and after remaining there a while they will reach this city on Saturday, the 2nd of May, at twelve o'clock noon. They will remain as our guests, as the members may have seen from the papers, until Wednesday afternoon, when they leave this city.
It now being part of my official duties to discharge to the best of my ability the obligation so properly undertaken by my predecessors, I should like to suggest that as many as possible of the members of this house who may find it convenient be at the station depot on Saturday next at noon to afford a suitable welcome to the brother of the Emperor of Japan and his princess and the party accompanying them, Japan being a great power with which the relations of this country are most friendly and whose minister resides in our midst.
I Mr. Plunkett.]


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Is it twelve o'clock
noon city time or standard time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Standard time, daylight
saving time.


Mr. EULER:: Well, that is not standard
time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh yes, it is daylight
saving time.


Samuel William Jacobs: There is a difference of
an hour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, daylight saving time. UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS



MONTREAL HARBOUR BRIDGE

Mr. CARDIN:: b or a copy of all contracts, agreements or understandings, between the Montreal harbour commission and the provincial government of the province of Quebec, and the city of Montreal, determining the contribution of the cost of the Montreal harbour bridge of the two last named.



THE WHEAT MARKET-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

Edward Joseph Garland: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports, communications and other documents passing between the federal government and the Canadian banks; between the federal government and the Canadian Wheat Producers Limited; between the federal government and any or all of the provincial wheat pools, in regard to assistance, guarantee or support extended by the federal government since September, 1930.



RESIGNATION OF LABOUR GAZETTE CORRESPONDENT AT KENORA

Mr. HEENAN:: For a copy of all correspondence including letters, telegrams and other documents in the possession of the government, in connection with the resignation of the Labour Gazette correspondent at Kenora.



CANADIAN COPYRIGHT ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CHEVRilER:
For a copy of all papers, letters, despatches, telegrams and other documents exchanged since March, 1927, to date, between the British authorities and the Canadian government, relating to the Canadian Copyright Act and the International Convention of Berne for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.

Mr. MOTHERWELL:: For a copy of twelve approximately typical petitions, resolutions or letters addressed to the Prime Minister, Acting Prime Minister, or the Minister of Agriculture, recommending the pegging of wheat or grain prices, from any farmers' organization, pool selling agency or unit thereof, municipality, board of trade or individual in each of the three prairie provinces since the first of August last, and the replies thereto.

Unemployment Insurance



TRACADIE HARBOUR BREAKWATER

Mr. VENIOT:: For a copy of all reports, correspondence and other documents in the possession of the government, in connection with the awarding of a contract for the construction of a breakwater or bieakwaters at Tracadie, New Brunswick. Also for a copy of all correspondence, or other documents in connection with the dredging by dredge No. 12, of Tracadie harbour.



TRENT CANAL STAFF

Mr. BOUCHARD:: For a copy of all letters, recommendations, telegrams and communications in respect to the dismissal or retirement of members of the Trent canal staff, since the 31st of October, 1930. and all correspondence, letters and communications passing between the superintendent of the Trent canal, at Peterborough, and the Department of Railways and Canals, at Ottawa, or any of its officials.



ST. JOSEPH D'ALMA PUBLIC BUILDING

Mr. LAPOINTE:: For a copy of all documents, papers, memoranda and letters exchanged between any municipal corporation or other persons, and the Department of Public Works, since August 7, 1030. respecting the public building at St. Joseph d'Alma, Lake St. John county, Quebec, for the construction of which funds were provided in the estimates of 1930-31, and also copy of all tenders received in connection with the construction of the said building, and correspondence relating thereto, and copy of any reports of engineers or architects of the Department of Public Works relating to the said building made to the Minister of Public Works or to department since January 1, 1928.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: An order of the house was passed on the 22nd of April, on the motion of the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot), calling for the production of these same documents. It will be found in the votes and proceedings of April 22nd, at page 104. I submit, therefore, that it is not necessary to bring the papers down a second time.


Ernest Lapointe: I desire to drop the motion, Mr. Speaker.
Motion dropped.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the immediate establishment of a federal system of assurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity.
He said: Of all the primary and important problems which come before this house there is not one of greater importance than that of unemployment. During four of the past six regular sessions of parliament it has been my privilege to have introduced a motion dealing with unemployment, sickness and invalidity insurance. On innumerable other occasions during the last six years the same question has been raised both by my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) and myself. I believe at the present time there is in this house a preponderance of opinion in favour of taking action to deal with unemployment by means of some form of insurance. The labourer who happens to find himself out of work is in no way responsible for being in that position. He is merely a victim of circumstances. However at this juncture I do not wish to deal with the causes which lead to unemployment. I am now dealing with the effects, and further with the duty of this parliament as the supreme governing body in the land to see that where there is involuntary poverty, hardship and suffering action is taken to mitigate if not altogether to eliminate such a condition.
I am sure that the humane sentiments of a(J hon. members irrespective of party, predispose them toward measures for the relief of human suffering. That is a natural instinct and characteristic of us all. I believe also that if human suffering, unemployment and all that the term implies could be eradicated from our existing economic structure hon. gentlemen in this house would be happy in the attempt to bring about such a condition.
We in the Labour group make the claim that within the confines of capitalism unemployment cannot 'be eradicated. It is not because the industrialist desires unemployment, but because unemployment is an inherent defect of the economic structure. Cycles of so-called prosperity are always followed by periods of depression and in those periods there are wholesale dismissals in our factories, our workshops and our warehouses with the result that vast numbers of men and women all of a sudden are deprived of their livelihood. During recent years the unemployment problem has been considerably aggravated. Statistics prove that the ever increasing use of machinery and the process of speeding up has tended to reduce the labour factor in industry. Therefore it is quite obvious that if the productive element in industry is receiving a lesser return the non-productive element is receiving an ever increasing return. In other words, profit in industry is taking a larger toll whilst wages represent a relatively
Unemployment Insurance

diminishing factor. In this category I must include finance, because in this age the two factors of finance and industry are inseparably interlocked and the profits of the fonmer naturally spring from those of the latter. Today many people are of the opinion that present conditions cannot continue indefinitely.
Our economic structure has become so onesided that it is on the verge of toppling over. The enormous aggregation of wealth in a few hands resulting from the conditions just referred to has created a problem demanding the immediate attention of this parliament. After all, wealth has not been created by the few but by the many. To allow wealth to be concentrated in the hands of a few to the detriment of the many is a task for parliament and statesmen to remedy. The concentration of wealth has given to some an undreamed of power. I believe the time has arrived when the owners of this wealth should realize that it must be used for the common weal. Instead of wealth being a blessing to mankind in many instances it has become a curse. Therefore if unemployment, sickness and invalidity insurance takes some small toll from those who own or control the wealth, in reality it is only returning a meagre portion to those who have produced it.
No scheme of insurance can be regarded as a remedy for unemployment; it is merely a palliative. In my opinion a far more satisfactory way of dealing with unemployment would be the curtailment of the hours of labour without a corresponding reduction in pay. Naturally this proposition presents so many obstacles in its enactment that as an immediate measure it is not altogether feasible. A few generations ago when the eight hour day was first proposed its advocates were looked upon as dangerous doctrinaires, a characterization which to-day has its counterparts in such terms as "red", "radical", "bolshevik" and so on. The persons who find themselves without employment ought to be the first consideration of parliament. At the present time those who are in that unfortunate position find it more difficult than ever to secure employment. The search for the elusive job is one of the most tragic occurrences in life. Days, weeks, months go by and the individual begins to lose his morale. He sees nothing before him but poverty, and no immediate hope of redress. Probably as a last resort the man may be compelled to apply for public relief. I have known of hundreds of cases where men in utter despair and agony, after a hopeless quest for work, were compelled to apply for 
relief. Many people do not realize the tremendous strain upon such men. The average man hesitates when for the first time in his life he makes a request to receive public relief. It requires courage for the ordinary person to steel himself for the ordeal. The average worker hates to take anything without giving something in return. After he has steeled himself to apply, with considerable misgiving and trepidation he accepts for the first time. The second time proves to be less difficult than the first. The third is not as difficult as the second and so on. If he continues to make application for relief he might be said to be in receipt of what might properly be termed a dole, which often saps the manhood of many of our finest citizens who themselves are in no way responsible for the unfortunate circumstances in which they happen to find themselves. During the past winter we have been handing our relief in one form or another because we have no other way of taking care of the men and women who find themselves in straitened circumstances on account of being out of work. This at best is a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with an ever-recurring trouble.
I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, as an alternative to this form of dole that we institute a system of insurance against unemployment. It- is certainly a far more effective way of dealing with the problem than by handing out relief as we are now doing. Our industrialists generally make provision for replacement, depreciation, and reserve. The fund set aside for replacement and depreciation is to take care of machinery and equipment. The reserve is for the purpose of tiding over the industry in times of industrial depression. But what of the human element in industry? The working man is hired and fired at will, without any regard for his well-being. Usually he is employed at wages which are barely at the subsistence level, and in no way sufficient to allow of his setting aside a reserve for unforeseen expenditures such as medical care, sickness and disability. Under these circumstances it is quite obvious that according to the present ethics of industry capital is looked upon as having a claim prior to the human element-the working men and women. We of the Labour party believe that the human element in industry should have first claim, and that the favoured position now enjoyed by financiers and industrialists should be superseded by a system under which the employees shall be reasonably provided for during the life of themselves and their dependents.

Unemployment Insurance
May I point out that the man, who, for instance, invests his money in the bonds oi an industrial company is assured of an annual return at a very reasonable rate of interest. Suppose he invests $15,000 in 7 per cent industrial bonds, he receives in return an annual income of $1,050, which is more than the average wage earned by a man engaged in industrial pursuits in this country. Is it unreasonable to suggest that the man so engaged should be as well safeguarded in respect to the annual return on his labour as is the investor on his capital? If I could have my way, I would insist that the owners of industry should regard every employee as being at least as valuable to the industry as the man who invests $15,000 in its bonds, and who, without any effort on his part, abstracts from the industry more than the man who is giving of his best to the industry directly and indirectly to the nation. An illustration in point comes to my mind in the town of Sudbury. At the present time according to the information I have received, thousands of men there are out of work. The main local industry is carried on by the International Nickel Company, a very wealthy corporation, which in past years has made enormous profits. Immediately there is a shrinkage in the demand for their output, and consequently a shrinkage in their profits, the management reduce the working staff and these men are thrown on the street indiscriminately, and no one seems to care what becomes of them. Those men have to walk the streets and have in some way to be maintained by the local authorities, while the profits of the industry which they have helped to build up go to others. During all their years of labour they have been in receipt of but a low wage, a wage which is not sufficient to enable them to save one cent for a rainy day. This condition of affairs in Sudbury is symptomatic of what is happening in many other industrial centres throughout the Dominion, and I submit that these industrial corporations ought to be compelled by law to do their share in looking after the men whom they have discharged, and whom they will have to look to as a reserve force when the present industrial depression ends.
Recently the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in speaking to a delegation referred to evils of the dole in Great Britain. I took the precaution to look up his remarks in order to make sure that I might not misquote him. I think he certainly was unjust to the people of the old country. As a matter of fact those workers of Great Britain who are the beneficiaries under various
schemes of social insurance, are not in receipt of a dole; they are just as much entitled to what they receive as those who take out fire insurance and ultimately receive compensation in the event of their property being destroyed. The effects in Great Britain of the unemployment insurance scheme are not what I believe the Prime Minister had in mind when he spoke to the delegation that he received a couple of weeks ago. Would Great Britain to-day be better off if she did not have any unemployment insurance at all? It has been in operation for about 20 years, and we find that during that time crime has diminished so rapidly that to-day many of her prisons are empty and for sale. Contrast that with the condition prevaling in this country where we leave our unemployed to take care of themselves. Our statistics show an increase of crime, and this year we are going to enlarge our penal institutions to take care of those delinquents who probably if they had been assisted under a federal scheme of unemployment insurance would not to-day be inmates of such institutions.
I would remind the house that in addition to insurance against unemployment I have in mind also the question of provision against sickness and invalidity. In view of the salutary effect of such social legislation in Great Britain, I think we can make no mistake if we follow what has been in effect there for the past twenty years. I realize perhaps as well as any other member the constitutional difficulties which are inherent in a scheme of unemployment insurance. But just as we overcame the question of conflicting federal and provincial jurisdiction in dealing with the problem of old age pensions, so can we overcome it in adopting a system of social insurance. I think if this parliament would give a lead we could obtain the sympathetic cooperation of practically all the provinces, because unemployment is not a provincial, it is not a municipal, it is a federal problem. Unemployment is not due to what is being done municipally or provincially, i't is largely the result of policies for which this parliament is more or less responsible. Consequently I am anxious that any scheme of unemployment insurance that we may institute should be federal in scope. To illustrate the difficulty of leaving this question to the provinces, let me take the city of Ottawa. Supposing there was unemployment insurance in force in the province of Quebec, but not in this province, and a man residing in Hull moved to the city of Ottawa, by so doing he would lose the advantage he enjoyed in Quebec
Unemployment Insurance


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker I do not propose this
afternoon to traverse at length the ground covered by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Heaps). I desire only to point out two or three problems which must be dealt with before this question can be determined.
First, there is the question of the respective jurisdiction of the federal parliament and the
provincial legislatures, which has to some extent been determined by the law officers of the crown. As has been pointed out by the provincial premiers, there is no reason to doubt that with the joint action of the provinces and the Dominion some satisfactory solution of this problem can be found. It has been suggested that a conference should be called between the provinces and the Dominion for the purpose of discussing this problem and if possible finding a solution. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) suggested the other day that this matter might have been discussed at the recent Dominion-provincial conference. I can only say that the question could not be dealt with at any such conference in one or two days, or in half a dozen days; there are questions which involve consequences of the most far-reaching effect in every possible way so far as the body politic is concerned. There is not only the setting up of the machinery but there is the question of the ways and means by which that machinery is to be maintained.
At the present time a large number of corporations that have thousands of employees make provision for their future after they have reached a certain age. Provision is made in some cases for invalidity through sickness, and in others for the payment of a small sum while unemployed and still in the service of the company.
This resolution proposes two things, to which I will direct attention. First, it suggests that the government should take into consideration the immediate establishment of a federal system of insurance. I do not think my hon. friend is well advised in leaving the word "immediate" in his motion for the simple and obvious reason that it must be known to him and to every hon. gentleman who has read any book upon the subject or who has given time and consideration to the problems involved that it cannot be dealt with in three weeks, six weeks, one month or several months. So far as that feature is concerned, I would suggest that he delete the word "immediate" from his resolution. I suggest also that after the word "federal" and before the word "system" he add the word "contributory," thus making it a federal contributory system. Then I would suggest that the words "after satisfactory arrangements have been made with the provinces" be added at the end of the resolution. As has been so clearly stated by the hon. gentleman, insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity can never be successful if each province has
Unemployment Insurance

a different system or if one province has a system and another has not.
Moreover, it has been said by some of the premiers in days gone by, provinces do not feel competent to carry on and discharge all their constitutional obligations; therefore there must be a combined effort on the part of the provinces and the Dominion in order to attain any success. I do not think I am violating any confidence when I say that in a conversation which I had with a former minister of Great Britain who had this matter in hand, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, he indicated after travelling over Canada that in his opinion a system to be successful must be one representing the combined efforts of the provinces and the Dominion. Whatever else might be said about it, he was clearly of that opinion because of the data which he had in his possession and the information which he had gleaned by travelling over this country and from other sources. When the hon. gentleman talks about setting up immediately a system of insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity I am sure he cannot possibly realize the magnitude of the problem or he would not make .that suggestion and seriously expect it to be acted upon.
He must realize the amount of actuarial work which must be done. We are now taking a new census and after that has been completed we believe we will have in our possession sufficient data to enable us to apprehend and appreciate the extent of the obligation we must incur. It will not be a small obligation, it will be measured by millions of dollars, and it involves the question of ensuring beyond peradventure that the system will succeed. When any hon. member of this house uses the word "insurance" he is using a word with a well-defined meaning. An insurance contract is one of indemnity; it is a contract whereby for the payment of a given sum the insurer agrees and covenants that the insured1 will receive certain sums therein specified. In order to arrive at what premium shall be paid it is necessary to understand the character of the risk. To-day Great Britain is considered the greatest authority upon marine insurance because for centuries the underwriters in that country have been able to appreciate from the experience gained at Lloyds and from other sources the exact character of the risk involved. In every case where insurance is granted there is a risk taken and the contract is to compensate on the basis of the risk involved. Knowledge of the character of the risk as well as of the extent to which compensation is to be paid must be at the very bottom of all insurance.

Unfortunately in the matter of unemployment a great mistake was made in England in appreciating the character of the risk, and I suppose it is known to every hon. member of this house that at this moment the unemployment insurance fund owes the government of Great Britain the enormous sum of nearly one hundred million pounds sterling.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Were not the general conditions in 19111 different from what they were in 1910?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I am trying to prove, and I thank my hon. friend for doing it for me. There must be a clear appreciation of the character of the risk involved. What underwriter, for instance, could maintain his solvency if he assumed risks without having any appreciation of the character of the peril which may be encountered and therefore not being in a position to arrive at a premium sufficient under actuarial determinations to meet the risk involved? This house is a thoughtful body dealing with a matter of tremendous magnitude, and the first problem which must be met whenever you use the word "insurance" is that of determining what the premium shall be.
In life insurance the premium is fixed by known standards-age, expectation of life, the value of money over a long period of years; and when you insure a man of twenty-five years of age_ you know that by the payment of the^ premium which you accept from him you will be in a position, on the basis of the expectation of life, to meet that risk when it falls in, and to discharge your liability.
There is always a perceptible surplus on the part of life insurance companies because they load their premiums, as it is technically known, for the purpose of enabling them to make sure that the sum derived as premium shall always be equal to the risk involved and taken by the insurer. Take fire insurance. A great many of us I suppose, who have not taken the trouble to look into the matter carefully, think that fire insurance rates are arbitrarily fixed and that, to quote the language of my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown), the companies charge all that the traffic will bear. The oldest insurance company in the world, in our world at least, is doing business in Great Britain. I once had the pleasure of visiting that company's head office in London and seeing something of its records, extending now over centuries. They are able, with almost mathematical precision and certainty, to determine the premium that should be charged for the purpose of enabling them adequately to meet the risk involved. That sounds very strange. But you have all classes of risks; you have marine hazards, to which I referred

Unemployment Insurance
a moment ago; you have fire risks; you have burglary insurance; you have insurance granted by Lloyds for almost anything in the world-for example, the result of elections, a very hazardous thing upon which to calculate. The great insurance companies, with all their branches, have determined by experience in a broad and general way what premium having regard to human experience, will meet satisfactorily the risk that is involved. As to unemployment insurance, I said a moment ago that in England, they established it in 1911, and later, on its present basis-because there was a consolidation of the statutes under Mr. Chamberlain, as the house will remember, when the whole matter was dealt with afresh-it will be recalled that the weekly premium to be paid by the employee is supplemented by payment on the part of the employer as well as the government.
Unfortunately no provision was made for those great cycles which every country has experienced and which we call periods of depression, with the result that the premium collected was wholly unequal to the burden imposed upon the fund when that cycle made its effect apparent. What is the result? The result is that the fund, being unequal to the demands made upon it, has to be supplemented, not by contributions by the employed or by the employer, but by the third party to the contract, namely, the state. And the fund, being insolvent, either had to discontinue paying the insured or the money had to be provided by the state. And so the fund borrowed from the state. In December last, these borrowings amounted to the enormous sum of 90,000,000 pounds sterling. My information to-day-I give this subject to correction-is that the fund now owes the state over 100,000,000 pounds sterling, and that the deficit amounts to approximately 800,000 pounds per week. I mention the last two figures without being absolutely certain as to their accuracy. That is unemployment.
Now you come to the basis upon which we must fix the premium. What are the factors that must be considered? Here are some of them. First, starting at the top, there is the cost of administration. That divides itself into further questions. Shall there be an administration by the state direct, or shall a commission be set up for purposes of administration? These two problems must be dealt with. That is as to cost of administration. Secondly, what premium shall be paid? That involves, (a) determination of the average employment of those affected, and (b) the amount required per week to meet the weekly claim that must be paid under the policy against unemployment.
These problems have not yet been determined. One is actuarial; it depends upon results which must be carefully collected and collated, which must be fully studied and analyzed, which must be looked into with a care that only an actuary can give. Then, when these figures have been analyzed, it becomes necessary to determine what sum is required in order to ensure, in the light of general experience and expectations providing for cycles of unemployment, the payment of .the weekly claim which has to be met.
Need I remind this house that on one occasion an election in one of the great overseas dominions of the British Empire was conducted on the basis of increasing the weekly compensation. That is one of the dangers that must be considered in connection with placing the administration of the system in the hands of government as a political matter.
I mention this only as an argument with respetet to the form which the administration should take. All hon. members will recall what Prince Bismarck said when he introduced insurance, medical and unemployment, as well as other forms into Germany, as to the reasons therefor, and what the results have been.
Now go a step further. The next matter to consider is this: Who shall be insured? That should come second, but I put the question here: who shall be insured? Is it intended to cover everybody, all those engaged in industry, or only a part of those engaged in industry? Is it to cover agriculture? Is the farmer also to liave the right to have insurance against unemployment, or is it to apply only to men engaged in industry, the industrial workers? Is it to cover only certain classes of industrial workers? Take the different risks involved in the character of employment against which you insure. I could give illustrations, but I will not trouble the house to mention more than two. Take seasonal occupations-carpenters, for instance. Do you mean to tell me for a single moment that you could place the same premium for the benefits of unemployment insurance on a carpenter in a cold country, north of the 49th parallel of latitude, as you could against an office man who finds employment the year round? These are some of the problems to be considered.
I reversed the order a moment ago, but take now the question of premium. That must be determined in the light of experience and the application of well-defined actuarial rules; and one of the principal rules with respect to actuarial computations is that

to predict the future from experiences of the past.
I suggest therefore that the hon. member will best serve his purpose by dropping the word "immediate" from his motion and adding thereto the word "contributory" and other words which will make the fact clear that whatever is done must be done with the cooperation of the provinces. That involves the answer to the last question I submitted concerning what the contribution of the state should be. In this case the state would be not only the Dominion of Canada but the provinces as well, because some of these matters are, as we have been advised by the law officers of the crown, solely within provincial jurisdiction. I repeat that we have the power to appropriate the money we collect to any useful purpose this parliament may determine. The parliament of Canada may determine what shall be done with the moneys collected from the taxpayers. I repeat now a statement which I made as leader of the opposition

a much less difficult position, as my right hon. friend will agree, than the one I now occupy. This government is anxious and willing to promote in every possible way the advancement of social legislation along the lines suggested. I refer not to non-contributory insurance or to non-contributory social legislation, but to legislation which will encourage the habit of thrift and care on the part of every man who benefits therefrom. Although I have been criticized, I say once more that this country will not produce men of the character it has had until men and women begin to realize that life means responsibilities and that one of those responsibilities is to help themselves. That is the only method by which social legislation can effectively and efficiently be enacted. Of that I feel quite certain. Whatever my reading and inquiries may be worth, I have satisfied myself quite clearly that in whatever we do in this regard we must recognize and realize that insurance involves premiums and premiums should be paid by the joint action alike of the insurer and the insured themselves and with the assistance of the state. In that sense, if the hon. gentleman is prepared to accept the suggestions I make, I say to him on behalf of the administration that, at the earliest possible moment consistent with obtaining information that is essential to make any measure of social insurance worth while, we will use that information for the purpose of preparing and submitting to this house a measure embodying the views I have expressed.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member
for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) is considering the suggestions made by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), I should like to make a few observations concerning this motion. The Prime Minister dealt with a great many obstacles and difficulties in the way of adopting a system of unemployment insurance. It is true there are difficulties, but I believe they are such as can be overcome. I thought when the Prime Minister rose to speak his remarks would be very brief. It was my belief that he would say that inasmuch as he had been elected to end unemployment there would be no need for further unemployment insurance.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let us do something for labour.


An hon. MEMBER:: Politics.


Peter Heenan: My hon. friends do not
like that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Politics.


Mr. GOTT:: Senseless.


Peter Heenan: I am inclined to accept
the word suggested by the hon. member who has just interrupted. I do not know anyone in this house who is more capable of telling what is senseless than is he.
I think the hon. member for North Winnipeg is to be congratulated upon again bringing this matter to the attention of the house. He and his colleagues have been consistent in advocating a permanent system to deal with the unemployment problem. I heartily agree with the resolution before the house. In 1928 the hon. member for North Winnipeg placed a resolution before this house asking the committee on industrial and international relations to investigate this problem, with the result that the provinces were communicated with and asked to express their views on the matter. Again in 1929 we see by the records of the house that the hon. member for North Winnipeg once more asked that the matter be discussed before the industrial and international relations committee. The subject of unemployment insurance was brought before the house and hon. members endorsed the principle. On the last occasion, however, the judgment of the house was that the government of the day should bring the matter before the first Dominion-provincial conference. As hon. members aTe aware, up to the present time, there has not been an opportunity to do that.

Unemployment Insurance
The resolution before the house is not to investigate further but to take immediate action with a view to the establishment of a system of unemployment, sickness and invalidity insurance. As I said, after consideration, the government of that day referred the matter to the provinces. As a result of that reference, combined with the knowledge of the depression throughout the world, four provinces have placed themselves on record to the effect that they are willing to enter into a scheme of unemployment insurance, and have asked the government of Canada to call a conference in that connection.
This afternoon the Prime Minister, dealing very exhaustively with this matter, told of the burdens of the ratepayers in Great Britain to-day. He forgot, however, to point out that unemployment insurance was self-sustaining when it was first instituted in Great Britain. It was not until after the war, when there was a great influx of unemployment who received the benefit of that insurance scheme but had not contributed to it, that the insurance became known as a dole. In that regard Canada would not suffer.
It would be much better if we could get along without unemployment insurance; the workers in Canada will agree to that. If every man in Canada who is able and willing to work could secure employment it would be much better than a system of unemployment insurance. No one I have ever met or heard, however, will deny that we will always have seasonal unemployment in this country. We will have men who work only eight or nine months a year and are idle for the remaining period. Many of these men are not paid high wages, and I contend they have as much right to be protected during their off period as any other class of people. There are those who say that unemployment insurance would be demoralizing in its effects. From my experience I do not see that this would necessarily follow; for instance, our business and professional men do not hesitate to insure against risks to life and property, and as yet I have failed to see that in any way they have become demoralized through collecting compensation under their policies. The maintenance and education of the children of our working people depend upon the wages of the breadwinner, and I see no reason why some system cannot be evolved to protect them in the event of his unemployment, sickness or disability.
Some years ago I remember a gentleman in the Ontario legislature stated:
For a great many years, Mr. Speaker, society stood aghast at the annual toll in 22110-70
deaths and injuries caused by industrial accidents; it had attempted to decrease these accidents by passing legislation, which was designed to safeguard the wage earner against death and injuries, while employed. Notwithstanding that various kinds of safety devices have been installed in industrial plants, there are still more than half of the industrial accidents which occur annually, for which neither -the employer nor the workman can be held responsible or blamed.
In support of unemployment insurance he used these words:
A great majority of the people of to-day, Mr. Speaker, are standing aghast at the sight of thousands of human beings in destitute circumstances and I feel sure that public opinion will press for some permanent system which will ensure all human beings proper nourishment, shelter and clothing.
I repeat, I believe that some system can be . and must be evolved to take care of our unemployed. Unemployment insurance has been recommended in various quarters. Let me refer to the report of the Royal Commission on Industrial Relations of 1919, where at page 8 will be found the following:
Unemployment may arise from other causes than the loss of his job. He may be incapacitated by sickness, invalidity or old age. Very few labourers are able, out of their earnings, to make provision for these contingencies. We recommend to your government-
I ask the house to mark that this is a recommendation by the royal commission.
We recommend to your government the question of making some provision by a system of state social insurance for those who through no fault of their own are unable to work, whether the inability arises from lack of opportunity, sickness, invalidity or old age. Such insurance would remove the spectre of fear which now- haunts the wage earner and make him a more contented and better citizen.
In 1915 the Ontario government appointed a royal commission headed by Sir John Willi-son, to investigate the question. The report was presented in 1916, and at page 80 I find the following recommendation:
To meet the conditions referred to, your commissioners are of the opinion that some form of unemployment insurance is desirable, in the interest alike of the working man and the municipality affected.
Then the four provincial governments of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are already on record as favourable to unemployment insurance, and they recommend a conference with the federal government with a view to putting such a system into operation. Then we have a conference which met in Winnipeg as late as January, 1930, which was attended by representatives

Unemployment Insurance

of all the western provinces, and -I think of some of the eastern provinces. This conference recommended a system of unemployment insurance.
Mr. LaVERGNE: That is altogether a provincial matter.
Mr. HEENAjN : They suggest a conference with the federal authorities. The Trades and Labour Congress has consistently advocated such a scheme for years. It has also been advocated by various national unions of working men. Recently a royal commission has been appointed by the government of Quebec, and having regard to the attitude of that province towards workmen's compensation and its activity in dealing with other social ills, I am satisfied that before very many years Quebec will lead Canada in social legislation.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Their compensation act is not a success.


Mr. BEEN  AN@: Then we have no less a person than the hon. Senator Robertson, the Minister of Labour, in the course of a speech at Haileybuiy on January 13, 1930, advocating a system of unemployment insurance. We have had other gentlemen talking pretty much the same stand, and I want to say that I, too, have advocated this form of insurance.
I advocated it before I was Minister of Labour, I advocated it while I was Minister of Labour, and I am still advocating it today. A system of unemployment insurance has also been endorsed by many city and town councils throughout Canada.
To-day there are about twenty-seven schemes of unemployment insurance in existence. Of these about one-half are of a contributory nature while the balance vary in certain particulars to meet the different needs and circumstances.
Those opposed to unemployment insurance point to the British system as a warning and misrepresent its operation. For instance, they point to the fact that there may be 2,000,000 unemployed receiving what is termed the " dole." This is a misleading picture, i had occasion to look into the matter personally one year, and while I found there were 1,000,000 people registered as unemployed, this did not mean that they were all receiving unemployment benefits; as many as 150,000 went off the register each week, and another 150,000 came on. In other words, there was a turnover weekly of 300,000 on and off the list, showing that the receipt of unemployment insurance did not demoralize the recipients and encourage them to remain out of work. Many of these men received from the fund (Mr. Baeaan-1
only two or three weeks' benefit. Many others who registered did not receive any benefit whatever, because they had not been on the unemployed register for the required number of days. So to point to the unemployment insurance scheme in Great Britain and call it the dole is not a proper representation of the English system. I am sure that in this country we can devise a scheme which will meet the needs of Canada much 'better than we are doing at present. As the hon. member for North Winnipeg said, we have a haphazard system, rushing to the governments to seek relief; we have overlapping, and because of that overlapping our large expenditures of money do not bring about the proper results. In my opinion it would be far better if we could evolve a scheme whereby the different parties and the state could contribute towards unemployment insurance so that men, when out of work, would know they were receiving benefits to which they had contributed.
There is another aspect of unemployment insurance for Canada which I should like to bring to the attention of the house. I believe a young country can begin a scheme of that kind with much better results than would be the case in an older country. In Canada we have a large area; our people follow various occupations and, as hon. members know, we have men who are reluctant to go from one part of the country to another. If we could have an insurance scheme whereby every man out of work would be registered and would have to report at certain periods and register as being still out of employment, we might be able to develop a method whereby a great many of these men could be placed in employment. At the present time we have about sixty-six employment offices located all over the country. We could increase the number of offices and find out where there was work for a man of a particular trade or calling who was registered as being out of employment; we could see to it that the man would get the job, and he would know there would be a job waiting for him when he arrived. In that way we could greatly cut down the cost of unemployment insurance.
I do not want to go into this matter at any great length at this time, but with the hon. member for North Winnipeg I believe the time for investigation is at an end. We ought to take some steps now, and take them quickly; we must take some immediate action -and by that I do not mean we must act to-day-to evolve and establish some scheme to take care of the unemployed. The Prime Minister dwells on the fact that we are now collecting data in connection with the census, and the Minister of Labour has mentioned

Unemployment Insurance
the same thing. While it is true this will give us more information than we have at present, I have looked into the questions and I am satisfied that the information may be out of date one year from now. Industry has been speeded up to such an extent, and competition all over the world is at such a pitch, that the information we get next year probably will not agree with the information which is obtained this year. So I believe the government, in conformity with the decision of this house, should call a provincial conference immediately with a view to establishing an unemployment insurance scheme at the very earliest date, to take care of the workers of this country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I thought the former Prime Minister was a past master at showing why things could not be done, but I am afraid he must yield the palm to the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) who has undoubtedly shown how impossible it is for the government to do anything at all with regard to the pressing emergency with which we find ourselves faced. The Prime Minister says he has no delusions whatever as to what unemployment insurance involves. Obviously he is thinking of the heavy financial burden entailed, but I would suggest that the Prime Minister has a great many delusions as to what refusal to enact legislation along this line may involve, not only politically but also as it may affect the welfare of large masses of people throughout this country.
I must express our gratitude to the Prime Minister for making certain suggestions, but from our standpoint those suggestions involve the emasculation of the resolution to a point where it would be almost meaningless. Already the Prime Minister and his party are committed to the principle of unemployment insurance; already the opposition is committed to the principle of unemployment insurance; already Canada herself officially, as a signatory of the League of Nations, is committed to the principle of unemployment insurance, but a long time has passed since the Versailles treaty was signed and practically nothing has been done to advance this measure. We are anxious to get something started. We are not proposing, nor do I think the Prime Minister can imagine that we propose, that a scheme should be started to-morrow. The point we had in view in putting in the word "immediate" was that something should be done in the near future, that the promises of the government should be carried out and not
indefinitely postponed. I fancy we can take it from the statement of the Prime Minister that no legislative enactment will be brought down until prior to the next election.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Would my hon. friend
allow me a question, because I am very much interested? Is it not a fact that under section 92 of the British North America A.ct subparagraph 13, this is a purely provincial matter, because insurance is a civil contract?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will come to that point in a moment, and I am glad my hon. friend brought it up. However, on this point with which I am dealing, I say we can only take it that this means an indefinite postponement and that this measure possibly may become a political football at the time of the next election. We are not in any way guaranteed that anything will take place in the near future.
The Prime Minister suggests that we add the word "contributory." We did not add that word simply because we did not want to narrow the scope of our resolution. We did not Want to be thought to be dictating in any way the exact form any social insurance scheme should take. Several years ago there was a report presented by a committee of this house dealing with this question, and that report stated very definitely that a measure of this kind should be Dominionwide in character. The committee suggested that any scheme should be contributory in character and also admitted that according to the legal evidence brought forward, this was not within the competence of the Dominion government. I think perhaps that answers the question raised by the hon. member for Montmagny. While the Prime Minister suggested that there should be a satisfactory arrangement with the provinces, I submit there is not necessarily any reason why a Dominion-wide insurance scheme could not be worked out. If it were non-contributory it could be carried forward. I think the hon. member who has just asked me a question will appreciate that fact, because then it would not be a contract. The scheme, would be on ithe same basis as the existing old age pensions which are not contributory.
That could be done. I do not want to discuss this question at the moment, but I would point out that we have had legal advice from the very highest authorities on this point, and we are told that the clauses in our constitution which delimit the powers of the Dominion government may be readily construed as admitting the contention that
Unemployment Insurance

unemployment insurance is ancillary to the unemployment bureaus we have established and that, as such, it may come within the purview of the Dominion. I am not a lawyer and I do not want to argue the legal point to-day, but I would point out that in our motion we sought to avoid those technical difficulties by laying upon the government the responsibility of introducing in some form a federal unemployment scheme.
We always meet with our old friend the constitution, and we are told that it is impossible to do this, that and the other under the constitution. I hope within a week or two to have a resolution before this house suggesting that we be given the right to alter our constitution, and that, possibly some sort of conference might be called to work out needed amendments. I trust that all who are troubled at the present time with the constitutional question will heartily support a proposal which would clear up these technical difficulties.
Mr. LaVERGNE : Until then we are bound by the present law.


Mr. WOODS WORTH:: The Prime Minister said that many people were coming to the government asking for this, that and the other thing. I would point out to him that the people who have done the most of that are the Canadian manufacturers. When they found that they could not conduct their business in a profitable manner they came immediately to the government and asked to^ be helped out to the extent of twenty, thirty, forty or fifty per cent. If there is anyone who has asked for special consideration, it has been the manufacturer. I do not think I need to go into the help given to the transportation companies. It is well known that the railways would never have been built across this country had the government not assisted. Almost everyone can come and expect some help from the government except the labouring people, and more recently the farmer, who has been driven to take that position.
The Prime Minister suggested that there are already certain industries which have voluntary arrangements for meeting the needs of the unemployed. There are very few industries which have that arrangement, but even if there were it would not hinder a general state scheme. A large number of trade unions and other organizations in Great Britain had adopted this provision before the state scheme was undertaken.
Then the right hon. gentleman made the point that we were not possessed of sufficient

information to know how such a scheme would work out. I would point out that most of the civilized countries in the world, outside of the United States, have some such scheme. We could go to Great Britain, France, Germany or a great many European countries and obtain the fullest information as to what is involved. The League of Nations has published many volumes representing the most careful investigation on this question. There should be no difficulty for the government to outline a scheme in the very near future.
The Prime Minister adopted his usual practice of reading us a lecture or giving us a treatise on the subject under review. The house is under great obligation to him for the very valuable treatise on insurance and all that insurance involves, but I would point out that the parallels which he draws are not worth very much when we come to practical matters. He said that we must know the risks, and then he told us that the trouble with England had been that she undertook a scheme before she had learned all that was involved. I submit that England could not possibly have known all the economic consequences of the war. If she had waited until she knew that the war was coming and that a great many other things would happen after the war, she would still be without unemployment insurance. It may be true^ that the actuaries can tell us in connection with life insurance what is the expectation of life and what the risks involved will be, but I do not think that is true in this matter. Economic laws are not nearly as constant or at least as well known as are the laws of public health, when not merely gieat political movements but great economic movements of to-day have to be considered,
I would urge it would be impossible for any government to know all the risks which would be involved and to base a scheme entirely upon pre-knowledge of the risks involved. In fact, I take it that the Prime Minister's statement might be regarded as a sort of reductio ad absurdum. If his argument were carried out to its logical conclusion, it would mean that we would never get any scheme of this kind whatever. The completion of our Si eat. enterprises would have never been brought about had we waited until we foresaw all the possible risks. The west would never have been opened up if the pioneers and the railways and settlers had waited until they had foreseen and had provided against all the risks. We do not act that way in ordinary life. In our private affairs we cannot wait until every thing is foreseen.

Unemployment Insurance
The right hon. gentleman went on to warn us about taxes. I quite appreciate his problem in having to raise the taxes necessary and I know this would be a heavy burden, but at the same time we are told that Canada is fairly prosperous, that the banks have not been doing so badly and that certain enterprises are getting along fairly well. We are told also that there is a good deal of money available for investment, and in reply we simply say this: If it is a choice between the needs of the people and the interests of the big investors of this country, the needs of the people should come first. I think we must adopt that attitude when we consider a proposal of this character.


Mr. YOUNG:: In view of the fact that the farmer will have to pay most of this insurance, how does the hon. member propose to compensate the farmer for the adidtional burden which he proposes to place on his back?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not accept
the statement that the farmer would have to pay most of it; I do not think that is true.


Edward James Young: A large portion of it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I might remark
that the farmer does not pay any income tax, so that he need not be worried a great deal. I think the scheme might be worked out as a charge on the incomes of these people who are most able to pay.
Mr. LaVERGNE :	Who will pay the
premium for the insurance and who will be the insurer? Is the state going to be the insurer and will the workmen pay the premiums?


James Shaver Woodsworth: As the hon. member knows very well, we are not going into the details of this scheme to-day. If there is any interest in that particular matter, I might say that the scheme which most of us have had more or less in view is the British scheme. Possibly I might take a few minutes "to outline just what that scheme means.
Persons between the ages of 16 and 65 must take out unemployment insurance. There are a number of classes excepted, among which are farm labourers and domestic servants, who can take out insurance if they so desire. The insurable persons are divided into various classes, as follows:
Men between the ages of 21 and 65 pay, in Canadian money, 14 cents per week; the employers pay 16 cents per week and the state pays 15 cents per week.
Men between the ages of 18 and 21 years pay 12 cents per week, the employer 14 cents and the state 13 cents.
Boys under the age of 18 years pay 7 cents per week; the employers 8 cents and the state 7 cents.
Women between the ages of 21 and 65 years pay 12 cents per week, the employer 14 cents and the state 13 cents, and so on with various other groups.
Mr. LaVERGNE: It is state insurance.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The British scheme further provides that whenever the insured person is unemployed he draws a weekly rate of benefits as follows:
Men between the ages of 21 and 65 years, $4.25 per week; women between 21 and 65 years of age, $4.25 per week, and so on with different classes. In addition to this, any insured person who has an adult dependent draws $225 per week. Married people receive an additional benefit of 50 cents per week for each wholly dependent child, or one who is mainly supported by the parents. Under the British scheme, in order to come within the period of insurance, the insured person must have paid in not less than 30 weeks' contributions in the two years immediately preceding the date on which he or she applies for the benefits.
We have not gone into these details here because we shall have to work out our scheme in Canada along our own lines. Further, I may as well say frankly that, so far as I can see, it would be impossible immediately to set up a contributory scheme because a large number of unemployed are absolutely unable to pay anything at the present time, and that would make it impossible for a reserve to be built up. That is one reason for our not suggesting an immediately contributory scheme.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	It applies as well to a
lawyer who has no cases, or to a doctor who has no patients.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The lawyer makes so much money while he is in practice that he has a sufficient reserve laid up. The average wage of our labouring classes is very low.
There is another aspect of this question which I think should perhaps be mentioned in this connection. The Prime Minister has almost entirely overlooked the seriousness of the actual problems that confront the workers to-day. According to his statement, they will have to wait probably four years before this government can do anything for them, except

Unemployment Insurance

by way of the dole. That is too serious a contingency to contemplate. I wish to bring before the house the situation existing in my own city as typical more or less of what prevails in a great many places.
I have before me a statement of a survey of unemployment conditions in Winnipeg and in greater Winnipeg. This is signed by H. B. Shaw, chairman of the Winnipeg citizens committee on unemployment; by Ralph Maybank, chairman of the joint unemployment committee of the city of Winnipeg; and by A. Mac-Namara, assistant deputy minister, administrator of unemployment relief in Manitoba. It is dated April 10, 1931. Mr. H. B. Shaw is a former banker and is chairman of the mayor's committee, as it is known, in Winnipeg. This memorandum gives a statement of applications received for. direct relief in the following places:	Winnipeg, St. Boniface,
Brooklands, Fort Garry, East Kildonan, North Kildonan, West. Kildonan, St. James, Trans-cona, Charleswood, and St. Vital. These municipalities are essentially urban in character. The single men number 8,307, the married men 5,398, the single women 458, the total units 14,163, and the total persons represented, taking families into account, 35,968.
The statement adds;
This shows those who applied for relief. For various reasons, in about half the cases no relief was given. There is no doubt, however, that the men and women applying were badly jn need of Work.
I am merely giving the headings, but I have in the memorandum the whole situation set out in tabular detail. Next there appears a statement of persons and families given direct relief during March, 1931, in the same municipalities: single men, 3,849; married men, 3,150; single women, 115; total units, 7,114; and total persons including children, 31,799. Further than that, the total unemployed in greater Winnipeg, according to this survey, are: men, 16,394, and women, 2,499, or a total of 18,893. And with families added it amounts to 56,682 persons. This statement goes on to discuss the prospects for the future, the jobs which will be started as soon as weather permits. It reads:
The jobs which are in sight are very few and consist, to a large extent, of government work, and are outlined hereunder.
Then follow several of the schemes which have been proposed by the federal government and concurred in by the provinces and municipalities. In Winnipeg itself and in these municipalities mentioned they will take

care of 950 persons. The statement goes on, with regard to conditions in the country and the possibilities of securing employment:
The Winnipeg Citizens Committee on Unemployment, under the chairmanship of Mr. H. B. Shaw, addressed a letter to prominent persons at country points, inquiring as to the possibility' of absorbing in agricultural pursuits the surplus labour in Winnipeg. Replies received were very pessimistic, and were generally to the effect that farmers would not be hiring men this season because of the general depression in the agricultural field, that farmers were satisfied that they would be unable to pay the wages of any men employed, and consequently that any crops put in would be put in by the farmer and his family.
These replies from country points are substantiated by the fact that applications to the employment office for farm workers during the last six weeks have totalled less than one-half of what they were last year during the same period, in spite of the fact that there is every prospect of a much earlier spring.
Railways
The vice-presidents of the two railways advise the committee that there will be no increase on their roads of employment during the coming summer, and that during the -winter 19.3! -.32 there will be a curtailment, in all probability, the explanation being given that betterments had been pretty well taken care of, and that there would be very little work of this nature going on.
Bush Work
In a normal season there are from eight to ten thousand men taken out of the labour market in Winnipeg by firms operating lumber camps in northern Ontario, eastern Manitoba and northern Manitoba. Last winter there were fewer than eight hundred men employed for this purpose, only part of which number were taken from Winnipeg.
The committee has written a letter to every lumber firm that ordinarily operates in this vicinity, inquiring as to the employment prospects for the winter 1931-32, and the replies received would indicate that fewer men will be employed during the coming winter than were employed during the past winter. In other words, instead of eight or ten thousand men, it may be expected that there will be fewer than eight hundred taken from Winnipeg's surplus labour market.
We are told that there are at the present time 16,394 men, and according to the prospects indicated by this committee, there will be only 1,700 men required. This leaves a balance of about 14,700 not taken care of this spring. What is to be done with this large volume of unemployment? We have been helping men by means of what is rightly called the dole. That is to say, certain amounts have been simply given out by charities , and by authorities of various. kinds and these amounts have been supplemented by grants from the government. I contend that this is a most haphazard and demoralizing way

Unemployment Insurance
oi giving relief, and we have placed this motion on the order paper in the hope that the government will substitute for it a better scheme.
I know that the old country scheme has been condemned, but I would like to say this: Several years ago I had the opportunity oi travelling for some day with the Empire Parliamentary Association delegation which toured this country. I was very much interested in the unemployment scheme of Great Britain, and inquiries were made privately from these men, and the question was also raised publicly. Every member of that delegation who spoke with regard to the matter said that Great Britain to-day simply could not get along without unemployment insurance. Lord Peel, the head of the delegation, said that he was heartily in favour of it, and Liberal members and Labour members all agreed. In fact, several of the most prominent members of the delegation confessed that had there not been unemployment insurance in Great Britain following the war, Great Britain would have had a revolution on her hands, that it was only their unemployment insurance that had saved Great Britain from the revolution that had taken place on the continent. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) suggests that the members of the delegation shoidd have been charged with inciting to riot for having made sucA statements as that.
Yesterday there was considerable discussion in this house of Remembrance day. I did not participate in that debate, but I could not but recall having received a few days ago a letter from one of the returned men. I should like to put a portion of his letter before the house, as it indicates the appalling position in which a great many men in this country find themselves to-day. My correspondent says-I shall quote only the pertinent extracts:
I Was in Prance and Belgium in the Canadian Expeditionary Force infantry. . . . Born in England 1895. . . . Came to Canada 1906. . . . Thirty-seven years of age. . . . Married. ... I sleep in a box car to save rent.
He refers to his experience at the front:
The horror of the flash of steel . . . the baying of maddened men . . . the blood-curdling roars of bayonetted men . . . the hideous faces upon the doomed, cut-off from any back up. . . . the mania to murder and the mania to survive . . . .silence which men keep after the bloody slaughter . . . the wading over dead and wounded bodies .... the standing up to the waists in cold water in winter .... vermin .... hunger and thirst .... this is the remembrance of one who heard the call in 1914.
It is nothing to the grim struggle of to-day against hunger, unemployment, fear, and police
terrors. Organization is smashed ruthlessly by our police .... the press poisons the public to cruelty to all distress .... the churches ignore the corruption of capitalist society . . . thousands of veterans robbed of their pensions by red tape .... wandering .... freight cars their bed . . . back doors their existence .... employment, just like a vision.
A way must be found to change this old order, because crime will get us yet. We must survive, crooked or otherwise .... It is impossible to get a decent living and I am starving .... I am ready for arms even at the expense of death; so long as my sacrifice brings to someone else what I died for, I am amply repaid.
I will join the militants .... I don't expect a bite without a fight.
One or two gentlemen laugh, but I think most men here will not feel like laughing at that. It comes out of the heart of a man who to-day is simply desperate.
Mr. MACDO'UGALL:	Why not give his
name?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think the house will recognize that the hon. gentleman who interjects that question is so far removed from the spirit in which I have brought this forward that they will pay very little attention to his interruptions.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Is he in favour of an equal distribution of health as well as of wealth? I would support him in that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not discussing what this man may do. He is desperate, and bis is not an isolated case. That is the position in which thousands of men find themselves to-day-returned men, as well as men who stayed in this country and worked along during the war, men who constitute the basis of society to-day. I cannot see how we can ignore the plight in which they find themselves. As my colleague said, we are sometimes accused of not bringing forward constructive suggestions. This suggestion of unemployment insurance to meet the present needs is an eminently constructive suggestion. I do not say that it is going to cure unemployment. I admit that it is only a palliative. I am not sure that we are not almost beyond the stage where we can enact this unemployment insurance, because the situation has become so desperate, but I am pointing out some of the things that might ye', possibly save the situation.
I would urge that unemployment is not simply temporary in character. We have had it, as the Prime Minister himself admits, in times past during cycles of depression. I believe that it is inherent in the present economic system. The Prime Minister might, not
Unemployment Insurance

agree to that, but we all agree that we have had these periods of unemployment throughout the years. This suggestion that we are putting forward is that some method should be adopted so that we would distribute somewhat the hardships and the risks of unemployment, so that the .poor, labouring people would not have to bear the whole deadweight of the load.
The workers themselves do not at the present time earn enough to provide for themselves reserves. I have not time to demonstrate that, but it was amply shown in the evidence brought forward before our committee on industrial and international relations when this question was investigated.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	They made a lot of
money during the war.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, a great many others made a great deal more, and to-day it takes almost half the entire revenues of this country to pay the interest on the war bonds, some of them tax-free, which some people were fortunate or unfortunate enough to secure.
I would also point out that the working men are not to blame for these periods of depression. They cannot be expected to find employment for themselves when the whole machinery of the State is unable to do it. I take it that, primarily, industry itself must bear the responsibility for unemployment. It may be that the state as a state should make some contribution. In- some countries it has perhaps contributed too much. It may be well that the labour people should contribute something, but about the only good reason for their contributing is that they might have some definite share in the administration. Aside from that, I cannot see any good reason why they should contribute. They are not responsible for depressions. It is industry, the whole chaotic system of to-day, this cut-throat system of competition that leads inevitably to periods of depression, and as long as this economic order exists the individual workman will be periodically thrown out on the streets. It seems to me that we as a ^tate should step in at least to a limited degree to iron out some of the inequalities.
Mr. MiACDOUGALL: What does the hon. member propose as a substitute?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not' want at the moment to offer any substitute. I have already said that we have the dole to-day. I have in my hand a copy of the Canadian Forum, which has just come to hand, and which contains an article on the case for
IMr. Woodsworth.]
unemployment insurance by Harry M. Cassidy. He points out that from a careful study of the figures of the Bureau of Statistics it is estimated that probably between
350.000	and 450,000 people are unemployed in Canada at the present time. The extract from the Canadian Forum continues as follows:
If these estimates are reasonably correct it follows that at no time since December of 1920 have less than 10 per cent of Canada's
2.500.000	wage-earners been out of jobs and that during the present winter the percentage has risen to 20 or more. Last winter the percentage of unemployment was actually higher in Canada than in Great Britain and it is probably about as high this winter, although it was considerably lower during the past summer and autumn.
Then, farther on I find the following:
For the last ten years our annual average of unemployment from all causes, seasonal, business depression, technological change, market friction, et cetera, has probably been from six to eight per cent of our total working force. In a word, we have had the equivalent of any army of 150,000 workers, a greater number than the Canadian corps ever mustered in France during the war, standing idle during the whole of the post-war decade.
I do not think I need add more to what has been said. It seems to me that my colleague has made an admirable and reasoned statement of the case. We have put our position clearly before the government. I am still hoping that there may be a change of mind and attitude on the part of the government and that they will really face the situation and bring forward definite legislation at an early date.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The resolution before the house reads as follows:
That in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the immediate establishment of a federal system of insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity.
It will be observed that the resolution deals primarily with the question of unemployment. True, in previous years in this house similar resolutions have been discussed, but I doubt if ever a resolution came before the house in reference to an existing condition where its applicability was as apparent as in the present instance. The government of the day has recognized a national obligation in the matter of unemployment. When at the last session of parliament we were asked to vote $20,000,000 for unemployment relief we were sanctioning a course of procedure through which the federal parliament recognized its obligation in the matter of unemployment relief. Yesterday I read a statement alleged to have been made by the Minister of Labour

Unemployment Insurance
(Mr. Robertson) two days ago in the city ot Montreal. In that statement the minister is reported to have said that if necessary the government of the day would again be prepared at the approach of the winter to vote another $20,000,000 for the purpose of unemployment relief.
Mr. MANIO'N: May I say Mr. Speaker that this morning I read an article in the paper containing a contradiction of that statement by the Minister of Labour.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says that the minister has contradicted the statement and denies that the government will give unemployment relief.


Robert James Manion: He denies he made any such statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Of course I shall not stress the point. I was stating that the Prime Minister and the government of the day have recognized a national obligation in the matter of unemployment. I think I am right in that statement and that is the material point. They recognized an obligation at the last session of parliament by asking the house to vote $20,000,000 for unemployment relief.
I stated that it appeared the ministry were prepared to take similar steps next winter, but I am now told by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) that the statement attributed to the Minister of Labour is denied. However the fact does not alter what is fundamental in the statement I have made namely that this government and this parliament have recognized a national obligation in the matter of unemployment. The essential point now is whether this national obligation may best be recognized as something to be met by relief measures or whether it is an ever-recurring condition which should be met in advance by some system of unemployment insurance. At the moment that is the essence of the point at issue.
In effect the resolution before the house says, that inasmuch as there is certain to be unemployment from time to time throughout the country and inasmuch as the federal government has recognized a national obligation ;n the matter of unemployment, it is desirable that there should be an immediate federal system to deal with this economic condition. That is my understanding of the resolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that is not what it says.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister has said that that is not what it says. That is my impression of what it signifies and that is what I think it amounts to. The resolution' states that the government should
take into consideration immediately the establishment of a federal system of insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity. Surely that means that the government should consider the immediate establishment of some system of insurance against unemployment. Frankly, as between meeting the problem of unemployment by relief measures, voting millions of dollars as occasion arises, and meeting it by anticipating unemployment and its consequences through a system of insurance, I favour strongly the system of insurance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As unemployment is incidental to industry as it is carried on to-day, I believe some system of insurance against unemployment is absolutely necessary and should be provided.
May I say to my right hon. friend that I admired very much the skill with which he made his presentation to the house. Had he 'been speaking as a director of an insurance company to his board, I could think of nothing more admirable or better calculated to serve the interests of a board of directors concerned primarily with insurance as a financial matter. May I say to him, however, that speaking as the Prime Minister of a country in regard to a great social problem it seemed to me that the right hon. gentleman did not sufficiently take into account the human side of the great problem with which unemployment insurance is concerned, or the nature of industry and some of the present-day problems it presents.
In view of what my right hon. friend said concerning the many considerations that had to be taken into account before public moneys could be voted in connection with any schemes of insurance, I was surprised that he found it so easy when he was making his speeches during the course of the last election campaign to pledge the country to a system of old age pensions to be met in whole by the federal treasury. During the course of the campaign, I was surprised that he was prepared to make the pledge he did as one of the means of meeting an immediate situation. At the time he did not stress the unfortunate use of the word "immediate." He left the impression that whatever was going to be done would be done immediately. I think that is the impression which at the present time is still abroad throughout the country. May I say that the considerations urged this afternoon as matters of such great concern in connection with the matter of unemployment insurance before an immediate scheme can be adopted are no different from the considerations which apply in the case of old age
Unemployment Insurance

pensions. In connection with old age pensions he had to consider from where the money was coming, what it would involve in the way of taxation. He had to consider the question of the constitutionality of the federal government taking action in that particular. He has to-day considered the constitutional and financial aspect, but throughout the course of his remarks last year, he found no difficulty whatever in giving an assurance to the public that the present government would take over the whole system of old age pensions and assume all obligations in relation thereto- Well, if he was able to do that with respect to old age pensions, I fail to see why, with equal alacrity, he should not be able to do likewise with respect to unemployment insurance.
May I say to my right hon. friend that I do not think the word "immediate" would carry in the mind of any other hon. gentleman the significance he sought to attribute to it this afternoon. If for a moment I thought it was anticipated that the government should present a bill to the house without due consideration of the many matters that will have to be considered, I would certainly agree with him that anything of the kind would be unwise on the part of the administration. On the other hand, I take it that what is meant is that having regard to the problem of unemployment before us at the moment, a problem that we know is going to recur from time to time, the government should immediately consider how a system of unemployment insurance can be made applicable to help meet such a situation. Perhaps it would have been better had Ihe word "immediate" in the resolution been transposed, and placed before the word "consideration" which would make the resolution read:
That the government should take into immediate consideration the establishment of a federal system of insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Personally I
feel that that is what primarily was in the mind of the introducer of the resolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not in view of his
speech, if I may say so to the right hon. gentleman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then I come to a consideration of the immediate establishment of a system of unemployment insurance. In the first place, unemployment insurance is but one form of social insurance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that
my right hon. friend will agree that annuities are a form of insurance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend agrees. Well, we have at the present time a federal system of annuities. I see no reason why the administration should not consider whether some advantage might not be taken of the annuity system already in existence as a federal system so to extend it as to make the moneys paid in as premiums available at times of unemployment, as unemployment insurance to those who make contributions towards it. It mii^ht be so extended as to make the system available to its contributors as insurance against sickness or invalidity. There is an opportunity for an immediate step to be taken foy the federal government to provide a measure of unemployment insurance. No question of constitutionality can be raised with respect to it. I submit the government might well consider whether the system of providing annuities which now for many years has -been administered iby the federal government, might not be so extended -in its bearing upon social problems, as to make. it available to meet other risks that arise from industry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I interrupt the
right hon. gentleman?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps he has not been informed of this, but the truth is the annuity fund is not segregated and invested as is the case with an insurance company. I looked into it, and I may say I considered the very matter that the right hon. gentleman has mentioned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The fact that the fund is not segregated and invested is purely a business phase of the matter which the government would have to take into account. It does not affect the basic principle of the federal government taking immediate action with respect to any form of contributory insurance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the trouble.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But that does not in any way preclude the fund being so arranged or organized as to meet these situations as they may arise.
May I draw attention to this? There are two ways in which industry may be viewed.

Unemployment Insurance
We may view industry primarily as a means whereby profits are made as the result of investment, in other words as a profit-making enterprise; or industry may be viewed as being in the nature of social service. When one analyses the nature of industry one discovers it to be nothing other than the transformation of natural resources through human effort into services or commodities available for use; in other words, it is a great social service to which capital, labour, management and the community each make a contribution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All these four factors are essential in the carrying on of industry. The development of industry that has taken place throughout the years has resulted in an industrial system which is worldwide in its scope, and the problems to which it gives rise are also world-wide. Those who are engaged in industry run certain inevitable risks. Industry, first of all, through the fact that it has assumed its present proportions, is subdivided first by way of employment; and within the individual emplo3iments there are further subdivisions of labour, which result in the worker being reduced pretty much in the last analysis to an atom,-an individual whose time and labour in large part, is spent in industry on a particular process or some operation within a particular process very small in itself. With industry developed as it is to-day, it so happens that, through no fault of anyone connected with a particular industry, a particular branch of industry itself may be terminated. World conditions may be such in one country that labour becomes unemployed in another. The failure of the cotton crop in one part of the world may throw out of employment thousands of workers engaged in the manufacture of cotton goods in another part. One might mention endless examples of this kind. That is a condition of unemployment for which no employer can be held responsible; it arises simply because of industry having assumed its present proportions and character. Labour may also find itself displaced through some invention. All industry is subject to the play of discovery and invention, and for the most part discovery and invention enable those who are fortunate enough to possess capital to find means whereby it can be more profitably invested and its rewards thereby increased; but to labour for the most part the play of discovery and invention is in the opposite direction, it tends to throw out of employment large numbers of workers through the substitution of machines for labour.
If that is a true picture of industry, then we must realize that throughout the world to-day and hereafter, as a normal condition, there will always be a large number of men and women who through no fault of their own will find themselves because of new inventions and discoveries unemployed. If I have given a true indication of the problems of industry arising from its world-wide scope, it is equally true that we shall have these recurring periods of prolonged depression whereby again large numbers will for considerable periods be thrown out of employment. Knowing there is bound to be recurring unemployment to a very considerable extent, it does become part of the obligation of the state to meet such a situation with respect to the workers; and the only way in which it can be met is through the alternative of relief to meet unemployment when it comes and no provision has been made in advance, or through insurance against unemployment whereby provision is made in advance for inevitable unemployment. I think it will be generally agreed that of the two methods of the State's coping with unemployment, the insurance method is the preferable.
That being the case, the next question is as to the reason for a federal system of unemployment insurance. Under our constitution, without question, obligations as between employer and employed are primarily the concern of the provinces. Property and civil rights have been assigned to the provinces, and necessarily the provinces as matters stand must deal with questions to which they give rise. But there is a law which applies in industrial relations as it does in other fields, whereby if competing standards differ, the lower standard in the course of time, tends to drive out the higher. That law was first enunciated by Gresham with respect to the precious metals. Gresham pointed out that where two metals were in circulation, the one base and the other pure, the baser metal tended to drive the purer metal out of circulation. That same law, I believe, is applicable to competing standards in industry. Where you have high standards of industry in one province, with lower standards in another province, the lower standards, if permitted to compete with the higher standards, will drive the higher standards out of existence and in time bring industrial standards to the level of the lower.
For that reason it becomes necessary in a country such as ours to devise some means whereby the standards of industry as be-
Unemployment Insurance

tween the different provinces may be brought to and kept at the same level. I doubt if that is possible in any other way than by some system of federal cooperation or control. But the problem is more far-reaching than that. What I have said with regard to industries in the different provinces is equally true of industry as between different countries. The League of Nations has recognized that fact as fundamental, and the effort of the League of Nations to-day is directed towards bringing about similar standards in industry
among the different countries of the world. We, as a country, are pledged to further to the best of our ability the varibus obligations of the Labour conventions of the League of Nations, and I hold that this federal parliament has an obligation in this matter to seek to bring about a condition whereby in the first instance the standards in industry as between the different provinces will be at one and the same level.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.