1933-03-22

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 54, to amend the Dominion Notes Act.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain.


Mr. RHODES:: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for an amendment to subsection 3 of section 4 of chapter 41 of the revised statutes, the Dominion Notes Act, and provides that the provisions of that subsection can be suspended from time to time by order in council. It may be termed, in a sense, a companion bill, and one which necessarily follows the Gold Export Act which we passed last year.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. GRAY:: 1.	Has Mr. E. C. Buchanan, formerly president of the press gallery, been named director of external relations, at the service of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission?
2.	If so, when was he appointed?
3.	Who recommended him for such a position?
4.	What salary is he receiving?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: The following information has been furnished by the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission:-
1.	Mr. E. C. Buchanan has been appointed under section 40 of the Civil Service Act as director of public relations for the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission.
2.	March 3, 1933.
3.	The Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission.
4.	$5,800 less 10 per cent.


LOANS TO NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Has the federal government guaranteed one or more maturities of Newfoundland since 1930?
2.	If so (a) on what date; (b) what amount was involved in each such guarantee; (c) under what authority has the federal government
[DOT] guaranteed the maturities of Newfoundland?
3.	Has the federal government paid any sums of money to the dominion of Newfoundland or for such dominion since the month of August, 1930?
4.	If so (a) on what date; and (b) what sum was involved in each such payment; (c) under what authority were such payments made?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 1 and 2. As stated in the house earlier in the session, certain banks made a loan to Newfoundland in connection with interest due January 1, 1933, and the dominion guaranteed repayment of $625,000 under authority of chap. 36, 22-23, Geo. V.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
* CANADIAN NATIONAL EXPRESS-TRANSPORTATION RATES	[DOT]


Mr. POULIOT:: What are the transportation rates of the Canadian National express between Montreal and Riviere du Loup, and Quebec and Riviere du Loup?


Mr. MANION:: These rates can be obtained at any express office of the railway company.


RURAL MAIL BOXES
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What is the cost (a) of the primary product; (b) of the manufacture of rural mail boxes sold by Amedee Lesieur to the Post Office Department?
2.	What is the dimension of each such box?
3.	Of what metal are they made?
4.	What is the weight of each box?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	(a) No information; (b) no information.
2.	Length, 231 inches; circumference, 31-f inches.
3.	Galvanized iron.
4.	11 pounds.
Questions


AMEDEE LESIEUR
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What is the complete postal address of Amedee Lesieur whose name is mentioned at page 3041 of the unrevised edition of the House of Commons debates?
2.	Since what date lias he been a manufacturers' agent?
3.	What was his previous occupation?
4.	How many contracts were granted to him since the month of August, 1930?
5.	What are these contracts?
6.	By whom and to whom was he recommended on each occasion?
7.	Of what manufacturers is he the agent?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	408 East St. Joseph Blvd., Montreal, P.Q.
2.	Not recorded in files of Post Office* Department.
3.	Generally known as merchant and agent, but not recorded in Post Office Department.
4.	Two.
5.	10,000 rural mail boxes, P.C. 2799, December 12, 1931.	50 combination letter boxes,
July 2, 1931.
6.	Patented equipment submitted, found satisfactory and ordered according to the needs of the department,
7.	No record in Post Office Department.


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did the Post Office Department purchase
10,000	rural mail boxes from Amedee Lesieur of Montreal?
2.	If so, on what date?
3.	Did the Post Office Department call for tenders before purchasing the said boxes?
4.	If so (a) on what date; (b) what were the names and address of each tenderer; (c) the price of each tender?
5.	If not, why?
6.	Before such purchase was made, did the Post Office Department receive requisitions from the persons in charge of the rural mail boxes for the purchase of a further supply?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	December 23, 1931.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Patented box submitted was found satisfactory.
6.	Stock of boxes on hand so low that additional purchase necessary.


RADIO LICENCES
Mr. WHITE (London):: 1.	How many radio receiving set owners paid the licence fee for 1932 in each of the following cities: Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, London and Windsor?
2.	Are firms selling receiving sets required to report separate sales to the department when such sales are made?
3.	If so, how many sales were reported in the above cities in the year 1932?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1. For fiscal year 1932-33, eleven months
ending February 28, 1933:
Ottawa and suburbs	 19,083
Toronto and suburbs	 105,264
Hamilton and suburbs	 22,966
Windsor and suburbs	 10,599
London and suburbs	 11,983
2.	No, but before selling a radio set a dealer is required to see that the purchaser is licensed.
3.	Answered by No. 2.



MONTREAL POSTAL PARCELS CONTRACT

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Who holds the contract for the transportation of postal parcels in the city of Montreal ?
2.	On what date was this contract renewed the last time?
3.	What was the amount of the contract (a) before renewal; (b) after renewal?
4.	Were tenders called for before the renewal of such contract?
5.	If so, what are the names and addresses of the tenderers, and the amount of each tender?
G. If not, why were tenders not called for?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	J. E. Laurent.
2,	3, 4, 5 and 6. The contract for this service was held by Gour & Richer at the rate of 70 cents per hour and was due to expire on September 30, 1930.
On May 1, 1930, instructions were issued to renew this contract for a further term of four years.
Owing to the fact that the department received information that Gour & Richer were farming out the contract these instructions were cancelled and the service placed in the hands of J. E. Laurent from October 28, 1930, under a temporary agreement at the same rate.



STE. ANNE DE BEAUPRE, QUE., POSTMASTER

Mr. CASGRAIN:: (
What sum of money has Mr. Simeon Ratte, postmaster at Ste-Anne de Beaupre, received by way of salary, commission or otherwise, since his appointment?


Air. SAUVE:: 86,910.13 from January 3, 1931, date of transfer of office, to February 28, 1933



TADOUSSAC-ST. CATHERINES BAY, SERVICE

Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: ^ 1. Has the Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce received any communications from the citizens of the county of Saguenay asking for a twice-daily boat service between Tadoussac and St. Catherines bay?
2.	If so, what were the tenor of such petitions or communications?

Questions


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Asking that a service of two trips a day be performed.



DEPORTATIONS

Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: 1.	What was the number of the deportations for the fiscal years 1931 and 1932, and for the six months of the 1933 fiscal year?
2.	What was the nationality of the deportees?
3.	How many of these deportations were due to mental, criminal, public charge and unlawful entry causes?
4.	What was the cost to Canada of said deportations ?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.
1930-	31	
4,3761931-	32	
7,0251932-	33 ( 6	mos.)	
3,967
6 mos.
2.	1930-31	1931-32	1932-33Arabian	1	_	Albanian. . . .	-	_	1Austrian	13	53	26Belgian	16	50	10British	3,099	4,248	2,574Bulgarian. . . .	3	8	8Chinese	73	78	32Czecho Slovak. .	57	311	88Danzig	-	3	3Dutch	36	75	42Esthonian. . . .	6	4	2East Indian. . .	-	3	-Finnish	95	256	141French	9	16	11German	121	222	119French W. Indies.	-	-	2Greek	10	17	6Hungarian. . . .	33	179	56Italian	11	24	17Japanese. . . .	3	28	29Jugo-Slav. . . .	39	88	66Latvian	1	2	-Lithuanian. . .	14	29	13Luxemburg. . .	-	1	1Maltese	1	1	2Palest ine....	-	1	-Polish	160	500	232Roumanian. . .	70	150	87Russian	2	22	18Danish	92	142	65Icelandic. . . .	-	1	1Norwegian. . .	56	111	62Swedish	39	87	61Spanish	-	1	-
6 mos.
1930-31 1931-32 1932-33
Swiss	34	46	13Syrian	1	7	-Turkish	-	1	-Ukrainian. . . .	1	-	-U.S.A	279	260	179Portugese. . . .	1	6 mos.3.	1930-31	1931-32	1932-33Mental	436	330	163Criminal. . . .	868	1,006	452Public charge. .	2,245	4,507	2,694Unlawful entry.	. 119	243	141
4.
1930-	31	
8146,666	121931-	32	
295,159	791932-	33 (6	mos.)	
122,628	59



CARI.ETON POINT, QUE., LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER

Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has Edward Martin been appointed permanently as keeper of the light house at Carleton Point, county of Bona venture, Quebec?
2.	If so, when was the appointment made?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Henri Joseph Martin .was permanently appointed lightkeepeir at Carleton, Quebec, by Civil Service Commission certificate dated May 27, 1932. lit is understood this is the same person as Edward Martin, his name in full being Henri Joseph Edouard Martin.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



JOE MERRYFIELD

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Is one Joe Merryfield in the employ of the federal government?
2.	If so, what are his duties?
3.	Do his duties necessitate his visiting the province of British Columbia?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1, 2 and 3. Mr. J. E. Merryfield has been in the employ of the government as census commissioner (census of trading establishments), in which capacity he has been engaged recently in western Canada, including British Columbia, his employment terminating on March 31, 1933.



MAIL AND STEAMSHIP SUBVENTIONS

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	What was the total amount of mail and steamship subventions given on the Pacific ocean for the last three years?
2.	How much of the aforesaid subsidy goes to Canadian ships?

Questions as Orders jor Returns
3.	How many Canadian owned ships are in receipt of a subsidy?
4.	How many British or other owned vessels are chartered on the Canadian Pacific coast, and in receipt of a subsidy?
5.	Are any of the companies receiving subsidies employing Oriental crews?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Excluding coasting services-$2,295,450.
2.	To Canadian owned ships-$1,691,800.
3.	On the Pacific, excluding coastal services-7.
4.	There are under chanter at the present time 3 ships.
5.	In some cases stewards, deck hands, etc., employed in ships sailing to Chinese ports are orientals, under British or Canadian officers.



*BEAUHARNOIS POWER PROJECT

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	Has the government taken any steps to secure repayment of the sum of $125,000 made by the Beauharnois Corporation Limited to John Aird, junior?
2.	Has the government taken any steps to secure repayment of the sum of $150,000 said to have been paid by Mr. R. O. Sweezey out of the funds of the Beauharnois Corporation Limited to the National Press of Winnipeg?


Mr. BENNETT:: The answer to the question is, No, because the government had no jurisdiction in the premises.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Answered.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	At the present time, in a general way and in so far as the government has information, are Canadian citizens debarred from employment on race tracks in the United States?
2.	Have citizens of the United States recently made application to the Department of Immigration for permits to enter Canada for the purpose of employment on Canadian race tracks during the coming racing season?
3.	If so (a) who are the persons who have made such an application; (b) what are the reasons alleged in support of their application; (e) was their application recommended to the Department of Immigration in each case; if so, by whom; (d) what kind of work have these persons stated they intend to perform on Canadian race courses?
4.	Have citizens of the United States been employed on Canadian race tracks during the last racing season under permits granted by the Department of Immigration?
5.	If so (a) who are the persons to whom such permits have been granted; (b) what work

has been performed by said persons on Canadian race tracks; (c) have the said persons paid income tax to the Canadian exchequer on the revenue they have earned by working on Canadian race tracks; (d) what reasons have motivated the granting of permits to such persons; (e) who recommended to the Minister or to the Department of Immigration the granting of permits to such persons, if any?


NATIONAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Mr. McGIBBON:: 1.	What was the cost of the site of the National Research Institute?
2.	What was the cost of the erection of the National Research Institute?
3.	What was the cost of the equipment of the National Research Institute preparatory to its inauguration in 1932?
4.	What was the total amount of the travelling expenses incurred by Dr. H. M. Tory, president of the National Research Council, each year from 1926, inclusive, to 1933, including those for voyages to Japan, England and Germany ?
5.	What was the cost of transportation of Dr. Tory's household effects (and a motor) from Edmonton to Ottawa in 1928-29?
6.	What	was	the	total	expenditure	for
assisted researches for 1926-33?
7.	What	was	the	total	expenditure	for
salaried assistants in the assisted researches from 1926 to 1933?
8.	What	was	the	total	amount of	the
travelling expenses incurred by members of the National Research Council in attending meetings of the council for each year (specified) from 1926 to 1933?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. VENIOT:: For a copy of all correspondence, petitions or other documents in connection with the appointment of the postmaster at Adamsville, Kent county.



SOUTH OXFORD ELECTION COMPLAINTS

Mr. ARTHURS (for Mr. Anderson, Halton):: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, or other documents, exchanged between any person or persons and the chief electoral officer of Canada, relating to, or in any way having a bearing on complaints received by the chief electoral officer regarding the returning officer for the constituency of Oxford South during and immediately following the Dominion election held on July 28, 1930.



MR. SIDNEY J. WEBSTER

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: For a copy of all correspondence between the Minister of the Interior or any departmental official, and Mr. Sidney J. Webster, of Golden, British Columbia, regarding lot 10550, G.I. Kootenay district, on the east shore of Kinbasket lake, on Big Bend road.



BILINGUAL STAMPS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
For a copy of all documents, requests, petitions and correspondence, respecting bilingual stamps or currency addressed to the federal government or the House of Commons by citizens of Canada, in 1906 and 1907.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I trust the hon. member will not press this motion. It goes back twenty-seven years, and necessitates a very great difficulty in ascertaining whether or not there are any papers. Because, after ten years many of them are destroyed, and it will take a very long time to ascertain whether they are existent or not.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I do not wish to press the motion, but my recollection is that in 1907 I presented a petition in favour of bilingual currency, having the signatures of
1,700,000	Canadians.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I forgot to mention that some of the petitions presented to the house were in the archives of the old building and were destroyed by the fire. We are not in a position to say whether this petition was among them or not.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Dropped.



VALUATION FOR DUTY

Mr. YOUNG:: For a copy of all orders in council issued since August 20, 1932, pertaining to valuations for duty on goods entering Canada from Great Britain or any other country; also a copy of all instructions, including confidential letters to customs officers affecting the valuations for duty or classification for duty purposes, issued by the Department of National Revenue since August 20, 1932.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Before this motion
carries I think it should be brought to the attention of the house, as I am sure my hon. friend well knows, that it has not been the practice of this government or its predecessor to bring down confidential information. The Department of National Revenue cannot display even to the House of Commons the transactions which take place with private individuals. This notice of motion also asks for confidential letters passing between officers of the department. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the motion should be redrafted. I am sorry to put my hon. friend to any trouble, but if we are not asked for confidential information of the kind I have mentioned I shall be glad to give my hon. friend such information as I can.


Edward James Young: It is not the intention of
the question to seek information on confidential matters relating to the private affairs
Motions for Papers	
of any company. What the question asks for	
is confidential letters sent to customs collectors	
affecting valuations.	When these confidential
letters are sent out to the officers and are	
acted on and because of the instructions given	
in these letters valuations for duty are made,	
then public action	has been taken and it is
no longer confidential.	
Mr. LAPOINTE	: They become public
matters.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member
consider amending the motion?


Edward James Young: No.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Or does he press it as it


Edward James Young: As it is.	
The house divided on the motion (Mr.	
Young) which was negatived on the following	
division.	
	YEAS
Messrs:	
Ahearn,	Kennedy
Beaubien,	(Peace River),
Bertrand,	King, Mackenzie,
Blair,	Lapointe,
Bourassa,	[DOT] Lucas,
Bradette,	Luchkovieh,
Brown,	Maclnnis,
Butcher,	Mackenzie
Carmichael,	(Vancouver Centre),
Gasgrain,	MiaeLean,
Chevrier,	McKenzie (Assiniboia),
Coote,	Mitchell,
Denis,	Moore (Ontario),
Desrochers,	Motherwell,
Donnelly,	Munn,
Dubois,	Neill.
Duff,	Parent,
Dupuis,	Perras,
Factor,	Power,
Ferland,	Ralston,
Fiset, Sir Eugene,	Reid,
Garland (Bow River), Roberge,	
Gershaw,	Rutherford,
Girouard,	St-Pere,
Goulet,	Seguin,
Hall,	Speakman,
Hanson (Skeena),	Spencer,
Heaps,	Stewart
Heenan,	(West Edmonton),
Howard,	Taylor,
Howden,	Totzke,
Hurtubise,	Urquhart,
Ilsley,	Vallanee,
Irvine,	Verville,
Jacobs,	Woodsworth,
Jean,	Young.-69.
	NAYS
	Messrs:
Anderson (Toronto-	Barber,
High Park),	Baribeau,
Anderson (Halton),	Beaubier,
Arsenault,	Bell (St. John-Albert),
Arthurs,	Bennett,
Baker,	Bourgeois,
Motions jor Papers

Bowen, Bowman, Boyes, Barns, Bury, Gasselman, Chaplin, Charters, Cotnam,
Moore (Chateauguay-Huntingdon), Morand,
Mullins,
Murphy,
Nicholson,
Peck,
Perley (Qu'Appelle), Pickel,
Cowan (PortArthur-	Plunkett,
Thunder Bay),	Price,
Cowan (Long Lake),	Quinn,
Davies,	Rhodes,
Dickie,	Robinson,
Dor ion,	Rogers,
Dupre,	Ross,
Duranleau,	Ryckman,
Ernst,	Byerson,
Esling,	Sauve,
Fraser (Cariboo),	Shaver,
Ganong,	Short,
Garland (Carleton),	Simpson
Gobeil,	(North Simcoe),
Gordon,	Simpson
Gott,	(West Algoma),
Guthrie,	Smith
Hackett,	(Victoria-Carleton),
Harris,	Smith (Cumberland),
Hay,	Sproule,
Johnstone,	Stanley,
Jones,	Stewart (Leeds),
Lafleche,	Stewart (Lethbridge),
Loucks,	Stinson,
MacDonald (Cape	Stirling,
Breton South),	Stitt (Nelson),
Macdonald (Kings),	Sutherland,
Macdougall,	Swanston,
MacLaren,	Thompson
MacMillan	(East Simcoe),
(Saskatoon),	Thompson (Lanark),
MacNicol,	Tummon,
MeDade,	Weese,
McGibbon,	Weir (Melfort),
MeGillis,	White (London),
McGregor,	White (MountRoyal),
McLure,	Willis,
Maloney,	Wilson,
Manion, Matthews,	Wright.-100.
PAIRS	
(The list of pairs whips.)	is furnished by the chie
Messrs:	
Barrette,	Rheaume,
Bell (Hamilton),	Mercier (St. Henri),
Bell (St. Antoine),	Raymond,
Beynon,	Euler,
Black (Halifax),	Dubuc,
Caban,	Rinfret,
Gantley,	Cardin,
Duguay,	Dumaine,
Edwards,	Elliott,
Embury,	Bothwell,
Fortin,	Fafard,
Gagnon,	Boulanger,
Geary,	Mercier (Laurier-Outremont),
Hanson	Veniot,
Kennedy (Winnipeg), Larue,
Laurin,
Lawson,
Lennox,
Perley, Sir George, (Mr. Young.]
McIntosh,
Thauvette,
Fontaine,
Gray,
Pouliot,
Marcil,
Pettit,
Ponteous,
Rowe,
Senn,
Smoke,
Spankie,
Spence,
Spotton,
Stevens,
Stitt (Selkirk),
Sullivan,
Turnbull,
Bouchard,
Macphail, Miss, Lacroix,
Sanderson,
Cayley,
Gardiner,
Fraser
(Northumberland), Hepburn,
Malcolm,
Weir (Macdonald), Brasset,
McPhee.


Mr. SMOKE:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Cayley). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. SPENCE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (Ontario) (Mr. Fraser). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. EDWARDS (Waterloo):: I was paired with the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. SPOTTON:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. PETTIT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. ROWE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. GOLDING:: I was paired with the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Spankie). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. LENNOX:: I was paired with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. PORTEOUS:: -I was paired with the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BRASSET (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
Mr. RiHEAUME (Translation): I was paired with the hon. member for BertShier-Maskin-onge (Mr. Barrette). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.

Business oj the House



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Now that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) has brought down his budget I should1 like to ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position to indicate to the house whether we now have before us all the legislation that will be introduced this session with the exception of what may arise out of the resolutions now before the committee of ways and means and anything that may oome from other committees of the house. I should like to ask also whether the government intends to proceed at this session with the redistribution measure and if there is any possible way in which that measure might be expedited.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The shipping bill now in the other chamber will be proceeded with and the pensions bill will be brought down. The redistribution bill will be proceeded with, and I think every reasonable effort is being made to expedite the work of that committee, at least that is my advice in that regard. Amendments to some existing statutes probably will have to be brought down, affecting possibly the Post Office Act, the Public Works Act, the Judges Act and the criminal code. Owing to the great difference of opinion that has been expressed by different public bodies with respect to the proposed legislation arising out of the Gibb report I am not in a position at the moment to say whether or not that bill will be proceeded with. It has been printed, but a great many public bodies in the cities affected have been directing communications to the government suggesting that the matter be delayed until they can further consider it. At the moment I cannot say whether or not. we will proceed with that measure at this session. I think two or three other statutes, the names of which I do not recall at the moment, will have to be amended as well. I will endeavour to indicate clearly on Monday, so far as one may do so with certainty, the legislation that will be proceeded with.



PRIVILEGE-MR. POWER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: As a matter of privilege I should like to state that during the course of some observations I made last week I stated in good faith that the Temiscouata Railway was held or controlled by the Canadian Pacific Railway, or the Quebee Central. I am informed by a telegram which I have just received from the president of the Temiscouata Railway that this is not the case, so I wish to correct any wrong impression I may have given.



PRIVILEGE MR. McINTOSH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Rattleford): I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. At page 2000 of House of Commons Debates, there appears the following statement:
Mr. McIntosh: Is it not a fact -that a lot of dead horse railways in eastern Canada have been taken over as part of the Canadian National?
I wish emphatically to deny that I uttered any letter, syllable, word, phrase or clause making up this statement; in fact I repudiate the statement and the sectional sentiment giving rise to it. Because of this attitude I ask that it be dissociated with my name in Hansard and accredited to the dead horse member, whoever he may be, who gave expression to such a deplorable spirit of small Canadianism.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, pamphlets have been issued entitled "Unemployment Among Wage Earners" giving the statistics for one or two of our large cities. I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) whether this information is available with regard to the country at large.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will take it as a notice of a question and look into the matter.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 21, consideration in committee of the following proposed1 resolution-Mr. Gordon-Mr. Ross in the chair:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to continue in force the provisions of the Relief Act, 1932, until the 31st of March, 1934.
Mr. HEENAN:: When the house rose last evening I was saying to the Minister of Labour that I hoped his back to the land movement would be more successful than previous schemes had been. This is not the first time that an attempt has been made in this country to establish a back to the land movement, at least in Ontario. I can remember that the Hon. Mr. Ferguson, as Minister
revised edition
Relief Act, 1933

of Lands and Forests in 1917, established what was known as a colony on the east side of -the river Kapuskasing. I am not sure whether the minister was in that part of the country at that time, but I may tell him that Mr. Ferguson believed he had started a well laid out scheme. As I say, he began it in 1917 but it was abandoned in 1920.
Let us examine what was done in connection with that scheme. I want to impress upon the minister that too much care cannot be taken in trying to establish people on .the land. Mr. Ferguson and his organization selected the east side of Kapuskasing river, and the land there was supposed to be one of the best pieces of soil for farming purposes. Moreover, the beauty of the landscape, the fact that a dominion experimental farm was about to be established on the other side of the river, and other favourable circumstances were all taken into consideration as well as the method followed to have the applicants properly selected! for settlement on the land. A committee was appointed to pass upon the suitability of applicants; indeed, proper instructions were given to the applicants before they were allowed to go on the land. They were granted eighty acres of land1 which, subsequently was increased to one hundred acres; each applicant was allowed 8150 to go towards the erection of a house; and they were each loaned $500. At the outset of their training they were given certain allowances; $1.10 a day for unmarried men, and for married men, $5 for the wife and $6 for each child per month, not to exceed in the aggregate $50 for each family per month. This was later discontinued and there was a great deal of dissatisfaction in the colony.
I would point out to the minister that this well laid out scheme, after all these precautions were taken, ended in failure. The government appointed a commission in 1920 under the chairmanship of Mr. W. F. Nickle, who was later a member of this house and later still Attorney General of Ontario, and they recommended that the scheme be abandoned. So far as I can make out, it cost the province of Ontario something like $2,000,000 for the experiment. I hope that the minister's back to the land movement will prove more successful than th-at scheme. Now that the minister and the government are interesting themselves in the back to the land movement, especially so far as Ontario is concerned, it seems to me that they might do something to improve the living conditions of those now on the land in northern Ontario so as to keep them there, instead of having them leave the farms as at present.
(Mr. Heenan.]
There are many methods that could be adopted. I will suggest one to the minister. If he is now advocating a back to the land movement in cooperation with Ontario, he ought to take this opportunity of impressing upon the Ontario government the importance of making provision, either by way of regulations or law or in some other way, to compel or at least to require the pulp and paper companies in the north to purchase their pulpwood from the settlers, and at a fair price. That is one suggestion I have to offer and I hope that the minister, when he is discussing the matter with the Ontario government-I suppose the same thing will apply to Quebec-will see to it that the settlers now on the land get a better opportunity of making a living in order to keep them on the land.
May I ask the minister now whether he will give us the information we were trying to get last evening as to whether or not in this relief measure iit is intended to establish an unemployment insurance scheme, because that is a method whereby, if we cannot cure, at least we can relieve unemployment. I do not want to repeat what I have said before, but I think the minister ought to tell us whether or not he intends to take any of the moneys which are to be voted for the purposes of this measure and apply something towards the establishing of an unemployment insurance scheme. Further, I think the minister ought to inform the committee whether or not at the late dominiomprovnncial conference such a scheme was discussed; whether or not this government bad a plan prepared and laid before the conference; and whether or not any of the provincial governments had plans of their own to propose at the conference. I would like the minister to give us that information before we discuss the other angles of this resolution.


Mr. GORDON:: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for Kenora - Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) has spent some time in commenting upon the colonization effort made in and about the Kapuskasing river valley in 1919. I happen to know a good deal about that effort. It was started as a relief measure in (the hope that some returned soldiers could be settled in that area. As anyone who cares to visit that part of the country will see, the location was ideal. Some criticism might be made of the choice of settlers upon the ground that in many cases they had no previous fanning experience. If there was any weakness in the scheme, it was in the method of selection. I followed closely the effort which was

Relief Act, 1933
made. Even before the project was started it was faced with considerable political opposition from the political party then known as the United Farmers of Ontario. This opposition took place prior to the provincial elections of 1919. Whether the scheme was good or whether it was bad, it was opposed from the beginning. The effort got into politics and any effort of that character which gets into politics and is footballed around has very little hope of ultimate success. The government of the province of Ontario changed in 1919, and following true to political history, the new government under Premier E. C. Drury, which had previously criticized this scheme decided to discontinue the effort. Except with the one reservation in connection with selection to which I have referred, the whole scheme had a sound basis. Anyone who cares to visit the Kapuskasing river valley will find that it is settled with men who at least are doing as well as other farmers in this country. I suggest to the h>on. member that the effort to open up that section of northern Ontario was not the failure which his remarks would seem to indicate.
The matter of unemployment insurance has been brought to the attention of the government of Canada on many occasions throughout a period of many years. The files of the Department of Labour indicate that resolutions have been coming into the department dating back as far as 1923.


Mr. HEAPS:: Were those resolutions from outside bodies?


George Gordon: Yes. I have before me
some sixteen pages of typewriting containing names of labour and other organizations from which resolutions were received. The government of the day undoubtedly recognized that the subject was a most difficult one and that it was rendered still more difficult in Canada by reason of the constitutional setup of this country. The files contain a letter written by ithe then Minister of Labour to H. Little, secretary treasurer of the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, acknowledging a resolution which had been received from that organization. That letter was dated February 22, 1924, and reads:
This particular question is, as you know, a matter that has been before us on several occasions for eonsideraton. The main point involved would appear to be as to whether, with the enormous tax burdens that have come to the people of Canada as the result of the war, additional financial obligations could be assumed.
A circular letter was finally adopted as an answer to the many resolutions being received.


Mr. NEILL:: What is the date of that?
53719-208a


George Gordon: A letter was drafted and
in many cases the other answers follow the same language. The one I shall read is addressed to H. C. Needed, 145 Brunswick avenue, Toronto, by the then* Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) and is dated February 10, 1930. It reads:
Your letter of January 4 addressed to the Prime Minister, in which you have written on the subject of unemployment conditions and the desirability of the public authorities establishing a system of unemployment insurance, has been referred to the undersigned.
The standing committee of the House of Commons on industrial and international relations has been giving consideration during the past two sessions of parliament to the question of insurance against unemployment. A number of witnesses have been examined with the object of ascertaining the facts as to unemployment existing in this country and also as to systems of unemployment insurance which have been established elsewhere. The report of this committee last session, which was adopted by the House of Commons, accepted and endorsed the principle of unemployment insurance based on compulsory contributions derived from the state, employer and employee. The committee report went on to observe that while it is highly desirable that such legislation should be uniform in all the provinces and that while social insurance has a federal aspect, nevertheless, according to the Department of Justice, under our constitution, legislative jurisdiction in relation to a compulsory system of unemployment insurance is vested exclusively in the provincial legislatures.
The committee further noted that the provinces, on being consulted by the federal Department of Labour with regard to their attitude towards the establishment of a general scheme	of	unemployment	insurance, did notappear	to	be	prepared	to take immediateaction.	It	was	recommended that the federalgovernment be requested to bring this subject matter	before	the next	dominion-provincial
conference.
Copies of the last report of the proceedings of the above-mentioned committee have been sent to the different provincial governments this fall and replies are now being received which will doubtless come before the committee on industrial and international relations at the coming session.
If you are particularly interested in the reports of the committee proceedings I will be pleased to have copies of the same sent to you.
That was the answer sent to all those petitioners.
On February 3, 1930, a conference was convened by the present hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. Perhaps, before I proceed with that, I might read to the committee a letter sent by the Deputy Minister of Labour on April 14, 1930, to many of the petitioners and directed to the attention of the then Prime Minister and in turn to that of the Minister of Labour:
In the absence of the Minister of Labour from Ottawa, I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 10th instant in which you inquire as to a declaration of the Prime Minister on
32S6
Relief Act, 1933

February 26, in favour of the establishment of a system of unemployment insurance. In reply I -would state that on February 26 the Minister of Labour received a deputation of representatives of certain municipalities in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, and of the provincial governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, on the subject of unemployment. On the following day the Prime Minister was asked in the House of Commons if the Dominion government was willing to take the initiative in calling a special conference of the provinces to consider the question of unemployment insurance. In reply to this question the Prime Minister spoke as follows:
"My recollection is that a special committee of this house considered this question last session and brought to the house a report to the effect that unemployment insurance was necessarily a matter with which provincial governments rather than the federal government would have to deal. I think I expressed the view yesterday that in my opinion a system of unemployment insurance would be a constructive way to deal with the unemployment problem, to which system not only the employer and the governments concerned would contribute but the worker also. If the provinces make a move in this matter and it appears that the federal government can be of assistance in helping to bring about uniformity as between the provinces of any plan proposed, or can cooperate in other ways in any discussion on the subject, we shall be glad upon invitation to take the matter under consideration."
Yours truly,
Deputy Minister of Labour.
As to the conference referred to in that letter, I find a report on the files of the Department of Labour. Before I deal with the report, I should like to make this observation, that a review of the files of the Department of Labour discloses the fact that for a number of years, back as far as 1923, this subject has been before that department. As I have already indicated, the subject is one of great complexity and difficulty; it is also a subject that, if embarked upon by any government, should be taken up and the structure established in such a way that failure will not follow the effort, because we have already in the world too many instances where- ill-advised legislation setting up machinery for unemployment or social insurance was not based upon a firm and sound foundation, this apart err-tirely from the difficulty with which Canada is confined by reason of our constitution. To ail the advances or petitions that were made to the late government the same answer-and I am not particularly complaining about this-[DOT] was made by succeeding ministers of labour and by the then prime minister, in substance that the matter was one to which the provinces would have to subscribe

and that is very true

and that the government would give consideration to the subject.

As I say, a conference was held, and on the files of the Department of Labour I find a report of it. I can assure the committee that the report is very illuminating. The conference was held at Ottawa on February 3, 1930, and the report states:
This morning the Minister of Labour, Hon. Peter Heenan, in company with Hon. Dr. J. H. King, Minister of Pensions and National Health, and Hon. J. C. Elliott, Minister of Public Works, met a delegation from several municipalities in the province of Ontario, at which time a request was made -that the federal government should cooperate with the municipalities in connection with unemployment relief-
The committee will note that this conference dealt, according to this report, only with unemployment relief.

by assuming one-third of the expenditure in excess of normal cost where municipalities undertake special work for the purpose of providing employment.
The delegation was introduced by Senator Spence, who stated that fourteen municipalities were represented, and called upon His Worship Mayor Wemp of Toronto, who had been chosen by the gathering to be their spokesman.
Mayor Wemp, who opened the discussion, stated that i-t was not the intention of the gathering to criticize the administration but that they felt it was only proper they should present the problem, which he indicated was very acute, to the government in the hope that the government would see its way clear to adopt the policy of some former years and assist the municipalities in bearing a share of the expenditure in excess of the normal cost.
Mayor Wemp, in turn, introduced the following, all of whom reechoed his views:
Mayor Beckett, of Brantford; Doctor Bell, Hamilton; Mayor Kilpatrick, London; Frank Mitchell, the Border Cities (Windsor); Reeve Leslie. Township of East York; Reeve Dean, Township of York: Alderman Hughes, Welland; John Linden, Scarborough; a gentleman representing Reeve Marshall of Etobicoke Council, the same also representing New Toronto; also Controllers Somerville, Simpson, Pearce and Robins of Toronto.
At -the conclusion of the presentation remarks were made by the Hon. Peter Heenan, Minister of Labour, Hon. Dr. King and Hon. Mr. Elliott. The undersigned was present during the proceedings, also Deputy Minister of Immigration, Mr. Egan. In addition the following other officers -of the Department of Labour were present, Colonel Scknarr, Mr. Rigg and Mr. Phelan.
H. H. Ward,
Deputy Minister.
That is the sum and substance of the effort so far as I have been able to learn-there may have been something else-from the files of the department as to getting the provinces together with the dominion authorities in order that out of the conflict of jurisdiction the problem might be gotten into shape where legislation might be introduced to advance

Reliej Act, 1933
some plan with respect to unemployment or social insurance.
I can only make this remark in passing, that the same difficulty which confronted the late government, confronts the present one. We have the added difficulty that industry in Canada to-day, in common with that of other countries, is passing through a most perilous time. I ask any hon, member of this committee, who gives careful thought to the subject, whether or not the difficulties which confronted the late administration in connection with problems such as the one we are now discussing, are not increased ten-fold at the present time. I am convinced that by hurrying through legislation which has not been considered from every possible angle we may defeat the object to be attained. That is, if such a plan is found to be workable, having regard to the complexities of the problem, then it should be initiated and founded on a sure and actuarially sound basis, and should be subscribed to by every province of Canada and by the industries affected.
It is also abundantly true, at least it is so proclaimed by hon. members who were in the house when the late government was in power, that if there was a time more than any other when the world was apparently prosperous it was during part of the period of office of hon. members opposite. Yet, a review of the files of the Department of Labour which were compiled when the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River was Minister of Labour does not disclose anything but the expressions "Serious consideration will be given" or "The industrial and international relations committee have it under review." Nothing else was done. I suggest, and I think not unfairly, that as the late administration were in power at a time when people thought the world was passing through a period of prosperity, if they were unable during all those years to make any substantial advance towards procuring the object now so dear to the heart of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, then, I say it does not come with the best of grace at a time like this for the hon. member to offer condemnation of what this government is endeavouring to do by way of at least having the provinces come in with the dominion-and that means the overcoming of many difficulties-in order to bring about a plan of social or unemployment insurance which, once started, will be permanent and successful. At the moment that is as far as I care to go. I trust the accusation will not be made that my remarks have been made from a political standpoint, because I feel certain the great majority of
members in the committee are thoroughly conversant with the difficulties and pitfalls ahead of any government which seeks to set up a scheme of social or unemployment insurance calculated to operate on a permanent basis, and to work in the interests of those affected by it, and in the interests of the country as a whole.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Chairman, the minister has succeeded very well in evading answering the question I asked. If he will look at my remarks _ of last evening or read what I said this afternoon he must be convinced that I am not criticizing the government for not making greater haste with respect to the establishment of an unemployment insurance scheme. There was no necessity for the heat just now displayed by the minister. What I asked him, and what we have a right .to know is:	What progress is
he making? Was the matter discussed at the recent dominion-provincial conference? Did the government lay a plan before the conference, or had any of the provinces a plan to lay before the federal government? That is .the question I have asked. I am not criticizing him. But apparently in his efforts to make political capital, notwithstanding the fact that he has said he does not wish to do so-has misrepresented the evidence on bis own files-or at least, the evidence of the files he ought to have before him.
I did not raise the question of jurisdiction as between the provinces and the dominion. I realize as well as the minister that we have obstacles to meet in that connection. If the files were produced they would show that the late government, after the establishment of the Old Age Pensions Act, started in step by step to bring the provinces together. I notice that the minister very carefully evaded reading the files which would disclose that fact. In 1928 the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) moved a resolution asking that the matter be considered. If the government of the day had desired I believe we could have evaded the matter by attempting to have the Speaker rule the resolution out of order, on the ground that it was a provincial matter. However we chose to accept the resolution. It was submitted to the industrial relations committee, and they in turn made certain recommendations. Again in 1929-	.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. The hon. member cannot discuss the Old Age Pensions Act on this resolution.


Peter Heenan: I am not discussing it.
328o
Relief Act, 1933


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It looks like it, to me. The hon. member is referring to a resolution about the Old Age Pensions Act.


Peter Heenan: I am answering the Minister of Labour.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member certainly cannot discuss the Old Age Pensions Act under this resolu/tiion.


Peter Heenan: I am not doing that; I
shall not refer to it again. In 1929 the matter was again submitted for further consideration to the industrial relations committee.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Peter Heenan: I am speaking about unemployment insurance.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Very well, go ahead.


Peter Heenan: The recommendations of
the committee, while I have not them before me, were to the effect that at the next dominion-provincial conference the government would lay before the provinces the matter of the establishment of an unemployment insurance scheme for Canada. The government of that day did not wait until the next dominion-provincial conference. Tf the minister will refer to his complete fdes he will find that we canvassed the provinces; he will find on that file that many of the provinces acquiesced, and agreed to the unemployment insurance scheme for Canada. One of the reasons we did not go into it more thoroughly was that we were right in the face of an election. We did not wish to draw that question into politics. What would have been said, if we had called a dominion-provincial conference in the face of an election? We would quite probably have been accused of making a political football out of the unemployment insurance scheme. But we did promise, and had in the estimates for 1930 a provision for sufficient money, to hold a dominion-provincial conference, had we been returned to power.
That is the history of the matter, and I am satisfied if 'the late government had been returned to power we would have an unemployment insurance scheme in operation in Canada to-day. I do not wish the minister to evade my question; I am not criticizing him because he has not introduced an unemployment insurance scheme. But certainly the words of the Prime Minister as expressed on April 29, 1931, gave hope to the workers of Canada that an unemployment insurance

scheme would soon be introduced. His words were:
I propose, if we are spared as a government and as individuals, that the information we will have before our term of office is ended shall be crystallized into the form of legislative proposals to be submitted to this house.
The headlines of the newspapers instilled into the hearts of the workers hopes that the government was going to introduce such a proposal. Without criticizing either the minister or the government, all I am asking now is, what did they do at the last dominion-provincial conference to further this scheme? Was the matter discussed? Did they have a plan to lay before the provinces, .or did the provinces have any plan to lay before the Dominion government? In other words I want to know, and I think I am entitled and the house is entitled to know, whether any serious effort was made to establish an unemployment insurance scheme for this country.


Alan Webster Neill: I would like to endorse the
remarks of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan). In order to fortify myself against your possible displeasure, Mr. Chairman, I would like briefly to outline the position at the present moment. We are discussing a proposal to vote a very large sum of money, in some respects an unlimited sum, for the relief of unemployment. A conference was held last fall between the dominion and the provinces. The main purpose of that conference was the consideration of steps to be taken to deal with the needs of those unemployed. There were four major methods suggested and discussed; one was the provision of public works to make employment; another the provision of direct relief; a third was the land settlement scheme; and the fourth was the suggestion of dealing with it by means of unemployment insurance. These various plans were put forward and discussed, some as alternatives, some as palliatives, some as substitutes. Now we are told-at least I have heard it suggested from the chair both last night and to-day-that we can discuss, as we have discussed for three or four days, three of those plans, but must not discuss the fourth. I would like to know why not. We know that the provision of public works has more or less failed and been abandoned-


George Gordon: It did not fail; that was not the reason for its abandonment.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, abandoned because it
was found impossible.

Relief Act, 1933


George Gordon: Because it was too costly.


Alan Webster Neill: It does not matter whether
because it was too costly or for some other reason; at any rate it was found undesirable, we will say, and was largely abandoned. The direct relief system, while it is the one largely used to-day, has very grave disadvantages, the debasing effects of giving people the dole and so on. The land settlement system is a mere fleabite, when we recall that the minister told us yesterday that in British Columbia less than one hundred families have been put on the land, while the records show over
120,000	getting relief there. So the first has ceased to operate, the second has grave disadvantages, the third is merely piffle. It is possible that the solution is to be found in the fourth, and that is why we think it desirable that we should be furnished with as much information as possible when we are discussing this very important question of dealing with the unemployment situation.
I note that the minister gave a report of sorts about a conference that took place on the third of February, 1930. It was a poor sort of conference, because it was attended only by representatives of a few municipalities in Ontario. It is not to be compared with the recent dominion-wide conference. Apparently the minister did get from his records-it must have been provided and presumably went to parliament-a report of that conference, and that is what we are asking for to-day, a report of the Dominion-Provincial Conference.


George Gordon: That report never left the files of the Labour department.


Alan Webster Neill: Well he gave it to the house to-day, and that is what I am asking for as to the conference last January. We want to know what took place at that conference. Surely when people have paid their money- for we all contributed to the expense of those delegates-we are entitled to know, at some time at least, what took place, what obstacles were met with, what progress was made. The minister took refuge in the well worn retort, et tu Brute; he said the late government did not do any more than he was doing, and he referred to 1923. But in 1923 we were not voting $46,000,000 for unemployment relief. The problem has become immensely graver since then. What might be a good argument ten years ago is entirely unsuitable to-day, in view of the present conditions. The minister said it would be improper-and I quite agree -to introduce a measure of that character without considering every angle, and pointed out that industry is in a deplorable condition now
and less able to bear any burden than it was at that time. But there is a difference between considering a subject in all its angles and ignoring it in all its angles. The government may be considering

we do not know, and we want to know what has been done. We are asking that information. In default of that information we have to rely on such political gossip as we can pick up from members who were at the conference and who talked when they went home, which is not a desirable way to get information. What took place at that conference? Did some provinces prove belligerent and say: We will not do anything; we will not chip in with the dominion; we will not subordinate our constitutional rights? Did they take that attitude? 'If so we might hesitate about giving them the millions for relief in the future that they have had in the past. These are the things we want to know. Did eight out of nine agree, or was a reasonable proposal put before them and were they asked to say: Will you subordinate your constitutional rights and allow the dominion to carry out such a scheme? Or was no scheme put before them? In that case of course we could hardly blame the provinces for hesitating to give up their rights. These are all things we want to know. We are not attacking the government, because these things are only guesses, but we want to get outside the sphere of guesses; we want to know what the situation is. I cannot understand the reluctance of the minister and the government to give that information. Possibly the facts will redound more or less to the credit of the Dominion government; then why not tell us, take us into their confidence, let us know where we stand and what has been done and what we can look forward to in the future? I do not think the country will be satisfied with anything less, and I think this house is entitled to that information.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I cannot see how that discussion can be relevant to this resolution. I think it is absolutely out of order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, you permitted the minister to go very fully into this whole question.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Well, I seem to be alone in my opinion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think you are.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: But I still maintain it.


Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):: It is
useless to butt against everybody.
Belief Act, 1933


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Chairman, I have taken a good dead of interest in this question ever since I had the honour of becoming a member of this house. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) this afternoon gave a resume of some resolutions submitted to the Department of Labour over a period of ten years. I would like to give a resume of what action this house has taken in regard to this question of unemployment insurance.
Early in 1926 a communication was sent to the then leader of the opposition as well as to the hon. gentleman who led the government at the time. It dealt with the question of unemployment insurance as well as old age pensions, and requested their views on those very important subjects, dealing, that is, with the temporary question of providing for the unemployed at the time and also the question of unemployment insurance. Some action was taken toy the government in providing relief for the unemployed for the winter of 1926-27, and when the session of 1927 came around a motion was introduced by myself asking that the matter of unemployment insurance be referred to a committee, I think of the house. But it did not pass in that session. A similar resolution was adopted in 1928 and referred to the committee on industrial and international relations, where the question was gone into veiy thoroughly. During that session, however, we did not have sufficient time to' bring in a complete report, which later was done, approving in a general wiay of the principle of unemployment insurance but pointing out the constitutional difficulties standing in the way. In 1929 I do not think much action was taken, though I believe the question was raised, and in 1930 we were in much the same position. Then came the election of 1930, and unemployment insurance was discussed from many platforms in all parts of the country. The principle was accepted by both major parties; both agreed on the principle of unemployment insurance and both were prepared to do something if they were returned to office. In the early part of the session of 1931 I again raised the question, and the right hon. Prime Minister gave a definite understanding that within the lifetime of the present parliament legislation would be introduced looking towards 'the establishment of a system of unemployment insurance.
It is quite true, as the Minister of Labour has said, that a great many things have taken place since that time, and conditions have become greatly aggravated. I am very anxious indeed, even at this late date, to see a start made on some form of unemployment insur-

ance, but it is a question whether legislation of that kind would even begin to remedy our troubles. The Minister of Labour has said that approximately a million and a third men, women and children, are on relief in Canada to-day, and when I say that there are at least eight hundred thousand people out of work the committee will have some idea of the problem we are facing. If we are to hold out any hope for those men and women out of work I feel that at least they should know the actual conditions. If we should have a scheme of unemployment insurance inaugurated at this time, I think even an optimist of the highest order would have to admit that it could affect only an extremely small proportion of those who find themselves out of work at present. I believe we have out of work roughly one-third of those usually gainfully employed, and from a financial standpoint, under the existing economic system I think lit would be almost impossible to provide in anything like a reasonable way for those people. So if we are to deal with the unemployment problem in such a way as to provide reasonable relief I think vre should attack the problem in a more fundamental way than merely by considering the question of unemployment insurance.
I should not like to be misunderstood, Mr. Chairman. I am heartily in favour of unemployment insurance even at this time, but at the same time I think we should look at the problem in a far more practical way than merely the consideration of this one method of dealing with it. I think we should realize that of the hundreds of thousands of people unemployed to-day a great percentage never will be reabsorbed into industry. That being so the question becomes far more important than the provision of a scheme of unemployment insurance. The man or woman out of work cannot possibly contribute to any insurance scheme, and those who are employed only on part time scarcely could be expected to do so. With the federal and provincial exchequers in a depleted condition and with the condition of industry generally it would be almost impossible to provide the vast sums that would be necessary to bring into operation any scheme of unemployment insurance that would be actually sound, so we must look in another direction for ways and means of providing work for those of our people who are unemployed to-day. In my opinion -there is only one thing to do, and that is to provide work. I am bitterly opposed to the dole; I detest the very thought that in this country we have a million and a third of our people receiving public relief, and even

Reliej Act, 1933
that does not tell the whole story. In addition to this vast number there are many others who are receiving private relief, and I venture to assert that if all those in receipt of relief from other than public sources were added to the total I have mentioned we would have about a million and a half people receiving relief to-day. In other words, at least one out of every seven of our population is in receipt of some form of relief.
As I said a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, the logical thing to do is to provide employment. Public works have been ruled out of the picture because they are too expensive. I quite agree, because the amount of work provided by the expenditure of $15,000,000 or $20,000,000 by the federal government would only touch the fringe of the unemployment situation. During the past few years our army of unemployed has been growing greater and greater, and in spite of the optimism displayed by certain hon. members of the house I see no betterment at the present time. When I picked up the paper this morning I found that action was being taken by our railways which will have the effect in the near future of throwing thousands more of our working people out of employment, thus greatly aggravating an already difficult situation. So with all due respect to what has been done by the government in the last few years; with all due respect to those who even at this time advocate unemployment insurance which, at the best, is only a palliative and will not affect a very large proportion of those out of employment, I think if we are to deal with this question at all we must do so from a different angle altogether. The one way I see, and the method I have advocated in this house for a number of years, is to first reduce the number of hours of work so that we may absorb into industry large numbers of those who are now idle. To me that is the first remedy that should be applied. I know I will be told that the question of the hours of labour is under the jurisdiction of our provincial authorities. To a certain extent this may be quite true, but I believe that when the need is so great; when in our large industrial centres throughout the country we have a third of the employable population out of work, we should not balk at the constitution. I believe in having all respect for the constitution, but the need is urgent now, and I think our provincial authorities should be big enough to consider the welfare of the country as a whole and do something fundamental to deal with this ever-increasing problem of unemployment.
We are told that we are faced with conditions such as never have been known in the Dominion of Canada before. That is perfectly true. In common with the rest of the world we are faced with a serious economic crisis, but that crisis is man-made, and such a crisis we should meet ourselves; we ought to be able to overcome it by proper action taken in this house. The vast army of the unemployed in Canada to-day are looking to this parliament for redress, because this is the only body in the country they can look to for some relief. There is nothing more demoralizing to a man than to be out of work and to be without any prospect whatever of obtaining work either immediately or in the near future.
As a first step towards solving the unemployment problem, I suggest that some means must be taken by this house of considerably reducing the hours of labour in industry. But there is something else that must go along with that, because merely to reduce hours of labour and at the same time to reduce wages would leave us in relatively the same position we are in now. The next essential therefore is to provide purchasing power for the masses of the people so that they may consume the goods which they themselves help to produce. At present that purchasing power is lacking and consequently there is no effective demand for the goods which we have in superabundance.
I know that the solution cannot be found by any of the provinces; it would be unfair to ask any of the provinces to take the necessary steps towards a reduction of the hours of labour. There is only one body competent to legislate along that line and that is this honourable house. If we take these two steps which I suggest we shall have a complete change from the present situation in industry. Industry to-day operates not in order to serve the community as a whole but to serve the ends of those who own and control it, and industry must be made to realize that it exists to serve a much higher purpose than that. It must serve the needs of the community. There could be nothing more striking in the way of condemnation of our present industrial system than the spectacle of 800,000 people walking the streets unemployed and without any prospect of obtaining employment, while at the same time our factories are idle, although these very people are ready to start the wheels of industry going. And these people are in want of the very things the factories can turn out if they are given a chance to function.
Relief Act, 1933

This problem can be solved only by reducing very considerably the hours of labour, and secondly, by increasing the purchasing power of the great masses of the people. I do not attach much importance to conferences. Some hon. gentlemen who have preceded me have emphasized the last conference and others of the same kind, but personally I must say that I have lost a good deal of faith in any sort of conference, and so have the people. What the people are looking for is action, and they expect this house to take that action. I believe that the government itself is anxious to do something for the unemployed. It would be a splendid thing if the government could see its way clear, by proper action, to reduce the army of unemployed whom it is compelled to maintain, and I suggest that if we are to deal with the problem this government can deal with it in one possible way only, and that is by considerably reducing the hours of labour. If that were done we could absorb men and women into industry and start things going. And secondly, I repeat, we must increase the purchasing power of the masses of the people so that they may be able to obtain in large measure the goods which they themselves produce.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I do not agree with
some of the observations made this afternoon with regard to unemployment insurance. In my opinion the government could very well set in motion at once the necessary machinery to bring about a system of unemployment insurance in this country. In spite of what has been said to the contrary, I hold that no matter what system we may live under, some scheme of social insurance will sooner or later be found to be absolutely necessary, and ithe enormous figures quoted with respect to unemployment insurance are, in my opinion, no reason for tardiness in introducing a measure of this description. If such a scheme had been introduced in 1928-29 it would have been necessary to pick out a certain number of specified trades or callings in connection with which the plan could have been tried. That can be done to-day. The same argument that would have been used at that time can be invoked at this moment. I believe it will be necessary for the government to study the systems in operation in other countries in taking the necessary steps towards the introduction of unemployment insurance. What I am most concerned about at the moment is to know whether the federal government had a plan drawn up for the introduction of an unemployment insurance
I Mr. Heaps.]
scheme in Canada and whether it submitted that plan to the dominion-provincial conference.


George Gordon: There is no reason why
the position of the government should not be made plain with respect to unemployment insurance. The facts were spread upon Hansard by the Prime Minister. A dominion-provincial conference was called because it was obvious that any scheme that might be advanced-not only ithe schemes that have been proposed since 1930 but those suggested before that time by those who apparently spoke for the late government-must be contributory. That being so, this government is immediately confronted, as every province in the dominion is confronted, with a preliminary barrier to the accomplishment of that purpose.
I do not want to harp on the constitution. I have been told that constitutional questions, in our past political history, if properly manipulated could change even the complexion of governments. I want to avoid that sort of thing, and the government wants to avoid it. At the recent dominion-provincial conference the question of unemployment insurance certainly was discussed; it was discussed primarily t'o see whether the apparently insuperable barrier to a contributory system could be removed, namely, the question of constitutional difficulties. Because of the fact that the subject matter perhaps would become a matter of great controversy within each province, it was agreed among the provinces that the attitude of each individual province would not be disclosed. Each provincial representative recognized that that barrier must first be overcome if contributory social insurance was to become a fact. That being the case, I can only go so far as to say that this subject was seriously discussed from many angles and that the whole matter is still under consideration by the provinces and by this government. I can assure the committee that if it is possible we will endeavour to introduce a scheme the foundations of which will be laid upon such sure and sound basis, aotuarially and otherwise, that it will prevail and not meet with disaster because of hasty action on the part of this government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is it not a fact that the procedure with respect to any scheme of unemployment insurance is upon all fours with the procedure with respect to old age pensions, and that the question of jurisdiction so far as unemployment insurance is concerned is the same as the question of juris-

diction which arises in connection with old age pensions? Does the minister agree with that?


George Gordon: In part.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With what part does the minister not agree?


George Gordon: I cannot agree that the two matters are exactly alike, but in the main the same constitutional questions arise with respect to both.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Each is a form of social insurance; the one is insurance against dependence in old age, the other is insurance against unemployment. So far as the relations between the provinces and the dominion are concerned, the same class of question arises and the methods of procedure in bringing about an arrangement between the provinces and the dominion axe the same. Broadly speaking, I think that is correct. May I ask the minister if the federal government placed any scheme before the conference or made any suggestion of a plan which it would wish to have considered? This is in contrast to the provinces bringing something to the attention of the federal government.


George Gordon: In answering the first observation made by the right hon. gentleman, may I say that I do not subscribe to the view that these two questions are identical or even nearly so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As to procedure and jurisdiction.


George Gordon: Possibly so. The question of unemployment or social insurance has associated with it many questions which do not arise with respect to old age pensions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister seems to identify unemployment insurance with social insurance. That is not my understanding of social insurance. Social insurance is a comprehensive term which includes as one form insurance against unemployment.


George Gordon: I will confine it to unemployment insurance. That subject has associated with it factors which do not appear with respect to old age pensions. There are hours of work, rates of pay, industrial relations and other matters which enter into a contributory form of unemployment insurance. It will be seen that both subjects have their own peculiar difficulty.
In answering the second question asked by the right hon. gentleman, may I repeat that before any scheme could take form, the constitutional barrier would have to be removed.
Relief Act, 1933
So far as the discussions at the conference are concerned, many forms of insurance and the difficulties which presented themselves in connection therewith were discussed. I think the representatives of the provinces left the conference with a much clearer idea of the difficulties which would have to be surmounted if a plan such as has been discussed in this house and in the press were to be invoked. It was realized that the barrier which confronted the provinces and the dominion must first be removed. This was the first conference to deal directly with a problem of this character and it was not expected that it would be able to solve the problems involved. I am sure the representatives of the provinces carried away with them a realization of the necessity of careful investigation as to how such a plan would work within their respective provinces and the realization that they must decide whether the representatives could commit their respective governments to a nation-wide plan on a contributory basis.
I suggest that that is as far as this government could go at such a conference. If we had taken the attitude and said, " Now, provinces, here is our plan and you must accept it," we would have got nowhere.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not "must"
but " what do you think of it?"


George Gordon: That is one of the reasons why no hard, fast and rigid plan was laid before the conference. The effort of the conference was directed towards solving the obvious difficulties. There was a full, free and frank discussion of these difficulties in the hope that the subject might be renewed at another time and that we might go forward another step in attaining our ends within a reasonable length of time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister states that there was no hard, fast and rigid plan put before the conference, but is it not a fact- that no plan at all was put before the conference? They talked about unemployment insurance, but no plan was offered or proposed by the federal government. That was the real position. The minister has said that there should not be undue haste in a matter of this kind and that the government is considering what it might do. Has the government taken any concrete steps to surmount in any way the difficulties to be confronted in dealing with a national scheme? I agree with the minister when he says that a national scheme of unemployment insurance presents more difficulties than a national scheme of old age pensions. Is the government doing anything, and, if so, what is it
Relief Act, 1933

doing to get such light upon this subject as will be of service in bringing about a national scheme at an early date?


George Gordon: The government is and
has been gathering the necessary information in order that a plan which could meet with the views of the parties interested might be evolved. It will require to be done with extreme care and the government is progressing with that work.
The leader of the opposition suggested that the position was that the government had no plan; that we proposed nothing to the provinces. That is far from being the case. I am not at liberty to disclose the proposals, because it was understood at the opening of the conference, at the suggestion of the provincial representatives themselves, that the difficulties with which they would be confronted' with respect to this very subject matter should remain without being published until they had further reviewed them and until further conferences were held, the reason being that to disclose those difficulties and the attitude of various provinces, whether for or against or partially for and partially against, or to publish suggestions coming from them during the course of negotiations, was not calculated to advance the position. That was the attitude assumed by this government and by the provinces, and I do not think anyone can very seriously complain of it, but I can tell the members of the committee that information is being gathered with respect to this very important subject and it is hoped that advance will be made toward bringing into being some kind of legislation that will accomplish the object sought.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
is coming along slowly. He may find in a little while that in spite of himself he is doing something. He says that the department or the government is gathering information. May I ask him this question:	From what sources
are they gathering information? What officers of the government are gathering it? What is the nature of the information they are gathering that they do not have already?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We want to know something.


George Gordon: Yes, I think that would
not be a bad idea.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Something of what the
government is doing, so that we may understand the situation.


George Gordon: The Bureau of Statistics
is compiling information; the Department of 
Insurance and the Department of Labour are giving attention to it. The government itself has under review many phases of the difficulties that accompany the introduction of such legislation.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: As the department over which I have at the moment the honour of presiding is and has been for some time looking into this question of unemployment insurance, may I say a word in regard to the matter. The difficulties in the way of a federal system of unemployment insurance are very serious if such a system is to be carried out upon a contributory basis which, I believe, is the only method which would be approved by parliament, that is, contributions by employees, by employers, by the federal treasury and perhaps as well by the provincial treasuries. To inaugurate and carry out a scheme of that kind without provincial consent and without an amendment to the British North America Act would be impossible. Parliament cannot force employers to contribute, nor can it force employees to contribute. These are matters entirely within the jurisdiction of the various provinces, and unless the provinces are willing to surrender some of their rights, their powers, it is impossible without an amendment to the British North America Act to carry out any scheme under the jurisdiction of this parliament. I noticed the leader of the opposition stated in his opening remarks that it would be just as easy to carry out an unemployment insurance scheme as to carry out an old age pension plan.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I said the very reverse; I said that it would not be as easy to carry out an unemployment insurance scheme.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the corrected
opinion of my right hon. friend after the Minister of Labour had spoken.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it is not. With all deference to my hon. friend, if he will look at the record, he will see that I said that the same questions of jurisdiction and methods of procedure arise in each case.


Hugh Guthrie: The same questions do not arise. In the old age pension scheme the question was simply this: the federal government will contribute certain money and the provincial governments will contribute certain money. The difficulty was overcome by a dominion act and a provincial act. That was all there was to the matter. This plan of unemployment insurance involves not only

Relief Act, 1933
the question of government contribution, but compulsory contributions by employers and employees, which is a matter of purely provincial jurisdiction. I am disclosing no secret when I say that at the conference the provinces were not prepared to give up those rights nor to agree to any amendment to the British North America Act for that purpose. Very serious discussions took place, and while the question was advanced, it certainly was not advanced to the point of agreement, no agreement being reached on the subject. Until we have a solution of these two questions: the power to assess the employer and the power to assess the employee, I do not think there is much hope of a federal unemployment insurance scheme. If we can overcome those difficulties; if we can reach an arrangement upon those two questions, then I think the field is fairly clear and satisfactory legislation can be formulated. But until we have those questions cleared up, I do not think very much advance can be made.
The matter is being considered by a number of departments of this government, notably by the Department of Justice. It is also being considered by a number of provincial governments, I shall not say all of them. The hope is that some satisfactory scheme may be evolved within a reasonable time, but so far the basis has not been struck.


Charles Gavan Power: May I ask the Minister of
Justice, who has just taken his seat and who has put forward the proposition of contributory unemployment insurance as it was put to the provinces, whether it was not the case that the proposition put to them was that they should abandon their claims over insurance generally; that what the federal government asked them to do was to recede from the position which the privy oouncil had granted to them?


Hugh Guthrie: Nothing of that kind took place either in my hearing or to my knowledge. This was an entirely different matter from insurance which was very fully discussed.


Charles Gavan Power: It covers the same question.


Hugh Guthrie: No.


Charles Gavan Power: As I recollect the matter,
the privy council delivered the judgment in which it was stated that insurance generally should be under the control of the provinces. Am I right in that?


Hugh Guthrie: That the business of insurance, fire, life, marine and accident, is under the jurisdiction of the provinces, but the two
subjects were not discussed together; they were in no way involved in relation to each other. The discussion that took place on insurance was separate and distinct from that which took place in regard to unemployment insurance.


Charles Gavan Power: The question of insurance
generally most assuredly covers that of unemployment insurance, and if the provinces, and I think quite rightly, believe that under the British North America Act and as confirmed by the decision of privy council, they and they alone have the right to deal with the business of insurance, it naturally follows that they should reply to the federal government: First of all get your right to deal with unemployment insurance established, and then we shall talk to you.


Hugh Guthrie: There is very much to be said in favour of the opinion just expressed by the hon. member for Quebec South. I am inclined to think the question of unemployment insurance is far more a provincial than a federal one, but at the same time it has been, I believe, the sense of this parliament and probably of the country that it would be a good thing to have a federal system of unemployment insurance if we can get one. But if you oome down to the fine point, the jurisdiction is within the provinces.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister allow me to ask this question? As regards the constitutional aspect, he suggests that it might be necessary to amend the British North America Act. Such a course would be complicated and delay the matter. The British Columbia government passed an act, I believe it is chapter 4 of the 1932 statutes, which seems to me to be a parallel case. It is an amendment to the Meat and Canoed Foods Act. Passing the act as a sort of concurrent legislation, they took a position something like this, that "If any order in council or regulations have been made by the Dominion government under the Dominion Meat and Canned Foods Act we do hereby also enact them, in so far as they exceed the dominion jurisdiction, and come under our jurisdiction. And if in future they pass any more such regulations we again hereby enact them."
Would not legislation of that kind suffice in dealing with the situation?


Hugh Guthrie: If this parliament has not jurisdiction now, no act of any province can confer jurisdiction upon it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask if this is not what actually took place when the conference was held: The Dominion govern-
Relief Act, 1933

ment asked the provinces what they had to propose with respect to unemployment insurance, and the reply from the provincial governments was to the effect that they had been invited to the conference by the dominion and would like to know what it had to offer. Did they not say that if the dominion would place a plan before them they would express their views? But no plan was forthcoming from the dominion. That certainly is the current view entertained as to what took place. If it is not correct I wish the minister would say so.


George Gordon: Of course the right hon. leader of the opposition has his views and his powers of deduction, which are most admirable. But I have already said the discussions on this subject were confidential between the provinces and the dominion, and stated to be so by both. I shall just have to reassert that position, and regret to say that in the meantime, until those negotiations have been concluded, the right hon. leader of the opposition, I am afraid, will have to speculate as to what did happen.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: One other
point: May I suggest that when the next conference comes along, if the government is in earnest in its desire to further a national unemployment scheme, it should have a plan to present to the provinces which would indicate on what basis the federal government would participate in an unemployment insurance scheme. There is nothing to prevent that being done. Whatever the Minister of Justice has said about jurisdiction may be taken into consideration, but the test as to whether or not this government is in earnest about any national unemployment scheme will be their presentation to the next conference of some concrete plan about which they can tell this house and country. That will be the test.


Mr. MacINNIS:: It seems to me we are giving this point more importance than it actually possesses. We seem to believe that if we have unemployment insurance there will be no further unemployment. I believe the experience of other countries would indicate that that is far from the truth. Since 1911 there has been an unemployment insurance scheme in Great Britain, and to-day unemployment in that country is as great a problem as it is here. True, unemployment insurance is a more scientific way of dealing with the difficulty than the method we are adopting, but it certainly is not a solution. If we had the best possible scheme of unemployment insurance we would still have an unemployment problem to solve.

In the last four sessions, including the special session of 1930, we have been discussing unemployment. When that special session was called the Prime Minister asked for an appropriation similar to the amount mentioned in the amendment to this resolution, such moneys to take care of the situation then obtaining. In that special session he pointed out that a special vote of money was not a solution of the difficulty, but merely a palliative. Again at this time, after the passage of three years, nothing but a palliative is offered. It seems to me that if we are to deal effectively with the unemployment problem we will have to do something of a more permanent character.
The condition with which we are faced is this: Every employing company, every industry, is trying to produce the greatest number of units of commodities with the least possible amount of labour time. With such conditions confronting us it is impossible under the present plan to catch up with the unemployment problem. We cannot do it, and for that reason, while, as the hon. member for North Winnipeg suggested, we might consider unemployment insurance as a means to an end, I suggest we must remember that unemployment insurance is not an end in itself, but that we must have a more fundamental and definite plan to deal with unemployment.


Mr. COOTE:: I was deeply interested in
the statement made by the minister this afternoon ito the effect that information was being gathered from so many departments. However, there is one department he failed to mention which in my view must be brought into the scheme before we can go very far with unemployment insurance. I refer to the Department of Finance. The minister will find that upon introducing an unemployment insurance plan he will have to have money; he must know from where that money will come.


George Gordon: I thought the hon. member would take it for granted that the Department of Finance was deeply interested in any such scheme.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The committee has
been out of order all afternoon.


George Gibson Coote: The minister was quite right this afternoon when he said that when and if we establish an unemployment insurance scheme it must be on a sound actuarial basis. I say that we cannot be on a sound actuarial basis until in Canada we have a sound money system. I do not mean by that the present system, because it is anything but sound. It

Relief Act, 1933
is sound, but very little more, to most people. Sound money would be stable money. When stable money is put to work properly it will bring about stable conditions, stable employment and stable purchasing power. When we have such conditions it may be possible to bring in an unemployment insurance scheme which would be actuariailly sound. Had an unemployment insurance scheme been introduced and put into operation in 1928 or 1929 I am afraid by .this time it would have failed, because there would not have been enough income in the hands of those administering the fund to pay the unemployment insurance. All that goes back to the fact that we have not a sound money system. We should have a money system whereby money issued has some reasonable relation to the amount of goods produced. Under such conditions we would not have all this unemployment. Until we deal with our money system we will have unemployment, and I am afraid we will have more than obtains to-day.
I was glad to hear the Minister of Finance announce yesterday that a royal commission will be appointed to inquire into banking and money. I hope one of the matters with which the commission will be specifically charged to inquire into will be the control of our money system so as to maintain stable employment in Canada. We can produce the goods but we have yet to solve the problem of distribution. That is the reason we have unemployment. I again suggest to the committee that before we can effectively deal with unemployment, we must deal on a scientific basis with the money problem.


Mr. REID:: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister the position that many municipalities find themselves in. We agree that governments to-day, both dominion and provincial, are carrying a heavy load in regard to unemployment. But so are the municipalities. I believe I am safe in saying that the municipalities to-day are carrying a heavier load than the provincial or the dominion governments. They are further crippled by the fact that municipalities have not the powers of taxation that the other governments have. In the province of British Columbia the municipalities for many years past have been in receipt of large grants from the provincial government. Now the provincial government, in an endeavour to balance its budget, has intimated to the municipalities that some of these grants will be cut off. A grant which has been given them in connection with the parimutuel and the liquor profits, amounting to some $640,000 is going to be cut off this year. In view of that condition there are
three questions that I would like to ask the minister:
In the event of any municipality being unable to carry on financially will the Dominion government contribute a greater proportion than one-third to direct relief?
In the event that it does, will it be on the understanding that the province will bear one-half instead of one-third as at present?
If the province finds itself unable to bear the fifty per cent, or any further burden in connection with the municipalities, will the Dominion government bear a greater proportion, say two-thirds?
I feel sure that many municipalities are going to be seriously crippled by having these grants taken from them this year, so it is very important that these questions be answered. Many municipalities have gone into bankruptcy or receivership already, and many more will do so this year owing to the cutting off of these grants.


George Gordon: The three overlapping questions asked by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) will have to be dealt with when the conditions arise. I do not want to keep reiterating what has been said so many times in recent years as to where the primary responsibility lies for taking care of those unable to take care of themselves. If it comes to pass that individuals are unable to provide for their own needs, and the municipalities and the province of British Columbia find themselves at the end of their resources, then we would have to review the situation at once and with care to see what the difficulties were. But this government does not intend to project itself into an investigation of the municipalities of British Columbia or any other province. If there is danger of the situation developing there that has been suggested, this government, in so far as it can assist, will have to wait and deal with the matter when it arises.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would like to ask this question arising out of the discussion' of unemployment insurance. The Minister of Justice has said that the various governments were going to Study the question of jurisdiction as between the provinces and the federal government, and that that was the cause of the delay in coming to an agreement. I would like to ask whether any arrangement has been made or any understanding come to for a future conference, with a view to introducing in this house a measure of unemployment insurance on a national basis?
Relief Act, 1933


Hugh Guthrie: No, we did not get as far as that.


Humphrey Mitchell: Am I to understand then that the thing ended with the conclusion of that conference? Is it left up in the air?


Hugh Guthrie: Nothing was agreed to, but the matter is still being considered, not only by this government but, I fancy, by the nine provincial governments.


Humphrey Mitchell: May I ask then if the government has it in mind to call another conference at the conclusion of this session, similar to that held in January, to discuss the possibility of introducing a national unemployment insurance scheme?


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot answer that, I do not know.


Humphrey Mitchell: Am I right in saying that the thing then is in the air?


Hugh Guthrie: No, it is not in the air.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Where is it?


Mr. MALCOLM:: Under the bed.


Ernest Lapointe: In the cupboard.


Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: 
George Gordon: I confess that I have not
under my hand the details of the matter to which the hon. member has made reference. I do trust that the farmers of Manitoba will get every cent they are entitled to, and the matter will be looked into.


Mr. YALLANCE:: Just in support of what the hon. member for Macdonald has said I should like to tell the committee that I am receiving communications almost daily drawing my attention to the position of the farmers who delivered their wheat to the pool, when Mr. McFarland became general manager. As the hon. member stated, we started out with one initial payment; then, because of the position in which wheat found itself some time after the market opened, the pool found it necessary to reduce the initial payment. What is really concerning the minds of the farmers to-day, especially in the portion of Saskatchewan from which I come, is this:	They still have some equity in that
crop, and many of them need that money to-day in order to start their spring operations. So I would urge upon the minister and
the government the necessity of cleaning up this matter just as soon as possible.


George Gordon: Who owes them the
money?


John Vallance: I think the minister
will agree-and if he does not I hope he will correct me-that to-day Mr. McFarland is performing a dual function. He is general manager of the three central selling agencies and he is also acting for the government this year in the stabilization of the market. Undoubtedly the pools are responsible for that payment, but the portion of the money due the farmers is being held somewhere and the farmer wants to know why he is not being paid. Many farmers are in dire need of that money right now and it would be a great convenience to them if it could be paid before spring operations commence.


William Gilbert Weir: With respect to the interjection of the minister may I say that so far as durum wheat is concerned, and I am particularly interested in that, there was quite an agitation when the government came into the picture not to allow durum wheat to come under that new arrangement. If this durum wheat had not been disposed of to the pool the farmers would have had a great deal more money than is due them now, and I think that point is important.
While I am on my feet I should like to add one statement. I know it to be a fact that quite a large amount of money has been spent for relief in southern Manitoba, where durum wheat is largely grown, and some -time ago I mentioned the damage that had been done by grasshoppers. I think the minister can appreciate that these people are really in need of some extra money in order to start their spring operations. I appreciate the fact that the minister has not had this matter in hand; I think perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce has dealt with it and I will discuss it with him when the occasion arises.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have just one further question to ask the minister. We are being asked to vote $20,000,000 for direct relief; in other words, so far as the government has a policy it is a policy of the dole, and in that respect the limit is placed at $20,000,000.


George Gordon: What does the right hon. gentleman mean by the dole? I am not acquainted with it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is direct
relief, simply giving money for relief purposes and not providing work. I distinguish between direct relief, in the form of money given

Relief Act, 1938

people who require add, and money spent in order to return people to the land, putting the landless man on the manless land as someone has said, or the construction of public works or matters of that kind. Under this measure the government is asking for a blank cheque so that, apart from what is required for the purpose of the dole, they will have an unlimited amount available for the relief of unemployment in other ways. The minister has told us that in the last two years, during which the government has had this blank cheque, they have spent or loaned a total of something like $115,000,000. As I pointed out the other day that sum is equivalent to the total expenditure of Canada for one year in the period immediately preceding the war, and I suppose this year the expenditure will be proportionately the same.
I want to ask the minister whether, apart from the dole for the expenditures that may be made under this blank cheque, he has any comprehensive, constructive, coordinated plan which he can announce to this house as that of the ministry for dealing with the question of unemployment relief.


George Gordon: It is so easy for an hon.
member to rise in his place and talk about great big coordinated schemes; that word is a very euphonious way of describing almost anything. Let me point out that as far back as the years 1921, 1922 and 1923 and from 1926 on, as revealed in the files of the Department of Labour, the leader of the opposition himself recognized the difficulties that confront any dominion government in this country with respect to taking over the administration of relief for those in distress or those who are unable to look after themselves-difficulties in relation to provincial and dominion jurisdiction respectively. This government will pursue the same course as it has pursued during the past year. That is to say, the moneys will be devoted first to assisting the provinces where they are unable to take care of their own worthy needy people, and will assist the provinces in projecting any schemes or plans which they may conceive or which we may conceive and which will be Satisfactory to them or to us, as the case may be, within the financial limits of the provinces and the dominion, to provide employment or to take care by way of direct relief of those who are in need.
What the future has in store for us I am not going to prophesy. I believe that the situation is certainly not getting any worse, in spite of what people say. I know there are certain people who would be gratified indeed to have their own prophecies come 
true and to see things become worse. There is that sort of mind. There are people who, having prophesied, desire to see their prophecy fulfilled, no matter what hardship may befall anyone.
The Dominion government will not invade the jurisdiction of the provinces. I hazard the opinion that, set up in every municipality in Canada, there is some commission or organization that is taking care of immediate needs and directing the efforts that are being made in this regard. Even when times are normal, when there is no financial distress, when business is as usual, there is not a municipality in this country that has not its indigents, persons who have had some misadventure and cannot geit along. These agencies are extended and are working throughout Canada to supply those who are in need during this time.
I assume that the leader of the opposition had in mind a big cooperative national committee which this government should set up to take the place of all these various agencies in the municipalities and the various charitable organizations throughout Canada, and to take over the whole matter as a dominion effort. With that point of view I am not in agreement, not only because of the question of jurisdiction, but because there are many, many associations in Canada to-day, as there have been in the past year, who have devoted their time and money towards the aid and succor of those in distress. One of the reasons for not embarking on such a scheme as is suggested is that, in my view at any rate, these wells of charity will very soon dry up because unfortunately there is ingrained in the human makeup a desire perhaps to shift responsibility.
We will continue to do as we have done in the past year, and in spite of the criticisms that have been made as to the reduction in the amount of money that has been devoted to direct relief, I still say that this government and the provinces and municipalities are to-be commended for having introduced system into the giving of direct relief throughout Canada, as well as in view of the fact that the cost, while perhaps the numbers have increased as they always have done in winter months in this country, is very materially reduced.
I hope that with the return of even a little better times and with the attention that is being paid towards sytematizing direct relief, the cost this year will be still less. I do not think any government can successfully ask. commeudation simply because it has spent huge sums of money on any project without

Reliej Act, 1933
regard to the efficiency of the organization that is spending the money, and without regard to the beneficial effect of such expenditure. This government, I say, will pursue the same course as it pursued last year, and if eventualities arise where some change in some section of Canada becomes necessary, the government will take such appropriate action as may be deemed desirable.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister seems to take exception to my words because they suggest a nationwide scheme, and he says he assumes that I had in mind what has been proposed from this side as a national commission that would co-operate with the provinces and municipalities in an endeavour to deal with this great problem of unemployment relief. What I had in mind was what the government announced in the speech from the throne on March 12, 1931, as the policy which it intended to put into effect. On that date the speech from the throne made this announcement:
The operation of The Unemployment Relief Act, 1930, has proved equally beneficial. While the grant authorized by this act could not immediately have checked unemployment arising from causes of which you have full knowledge, yet its careful administration by my ministers, ably aided by the provincial and municipal governments and the two great railway systems, has resulted in the institution of a nation-wide program of public undertakings, each one a unit in a scheme of national development, which have collectively provided work for the greatest number of men who have ever been employed through the direct efforts of the federal government.
That was the announcement of the government's policy-a great national scheme of development as a means of helping to solve the problem of unemployment-and to-day the minister tells us that to speak of a nationwide scheme is only to try to introduce something that will embarrass the whole situation. I just want to make clear to him that the government did begin by announcing its intention to deal with -the problem in a nationwide fashion in order to help to solve the problem, but it has thrown that policy to the winds and the only policy it now has is that of the dole. It is not in a position at the moment to announce anything in the shape of a comprehensive, coordinated, constructive plan of dealing with this great problem.


George Gordon: With reference to the
observations of the right hon. gentleman, at the time of which he speaks there was a plan that contemplated the projection and anticipation of public works that were contributed to by this government, by the provinces, by the municipalities and by the railway systems, and which ran into huge figures. The soundness of that plan could perhaps be measured, in a way at least, by the duratior of this depression, because it was obvious then, as it is now looking back, that such schemes could not be projected year after year. But it was carried on as the speech from the throne then indicated it would be. In my judgment all that the state-by state I mean the municipalities, the provinces and the dominion-can afford to do is to take care of those who for any cause are unable to take caTe of themselves. Suggestions have been made that we should build a factory here or a warehouse there, the claim being made that the amount granted to such a project would soon be eaten up in the granting of direct relief where nothing would be left to show for the money expended. The fact is that the money spent upon the erection of a factory, a dock or something else would employ perhaps only fifty or one hundred people upon a wage basis whereas the same money expended in direct relief would provide food, fuel, clothing and shelter to perhaps ten times that number of people and for a longer period of time.


Mr. DUFF:: Haileybury wharf.


George Gordon: When we are embarking
upon any nation-wide scheme we must of necessity look to the treasuries of the dominion, the provinces and the municipalities. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) has interjected with "Haileybury wharf."


William Duff: Yes.


George Gordon: I wish the hon. member would get out of the atmosphere surrounding the docks in his own province and come up to my riding to see that little bit of airport breakwater to which he has referred several times. He would then be able to see the number of aeroplanes engaged in the mining industry in the northern sections of Ontario and Quebec. When he sees the service granted to tens of thousands of those engaged in the mining industry I am sure he will commend me for what I have done.


William Duff: I thought perhaps the minister was admitting his mistake in spending money for no useful purpose.


George Gordon: That dock was built on a strictly relief basis.


John Vallance: When a relief commission, say in Saskatchewan, issues a cheque in connection with direct relief is there any indication upon that cheque to show that it
Relief Act, 1933

is being expended for direct relief? When a cheque is issued for the payment of material used in the construction of some public work under the relief measures, is there anything upon the cheque to indicate for what purpose it is issued?


George Gordon: I am afraid I have not the information with respect to those details.


John Vallance: I will tell the minister my reason for asking these questions. I know of an hon. member who received a cheque which had inscribed diagonally across it the words "Relief No. 1."


Mr. COTNAM:: W'e might all need it after a bit.


John Vallance: This member received
such a cheque from the relief commission of Saskatchewan.


George Gordon: Is the hon. member sure it was not an indemnity cheque.


John Vallance: No, it was not. I received that cheque, and I will tell the committee why I received it. The province of Saskatchewan has been building a number of highways and I had the good fortune to have one built right through my farm.


Charles Gavan Power: Shame.


John Vallance: Certain land was expropriated and settlement was made upon the basis of 130 per acre. Five acres and a fraction were expropriated and I received a cheque from the province of Saskatchewan for $165 and some cents. Written across the face of that cheque were the words " Relief No. 1." I should like to know how many such cheques are included in the expenditure of $115,000,000 for unemployment during the past year.


George Gordon: The Dominion government does not contribute to the expropriation of lands. I have no idea how the good fortune fell upon the hon. member for South Battle-ford (Mr. Vallance) but I assume that the province of Saskatchewan surveyed the field very carefully and came to the conclusion that the hon. member for South Battleford was entitled to relief No. 1.


John Vallance: It is all very well for the minister to make such a glib reply, but the people of Saskatchewan would like to know how much money has been spent in that manner. That particular highway ran for seven or eight miles and the necessary land was expropriated. The whole highway was built with rented equipment and if the matter was probed into I have no doubt it would be
fMr. Vallance.]
found that less than ten per cent of the whole expenditure went for real relief.
Resolution as amended reported, read the second time and concurred in, on division. Mr. Gordon thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 55, to continue in force the provisions of the Relief Act, 1932, until the 31st of March, 1934.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the first time on division.
On motion of Mr. Gordon, the house adjourned at 5.50 p.m.
Thursday, March 23, 1933