1933-02-24

Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways) :: I desire to lay on the table report of work done and expenditures made during the year 1932, to August 31, and during the calendar year 1932, in connection with acts, chapters 18 to 22 inclusive and chapters 24 to 30 inclusive, respecting the construction of Canadian National Railway lines; also report of work performed and expenditures made to December 31, 1932, together with estimated expenditures for the year 1933, under chapter 12 of the statutes of Canada, 1929, respecting certain terminal facilities and other works at and in the vicinity of Montreal.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: I lay on the table four orders in
council passed pursuant to relief legislation.



CANADIAN NATIONAL-CANADIAN PACIFIC BILL

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have received a message from the Senate informing this house that the Senate has passed a bill intituled an act respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for cooperation with the Canadian Pacific Railway system, and for other purposes.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: I apprehend, in view of what was said ay the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) the other day, that as the debate on a motion before the house had not concluded, it would meet his views if the words "on and" in the following motion which I am about to move were omitted, so that the motion would become effective only on Wednesday. The motion as it stands reads:
That on and after Monday, the 27th instant, and all subsequent Mondays and Wednesdays till the end of the session, government notices of motion and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except questions and notices of motions for the production of papers and private bills on Mondays.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: If my right hon. friend would so amend the motion we should be obliged.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By leave of the house I move that the motion be adopted, deleting the words "on and," so that it shall become effective on Wednesday.
Motion as amended agreed to.



WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE

Richard Bedford Bennett: A few days ago I mentioned the
desirability of printing the draft annotated agenda of the monetary and economic conference, and I suggest that the house might consider the number of copies which it would be advisable to print. It will not be printed on expensive paper. Possibly some hon. members would like to send copies to their constituents, and, if it were acceptable, I was thinking of 700 copies in English and 350 in French. The motion can stand until Monday. If the leader of the opposition and those who sit to the left are of the opinion that the number should be increased we will wait until Monday before putting the motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Whatever number my right hon. friend decides upon will be acceptable to us.



SINO-JAPANESE DISPUTE   STATEMENT OF CANADAS POSITION PRESENTED TO THE ASSEMBLY OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of the widespread interest in connection with the meeting of the assem-

Sino-Japanese Dispute
bly of the League of Nations to-day, I think it well to indicate to the house what transpired this morning. The assembly met this morning and voted unanimously-Siam abstaining-to adopt the report of the committee of nineteen. The Japanese delegate spoke and voted against the adoption of the report and, after the vote was taken, withdrew from the assembly. He made no statement regarding the withdrawal of Japan from the league.
It is understood that the assembly will meet again this afternoon. In order that the information may be available, some hon. members having asked me questions as to the constitution of the committee of nineteen, I think it well to place that information on Hansard. The committee of nineteen has been following developments of the Sino-Japanese dispute on behalf of the special assembly. The special assembly were selected from the following countries: United Kingdom; France; Germany; Italy; Spain; Poland; Czechoslovakia; Mexico; Norway; Irish Free State; Guatemala; and Panama. These countries are all as a matter of fact members of the council, and representatives from the following countries were selected to complete the committee of nineteen: Switzerland; Turkey; Portugal; Colombia; Hungary; Sweden and Belgium.
On Saturday evening last the Canadian advisory officer was instructed by cable to make the following statement at the meeting of the assembly, which was then expected to meet on the 21st but which as a matter of fact did not meet until to-day:
His Majesty's government in Canada have learned with regret that the efforts to effect a settlement of the Sino-Japanese dispute carried on under paragraph 3 of article 15 of the covenant have not been successful. They recognize that with the exhaustion of its efforts for conciliation the committee of nineteen was bound to proceed to the preparation of a report in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 4 of article 15. The report, which is now before the assembly, represents the unanimous and considered judgment of an informed and impartial committee, jealous of preserving the peace of the world.
The Canadian government have, from the inception of the dispute, supported every effort to secure its solution by peaceful means; they have scrupulously refrained from word or deed that might have jeopardized the prospects of peaceful settlement, and they have withheld judgment on the facts and merits of the dispute, in the belief that premature or injudicious comment might have prejudiced the success of our collective efforts to restore that good understanding between China and Japan upon which peace in the Far East depends.
In accepting the report of the committee of nineteen, the Canadian government desire to express their appreciation of the loyal and patient perseverance with which the committee have pursued its anxious task. The public
opinion of the world, in which they believe lies the final and effective sanction for the maintenance of the integrity of international agreements, has watched the committee's exploration of every possibility of a peaceful settlement between the parties to the dispute, and it has recognized reluctantly that its efforts have been unrewarded.
The Canadian government believe that in the recommendations of the report will be found a solid basis for the peaceful development of the Far East and they earnestly hope that the parties to the dispute may eventually accept a regime embodying such recommendations and thereby reconcile their conflicting claims and interests in so far as reconciliation is humanly possible.
It is not necessary to emphasize the gravity of the decision which the states members of the league must take to-day. The faith of the world in the possibility of peaceful settlement has been shaken; if it is destroyed, the structure of security slowly built up on the foundation of scrupulous respect for international covenants will be undermined. As that structure shows signs of strain, the prospects of reducing the world's burden of armaments are endangered and the task of achieving international economic cooperation is magnified.
For these reasons we must vote for the adoption of the report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, while the statement read by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) probably does not call for any expression of view at this stage, I deem it important to indicate at once to my right hon. friend that we on this side are in hearty accord with the tenor of the statement he has just read.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like
to say a word for the members in this corner. While some of us may have regretted that certain action was not taken earlier, nevertheless we heartily endorse the statement which has just been read.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address an interrogation to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) concerning the town of Transcona. This is embodied in a brief telegram which, with your permission, I will read. It is as follows:
The unemployed of Transcona are desirous of bringing to your attention the deplorable conditions existing in Transcona for the unemployed scale of relief. Very inadequate clothing. No clothing for women, children and very little for men. Quality very poor for sub-zero weather. Medical attention practically nil.

Unemployment at Transcona


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member should ask his question, not read a communication. The communication could have been sent to the minister in charge without it being necessary to read it in the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is nothing to indicate that it is correct.


John Power Howden: Is the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) or the government aware of the conditions which exist in the town of Transcona and, if so, in view of the fact that the federal government is subscribing largely to the relief of these people are they in a position to take such steps as will ameliorate or relieve the conditions?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has not in any way changed its attitude towards those in need throughout Canada. It has been said by myself on many occasions in this house that the federal government is ready and willing, and I trust will always be able, to make contributions from time to time towards the relief of those in need as the need arises. Serious difficulties have arisen in the province of Manitoba. For instance, in the city of Winnipeg our department is advised, and I have no reason to doubt the correctness of the advice, that in their relief operations the province of Manitoba have not subscribed any money whatever since last May to take care of the provincial share of relief. The dominion's contribution has been made with regularity as accounts have been presented and I believe the dominion's share has been turned over to the city. The city has been obliged to finance the province of Manitoba with respect to their share. I am afraid that the same condition probably exists in Transcona although I have no complete or detailed information in that regard. I am not going to criticize those administering the affairs of the province but they have a very distinct responsibility and I am just wondering whether they are putting forth every effort available to them to assume and discharge the responsibility which is theirs. I shall inquire into the matter referred to by the hon. member and if there is anything further that this government can do. they will do it.



PENSION LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MacLaren). A short time ago a question was asked as to whether it was 
the intention of the government to introduce during this session legislation based upon the report of the committee which has just completed its labours in investigating the administration of the Pension Act. The answer then given was that the matter was under consideration and I should like to! know whether a decision has been arrived at and, if so, if we can expect the introduction of pension legislation during this session?


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: The answer
I gave a week or two ago was that I thought it was likely that legislation would be brought down. The position is still the same.


Alfred Speakman: A final decision 'has not been arrived at?



CANADIAN EXCHANGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) with reference to a statement which appeared in the Wall Street Journal of February 2. It reads:
Montreal funds moved up to a high for the day of 15^16 per cent discount, which compares with Wednesday's low in London of 20 per cent. Jt was rumoured throughout the market that one of the lai'ge Canadian banks was giving support to the exchange, but whether it was operating for the account of the Canadian government could not be ascertained.
I should like to know if this bank was operating on behalf of the Canadian government or whether the government has conducted any such operations in support of our exchange in New York?


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: I have not seen the article in question but I have no hesitation in assuring my hon. friend and the house that a transaction of that character would be solely a banking transaction, it would have no reference to the government at all.



CHARTERED BANKS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Gibson Coote: On November 17 an order was passed in connection with the returns made by the chartered banks. When may we expect this return to be brought down?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will make immediate inquiry. I imagine that the return must be ready and I shall probably be able to bring it down on Monday.

Salary Deduction Act



SALARY DEDUCTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 7, consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution-Mr. Rhodes-Mr. LaVergne in the chair:
That it is expedient to continue in force the provisions of the Salary Deduction Act 1932, until the 31st day of March, 1934, and to provide that the provisions of the said act shall ^ppl.v to the indemnities of members of the Senate and House of Commons for the session of parliament which commenced on the 6th day of October, 1932.
Mr. CHEVRIER:: I had not intended to
say anything further on this resolution; I rather meant to say what I have to say when the bill comes up for second reading. The reason I speak now is that I want to refer to matters to which the Minister of Finance alluded to when the resolution was before the house over two weeks ago. In the first place, at page 1892 of Hansard, he is reported to have said:
There was no undertaking with respect to what might or might not have to be done in the future.
May I refer to what took place last year when the Prime Minister is reported in the Evening Citizen of February 26, as having said:
We must economize wherever we can and in seeking to save $8,000,000 in civil service salaries w'e seek the loyal, even the enthusiastic support of the civil servants with the government of your country and mine. We ask the sacrifice of one year's self-denial on your part not as civil servants but as fellow citizens who have with us a like responsibility to our country.
That applied not only to civil servants but to all of those who come within the four corners of the bill. I find lower down in the report the Prime Minister said:
That task requires every ounce of energy we all have and we think if we look to 60,000 of our fellow citiznes to sacrifice for one year for Canada we feel we are not asking too much.
Then lower down, under heavy captions: Help For A Year
We are asking those with a secure tenure of office to help us for a year, since the bill calls for a reduction in the fiscal year ending March 31. 1933, and we believe we are not unreasonable.
May I turn to Hansard of last year at page 812 where the Minister of Finance is reported as having said:
But what we are doing is this. We are asking that, wdiile the country is in dire need-
Then I interrupted, saying:
You are not asking.
Then the minister continued:
-yof a contribution from all its citizens, the civil service shall make a fair contribution for one year only. The bill will provide that it shall apply for one year only, and at the end of that year the salaries of civil servants will be precisely what they were but for the intervention of the bill.
As I said a moment ago, that applied not only to civil servants but to all of those who come within the four corners of the bill. There was an undertaking, a promise, that that would be for one year only. Nothing was said at the time as to what would happen if conditions were what they were last year or worse, but there was a solemn undertaking and promise that all of those who were mulcted to the extent of ten per cent last year would not have the same thing done .to them this year. When I have finished the observations I wish to make at this time, I should like the Minister of Finance to answer this question: Will he make the same promise this year? Will he undertake in the same terms as he did last year, that this will be for only one year or for what period will it be? I fear much that as long as this administration is continued in office, every year they will trot down that old dead horse of the previous year, the old dead statute which was resuscitated the former year and which will be resuscitated next year and have the same force and effect again.
I want to refer to page 1876 of Hansard of this year. I do not know particularly why the Minister of Finance should have gone out of his way to say what he said, summing up conditions in Ottawa:
I know of no city in Canada where there is less distress and want than is to be found in this very city.
I am not here to make public to Canada the state of distress that exists in Ottawa and it would have been better had the minister, with his usual courtesy, not mentioned conditions at- all. It seems to me that there is some reason, some motive in putting forward this idea, so that the city may be hit- hard. There is in Ottawa suffering just as keen and deep as in any other Canadian ,city, but if those actual sufferings and miseries are not as obvious as they are in other cities, the credit is due to the city council, the welfare bureau, social organizations and other charitable institutions here which, without ostentation or glory to themselves, are doing so nobly and well the work for which they were constituted. Let me, however, tell the Minister of Finance that one-sixth of the population of this capital city, right within the shadow of the Peace tower, is or relief.
Salary Deduction Act


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not propose, Mr. Chairman, to reply at length to my hon. friend (Mr. Chevrier) because he has covered no new ground. I must, however, make reference to one or two of his observations.
In the first place, in quoting the respective statements of the Prime Minister and myself last year, he said that we were asking for a contribution for one year, and that there was an implied promise that the request would not ever be submitted again. We have covered that ground before, Mr. Chairman. The undertaking given by the Prime Minister and myself was given in absolute good faith and was in strict conformity with the facts. The bill in its terms spoke for itself in that respect. The request was made for one year. I have stated in the course of similar discussions upon this measure that no one would be more delighted than myself if the government did not feel called upon to ask for this sacrifice this year, and nobody would be more delighted than myself, and I am sure I speak for the government as a whole, if we were never called upon to ask for a similar sacrifice again. So I do not for one minute submit to the contention of my hon. friend that there has been the slightest suggestion of lack of good faith or any failure to implement any understanding which was made at that time.
When my hon. friend speaks of references of my own to the city of Ottawa, I must say to him in all deference that he put words into my mouth which I never uttered. He placed an interpretation upon my remarks which could not properly be placed upon them. I took down his very words. He said: It ill becomes the Minister of Finance to say that the city of Ottawa is not hurt. I not only did not use those words, but I did not use any language which could by any possibility be construed as meaning anything similar to what my hon. friend suggests. What I was doing was merely to indicate that relatively, as compared with other cities in Canada, Ottawa was in a more favourable position by reason of the fact that there was a larger proportion of its citizens in assured employment than was the case elsewhere in Canada. I was not for one moment suggest-

Salary Reduction Act
mg that there was not suffering and distress and hardship in Ottawa in the case of individual families, and in the case of individuals not in the government service but who lack employment to-day because of conditions in the lumber industry, for instance, and other industries. I do not for one moment mean to suggest that there is not that type of individual suffering. My remarks had reference merely to the relatively favourable position of Ottawa as compared with other cities in this dominion.
I do not think that I need say anything further. I think I have replied to the two points upon which my hon. friend laid particular stress. I need only assure him that, as he knows, in the case of this bill we are asking for this sacrifice for this year. I sincerely hope that we shall not be called upon in another year to ask for a similar sacrifice. But if conditions in another year are similar to conditions to-day, it would not be at all unlikely that a similar contribution might be called for. But I sincerely trust that that will not be the case.


Mr. MacLEAN:: There is one case that I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance in connection with this ten per cent deduction, and that is as it is applied to salaries of lighthouse keepers and others who are given living quarters in the lighthouse building. I do not know whether it was the intention last year that the act should be applied in the way in which it has been. For the sake of illustration let me give a concrete case, that of a lighthouse keeper receiving a salary from the Department of Marine of $400. A ten per cent deduction amounts to $40. But the lighthouse keeper may have his living quarters in the lighthouse building. He can live there if he wishes or he can have his own residence, but as he has to 'be on duty most of the time he generally lives in the building. The department values the living quarters at, say, $200 a year, and in making the deduction they take off, not ten per cent of $400, but ten per cent of $600. So they are actually taking fifteen per cent of his salary. They take ten per cent off $200 which he does not receive. I do not know whether that was the intention of the act last year, but I do know that that is the way in which it has worked in our part of the province at least. These men, as the minister well knows, are not receiving very high remuneration, and it is quite a hardship on them to be cut this additional amount. I should like to have an explanation from the minister.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall foe pleased to look into 'any individual case which my hon. friend cares to submit to me and I may be able to give a specific answer with respect to it when, we are in committee on the bill. But I may say to him at once that the general rule which has been applied without exception is this, that where an 'allowance has 'been construed as constituting a portion of the salary, that allowance is subject to the deduction the same as is the salary proper. Where it is not, and there are numerous cases where that is so, the allowance is not subject to deduction. As my bon. friend realizes, in the case of a rule to be applied generally there will be instances here and there where individual injustices may arise. That is impossible in the application of any general rule. However if the hon. member will tell me of any particular instances I shall be glad to give them special attention.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Mr. Chairman, I assume that all hon. members regret the necessity which has actuated the government in bringing the present measure 'before the committee. It is unfortunate they feel that again this year the cut is necessary. Last year I supported' the reduction because I believed it should be made. At the present time I do not intend to enter upon the reasons which some of us think have contributed to making cuts of this kind more necessary in the last year or two than they otherwise would have been. Upon looking at the paper this morning I find that the bank debits for the month which has just closed are muck less than they were for the corresponding month a year ago. The trade returns for the year ending January 31, 1933, indicate that the trade of Canada has declined greatly.
There is no use beating about the bush. Money must .come from somewhere, and I believe it is time the government took not only the measure now proposed but even more drastic measures in order to bring our budget to a point where it more nearly balances than it did 'last year. At that time I urged, and I repeat to-day, I do not think it is fair that those who are receiving small salaries should receive anything like the same percentage of cut as those who are receiving, say, $3,000 or more. Of course, some special consideration was given in connection with salaries under $1,200. As I pointed out to the Minister of Finance last year that consideration would seem to indicate that in the minister's view the smaller salaries Should not be out to the same extent as are the higher ones. I .cannot, for the life of me, see why the same rule dhould not apply to salaries over $3,000 as compared with salaries under $3,000 and salaries over

Salary Deduction Act

82,000	as compared with salaries under $2,000. Surely people receiving higher salaries can better afford the cut than people receiving the lower salaries. I am not objecting to tihe out on the lower salaries. There are many people in Canada to-day who, from present conditions, are suffering more than those people who have salaries. We know that there are many people without salaries, and out of work. In my view the people upon whom the burden of taxation comes most heavily are the agricultural class. Their returns have been cut not merely ten per cent or twenty per cent, but several times that.
At the present time I do not think it is necessary to enlarge upon the necessity for revenue. Whatever the cause may be, revenues are not coming in. I am satisfied that within a short time when the budget is presented by the Minister of Finance the people of Canada will be greatly disappointed. It is my view that the government are faced with the necessity of making an heroic effort to meet present difficulties. They must endeavour to see how nearly this year they can cut to the bone every expenditure which possibly can stand a cut, and also endeavour to make the increase in our public debt much less than it was last year.
So far as I am concerned, I am in favour of a graduated cut, ranging from five per cent on lower salaries to much more than ten per cent on salaries over $3,000. I believe such an arrangement would be fair, would produce more revenue and would do no injustice to the people involved. This is a serious time in our history. Sacrifices have to be made in many quarters. In my view the greatest sacrifices should be made by the people receiving the highest salaries.


Mr. HEENAN:: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I cannot endorse the views of the ex-Minister of Public Works, because in my opinion the reduction in purchasing power brought about by salary reductions only aggravates conditions now obtaining. Apart from that, during discussions on a similar measure introduced last year, I pointed out to the minister the many inequalities and unfair circumstances which would be created through the introduction of a general reduction in salaries and wages. I pointed out that a ten per cent reduction from the wages of government employees would be followed by a similar reduction in the wages of private employees doing similar kinds of work. That actually took place. As a result a general ten per cent cut has taken place as a result of the example set by the federal government.

First, on the Welland canal-I believe it was the Welland canal-the Minister of Railways and Canals reduced the wages of the men to the level obtaining under private employers. Following that the Minister of Finance introduced the bill of last year to reduce by ten per cent the wages of government employees. So that when the private employers found that government employees were receiving ten per cent less, they undertook to reduce the wages of their men by the same amount. So the reduction goes on, everlastingly. Last year when the former measure was under discussion I asked if the government, or any member of it, had investigated to ascertain what effect the ten per cent reduction would have on the whole country, if every employee had to take a ten per cent reduction. The Minister of Trade and Commerce replied that the government had not obtained sufficient information to reply to such a sweeping question. Since that time a year has elapsed, and I am wondering if the government is in a position now to tell the house how such a reduction would affect Canada. Surely it is about time we gave some thought to that phase of the matter. We have heard the slogans of "Canada for Canadians " and " Canada first, last and all the time." But, due to the policies of horn, members opposite we have reached the stage where we have nothing but Canada left for Canadians. Inasmuch as they have seen fit, through their trade policies, to shut out trade with practically all countries of the world, surely they ought to have considered the effect a reduction in the purchasing power of Canadians would have on Canada.
This morning I had occasion to refer to some figures, and I found that in the period from 1922 to 1929 the wages of men in manufacturing pursuits were increased by $302,000,000. I have not satisfied myself yet as to the reduction from 1929, but I am satisfied that we have lost the greater portion, if not all, of that $302,000,000 in wages in manufacturing industry. The wages of railroad men were reduced $74,000,000 last year as compared with 1929, and this year I am satisfied there will be a further reduction of S50.000.000 in railroad wages. Then we have about $35,000,000 less paid in wages in the mining industry of this country, and we have a reduction of $8,000,000, as the finance minister said, in the wages of civil servants. If we had this half billion, this $500,000,000, floating around, instead of trying to balance the budget, would it not have the good effect of restoring to this country a part of the prosperity which we have lost? It would to a large extent relieve the

Salary Deduction Act
Minister of Labour of his worries, he would not have so many people on direct relief. We are saving it with one hand and paying it out with the other. In my opinion we are entirely on the wrong track in reducing the purchasing power of the people of this country. I am sorry that this government has seen fit to lead the way. The Prime Minister, boldly stated his position, when he introduced the measure; he said someone in this country had to lead the way in order to economize. And they surely did lead the way; practically every employer in Canada followed the example of this government. The railroad companies put in a ten per cent reduction in wages, and now they are asking for a further ten per cent reduction. I do not know where' we are going in this regard, taking the purchasing power from people with one hand and putting as* many on direct relief with the other. I am sorry this government cannot see their way to turn back. I remember hearing the present Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways, and I think the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, standing boldly here when they were on this side of the house, and telling the government that the wages paid to certain civil servants were not sufficient to keep them and their families in decency. If that was a fact then, how do they expect them to live in decency now, with this ten per cent reduction? I just bring this up to point out that there should be some end to these reductions in wages, in order that the purchasing power of this country may be maintained. I am going to reserve my remarks until we reach second reading, or get into committee on the bill, but I want to impress upon the Minister of Finance the unfairness of reducing prevailing rates, still further, because it is just an encouragement to private employers to follow the example of the government in that respect.


Mr. MITCHELL:: the naval dockyard in Halifax being paid at a 75 cents per hour rate, which I might say was in line with the prevailing rate at the time. Then, during the first part of 1932, a survey was taken of prevailing rates in Halifax which showed 70 cents as being the prevailing rate, following which survey the National Defence reduced the rates to 70 cents per hour for machinists on April 1, 1932. Then the ten per cent deduction was made effective. This reduced the machinists to 63 cents per hour. Now soon after this the Halifax firms employing machinists took advantage of this rate and reduced the rates in keeping with the dockyard, with the result that now, should a survey be taken of Halifax, I believe that the result would show quite a shrinkage in the prevailing rate, so should the National Defence again reduce to the prevailing rate and then the ten per cent deduction on top of that I hardly know just where it will all end. It just seems to be an endless chain with the government setting the pace.
You can see from the position taken by the Labour department that as soon as the ten per cent deduction is put into operation in connection with the prevailing rate the employee counter with a further reduction in wages. Assuming that this ten per cent reduction will again go into force, I submit that some amendment should be included in the bill to protect the men who are under agreement with contractors outside the Dominion service. You can readily see that the thing feeds on itself. I know of many organized trades that have taken reductions amounting to as much as thirty per cent since the depression started, and under thie ruling of the government in relation to this bill they have to take another reduction of ten per cent in their pay. I would leave that thought with the minister with a view to having the government take action along the line I suggest. I would point out that a precedent has been set in the case of engineers and others employed by the Vancouver harbour board which should help us in getting a general order. Mr. Ward explained how the treasury department rescinded the ten per cent deduction when it was shown that the harbour employees had taken a ten per cent deduction effected by agreement, following the ten per cent wage deduction on railways.


Mr. FOURNIER:: In July, 1930, the right hon. gentleman who now occupies the position of Prime Minister laid down his platform in so far as it affected the civil servants of Canada. This is what he said on that occasion, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen at the time:
By personal investigation I have come to the conclusion that the fair way to deal with the civil service is, first, to appoint to the Civil Service Commission a member of the civil service; second, to maintain the merit system and rigidly adhere to it-something the present '.Mr. Mitchell.]
administration has not done; third, to hold a survey of all positions for reclassification and promotions; fourth, to amend the Superannuation Act and remedy its defects; and I will see that this is done at once and not nine years after taking office.
At that time conditions were perhaps not as bad as they are to-day, but in what I have quoted you can see what the Prime Minister's attitude to the civil service was, and two years later he has not made the modifications to the act as he .proposed when he laid down the platform of his party. Instead, as Minister of Finance, he first introduced this resolution to deduct ten per cent from the salaries of all civil servants. The reasons he gave at the time were these. He said he believed that the deduction wa's essential to enable this country (a) to have a balanced budget; (b) to maintain the national credit; and (c) to meet the tremendous obligations of the country. Has the deduction in salaries met those conditions which the Prime Minister deemed essential? What is the answer to the first? Has it helped to balance the budget? I do not think it has succeeded very well. The amount secured from the deduction is around $8,000,000, and here I would quote from the Ottawa Journal of February 22, 1932, to show what that newspaper thought of the decision to impose upon the civil servants the obligation of balancing the budget:
It must balance its budget. But isn't the answer to that simply that it is hardly fair to ask so much of sacrifice from one class-a moderately paid civil service class? The income tax exempts a married man up to $3,000. That being so, what is the justification of a demand that a civil servant getting $1,200 should contribute $60, which is what will be taken from him even with this superannuation deduction? We know what the answer will be. It will he that there are scores of thousands of persons without jobs, scores of thousands who would be glad to contribute $60 or more if they could get their hands on $1,200. It is no answer. The right comparison is not between a man with a job and a man without a job, but between two men who have jobs and who are getting the same salaries. Who have the same incomes, but whose contributions toward balancing the budget are unequal.
That is one of the reasons why we oppose this measure. Another reason is that family obligations are not taken into consideration. The flat deduction of ten per cent applies to salaries of $1,200 and up without making any distinction between single and married persons in the service. Our income tax act makes a difference in the taxation levied on fathers of families; there is a specified amount for each child under the age of twenty-one. To be just to the civil service, why not apply in this case the principle applied in the Income Tax Act and relieve fathers or heads of families

Salary Deduction Act
to the extent of family charges and obligations? This would be far more equitable. Another reason for opposing the deduction is that twenty-five or thirty per cent of the civil servants reside in Ottawa and Hull, so that twenty-five per cent of the deduction is supported by a population of between 160,000 and 160,000 people. Other reasons have been given by hon. members-for example, that this reduction in salaries is setting a bad example to corporations and other employers who followed suit after the resolution was passed at the last session. I am still opposed to this legislation.


John Power Howden: I do not oppose this
measure. Like the hon. member for West Middlesex, who spoke a little while ago, I believe that those in receipt of larger salaries should contribute a larger percentage of those salaries than those who are less able to afford it. I rise now however for a totally different reason. To-day it is not one-fifth or one-fourth or one-third of the citizens of this country but practically the whole Canadian citizenship who are suffering from the results of the present period of depression. There is no doubt about it that a very large percentage of the Canadian people are in decidedly restricted circumstances, some of them facing great privation and others in a great many instances facing starvation. I say that advisedly, and I bring to the support of my remarks some letters and telegrams I have here which I shall read to the house in a moment.
One letter I have is from the mayor of St. Boniface. I would point out that St. Boniface is a little city in the province of Manitoba, across the Red river from the city of Winnipeg. It is as old as Winnipeg but unlike that thrifty, enterprising city, St. Boniface did not make the same headway. Nevertheless it is a Canadian city, part of Canada, and is entitled to just as much consideration from this government and from Canada at large as any other city, since we are joined in a common confederation. In that city at the present time, as in many other cities in the west, the people are in abject want. Measures for relief have fallen down decidedly and I have made it my business during the last week or so to try to do everything in order to provide these people with the succor which they deserve. It would appear that they are all barren of relief. I have a letter from the mayor of the city of St. Boniface, along with other telegrams which I propose to read. The letter reads:
I have not up to this time, noon, received any reply to my telegram to you-
That was to me.
-of the fifteenth nor to that directed to the Minister of Finance on the same date, a copy of which I annex hereto for your information.
I may state that if something is not done in the course of a few days towards assisting us for relief purposes we shall have to call upon the Manitoba government for police protection as the merchants cannot possibly continue to advance further relief.
Since wiring you and the Minister of Finance, it is only through the cooperation of some of the wholesalers who have agreed to supply some of the retailers for a few days longer that we have been able to carry on.
As stated in my telegram to the Hon. Mr. Rhodes, we have exhausted every avenue to avoid the trouble that will surely arise immediately merchants discontinue to supply goods.


The CHAIRMAN:: I think the hon. member is wandering away from the resolution which concerns the civil servants and the members of the House of Commons.


John Power Howden: I wish to say that although I am heartily in accord with this measure I do not think the measure is sufficient to meet the needs of this country.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: We should adhere
strictly to the resolution. There will be other resolutions which will cover this ground.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: The next one.


Humphrey Mitchell: Has the government
under advisement the making of some amendment to this bill to take care of those men and women under agreement and subject to the prevailing rate of wages as laid down by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) ?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for
Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) as well as the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) base their arguments upon the assertion that the government has reduced the salaries of the civil servants by ten per cent. I do not propose to cover at length the ground I covered when we discussed this matter last year, but I should like to impress upon hon. members that this is in no sense a reduction of salary. We are asking for a deduction of ten per cent from the salaries of the civil servants because of the exigencies of the condition which faces Canada along with the rest of the world. The accuracy of my statement is borne out by this circumstance, that if this bill should pass, at the end of next year the salaries will be just exactly as they were before this bill was introduced. It is not a reduction in salary.


Mr. EULER:: It is, temporarily.
Salary Deduction Act


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My ham. friends might
just as well advance the argument that because of the income tax, an individual's salary would be reduced. This is a taxation measure.


William Daum Euler: That is playing with words.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have gone over this ground time and time again and it seems to me that the proof of my assertions are in the circumstance, as I have already stated, that when this bill lapses next year the salary of every one of the civil servants will be in precisely the same position as it was at the time this bill was introduced.


William Daum Euler: What about this year?


Mr. HANBURY:: What is the difference; iwhat is the point involved?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The difference is this: If it was a salary reduction the salaries would remain at ninety per cent of what they were originally, whereas, on the other hand, when this bill expires the salaries will be just exactly the way they were.


Mr. RALSTON:: It is a salary deduction.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) with that refinement which is so characteristic of him wants to whittle words with me. He can call it deduction or reduction just as he likes, but it makes not a particle of difference to the argument I make, assuming that my argument is sound.


James Layton Ralston: I am calling it what my hon. friend calls it, a deduction.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I still repeat that it makes not the slightest difference what you call it. My argument may be either good or bad, but that would have no bearing upon its merits. In my judgment I think my argument is good but hon. gentlemen opposite may disagree.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River went out of his way-I do not think it was quite proper-to attempt to lay the blame for the present condition of world trade upon the policies of this government. That is a very wide question and one which might properly be discussed in this house upon another occasion and with respect to another measure, but I do not like the statement of my hon. friend that we had shut out all trade from Canada to go unchallenged. Let me say to him that relative to the trade of the world the trade of Canada is just as high as it ever was in the history of this country. That is all I wish to say with respect to that one statement.
The hon. member for East Hamilton desired to know whether an amendment will be con-
XMr. Euler.]
sidered in connection with this bill which would prevent contractors having contracts with the government from reducing salaries. Apart altogether from the constitutional question as to whether or not we would be able to do that, I would point out to my hon. friend that this bill has no bearing upon the case. This bill deals only with those who are civil servants.


Humphrey Mitchell: They are civil servants.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If they are civil servants,
then they will be subject to the deduction and if they are not, that would be a matter of contractual rights subject to the laws of the trade unions and of the province in question. In either case, I submit that my hon. friend's suggestion has no fitting reference to this bill.
There are many other things I could say but if I did so I would be only repeating what I said time after time last year when the matter was under discussion. I do not propose to take up the time of the committee any further, at all events at this stage.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no
desire to embarrass the minister but I should like to have upon Hansard a correct statement of what was said at the last session. When we were discussing this matter before in committee I said to the Minister of Finance that at the last session he had certainly given the civil servants to understand that the deduction or reduction, which ever he wishes to call it, would be for one year only. My hon. friend said that no such undertaking was given by the government. I replied that I thought it had been given not only by himself but by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and I read at that time what I thought covered what had been said so far as the Prime Minister was concerned. I should like to read to my hon. friend the statement he made on February 7, which appears on page 1892 of Hansard. He said:
In reply to my right hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, I cannot agree with him in his point of view that a promise was broken by our having brought this measure in this year. The deduction was made last year for a period of one year. There was no undertaking with respect to what might or might not have to be done in the future.
During the discussion in committee last year, the hon. minister is reported on page 812 of Hansard of March 4, 1932, as follows:
We are asking that, while the country is in dire need of a contribution from all its citizens, the civil service shall make a fair contribution for one year only. The bill will provide that it shall apply for one year only, and at the end of that year the salaries of civil servants will be precisely what they were but for the intervention of the bill.

Salary Deduction Act
My hon. friend is only playing with words if he seeks to make out that that was not an undertaking that the deduction would be for one year only. Salaries of civil servants would be where they were two years ago, but for my hon. friend continuing his deduction which is equivalent to a reduction, or continuing his reduction which is equivalent to a deduction, whichever way you wish to put it. What the civil servant is concerned about and is finding out is that he is getting 10 per cent less than his salary was before last year's measure was introduced while he was told by my hon. friend last year that at the end of the fiscal year he would be exactly where he was the year before. I realize that the minister has been disappointed in his expectations; I believe he hoped and genuinely believed that, at the end of one year, conditions would have so improved that it would not be necessary to make this deduction for another year. I trust, however, he will not attempt to say that he did not leave the impression that the deduction would be for only one year. I think he has learned wisdom and is now taking the wiser course of giving no undertaking along that line, so that next year he will be free to deal with the matter as circumstances permit. But by his statement of last year he misled the public service into believing the deduction would be for one year only, and now he finds it necessary to continue it for another year.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: An old colleague and old associate of mine in the house once made the wise statement: There is a great deal in the point of view; much depends on which end of the gun you happen to be at. My right hon. friend in stating to the house that last year I was playing with words-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Was playing
with words this year.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Let me say with all deference to my right hon. friend that he is playing with words when he suggests the impression arises from the statement that never again would a similar deduction be asked.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not say that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This year we are asking for a contribution for one year only; that is all. I have said in the house at this session as I did last year, that I hope conditions will not again call for a similar sacrifice. But I cannot predict what world conditions will be a year hence, and I do not believe any hon. member would venture for a moment to make any such prediction. We hope they will be vastly improved.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the minister mean to say that what civil servants are receiving as salaries to-day are what they were receiving before this legislation was introduced?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If we do not ask for a similar deduction next year, that is where the civil servants' salaries will be.


Mr. MacLNNIS:: Taking up again the
point raised by the hon. member for East Hamilton of certain government employees who work on a day basis, let me say that their wages are paid according to the prevailing rate in the particular district in which they live. The government under this bill pays them not the prevailing rate, but that rate less 10 per cent. As the hon. member for Ivenora-Rainy River pointed out, these men have already accepted reductions of possibly 30 per cent, but despite that 30 per cent reduction, if they work for the government, they must accept an additional 10 per cent reduction.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I think the resolution
covers only members of the civil service and of the House of Commons. Working men under contract with the government would not come under it.
Mr. MacINNiIS:	I am not referring to
men working for contractors who have tendered on government work. I am dealing with men paid directly by the government and, for that reason, subject to that reduction. If next week the employers in that particular district, because of the government paying less than they are doing, make another 10 per cent reduction, these men, if they are still government employees, may be asked to accept another 10 per cent reduction, so that the point may be reached when these men will be working merely for their board and when the government employs them, they will have to pay to the government 10 per cent of the value of their board. When the Minister of Finance realizes this point, I believe he will take steps to correct it. It has already been rectified at Vancouver as regards locomotive engineers and so forth, working for the Vancouver harbour commission, who, because of the 10 per cent reduction last year in the same way as the other railway employees, were exempted from the 10 per cent deduction under the act passed last year. When the Minister of Finance sees the justice of this point, I am sure he will be willing to consider it and take steps to safeguard the wages of men working by the day.
Salary Deduction Act


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: May I differ from the
Minister of Finance in his statement that the salaries, after the 10 per cent deduction will have expired next year, will be at the same level as though the deduction had not taken place? I am absolutely in accord with him when he says that this is not a salary reduction but a deduction. Had I considered it to be a reduction, I should have approached it from a different angle last year as well as this. I was satisfied that it was a salary deduction. It does not reduce the classification, but it deducts from that classification the sum of 10 per cent. The minister, however, forgets that last year these civil servants were entitled to statutory increases.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Some of them.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Well, those who were
entitled to statutory increases, did not get them; and those who were entitled to promotions did not get them. Except for a few ' items which I shall point out in the estimates when the time comes, promotions were stopped. It is not a fair deal that only certain civil servants should receive promotions and increases in salary. As a general rule, however, all promotions and all statutory increases have been stopped, though some promotions may have been made without increases in salaries. The minister is aware that statutory increases are given provided the employees by their conduct are worthy of them. But the vicious principle of the 10 per cent deduction is this, that when the salaries do come back to their 100 per cent a year hence, the civil servant forever will be minus the statutory increases he should have had; and if the government continues this for one, two or three years longer as conditions may warrant, then that civil servant will in the long run lose the benefit of superannuation on the basis of the higher salary that he should have received. Therefore, with all deference to the minister, it is a fallacy to say that when this act expires this or next year, the civil servant will be placed, during the infinitesimal period between the moment when the act expires and the next instant when the new act starts to operate, in the position that his salary will be exactly what it was last year. He is minus his statutory increases and also his promotion, and as long as this is kept up, the longer the injury to the civil servant will last. When these salary deductions cease, that is one point that will have to be impressed upon the government, namely, that some kind of recompense or salary readjustment will have to be made so that these statutory increases will not be left off and

when the civil servant, five or ten years hence, is superannuated, he will not then lose the benefit of what should have been his higher salary by reason of his statutory increases. The minister understands what I mean, and I do not believe I need labour the point. If he does not see it, all he has to do is to consult the civil servants who themselves feel it and know what they will suffer in the long run, but I believe the minister sees the point.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend from Ottawa is not bringing to my attention any new phase of the effects of this bill. That particular matter has been most carefully considered, and there is no doubt that those civil servants who would otherwise be receiving their statutory increases will be affected.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: And by more than ten
per cent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not wish to refine words with my hon. friend. I simply wish to assert that my original statement is correct. The salary of these civil servants remains the same. All that it does do is to prevent an increase in salary, which is an entirely different thing.


James Layton Ralston: The salary is the same but the pay is different.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It has reference to a comparatively limited part of the membership of the civil service. Let me say just one last word. I have just as much sympathy for the civil service as my hon. friend from Ottawa, and I think he will be prepared to admit that, but we must not overlook the fact that there must be more or less a common sacrifice in these days, and while we are asking for a contribution of ten per cent from the civil, service, the cost of living to-day is down twenty per cent as compared witih four or five years ago. Relatively the civil servant in the city of Ottawa has much to be thankful for as compared with the tens of thousands of those who hitherto have been regularly employed but who to-day are in want and seeking relief. We are dealing with an extraordinary situation because of extraordinary world conditions, and we must always bear that in mind in discussing a measure of this kind. I might add that it is just a question whether we might not have been wiser to have asked for a larger contribution. I have had just as much criticism for not having sought to take more than ten per cent as I have had over this measure.


William Daum Euler: Why call it a contribution at all? You are taking it.

Salary Deduction Act


Mr. CASGRAIN:: It is no contribution.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am quite sincere when I say that I do not wish to quarrel over words or phraseology with my hon. friends. I am trying to deal as best I can with the general idea.


William Daum Euler: Why not call a spade a
spade?


Mr. POULIOT:: May I ask what is the reason for the cut?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The reason for the cut is that the revenues of this country, in common with those of every other country in the world, have shrunk in far too rapid a proportion as compared with the inescapable obligations to which the country is committed.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman for his explanation, and I would ask him if his remarks, as reported at page 1875 of Hansard of February 7, really reflect what was in his mind. He said:
Well, I shall take the hon. member's remarks in their most restricted form. When my hon. friend gave utterance to that sentiment I was thinking of those conditions, when families m Canada" who have hitherto known comfort and some of them luxury are to-day in distress and in receipt of public charity, but have accepted it only as a last resort. I have been wondering what they will think of the hon. member for Temiscouata when, from his remarks, they must readily realize that he begrudges making his contribution along with the contributions which must be made through the sacrifies of all the people of Canada, if we are to get over the period through which we are passing to-day.
Every one of us knows that the cut is not intended for charity but that it is being made on account of the difficulties of the hour, and we are ready to do our share by making a levy on our own indemnities as well as on the salaries of the civil service as a temporary measure. I gather from the spirit rather than the letter of what has been said by my hon. friend that he did not intend to give the idea that any of the members -were begrudging making their contribution to charity. I do not believe that that was the minister's intention, because if so the cut would not be made because of the difficulties of the hour but would really be a disguised means of enforced charity.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: What I had in mind was this. We are expending this year somewhere in the neighbourhood of $35,000,000 as a result of existing conditions. The contribution which we are asking under this measure amounted last year to $8,300,000. With reference to my remarks which the hon. member
has just quoted, I meant that this was a contribution towards meeting these extra and unusual expenditures. I did not use the word charity, and I do not wish it to be implied that this money is to be earmarked specifically for such a purpose. It is rather a contribution towards meeting the general situation.


Jean-François Pouliot: It was to make both ends meet.


Mr. McLURE:: I should like to draw the
attention of the Minister of Finance to what seems to me to be a slight unintentional discrimination against those civil servants who have not yet reached their maximum salary.
I have in mind several men in the railway postal service, one of whom, for example, is drawing a salary of $1,500. There is a deduction of ten per cent, or $150. Now in the natural course of events this man would be getting an increase of $120 to bring him up to his maximum, so actually he is receiving a cut of $150 plus $120, or $270 per annum, whereas the civil servant who has reached the maximum for that grade of $1,800, is cut by only $180. There may be similar cases. In this particular case it seems there is a little discrimination against those who have not reached their maximum salary, and I draw it to the attention of the Minister of Finance in the hope that some way may be found of correcting this discrimination at the present time or in the near future.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The point raised by my
hon. friend was raised last year, and it has been raised again this year. It has to do with the question of statutory increases, which are oart and parcel of the whole consideration which arises out of this measure. It involves the sum of about $800,000 a year to the treasury, which is no inconsiderable sum. If wp had a full treasury we would not be considering this bill at all, but the conditions are very unusual. We have slender and insufficient -revenues, and we must ask for a contribution all around. This is the contribution which we must ask from the civil service.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: Last year the government assumed the five per cent superannuation deduction for the lower grades. I would ask if it is the intention of the government to do that again this year.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, the bill is precisely
the same in its effect this year as was the bill last year, and applies in the same way to that five per cent.
Salary Deduction Act


Mr. VEXIOT:: I should like to ask this question of the minister: If a civil servant retires in 1934 or 1935, will his pension be based on full salary, iplus statutory allowances for 1932, 1933 and 1934, or will it be based on salary minus ten per oemt, and minus statutory increases to Which he would be entitled if this law had not been passed? May I go just a little farther: If the answer is that it will be based1 on the salary minus ten per cent, then this bill gives no authority to the -government to regulate a pension in that way, because the Superannuation Act would have to 'be changed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can answer one half of the hon. member's question at once. The superannuation which would be received in the instance he cites would be on the full salary, as if ten per cent had never been deducted. With respect to the question as to Whether he would have the statutory increase which he otherwise would have received, I would have to make a more complete inquiry and give am answer when we reach the second reading of the bill.


Mr. HEAPS:: I should like to emphasize the point raised by the hon. member for East Hamilton in connection with the reduction of pay of those who are employed by the government, 'but who accept the prevailing rate of pay. I am not quite sure whether or not the Minister of Finance really grasped the significance of the point raised by the hon. member.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I grasped it all right.


Abraham Albert Heaps: 
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is nothing new in
the point raised by the 'hon. member. However, unless he is prepared to take the stand that a man who is getting the prevailing rate should not make a contribution and the man who is not should make it, there is no point in his argument.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It has happened.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member is making an assertion that because a reduction is made, therefore it is because of the action of this government. That does not follow at all. I do not purpose to discuss the question as to whether an individual has the right to reduce wages or not. The fact of the matter is that wages have been reduced all over the world.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have something before me
I should like to read to the house.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member may
read it if he wishes. It may be the opinion of the people of Halifax, but it would not affect us.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is not an opinion; if it
was I would not read it. It is a letter sent by one of the officials of the machinists union to the president of the Trades and Labour Congress.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It does not apply to
this matter.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes, it is in connection with the government shipyards at Halifax.

Salary Deduction Act


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There are no government
shipyards at Halifax.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I refer to the naval dockyards at that place. I should like to read it: When the government's policy of the eight hour day in all government service was put into effect it resulted in the machinists employed in the naval dockyards in Halifax being paid at a 75 cent per hour rate, which I might say was in line with the prevailing rate at the time-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. The people to
whom the hon. member is referring would be employed by the harbour commission.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am referring to employees
at the naval dockyard.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I do not believe they
would come under the civil service.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Then, Mr. Chairman, if you
make it a constitutional point, I should like to ask why they are affected by the reduction in pay?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I believe I am right
in my assertion.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The letter continues:
-then during the first part of 1932 a survey was taken of prevailing rates in Halifax which showed 70 cents as being the prevailing rate, following which survey the national defence reduced the rate to 70 cents per hour for machinists on April 1, 1932; then the ten per cent reduction was made effective, this reduced the machinists to 63 cents per hour. Now soon after this the Halifax firms employing machinists took advantage of this rate and reduced the rates in keeping with the dockyard with the result that now should a survey be taken of Halifax I believe that the result would show quite a shrinkage in the prevailing rate.
I think it is obvious the action of the government has tended to reduce the rate of pay in the whole of the Halifax district.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is a matter of opinion
whether the action of the government has resulted in a reduction of the prevailing rate. It may be or it may not be. But it by no means follows that because this deduction is asked for it should fix for all time the prevailing rate of wages in Halifax.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If the government were
able to make an exception in the case of Vancouver, why could it not do so for other parts of Canada?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I know of no exception in regard to Vancouver.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The bon. member for East
Hamilton mentioned it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I quoted the following
in my remarks:
A precedent has been set in the case of engineers and others employed by the Vancouver harbour board which should help us in getting a general order. Mr. Ward explained to me how the treasury department rescinded the ten per cent reduction when shown that the harbour employees had taken a ten per cent deduction effected by agreement, following the ten per cent wage deduction on railways.
If the treasury board would take the same stand in connection with other parts of Canada concerning the prevailing rate, we would be satisfied.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the circumstances
are not similar. The hon. member is confusing those who are under a prevailing rate with those who are under a contract.


Mr. STEVENS:: He referred to a railwaymen's agreement.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The prevailing rate may or may not be the proper rate, but whatever the rate may be if you have an agreement the agreement should be respected. My hon. friend is confusing two things.


John Campbell Elliott: I would ask the minister
if he has given consideration to the question of having a graduated scale, as was suggested from this side of the house last year.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, that matter was considered most carefully. If my hon. friend would glance at Hansard of last year he will see that it was fully discussed. I agreed with my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition at that time that if this were a permanent thing, or even intended to carry over a period of years, we should approach it from some such scientific point of view in all probability, although the matter was debatable. But it was a temporary thing. I pointed out at that time that although under the present plan there may appear to be injustices, there would be far more with a graduated scale, because when you come to the border line you find innumerable instances of hardship at every stage with a graduated scale, to a much greater extent than is the case with a uniform cut all the way through of ten per cent. While I am not contending that there is not much to be said in favour of the graduated scale, I say that, having regard to the conditions, on balance the argument was in our judgment more in favour of the ten per cent cut than of the graduated scale.


John Campbell Elliott: No doubt I am very dense, but if in the opinion of the minister a graduated scale would be a good thing for a
Salary Deduction Act

permanent arrangement, I fail utterly to see why it would not be equally good for an arrangement that has already lasted one year, is now certain to last at least two years, and may possibly, according to the minister's own statement this afternoon, last for a longer period. I quite fail to see how the minister argues that if it were a permanent matter it would be equitable to have a graduated scale, but it is not equitable for a temporary matter.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend is not quite correct. I said that the subject was open to argument, but on balance we were of the opinion that the ten per cent reduction was fair on the whole.


John Campbell Elliott: Assuming, although we
all hope conditions next year will be better, they continue to get worse and last for three years, and the minister decides to make the cut for another year, surely that would be sufficiently permanent to justify the bringing into operation of a graduated scale.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Of course my hon. friend
knows full well that it is impossible to argue from the particular to the general. But I will point out that there are some very grave difficulties in connection with the graduated scale which would involve, let us say, a twenty per cent cut on salaries above $3,000. Just by way of illustration, I have in mind one particular case, by no means an isolated case, where even under the depressed conditions that exist to-day an official of the civil service was offered a salary increase of over $2,500 with a company which would guarantee him employment for the rest of his life. That man's services were too valuable to this country, we would not let him go, we had to increase his pay. There are other similar instances. We could not make a general cut of twenty per cent covering that man's case, it would be unfair. But he does submit in the circumstances to the ten per cent deduction. I do not say that perhaps the balance of judgment may not be in favour of a graduated reduction, but I mention it to show the difficulties and ramifications one encounters in trying to work it out in actual practice.


Peter Heenan: I would like to be clear as to what the intention of the minister is with respect to the statutory increases. He said this is only for one more year. I was wondering how it would affect those who are entitled to a statutory increase at the end of the time, when we hope there will be no further necessity for these reductions. For instance last year there would be some civil servants entitled to $60 statutory increase, this year they would

be entitled to a further $60, that is $120. If there was no necessity for this measure now, would those civil servants' salaries be advanced S120 from what they were at the beginning of these reductions?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: He will be retarded for two years in his advance. He may go to his maximum, in all probability will, prior to the question of superannuation arising, but the fact remains that his increases will be retarded for two years, there is no doubt about that.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I would like to draw the attention of the minister to a type of civil servant who in the discussion of this resolution to-day has not had much consideration. I refer to a civil servant who is paid on a commission basis, as in the Post Office Department. For instance, in Ottawa, or in any large city, the postmaster received a salary. He will receive a ten per cent cut. The business done by that post office, like that in most others throughout the country, is not as extensive as it was in 1930. Still he receives the same salary, less ten per cent. A postmaster paid on a commission basis, where post office has a revenue of $3,500, gets seventy per cent on the first $1,000 worth of stamps sold, thirty per cent on the rest, and his rental is determined on the volume of business done. The falling off in business is probably equal to that of the post office w'here the postmaster is paid on a straight salary basis. So at present those postmasters who are paid on commission have taken a cut of about twelve per cent because of the shrinkage in business. Now the government proposes to add a ten per cent cut on top of that. Has that yet been given consideration by the minister? Here is one type of postmaster who has a set salary no matter what the revenue of the office, and he takes a ten per cent cut on that salary. The other postmaster's salary is determined by the revenue taken in by the office, and because of the same conditions both offices are doing less business, but one will take probably twenty-one or twenty-two per cent reduction under this act and the other only ten per cent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think that case has been [DOT] fully considered. If my hon. friend will allow me I will look up his argument in Hansard and deal with it when we come to the committee stage on second reading.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I would like to ask about a class of civil servants having a house allowance in addition to their pay.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend perhaps did not hear me when that question wTas submit-

Salary Deduction Act
ted earlier, and I think last year. The measure is this, that the deduction is made only in those allowances which are deemed to be a portion of the salary of the office. In other words there are allowances of a special character which are not subject to deduction. I have in mind 'several instances of that'character. Only in the case where it has been deemed as constituting a portion of the salary of the office is it subject to deduction.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I wish to bring to the
attention of the minister a case I had in mind and which may have been adjusted. It is the case of a janitor who was receiving $25 a month and was furnished with living quarters by the government, the valuation placed upon these quarters being $25 per month. When the ten per cent cut came into effect his salary was reduced by $5. I took the matter up with the department, submitting that this was entirely unjust. It was based upon the theory that he was really receiving $50, $25 in living allowances and $25 salary, and that therefore the salary was properly subject to a reduction of $5. The result was that he got $20 per month thereafter instead of $25. The matter may have been adjusted because I am not acquainted with the present status of the case, but I should like to find out whether that class of cases is still being so treated, because I submit that it is entirely unjust. A little reflection will show that the salary cut is based upon the theory that prices have gone down, that the cost of living has gone down approximately ten per cent. If that is the case it would be perfectly just, if he were receiving $25 by way of allowance for living quarters, to reduce the $25 to $22.50; but where the government is itself supplying the living quarters, their value by hypothesis is only $22.50; therefore he should receive a total of $45, and his salary should be S22.50.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I understand the point. It may be that there has been an injustice to that individual, but whether it be so or not the fact remains that he comes within that class of cases where the living allowance has been deemed to constitute a portion of the salary, and in that case it is subject to deduction.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But he is not actually getting any living allowance; he is supplied with quarters. I submit that this is an injustice that should be remedied. Can the minister tell me whether in a case such as I have put to him the man will get $20 or $22.50?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can only answer in general terms, but I will make specific inquiry and give the hon. gentleman an answer on the second reading.


Wilfred Hanbury: I think the civil servants and even members of parliament who are taking the deduction would accept it with much better grace if they felt that the people who are really benefiting from it were also suffering the deduction. I refer to those who carry bonds of the dominion. We have yet to see any demonstration or hear any suggestion on the part of the government that the bondholders are to participate to any extent in the cut. The minister pointed out to the hon. member for Ottawa that the cost of living had been reduced by twenty per cent, but he has not stated to what extent he proposes to reduce the income of the bondholder. There is one other point I wish to raise. In the estimates we notice that civil servants who should be superannuated on account of age are being carried as civil servants. I do not think that under present conditions, when the government are asking members of parliament and civil servants to take a reduction, any member of the service should be carried one day past the time due for his retirement.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I may say to my hon.
friend that the government would welcome any opportunity of borrowing its money at a much lower rate of interest; that is obvious. But I have no hesitation in saying to him at once that this government certainly will, and I think the dominion always should honour its contractual obligations. There will be no question of repudiating the contract we entered into when we borrowed money from the public on the issue of bonds. With respect to the other point raised by my hon. friend, as a general principle I agree with him entirely that civil servants would be far better off and opportunities for promotion would be increased to a greater extent if there were automatic retirement as provided. No government in the history of Canada has complied generally with that principle to a greater degree than has this government. The exceptions can be counted on the fingers of one's two hands, if not on one hand, in the whole of the public service. It would be unjust for me to indicate individuals, but I have in mind men who have had exceptional experience, men who have been thirty and forty years in the public service and who are being continued solely because of special qualifications and because of their fitness for the particular posts they occupy. Not to continue them
Salary Deduction Act

would be to do an injustice to the public service, but subject to these few exceptions I am in entire agreement with the latter part of the hon. gentleman's remarks.
Mr. HAiNBURY:	With reference to the
retiring of civil servants after they have reached the age of superannuation, I agree with the minister that there may be exceptions, but I think they should be very exceptional exceptions.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They are.


Wilfred Hanbury: With reference to the
minister's remarks regarding those who hold bonds of Canada and who after all are the beneficiaries of this sacrifice or reduction we are making, the minister's answer was rather obvious, I think; I had hoped he would say something different. After all the minister is quite aware that everything is not right in Canada to-day. There are many people who feel that a large group of citizens are not sharing their full responsibility although they are beneficiaries from the condition that exists, and that is something that the minister should attempt to answer.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Perhaps my hon. friend
did not mean to impart to his remarks as much asperity as his tone would suggest. I [DOT]thought I gave a very clear answer to his suggestion. It may be that bondholders are not making the sacrifice they should. That is an entirely different question, however; but confiscation is not in our mind. I do not think there is anything I can add '.to the previous statement I gave and which I assure my hon. friend I made in good faith.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Has the minister a list of
the persons employed by the government affected by the salary deduction and also the amount of salaries received?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sorry I have not at
the moment the figures under my hand. I gave them last year. As to the amount of salaries, it is a little over $SO,000,000, the saving of ten per cent last year having amounted 'to $S,300,000. I should not care offhand to hazard an estimate of the number of civil servants but I will give the hon. gentleman that information at a later stage.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I understand that a large number of civil servants, about ninety per cent, receive SH)0 per month or less. It was so stated this afternoon. The minister said in reply to the member for Ottawa that this reduction, or whatever you choose to call it, is being made in order that the persons

employed by the government may in some way help to tide over the extraordinary conditions through which we are passing at the present time, and help to pay for the large amount of money the government is compelled to find to take care of the unemployment'situation here in Canada.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is part of it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It seems strange that we should ask people receiving $100 per month or less to make that sacrifice for the men and women who happen to be out of work. As the hon. gentleman who preceded me pointed out, it would be far more logical to tax those who are better able to bear the burden. I do not wish to advocate the confiscation of wealth, but the minister said that he found it difficult to devise ways and means of getting at all the bondholders of this country. Last year we saved a little over eight million dollars in salaries, while the interest charges increased by thirteen million dollars. I think the government should take into consideration the taxing of the interest paid upon these bonds.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They are taxed.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I think this is all out of order. Hon. members should confine themselves to the resolution, which deals with the civil servants and the members of the House of Commons and the Senate.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am suggesting to the minister where he can find sufficient money to make it unnecessary to reduce salaries. I am sure the minister will be grateful for any suggestions I have to make.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Wait for the budget.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In the meantime this ten per cent deduction may be made effective.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It will.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If a twenty per cent tax was put upon the interest of these bonds it would yield about $20,000,000 and the minister would not have to go out of his way to take $8,000,000 from people who are receiving an already too small salary. I do not think there is much more I have to say as I would be only repeating what I said last year. I do not believe that a reduction of salaries to the extent of five or ten per cent, as the government has done this year, will materially benefit the finances of the country. On the contrary, it has had a very bad effect upon employers in other parts of the dominion. They have followed the action taken by the government and have reduced the salaries of

Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Gordon
their employees. In times like these I think we ought to attempt to increase the purchasing power, keep it at the absolute maximum. Where there is wealth, that wealth ought to be taxed to the highest possible point.


Humphrey Mitchell: Will the members of the new tariff board come under the provisions of this resolution?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rhodes thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 38, to amend the Salary Deduction Act, 1932.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
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.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is the minister going to explain this resolution?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I would prefer that the
resolution be allowed to go into committee and then I shall give my explanation and make some observations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A number of
hon. members wish to speak to the resolution, and will expect to hear something from the minister. They will probably wish to say a good deal more when we are in committee.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am content. I think it
is desirable that I outline, perhaps at some length, the proceedings and actions which have been taken under the various relief measures, and particularly under the 1932 legislation, in order that hon. members may have the general picture.
As hon. members know, the act contemplates that the detailed report is not required to be filed until March 15, following the end of the fiscal year. The reason for this is obvious; it is in order that the information in the final report shall be as complete as possible. Under the unemployment relief act of 1930, which came into force in September of that year, provision was made for the carrying out of public works and the extending of direct relief to relieve unemployment until August, 1931. I intend to direct my observations mainly to the distribution of moneys by the dominion, provincial and municipal authorities, because
I feel that if that is made known to hon. members they will then be better prepared to discuss matters when the bill comes up.
Under the 1930 act the Dominion government contributed to public works a total of $14,396,976.81; to direct relief, $3,547,135.08, and the cost of dominion administration was, $43,061.97. The total expenditure by the Dominion government under that act was $17,987,173.86. This expenditure by the Dominion government represented the carrying out in the dominion of public and other works to the extent of approximately $69,000,-
000.	This total includes the contributions made by the provinces and the municipalities. The direct relief expenditure by the dominion, provinces and municipalities under this legislation totalled approximately $11,000,000. The relief works carried out under the provisions of the act afforded work to 337,633 individuals for varying periods, the amount of work thus afforded being 7,481.449 man days.
In August, 1931, the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, became effective and continued in operation until the first day of March, 1932, and under the provisions of the continuance act of 1932, the operation of the 1931 act was continued until May 1, 1932. Under the 1931 act, by agreement with the various provinces of the dominion, the federal government agreed to contribute the sum of $34,008,878.29 towards the carrying on of works by the provinces, municipalities and federal departments, the total cost of such works being approximately S81,000,000. When the act expired on May 1, many works which had been undertaken thereunder, and many commitments which had been made with the provinces and which had not been completed by that time but which, in the opinion of the provinces, it was altogether desirable should be carried to completion, made it necessary that an extension of time be given for this purpose, the gross costs of works thus extended being approximately $14,778,000.
For direct relief, the expenditures of the Dominion government under the 1931 act to date amount to $11,668,783.79, which includes $5,288,085 to the Saskatchewan relief commission. Under the 1931 act the expenditures for public works gave employment to 583,492 individuals to the end of December, 1932, the total wages paid being $39,532,328.42, and afforded a total of 13,274,436 man days' work.
After a survey of employment conditions in the Canadian National railway shops, it was decided to maintain operations in them so as to permit of intermittent employment being given to as large a number of employees as possible, and employment was in fact given
Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Gordon

in the Canadian National railway shops. In the month of September, 1931, the Canadian Pacific railway was compelled to shut down its shops. Many applications for assistance were made to the government on behalf of the men thus thrown out of employment. Arrangements were made with the company to open its shops on the 17th day of November, 1931, and to keep them open until the 31st day of December of the same year, the government lending the company $1,447,222.71, to enable the wages of such employees to be paid. The total number of railway shop employees thus given employment was 8,455. The government felt that this was a proper thing to do under the circumstances with respect to the Canadian Pacific.


Mr. YOUNG:: Was any money lent to the Canadian National to enable them to keep their shops open?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Their shops were kept
open with government assistance, I believe.


Mr. VENIOT:: What amount was incurred in keeping the Canadian National shops open intermittently?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not those figures
before me, but I shall have them before me when the bill gets into committee.
In view of the practically unanimous recommendation of the provinces at the provincial conference held in April, 1932, that public works as relief measures be discontinued in view of their great cost, and that direct relief be adopted instead as the policy, public works have practically been discontinued as relief measures and direct relief has been adopted across the dominion. That matter was very thoroughly discussed by representatives of all the provinces and the dominion at that time. Much as we all would have liked to continue the construction of works on a wage basis with joint contributions from this government, the provinces and the municipalities, it was the unanimous opinion of the provincial representatives that this would be casting too great a burden upon the provinces and the municipalities, and unquestionably the federal government was also feeling the strain of that burden. Out of that conference developed the idea that the utmost the governments and the municipalities could do would be to afford direct relief. About this time, following a number of conferences with various organizations and with the provinces, the question came up of relieving in a measure the urban centres of some of their unemployed by way of assisting in having them settled on lands

within the dominion, and after the conference I dispatched the following telegram to each of the provincial premiers:
Government has decided to apply unemployment relief expenditures towards assisting selected families earn subsistence on the land and put themselves on self-supporting basis. Have decided to contribute as non-recoverable relief expenditure a sum not exceeding $200 per family and not exceeding one-third cost relief settlement plan submitted by province and approved by Dominion. Provincial government responsible for administration of scheme including selection of families, location of farms and settlement families thereon. While this is essentially an unemployment relief measure government urges necessity careful selection of families and land location in order that substantial measure of permanent settlement will ensue. Province to set up qualified committee including representative federal land settlement department and colonization representatives of Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways to review matter as it concerns province. No part of relief expenditure to be applied to the acquiring or renting of land. The proposal contemplates utilization of crown lands and farms now owned by municipalities and private owners which may be acquired with no down payment and on favourable terms. Dominion expenditure will be made progressively as equal expenditure made by province and municipality concerned. Pinal arrangements to be reduced to agreement between Dominion and province. In view of advanced season request earliest possible intimation your views.
The house will remember that prior to this, in conjunction with the railways, an effort was made which met with considerable success in directing those who were in urban centres, who were then out of work and v'ho had some money and farm experience, to become colonized within Canada. There may and probably will be criticism of that policy on the part of the government I am just as convinced as I was in November, 1930, that one of the avenues at least which may be resorted to with a degree of confidence, in order to that extent at least to relieve the industrial centres, is to try to correct what is now the decidedly disproportionate situation with respect to our urban and rural population. When one considers that in the last fifty years our population has changed from eighteen per cent urban to over fifty per cent urban, I think it is not debatable that our population is decidedly disproportionate as between urban and rural. With that in view a good deal of success was met with by the provinces, by the railways, and by this government acting in concert in having those who were out of work but in funds, and seeing their funds steadily decreasing, take up land locations, not with the primary object of putting in a crop this year and getting into the export market next

Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Gordon
year but rather of preserving their assets and becoming owners of their own locations in order that they would become self-sustaining with a degree of permanency.
Up to that time, of course, the government had not contributed towards the return to land locations of people then living in cities who were ready and willing and able to settle. It was considered by the government a desirable step to apply some of the relief money towards assisting those who were then on direct relief in establishing themselves on the land. The contribution from the Dominion government was made non-recoverable, and was paid and is being paid in progressive stages under the supervision of the committees set up throughout the Dominion of Canada. Those committees I believe are doing very fine work. They are entirely nonpartisan, because, so far as this government and so far I believe as the members of this chamber, no matter what their political persuasion may be, are concerned, they have not approached this question from a political standpoint. I think there is a consciousness with every member that we must on the one hand devote any moneys that we can devote towards the object of relieving those in need, apart entirely from any considerations of a political character, and at the same time exercise such control as we can to see that the public treasury is not unnecessarily invaded by subtractions therefrom to take care of the present situation.
Arising out of the proposal incorporated in the telegram which I have read, agreements weTe entered into with all the provinces except Prince Edward Island for the settlement on farms of selected families who might be receiving direct relief, and who had
Province-
Nova Scotia. . . . New Brunswick..
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan..
Alberta	
British Columbia
Total	
previous farming experience. The government of Prince Edward Island did not consider that the scheme could be successfully carried out there owing to conditions peculiar to the province.
Briefly, the scheme is that to eaoh family so taken from those receiving direct relief and placed on the land, where it is hoped they will soon become self-sustaining, the estimated cost of supporting them on direct relief is advanced to assist them in establishing themselves. This amount was set at a maximum of $600, to be contributed equally by the dominion, the province and municipality from which the family is taken, and is paid over a period of two years. Not more than $500 is to be paid the first year, $100 being reserved for the second year in case assistance towards subsistence may be necessary. The total contribution of $200 by the Dominion government is, as I have said, nonrecoverable.


Mr VENIOT:: The minister stated that all the provinces except Prince Edward Island entered into an 'agreement. May I ask if the province of New Brunswick, after entering into an agreement, carried out its terms? If the minister is not in a position to answer that at the moment, perhaps he will do so later.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I will make a note of the question and give the information later. The total amount for which provision is made under these agreements, the federal proportion of each, and the total number of families in each province, are as follows-and wherever in this statement the figures are long, unless the house wishes me to read the exact amounts I shall give the round figures and ask permission that they be given in Hansard in full:
Total
expenditure	Dominion	Number ofprovided for	proportion	families$ 385.695	$ 128.565	642342.840	114.280	570642.855	214.285	1.070642,855	214,285	1.070514.260	171.420	857600.000	200,000	1.000514.260	171.420	857514.260	171.420	857$ 4,157,025	$ 1.385.675	6,923
The total expenditure provided for this purpose is $4,157,025, the Dominion's proportion being $1,385,675, and the number of families which -will be taken care of 6,923. The settlement this year represents only the beginning of the movement, as the agreements with the provinces cover a period of two years and
.53719-150
do not expire until March 31, 1934. A recent report of progress received from the provinces indicates that a total of 1,651 families have been approved, these families having approximately 6,906 dependents.


John Power Howden: That is all over the
country ?

Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Gordon


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes. Just at this juncture I may say that I have recently received from the chief colonization officer of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company a complete statement of what was done on merely the advice and direction of the officers of the railway over a comparatively short stretch of road in Ontario.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Would the minister state how many settlers have been settled in the different provinces?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I can provide that information. A little more than 1,500 families have gone from urban centres and are settled and are getting along very well along one branch of the Canadian Pacific in Ontario, according to a letter that I have received from the company.
As I said a few moments ago, I do not suggest that this is by any means a complete solution of the difficulties that confront us, but every ablebodied person who understands farming-and I am told 'that it requires much experience and skill, particularly under present conditions, to make things go-who is moved out of the industrial centres or taken off the unemployment shelves makes just that much more room for those who know nothing about farming but are industrialists and have to look for a revival ini industry for their hope for the future.
The Dominion government has continued since May 1, 1932, to contribute to direct relief on the same basis as under the 1931 aict, and has also agreed to contribute fifty per cent to the cost of operating board camps wherein the unemployed may be cared for and given useful work in return for subsistence and a small cash allowance. Later this was superseded in the western provinces by an agreement in respect to single, homeless unemployed persons. In, order that the h ouse may be apprised of what was done across Canada, I think I would do well to deal with each province in turn from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
First, let me refer to the province of Prince Edward Island, which we all know, is very small, with a population of only about 90,000 people. Relief has been carefully administered by the government of that province. I note that total federal disbursements towards direct relief in, Prince Edward Island up to the fourteenth instant have amounted to $9,301.86. This figure, however, does not represent the total cost, inasmuch as accounts in many instances do not reach the departs ment for several months after the contraction; for or payment of the sum. In all figures which I shall give concerning direct relief,

this fact must be borne in mind: accurate figures will not be obtainable until possibly some time after March 31, when the present legislation expires and the statutory report is tabled. At that time we shall know what the expenditures for direct relief for the present fiscal year have been. As a matter of fact, on the fifteenth of this month I signed recommendations to council for the payment of some accounts for direct relief for some of the municipalities of the province of Quebec, and may I explain that those liabilities were incurred under the 1930 legislation. It would appear that the people at that point were not pressed for money. The federal government contributed, further, ini the province of Prince Edward Island to the cost of reconstructing the Falconwood hospital which had been destroyed by fire. In this instance the dominion's contribution amounted to $5,328.24, being fifty per cent of thiei total labour cost of $10,656.49. That is, with the direct relief disbursements, the total disbursements in Prince Edward Island to the fourteenth instant amount to $14,630.10. As I have explained, some accounts do not reach us until some months after ithe actual expenditures have been made by the province or municipality. However, we have kept in close touch with the relief activities across the dominion by arranging with the provinces to estimate as closely as possible at the end of each month the amount of relief which has been given during that month. Our experience has been that frequently these estimates are in excess of the actual expenditures. Nevertheless they give an approximate figure concerning relief actually dispensed.
Now we come to the province of Nova Scotia. Direct relief in Nova Scotia is carried on by a three way contribution, 33J per cent being contributed by the dominion, the province, and the municipality respectively. The full disbursements to date for direct relief in Nova Scotia amount to $213,628.25. Some other projects were carried on in Nova Scotia which I shall briefly outline.
First, repatriation of miners to their native homes, involving a total expenditure of S19,-893.53, to which the dominion contributed $7,957.41. The situation which arose was shortly this: After the last investigation and report by Sir Andrew Rae Duncan, and following recommendations made in that report, certain mine shafts and collieries were closed. Some miners had been induced to come to New Waterford on the understanding they would receive continuous work. By reason of the closing down of these works they were thrown out of employment. They knew

Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Gordon
nothing else but coal mining, and all expressed the desire to be returned to their country of origin. The Dominion government contributed as I have indicated.


Mr. SPENCER:: What was their country
of origin?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I believe most of then were from central Europe, but if necessary I can get that information. Then, further referring to the projects I mentioned:
Second, provincial highway construction, involving a total expenditure of $80,000, the dominion paying $32,000. This work was done on a forty-sixty basis.
Third, trans-Canada highway construction, which was done on an equal basis between the province and the dominion. The amount involved was $133,647.90, the dominion contributing $66,823.96.
Fourth, payment of excess cost of Nova Scotia coal delivered to Toronto, involving an amunt of 86,087.22, of which the dominion's proportion is $3,043.61.
Disbursements by the dominion in respect of these projects amount to $77,282.54, making a total disbursement to date for the province of Nova Scotia of $290,910.79.


James Layton Ralston: Is that from the extension of last year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, from the time this
law began to operate.
Turning now to the province of New Brunswick, I may say that the direct relief is on a basis of a contribution of 33J per cent by the dominion, the province and the municipality respectively. The total disbursements by the federal government for direct relief in that province are, to date, $38,434.06.
In the province of Quebec direct relief is, in the main, conducted on a three way equal basis, being distributed between the dominion, the province and the municipality. In unorganized districts however, the cost is borne fifty per cent by the dominion and fifty per cent by the province. Provincial government authorities have represented, however, that many municipalities in the province of Quebec are totally unable to bear their full proportion of one-third, and in such cases, after the province has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Dominion government that such is the case, the proportion has been varied, the province and the dominion making up the difference. To date, disbursements in the province of Quebec for direct relief amount to $1,389,368.33.
In the province of Ontario direct relief is provided on a three way basis, being divided among the dominion, the province and the 53719-1S6*
municipality. The provincial government, however, established the fact that several municipalities were unable to bear their whole share of the cost of such relief. In this instance, as obtained with regard to the province of Quebec, investigations were made, and after reviewing the representations, reductions in the municipalities' shares were authorized, the dominion and the province assuming equally the amount of such reduction. In unorganized districts the cost is shared on an equal basis between the dominion and the province, as obtains in the province of Quebec. The total disbursements with regard to the dominion's share of direct relief in the province of Ontario to date-and when I use the term " to date " I mean to February 16, 1933-amounts to $2,633,427.18.
Some other expenditure was undertaken in the province of Ontario in order to complete two road projects undertaken under the 1931 legislation. The dominion approved of total expenditure on these projects, to complete them, of $85,000, of which the federal contribution was $30,000. Throughout the province certain board camps have been established on a subsistence basis, with a cash allowance each month of $10 per man. This at first was $5 per man per month, but in the early fall, owing to certain economies which the province was able to effect in the matter of board and by an additional expenditure on the part of province and the dominion of 75 cents each, it was possible to increase this gratuity to the men to $10 per man per month. The provincial authorities represented that it was desirable to take this action in order that those employed on the work could be able to provide themselves with clothing, the majority having reached the point where complete new outfits were necessary.


Edward James Young: They got $10 and board, did they?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, and supplied their
own clothing.
Wherever loans have been made under the authority of the legislation of a province, I am going to spread upon the record the facts with respect to them.
A loan was made to Ontario on January 14, 1932, of $2,500,000. This sum was promptly repaid, and it practically became a bookkeeping entry as far as the province of Ontario was concerned.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Was that amount of
over $2,000,000 given for direct relief to the province of Ontario, or any of it, earmarked for the building of the trans-Canada highway in that province?
Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Gordon


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Not earmarked for the
trans-Canada highway.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Could the minister give any amount that was spent on the building of the trans-Canada highway?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Not at the moment, but I will take note of ithe interrogation and I think I can give the information later.
Turning to Manitoba, direct relief there'is borne, the same as it is in the other provinces, on the three way basis between the dominion, the province and the municipality; and fifty per cent between the province and the
Month

May. . .. June.. .. July.. .. August .. . September October.. November. December. January..
Representations were made to the government, with respect to certain municipalities in western Canada, to the effect that they were unable to cope with the relief of many thousands of single homeless transients who, it was represented, were neither residents of the municipalities nor of the province itself. It arose,, as hon. members know, largely through the rather rapid filling up of western Canada with people from other lands. I am not going to criticize the efforts of those who preceded me with respect to that situation. The results, however, which might have not arisen had conditions not become such as they are, was that many many people, single men and some women, found themselves without a home, without family ties of any kind, and were just drifting here and there; and it became apparent to this government that they could not be classed as residents of any municipality or any province. That being the case the federal government undertook to take care of this class of needy persons during the present winter. Early in October we were fortunate enough to secure the services of Doctor W. J. Black for a short period in order to assist the province and the federal government in organizing this relief, the management of the Canadian National Railways being good enough to let us have Doctor Black for this purpose. Early in October Doctor Black went to western Canada and, in conjunction with the municipal and provincial authorities, was instrumental in setting up commissions of public spirited men in each province who undertook to administer

dominion in unorganized districts and indigent municipalities, after they have been so reported upon by the province and approved of by the dominion. The total disbursement in regard to the dominion's share of direct relief in the province of Manitoba to date amounts to $911,056.18. Then in Manitoba, by reason of the extension of public works which had been started under the legislation which preceded this act, work was carried on, and I will ask leave to read into Hansard the details of the number of individuals and the man days and wages paid during the time the work was in progress:
Individuals	Man Days	Wages paid579	11.477	$ 59,561719	21.393	104,788795	43.288	261.008782	32,274	249.236561	24,339	206,171561	16,235	94,72537	11,946	93,57780	3,610	14,45345	3,477	5,209
this relief. The commission was appointed by the provincial government in each instance. In Manitoba the committee is composed of W. H. Carter, chairman; G. W. Northwood; and A. MacNamara, who I believe is one of the assistant deputy ministers in .the Manitoba government.


Mr. BROWN:: May I ask the minister if the Dominion government is contributing any part of the money which is being paid to hired men on the farms? I understand the Manitoba government is sending out men on the farms and is paying them $5 per month. Is the Dominion government bearing any part of that expense?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I had not heard that the Manitoba government was paying $5 a month to men on farms.


Albert Joseph Brown: Well, the money is being
paid from some place.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have seen it stated in
the press in some cases that the Manitoba government is paying and has paid S5 a month to men on the farm.


Albert Joseph Brown: That is a fact.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It may be a fact-I do
not know it to be a fact. But I do know that the Dominion government has paid it all up to date. The province may be doing it as well. That is the situation,-the Dominion government is paying all of that $5 a month.
In Saskatchewan the relief commission has assumed this responsibility in addition to its

Private Bills
other duties. The relief commission is composed of Henry Black, chairman; C. B. Daniels, general manager; W. G. Yule, A. E. Whitmore, H. A. Munns, Mrs. Pearl Johnson; Oliver J. Dean, secretary.
The committee in Alberta is composed of A. A. Mackenzie, Edmonton, chairman; Colonel G. E. Sanders, Calgary, and Robert Livingstone, Lethbridge. I may say I received some critical communications after the appointment of the committee in Alberta, suggesting that I had appointed men to this commission to administer the relief who should not be appointed, that these jobs should go to the unemployed. But when I advised them that these men were doing it purely out of unselfishness, without hope of reward other than a lot of criticism and what recognition history may give them, I never got an answer to my letter.
The committee in British Columbia is composed of: Major J. G. Fordham, Vancouver, chairman; Colonel J. S. Dennis, Victoria; Professor W. A. Carrothers, Vancouver.
Agreements have been entered into with the four western provinces whereby the dominion pays one hundred per cent of the cost of providing food, fuel, clothing and shelter to single homeless unemployed persons at a cost not exceeding 40 cents per diem. The agreements also provide for the placement of single homeless persons on farms at $5 per month, payable by the dominion,


Albert Joseph Brown: I would like to ask where
that money is coming from?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It is covered by written
agreements with the provinces and is paid by the dominion.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 23, respecting the Saint Nicholas Mutual Benefit Association and to change the name to "Ukrainian Mutual Benefit Association of Saint Nicholas of Canada."-Mr. Luchkovich.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Margaret Borham Willson.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Clarence Eldon Durham.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Maurice Pash-link Simon, otherwise known as Maurice Simon Pashlinski.-Mr. Hanson (York-Sun-bury).
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Marjorie Elizabeth Rae Dixon.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Joseph Adrien Desmarteau.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Henry Norman Bethune.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
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.
Wesley Ashton Gordon: 
John Power Howden: What province is the
minister dealing with?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Manitoba. In passing I
may say that about a month ago I was advised by the officer representing the Manitoba government, and also by our own representative, that we had places on farms in the province for something over 700 single men. At that time we were taking care of some-

Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Gordon
thing over 3,000 men in the city of Winnipeg, but we could not prevail upon any of them to go to work; they all had their reasons or excuses.


Edward James Young: What did you do with them?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: We have tried to prevail
upon them to take work. Of course, some of them are not fit for farm work. Since that time we have been able to move a considerable number out of the city of Winnipeg.


Edward James Young: What do you do with those who will not work?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: We just keep on feeding
them.
In addition to the above relief, the dominion advanced to the province against its treasury bills loans in the following amounts and for the following purposes:
Loans and advances to Manitoba under relief legislation to February 14, 1933.
Purpose of Loan or Advance
Total loans, being advances of dominion's share of approved
public works	$	2,600,000 00
By credits applied	 2,523,653 33
Balance to be liquidated. .	76,346 67
Total loans covering provinces' share of public works and/or to loan municipalities for their
share	 2,900,000 00
Less credits dominion's Share
public works	
Balance outstanding	 2,900,000	00
Total loans covering New York
commitments	 3,133,315	85
Less repayments	
Balance outstanding	 3,133,315	85
Total loans re direct relief
expenditures	 1,527,313	60
Total advances re single homeless
unemployed	 150,000 00
By credits applied	 70,827 68
Balance outstanding	 79,172	32
Total loans re assistance to farmers including purchase of
seed grain	
600,000	00Less repayment	
220,000	00Balance outstanding	
380,000	00
Total loans and advances as
above	
10,910,629	45Less repayments and credits applied	
2,814,481	01Net amount outstanding.. ..	8,096,148 44
In the province of Manitoba to December 31 a bonus of 81,169,025.47 was paid on 23,380,509 bushels of wheat.
With respect to Saskatchewan the direct relief is administered by a three way contribution, municipality, province and dominion, and CMr. Gordon.]
in the unorganized districts the province and the dominion divide the direct relief expenditure on an equal basis. Relief has been administered in the province of Saskatchewan through the province and the municipalities as well as through the agency of the Saskatchewan relief commission, which has functioned in the dried out areas. In addition, dominion relief has been -administered to single homeless unemployed persons. Certain extensions of the 1931 works program was authorized and employment was furnished to the following number of -men in the following months: the number of man days and the wages paid is set out in a schedule which I ask the permission of the house to have -put on Hansard. It is as follows:
Extensions of 1931 works-Under extensions of time on works approved under the 1931 act work was furnished to the following number of men in the following months:
May-1.431 men worked 29,945 man-days and received $103,844 in wages.
June-1.027 men worked 23,956 man-days and received $73,347 in wages.
July-1,180 men worked 41,762 man-days and received $94,812 in wages.
August-727 men worked 21,863 -man-days and received $59,589 in wages.
September-523 men worked 15,941 man-days and received $43,852 in wages.
October-523 men worked 15,496 man-days and received $58,989 in wages.
November-168 men worked 8,531 man-days and received $29,482 in wages.
December-6 men worked 69 man-days and received $433 in wages.
Total-157,563 man-days work was supplied and $464,348 was paid in wages.


James Layton Ralston: -Could the minister give the total in dollars?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The total is 8464,348 in wages.
In July, 5)2 families representing 318 dependents were settll-ed on farms and 364 single homeless persons were placed with farmers.
In August, 289 single homeless persons were pfe-ce-d on farms and 517 single homeless men were -employed 1,841 man days in sustenance camps at a cost of approximately 85,079.
In September, 274 families with 995 dependents were settled on farms and 418 single homeless -men were employed in -camps at an approximate -cost of $5,057.
In October, 1,469 single -homeless men were employed in camps at an approximate cost of 814,850.
In November, fourteen families with seventy-one dependents were settled on farms, also 532 single homeless men were cared- for in camps at an approximate cost of $3,600.
In December, 2,192 single persons were placed in farm jobs and received 811,000 in

Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Gordon
wages and 1,966 single homeless men in camps were 36,069 man days at an approximate cost of $20,887.
In January, 5,497 single persons were placed in farm jobs and were paid $27,485 in wages.


Edward James Young: Do those 5,000 include the
number placed in December or are they in addition thereto?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am giving the figures for each month.
In January, 5,497 single men were placed in farm jobs.


Edward James Young: But 2,000 were placed in
December. Does that make 7,000?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have given each month from July.


James Layton Ralston: The new placements?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any
repeaters-people sent out who stay for a few days and are subsequently sent out to a second job?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There may be some. I
have not the details of that, but generally speaking, most of these men are placed and continue to stay.
As I said, in January 5,497 single persons were placed in farm jobs and were paid
Total loans being advanced in respect of Dominion share of approved works	_. Total loans covering province's share of public works and of loans to municipalities.. .. Total loans covering New York commitments..
Loans for provincial purposes	
Loans with respect to direct relief	
Advances re single homeless unemployed.. ..
$27,485 in wages; also 647 single persons were employed in camps, 32,200 man days at an approximate cost of $18,405.
Disbursements in connection with relief settlement and other projects amount to date to $19,096.71 and direct relief disbursements amount to date to $136,602.99.
Expenditures made by the Saskatchewan relief commission in what is known as "A" area, with which I presume hon. members are familiar, amounted to $7,668,667.28 and in "B" area to SI,562,735.89.
For freight on moving settlers' effects in "A" and "B" areas, the expenditures were $77,676.72. This makes a total of $9,309,079.89, the dominion proportion being $8,448,304.78, and the provincial proportion being $860,775.11.
In these areas to December 31, 1932, direct relief was given by the relief commission to families numbering 60,755, with dependents numbering 273,397. In addition aid was given to individual cases to the number of 305, the total number given relief being 334,457. Of course we all entertain the hope that this province will not again meet with the tragedy that overtook it with respect to crops.
Loans and advances to Saskatchewan to February 14, 1933, are as follows:

Credits or Repayments

Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Balance
Outstanding
Nil

Of course, as the Dominion govemmenlt is assuring that amount, nothing will be returned.
Loan to Saskatchewan Relief Commission re accounts in "A" area	
Advances in respect to Dominion portion of relief in dried-out area	
Accounts received to February 14, 1933	
Loans re assistance to farmers, including purchase of seed grain	
Totals

8,250,000	00
$8,497,371	57	$1,752,628	436,000,000	00	410,000	00	5,590,000	00$29,811,293	23	$9,907,371	57	$20,903,921	66
As regards wheat bonus, an amount of $5,669,919.78 was paid up to the 31st day of December in the province of Saskatchewan in respect of 113.398,395 bushels of wheat.
In the province of Alberta the direct relief is provided on a three way basis, the same as I have made reference to in other provinces: municipalities, province and dominion, and in unorganized districts on an equal basis between the province and the dominion. Again I would like to have inserted in Hansard a schedule showing the employment afforded, the farm settlement and placements. The table is as follows:
245S
Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Gordon

238,412 55 3,040.670 69 Nil
106,271 65 Nil
Balance
outstanding
Nil

Totals
$12,059,164 69	$6,185,354 89

It will be observed with respect to British Columbia that the province has repaid a little over fifty per cent of the loans and advances made to them.


James Layton Ralston: That repayment is only
by reason of the fact that expenditures have beep made to equal the dominion's share of the advance?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Not in its entirety. The
largest repayment that was made by British Columbia was a loan of $3,040,670.69, which is part of a loan of $5,104,164.69 advanced by the dominion for New York commitments.


James Layton Ralston: But the other amount
of $2,800,000 is really a cross entry.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Extending the sum that
was agreed upon " ir relief.


James Layton Ralston: But it is really a cross entry.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In British Columbia, with
respect to the w7heat bonus, the Dominion government paid out in the Peace river block
in that province $23,440.40 with respect to 468,808 bushels of wheat. The total thus paid out in the four western provinces, Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Peace river block and British Columbia, to December 31 last amounted to $12,720,121.07 with respect to 254,402,420 bushels of wheat.
Other works were projected by the Dominion government which in the judgment of the government were desirable in different parts of Canada, under the supervision of different departmental officials, and the work was organized in such a way that it could with the least expense be supervised by these officials.
In Alberta there was the projection of the Banff-Jasper highway, the approximate cost of which was $235,294. or an average cost per day of 82.88. including materials. For the information of hon. members I think it is desirable that the accompanying schedule be put on Hansard so that hon. gentlemen will be able to review it before the bill is dealt with:
Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Gordon

Works performed by the Interior Department Alberta-Banff-Jasper Highway
Month		No. of men	Man days	Approximate cost
		256	2,403 10,768 18,403	
		513		
		827		
		622	13,997 9,466 11,822 14,654	$235,294 or average cost per day $2.88 including materials.
		363		
		629		
		646		
				
			81,513	
Alberta:-Banff-Waterton Lakes Parks-Elk Island-National Parks
November		165	1,843	84,449
			or average cost of
			$2-42 per day.
Saskatchewan:-Prince Albert National Park
November.
4,730
810,728
or average cost of 82.05 per day.
Manitoba:-Riding Mountain Park
October	 November		201 1,008	2,734 17,800	8 3,402 10,482
		20,534	813,884 Or at an average cost of . 68c.
In all parks in			
December		2,958	60,924	8102,962 81.67
In other words to December in all parks last fall, 169,544 days' work was given to needy men at an approximate cost of $367,317 or approximately 82.17 per day.
In ad works in the national parks to the amount of 8563,800 were authorized and up to date 8411,205.20 has been expended.
In Alberta, in connection, with the Banff-Waterton lakes park, Elk island, and national parks there was expended $4,449, at an average cost of $2.42 per day, the work being carried on during -the month of November, and 165 men being employed. This amount provided 1,843 man days' works.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is that $2.42 per man?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That includes materials. In Saskatchewan in the Prince Albert national

park in the month of November 295 men were employed, giving 4,730 man day's work at an approximate cost of $10,728. I am inclined to think that that is the exact figure. The average cost was $2.05 per day.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Can the minister tell us 'how much of this actually went to the men? He has said -that material is included.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: 

o

Relief Act, 1033-Mr. Gordon

Relief Act, 1933

Mr. Gordon
To summarize, I might say that in addition to the repairs to the fortifications at Halifax and Quebec there are eighteen camps at present in operation in the provinces of New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia in connection with the landing fields on the Trans-Canada Airways. In the month of October thirty-eight men were emplojmd to the extent of 55 man days; in November 807 men were employed to the extent of 12,581 man days; in December, 1,393 men were employed to a total of 30,306 man days; in January 1,982 men were employed to a total of 41,127 man days, or a total of 84,069 man days for the three months. The strength on the fifteenth of this month was 2,089.
The total expenditure to the end of January, covering the cost of materials, purchase of land where necessary, food, clothing, tools and equipment, equalled 193,196.49. These works necessitated an average expenditure per man of $1.10 per day. This figure per day does not include Sundays and half-holidays and days in hospital, precise figures of which are not available, but allowing for Sundays and a half day for Saturdays, the approximate total expenditure works out per man day of relief at 86 cents. The estimated total value of the work done to January 31, is $69,386.66, which does not include the costs incurred for temporary accommodation, purchase of land, and so on. As these charges are absorbed it is considered that the value of work done will considerably exceed the total cost.


James Shaver Woodsworth: 
James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the
number now on unemployment relief in Canada?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The last month for which I have any return is January. I have the total number of men, women and children receiving relief, including all those who in normal times are given relief, because we can all feel assured that all these people are receiving relief, and that number,-it is for varying periods-is 1,357,562. That includes all those classes for varying periods of time. It is represented by 252,000 heads of families.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does that include all unemployed?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: All such questions can be properly asked in committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am pleased
to see that in one particular at least the protests which in previous sessions have been made from this side of the house have had some effect. I must commend the minister for having brought in his proposed legislation at least before the end of the. fiscal year, thereby affording the house an opportunity of discussing, at greater length than has been possible in any previous session of

Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Mackenzie King
this parliament, the all important question of the relief of unemployment. In order that the house may not forget the importance of the question, which continues to be the most important in Canada, may I remind hon. members that this administration owes its present position in office to the fact that it undertook, if returned to power, to end unemployment, and to end it immediately. Hon. gentlemen opposite are in power to-day as a government which was pledged to end unemployment in Canada, and to do so expeditiously. That pledge was given nearly three years ago.
The Minister of Labour this evening has given us what at the outset he described as a picture of what is being done by the government of which he is a member and other governments in Canada in the relief of unemployment. It has been a long and comprehensive survey. I do not know what impression the picture has left in the minister's own mind, or on the minds of other hon. gentlemen who have listened to him, but I must confess that the impression it made on mine was much the same as one that might be derived from reading through the Canadian Almanac, going through the Auditor General's Report, or perusing the Statistical Year Book. I fail to see in all the minister said to-night anything suggestive of unity, any outstanding lines of clearly defined policy, or any central principle on which the government has proceeded in dealing with the great question of unemployment in Canada. As I listened to the minister detailing his verbal picture, it seemed to me as he mentioned one subject after another, that it resembled nothing quite so much as a jigsaw puzzle, the different parts of which it would require no little time to bring together.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: W'hat is a jig-saw puzzle?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have just had one from the minister.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: The only thing
the opposition has to work with.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
endeavoured to give us a comprehensive idea of what the government has been doing, but, as I have said, he mentioned so many individual parts and pieces wholly unrelated to any general scheme that hon. members themselves will have to piece them together in order to make, if that is possible at all, a coherent whole out of what has been said. May I recall what the minister himself disclosed. He spoke first of all of work that was being carried on under a policy of construction of public works. That was the policy with which the government set out in meeting the unemployment situation, a contribution to assist provinces and municipalities in construction work. But, before the minister had got very far along in his description, he told us that the government had abandoned the policy of contributing money towards work of construction, and was now contributing money only or mainly for purposes of direct relief. As he proceeded farther, he came back once more to where certain departments of the federal government were carrying on works of their own and where public moneys were being spent for construction as a means of affording work. But he had not <iealt with that for more than a few moments when he began to speak of board camps where men were getting subsistence and a little cash, were being looked after by direct amounts out of the federal treasury not receiving wages but something in the nature of an allowance. Here the minister described the care of single homeless men by the federal government only, then the placement of unemployed families on lands, taking the unemployed away from the cities to the country, and repatriation schemes in which provinces and municipalities assisted. The point I wish to bring out is that one could not gather, in listening to the minister, any principle upon which the government has been proceeding in the matter of unemployment relief.
Let me illustrate further. The minister told us at one stage the Canadian Pacific railway shops had closed down and that the government had found it advisable to advance money to the Canadian Pacific to help the company to reopen its shops. I noticed in a newspaper of recent date that the Canadian Pacific Railway has been advancing money to railroads in the United States to help them in that country. I do not know whether they have been able to make advances to the roads in the United States allied to theirs, out of the advances this government has made to them, but it is perfectly plain that it is all part of the same scheme to help in the relief of unemployment.
The minister told us also that moneys had been paid to help meet the excess cost of shipment of Nova Scotia coal; something for bonuses upon wheat; some money had been paid out here and there on road projects and on bits of highways; something had been done in the parks and for landing stations and so on; but in no way have these different efforts been correlated. None of them is a part of a comprehensive correlated unified plan. He
2486	COMMONS
Relicj Act, 1933-Mr. Mackenzie King
has told us that at one time and in one place the basis on which the government had proceeded was what he called a three way contribution. Then at another time or place it was a two way or equal contribution, and then again it was a one way contribution. Apparently there has been no principle upon which to determine which method was to be the governing one. The minister spoke also of some of these moneys having gone to the provinces as contributions, as direct payments, some as loans, some as advances and some in the form of bonuses. Some of these advances or loans had been made to provinces, others to select commissions, others to farmers. Some had been repaid, some might be repaid, some might never l*e repaid, again, no underlying governing principle with respect to the way in which public funds were being loaned or spent. The minister spoke also of the construction of dykes, of flood prevention works, of airway landing fields and numerous other projects. All of these may have been worthy enough undertakings, but, presented as they were by the minister, they left on one's mind an impression that what the government has done has been done in a haphazard spasmodic sort of fashion, that it has dealt with one project in one province at one particular time and with another project in another province at another particular time. There has been no basis which would be applicable equally to the different provinces. Everything has depended very much upon fortuitous circumstances, and upon just what presure may have been brought to bear upon the administration from place to place and time to time.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is not fair; it was
dependent upon the need.


An hon. MEMBER:: Expediency.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am simply
giving the impression of the government's action which the minister's description has left upon my mind. If there ever was justification for believing that the policy urged by the opposition upon the administration at the outset was the right and only policy for dealing with the problem of unemployment relief, it will be found in what the minister has said to the house to-night. My hon. friend will recall that, when we met for the special session of 1930 which was called to deal with the question of unemployment, it was stated from this side of the house by myself as leader of my party that we felt that what should be done by the government in attempting to deal with the unemployment problem was to appoint a representative, nonpartisan commission which would take in
(Mr. Mackenzie King.]
hand the question of unemployment relief as a great national question and deal with it in much the same fashion as the government of the day dealt with the question of caring for the families of the men who went overseas during the period of the war. At the time of the great war there was created by legislation at the instance of the government of the day what was known as the national patriotic fund, the national executive of which had its headquarters here at Ottawa. This was a federal body which had to do with the expenditure of moneys for the purpose of caring for the families of the men who were overseas. The federal government, the governments of provinces, of municipalities, individual societies and individual citizens contributed to that fund; all the money went into a common chest, so to speak, and the work was supervised and the accounts were properly audited and checked so that there was no overlapping or waste. That was a federal government plan to administer what was to all intents and purposes a work similar to the unemployment relief of the present time. We urged in 1930 that a similar course should be taken by the government. Had it been taken, we would not to-night have had the kind of picture the minister has given of spasmodic and sporadic relief with no central or guiding principle, at best a picture of a chaotic situation. We would have been given a careful statement from the executive of this national body as to how the public moneys from all sources had been expended in an endeavour to meet this great problem of unemployment and in carrying out the administration of unemployment relief.
A body of the kind I have described would have had some basic principles upon which it would have proceeded. For example, it would have sought first of all to provide work wherever possible, rather than simply to give direct relief. It would have endeavoured to correlate the activities of all agencies interested in unemployment relief. My hon. friend will recall that we suggested that there should be, upon such a commission, or board, representatives not only of the federal and provincial governments and the municipalities, but also of the great railway systems, representatives of such prominent organizations as the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the National Council of Women, as well as representatives of the [DOT] manufacturers' association, agricultural societies, the trade unions and the chambers of commerce. All of these bodies are vitally interested in the matter of preventing as well as relieving unemployment, and some of their members have very special knowledge of what would be necessary in

Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Mackenzie King
connection with the work of an organization of this kind. Many of these organizations have attached to them experts who could advise upon the best methods of administering relief.
The minister stated this evening that, in connection with the western provinces, commissions had been formed composed of public spirited men and women who were carrying on the relief work. Cannot public spirited men and women be found in sufficient numbers to serve on a national commission? I think he said commissions had been appointed in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. These commissions have come into being quite recently. The government borrowed a doctor from the Canadian Pacific Railway, we were told, to help form the commissions. Had the plan suggested by the opposition at the outset been followed, there would have been one national commission under which could have been organized provincial commissions, not only in four provinces but in all provinces. These provincial commissions would have had under their direction bodies in the different municipalities which would have been responsible for the more immediate local organization. All agencies would have been knit together in one comprehensive, constructive and highly organized scheme of unemployment relief. The problem would have been tackled in a manner which would have avoided overlapping, and which would have resulted in the minister being able to present to parliament, not merely a story of the amounts of money that have been spent, but a very comprehensive story of what had been permanently achieved in the way of providing work, work of necessary construction of one kind and another. There would have been, too, a fund of information and knowledge, available for the present and future.
The policy of having a representative national committee is one which was urged by the opposition, not only at the outset, but one which has been urged each year and every session since. I still urge this policy upon the government. I think the government ought even yet to form such a commission. In his concluding remarks, the minister said that one of the things the government had discovered was that neither it nor the provinces nor the municipalities were organized for work of this kind; that is exactly what we said would be found. The minister added that little by little all had become more familiar with what was necessary and were now in better shape. I would suggest to the minister that he take out of these quasi-organized 53719-157
groups the best persons that can be found and bring them together on a national board which will have to do with the supervision of this vast expenditure of public moneys, and also for devising some comprehensive, correlated national scheme of unemployment relief. Let that board be responsible for submitting to this parliament a comprehensive statement of what is being done in Canada from coast to coast by all bodies having to do with relief; and what it recommends should be done; and let its recommendations be discussed in this parliament.
Unemployment to-day is worse than it has been at any time. At each session we have had our attention drawn to the fact that conditions, instead of getting any better, have been getting steadily worse and worse. They will continue to get worse unless the government adopts the most enlightened means possible to help to meet the situation. I repeat that there could be no stronger argument for a policy for the administration of relief such as we on this side have been urging right along than what we have just listened to from the minister himself.
I know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has said on more than one occasion that the provinces 'have to administer relief, that it is not for the federal government to do this work. I have replied to that by stating what is the fact, namely, that the federal government has the right to adopt any plan it pleases, and attach any condition it pleases, to the expenditure of its own moneys. I am not asking that the federal government should administer provincial or municipal relief, but I am asking that the federal government, when it takes from the pockets of the people millions of dollars in order to make a contribution out of their taxes for relief purposes, should at least assume the responsibility of supervising the entire scheme, particularly when unemployment has reached the proportions it has, and should, if at all possible, seek to make its plan of relief coherent as well as comprehensive.
The minister has drawn his picture of what the government is doing. When we come to view it closely, it will be found to be largely the story of the amounts of public money being expended. In its most important features that is about all that it coines to, an orgy of public expenditure. As a matter of fact the minister, in giving the facts to parliament, rather stressed the largeness of the sums of public money that were being paid out in different directions, as though simple largeness of amounts were wholly com-

2468	COMMONS
Relief Act, 1983-Mr. Mackenzie King
mendable. I submit it might be commendable where every dollar can be satisfactorily accounted for, and where there is no danger or evidence of overlapping. However, the kind of thing which happened at Sturgeon Falls, and which the minister did not include in his picture, although it has been featured most prominently in the press in the last few months, does not seem to me to be a justification for governments administering public funds without rigid and careful supervision. The picture the minister has given is one of increasing expenditures. There is, however, something more unfortunate than that.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It is not increasing; it is decreasing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, any decrease is due to the fact that the government has stopped certain construction work, and thereby lessened employment, in other words, increased unemployment.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The decrease my picture disclosed was the difference between 846,000,000 and less than $25,000,000, or a decrease of about fifty per cent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On public
works.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Not at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I draw attention to the fact that, in order to obtain a true picture of the situation, the figures given by the minister to-night must be studied in relation to the estimates placed upon the table of this house, as well as the estimates placed before different provincial bodies. Some estimates which ought to have been presented to parliament in the regular way under the estimates of the Department of Public Works, for example, and other departments, were not so presented, but moneys for the purpose of carrying on those works were spent out of the relief fund. Some works arc now being paid for out of departmental appropriations that were formerly paid for out of relief moneys, or are not being undertaken at all. Therefore, I say that to study the whole picture it is necessary to see what now appears and what has previously appeared in the public estimates as well as what appears in the minister's statement.
But the all-important question is: Have the numbers of unemployed lessened in this country, have the policies of the ministry been of a nature to lessen unemployment? In order that the picture may be complete with respect to what is really taking place, may I read to the house what the Prime Minister said on September 10, 1930, in re-

gard to the unemployment situation as it was then? That was shortly after the present government took office, and we were discussing the matter for the first time. The Prime Minister gave an estimate of the numbers of unemployed. I think my hon. friend the minister will agree that the Prime Minister did not minimize the numbers; he made them just as large as in the circumstances it was possible to do. This is what the Prime Minister said as reported at page 64 of Hansard of September 10, 1930:
It will be observed that the present number is something over 117,000 and it is believed that that number will approximate 177,000 during the winter. If the measures which we submit to this house are productive of the good which we anticipate, we hope that that number will steadily decrease, rather than increase, and that the maximum anticipated number of 177,000 will not be reached.
The Prime Minister said:
If the measures which we submit to the house are productive of the good which we anticipate.
Well, the ministry will hardly deny that they have had a perfectly free hand with respect to the measures which they wished to introduce; they have been allowed all the freedom which any ministry could possibly desire. What is the result? If we are to judge the fruits of their policies by the number of unemployed, the indictment against the government could hardly be stronger. What are the figures to-day? Are they 117,000? The minister has just given us a statement of the numbers that are receiving unemployment relief. He gave the figure as 1,357,262.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Not unemployed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, but the
numbers receiving relief. May I give the figures as to the number of unemployed as they have been given officially within the last month or two? A statement was given recently by the High Commissioner for Canada in London as to the number of unemployed in Canada. This statement was given out officially as representing the condition of unemployment in this country, and the figure given by the commissioner was that the total number of unemployed amounted to
800,000.	That was the official count of the unemployed, and is I believe what the minister himself will give if he is asked for the number at the present unemployed. But that does not take account of many others who are unemployed, as the minister's figures do not give the total of those who are actually receiving direct relief. These 800,000 are men known to the government who are ready and

Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Mackenzie King
willing to work but who to-day cannot get work. They have their families and others depending upon them. The minister says that, when you add the additional figures, the total amounts to a little over one and one-third million. But I venture to say that, if the whole story were told, one would find the number much larger than that, because there is an honest poverty which hides its head, as the minister well knows, and the last thing sensitive self-respecting people are willing to admit to anybody, let alone to a government official, is that they are in need of relief. Therefore, we may depend upon it that those figures are the lowest at which the ministry could possibly place them and give a statement at all.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is hardly fair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I add
further that these figures do not include the members of thousands of families on farms in this country who are trying to hold their own, but who, as a matter of fact, are running day after day more deeply into debt. If their circumstances were known, we would discover many of those even worse off than some who are altogether unemployed, because, working as hard as they can, they find to their great dismay that the burdens they are carrying in the form of mortgages, debts and the like, are only increasing month after month. I need not enlarge on the story; it is the saddest one in the record of our country, and everyone knows something of how serious the situation is. What I want to say to the minister is this, that knowing what I have said to be the case; knowing, for example, that in Toronto, as we have been told by the mayor of that city, one out of every five is on relief; knowing, as we have been told in this house this afternoon, that in this capital city one out of every six or seven is on relief in one way or another, that these instances are only typical, and that the situation as a whole at the present time is of the amazing proportions it is, does the minister think that the government is doing its duty by the country in leaving the whole administration of this great question in the hands of a single department presided over by a minister of the crown? I submit it is time the ministry realized that while there are some things they may be able to do, there are others they cannot do; that this question of unemployment has gone away beyond them, and that it is a duty which they owe to Canada to endeavour to surround themselves by experts who will be able to see that the situation is met in a way which will be more satisfactory than has been the case up to the present time.
What did the Prime Minister say as late as August, 1931, as to the policy which should govern? Speaking to the people of Canada, he did not hesitate to lay down a very definite policy. From Edmonton on August 26, 1931, he is reported in the Canadian press as follows:
"There will be work for all who desire it," Mr. Bennett stated, and deplored the tendency of some to expect the state to provide them with a living in idleness.
"It is the duty of every citizen to see that relief does not become dole, and that a dollar's worth of effort is received for every dollar spent," Mr. Bennett declared.
The ministry have completely repudiated that policy, if indeed they ever really held it. What my hon. friend is asking this house to do to-night is not to make provision for everyone to work, but to make provision for a still larger dole. That is the substance of the request he is making of this House of Commons to-night. There I say the ministry is quite wrong. The effort of the ministry should not be to encourage a system of doles, but to find work for those who are ready and willing to work.
The minister says that he does not know where to draw the line between the individual and the state. May I say that I think the place to draw the line is not so difficult to discover? Every man who is able to work should be willing to work. If he is not willing to work, he should not be entitled to consideration from any quarter. But, if a man is able and willing to work and cannot get work or find work, it seems to me that it is the state's business to endeavour to provide work for him and, if necessity demand it, to look after him until he does get work. Anything short of that signifies some mal-organization of the affairs of the state. You cannot admit for one minute that human society is fulfilling its obligations to its members if there are large numbers who are ready and willing to work and who are left to themselves to suffer when there is no work for them to do. It may not be possible to bring about the necessary change all at once. It may take time, but at least every effort should be made in that direction. The effort should not be in the direction of providing doles. It should be in the direction of seeking to provide work.
The statements in the minister's review were so given that I doubt if anyone could get very clearly in mind just what the total expenditures were amounting to, but may I give them as found in a statement by the ministry upon another occasion? The Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) laid on the table of the house a few days ago a return in which was set forth the total moneys which had been
2470	COMMONS
Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Mackenzie King
paid out in direct relief and in unemployment schemes by the federal government since August 7, 1930. The total of the figures there given is $71,316,596. Those are moneys which have been spent out of the federal treasury once and for all. But they are only a part of the money which the federal treasury has paid out, because the minister himself has given a statement in which he said that, in addition to moneys which have gone on direct relief and on certain unemployment schemes, the government has been advancing money to the provinces, some of which possibly will be repaid but some of which may never be repaid. Paid or repaid it will all come out of the pockets of the people in the form of taxes. Speaking in this house on November 25 last-I go back as far as that because it is the last quotation I have from the minister; if he has anything further to give I shall be glad to get it-he gave the house the following:
In the four western provinces, either by way of direct non-recoverable advances or in recoverable loans, the Dominion government has supplied the sum of $73,844,130.98.
For all of Canada this government has provided the sum of $115,631,733.80 up to date for the purpose of tiding the provinces, the municipalities and the people generally over this trying period.
One hundred and fifteen millions-and it will be considerably more than that at the present time; $115,000,000 is what this government had paid out to November last- $115,000,000 in less than two and a half years. And that does not include what the provinces and municipalities have paid out in addition. I wonder if hon. members have any appreciation of what that amount of money is in relation to the administration of the affairs of Canada as a whole. Prior to the year of the great war, the total expenditures of Canada out of consolidated account never 'equalled the amount of S115,000,000. In the fiscal year 1912-13, the total expenditure for the administration of all the affairs of Canada did not reach $113,000,000, that was much the largest total expenditure of any year up to that time, and yet this government in a little over two years has spent out on account of unemployment relief alone over $115,000.000. And the amount up to the present is very much larger.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That includes loans to
provinces.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but the
minister says that many of them are not recoverable, and all of them relate to the general financial situation throughout Canada.
The point I wish to draw attention to is

this, that all of that money has been obtained from this House of Commons by the ministry of the day, not as a result of estimates brought to parliament where the different projects on which it was proposed to expend public money could be carefully scrutinized, and where the entire scheme of expenditures could be reviewed by members coming from all parts of Canada with a view to seeing whether the proposed expenditures were justifiable or not, but, with the exception of the $20,000,000 which was appropriated in the first session of this parliament, all of this money has been obtained by blank cheque. In the first session, the ministry asked $20,000,000 from parliament to do with as they pleased in the matter of unemployment relief. They got that $20,000,000. The next session they came to parliament and asked, not for $20,000,000 or $50,000,00 or $100,000,000, or for an amount they were prepared to name, but for the right to spend by order in council whatever they wished to spend. From that time on, this parliament has been completely ignored, although the expenditures -which the ministry has made out of the blank cheques they have secured have in a little over two years been the equivalent of the total expenditures of Canada in the year immediately preceding the great war. I say, Mr. Speaker, that that brings home, as perhaps nothing else could, the force of the argument which was urged so strenuously from this side of the house, that, in dealing with these great questions of public expenditure, no parliament, which cares a whit for the well-being of the people and for the taxation which the people are called upon to bear, can afford to part with its control over public expenditure; for, in SO' doing, it is parting with the control of parliament over taxation, which is parliament's supreme duty.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have compelled this House of Commons to surrender its right to control the expenditure of that vast sum of money, have compelled it, in fact, by use of the closure, and all that we have as a result is the picture, so called, which the minister has given us of the situation to-night. I say to the minister and to [DOT] the government that they have in the most shameful way taken advantage of the very critical situation in this country to-day, to deprive parliament of its rights and of its duties and of its responsibilities. They have taken away the rights and responsibility of parliament, by taking unto themselves autocratic powers in dealing with public funds just in the way that most pleases themselves. I think the time has come again to call a halt to that sort

Relief Act, 1033-Mr. Mackenzie King
of thing. The minister to-night is asking us to do what? He asks us to repeat for another year this same method of dealing with the expenditure of public moneys. He asks us again, in the measure he is introducing, to give to the government the right to make for this next year whatever expenditures they please in as many directions as they please so long as they are prepared to allege that the expenditures are for the purposes of unemployment relief. They are unwilling to give to parliament in advance any detailed statement of the objects on which the moneys are to be spent, or to permit us to exercise the same control over expenditures for unemployment relief purposes as we continue to exercise in regard to all other expenditures out of the public treasury. I say that that is wrong, and that in the face of a statement such as has been given by the minister tonight, which discloses the colossal amounts these expenditures have reached, the ministry cannot expect those of us who wish to see parliament exercise the control which it should exercise over the expenditure of public moneys, support any measure which gives to them that blank cheque power for another year.
It may be that the ministry have no other policy, and that they will insist on having their way, but I tell them that they are digging their own graves in proceeding in that fashion because they are destroying what is fundamental in the control of public expenditures, and in the carrying on of responsible government in this country. I am not going to repeat the arguments I have made in previous years. They have been presented so often and so forcibly that hon. members must know them by heart.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say that, if the " hear, hears " mean, as I assume they do, that what I am saying is perfectly true, they wordd seem to indicate how completely oblivious of their obligations to the people generally, and to the public welfare, hon. gentlemen opposite have become.
The measure the minister is introducing is but an effort on the part of the ministry to obtain another blank cheque from which to make expenditures in largest part for the purpose of the dole, and not for the purpose of providing work for the unemployed. The resolution before us is much broader than appears from its wording. In reality the measure asks us to give to the ministry power to make whatever agreements they please
with the provinces. We are being asked to give that power without, in the first instance, having the agreements submitted to the house, and without knowing what their provisions contain. Then, it asks further that the ministry shall be free to use moneys as they please in connection with the national parks; in connection with the stricken areas of the different provinces; in defraying costs of the sale and distribution and production of the products of the field, farm, forest, sea, river and mine, and that the ministry shall be free to lend money to any province on such terms as may be agreed upon; to guarantee the repayment of moneys borrowed by such provinces; to assist any province in any way that may be deemed necessary or advisable in order to provide for the relief of distress and the support and maintenance of those requiring assistance; and to lend money to and guarantee the payment of money by any public corporation or undertaking. The minister has not told us very much to-night concerning the moneys spent to assist corporations. I hope however that, when we reach the committee stage on the bill, he will give us that information. I suggest to the minister that, when we reach the committee stage, he should have his deputies here, so that it will not be necessary for him to say that he will give us the information to-morrow or at some other time. We shall want full information before the bill is proceeded with. The minister has given us certain information, but he has not given us all we want. We should like to have full particulars.
I wish now to touch upon one other feature. The minister has made no allusion to any permanent measure to deal with future unemployment. The ministry has no policy *with respect to unemployment as a national problem. Last session we were led to believe that the government might have something to offer by way of a policy of unemployment insurance. We have not had a word to-night from the minister concerning such a policy. For several days the following question has been standing on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill):
Will the government be in a position at this session to bring down legislation dealing with unemployment insurance as referred to by the right honourable the premier, in debate in this house on November 22 last?
The government have not seen fit to answer that question. It was asked some time ago in the hope, I assume, we might have had the informaition when we came to d'isouss the resolution now before us. The fact that no

Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Mackenzie King
answer has been given makes it clear that the government has no policy in respect of unemployment insurance. If current rumour is true-and I think in this respect it is true- when the last dominion-provincial conference was held the government, which had announced to parliament in the early portion of the present session that it would discuss unemployment problems with the provinces, did not place before the provinces any proposals in that regard. I understand they asked the provinces to state their views, although they had called the provinces together among other things for the purpose of laying before them- at least, so we were led to believe-something in the nature of a national scheme of unemployment insurance. If I am misinformed in this connection, I hope the minister will correct me, because I think this House of Commons ought to know whether the government of the day made any proposal at the dominion-provincial conference, and1, if so, what the proposal was. Hon. members are entitled to have that information.
Dealing with the question of unemployment, there are two natural main divisions, one which concerns temporary unemployment due to an emergent situation, and measures necessary to meet it, and the other which concerns unemployment as am inevitable incident of industry and the permanent measures essential to meet a situation which unavoidably arises in connection with modem industrial organization. With respect to the first, the present government's policy is that of the dole, and, with respect to the second, they have no policy at all. Such policies as they have with respect to trade and the like, their fiscal policies, are all of a nature to strangle trade instead of encouraging it, and more than anything else are responsible for unemployment in Canada reaching the proportions it has to-day.
In the remarks I read a few moments ago, the Prime Minister said that, by its policies, the government hoped to reduce the number of unemployed. If we are to test their policies by the numbers of unemployed we have to-day we must see how completely those policies have failed. I believe we cannot hope for much improvement, because the government's policies up to the moment have had the effect, and unless changed will continue to have the effect, of making trade more and more difficult, not only externally but internally.
I wish to repeat that unemployment, in my opinion, is Canada's most urgent national problem; that as a temporary measure to deal with the present emergent conditions the government should immediately adopt the policy of appointing a representative
[Mr. Mackenzie TCinc.l
national commission which will have power to supervise all expenditures of money voted by this parliament for relief purposes, and which would cooperate with the provinces and municipalities in the administration of unemployment relief, and in an endeavour to provide work for the unemployed. It should do all that could be expected of a body of that nature to coordinate the efforts of all agencies, and to provide parliament with information which will be of service to it in meeting future similar situations. In his statement to-night, the minister has said nothing about plans for dealing with similar problems at another time. If there had been a national commission working during the last two and a half years, it would long ere this have been familiar with the situation from coast to coast in all its phases, and this parliament to-night, instead of looking at a picture which it is impossible to describe, would be debating concrete measures based on recommendations made by a competent body. To meet the very emergent and grave situation which exists I say the government ought still to appoint such a body, and appoint it immediately.
Then, as a permanent measure, I think the government ought immediately to announce to parliament its intention of introducing a national system of unemployment insurance. I say to hon. gentlemen opposite that a national system of unemployment insurance is the policy which the Liberal party in Canada stands for, and the policy which we intend to put into effect if at any time in the future we are again entrusted with office. We would precede that policy by policies which will serve to provide employment by reviving industry and trade. Should unemployment continue to be as it has been in the past, or is at the present, we would deal with such a situation through a representative national commission through which we would seek a mobilization of all the forces and agencies which it would be possible to bring into cooperation to provide work for the unemployed in as many directions as possible by direct employment on the part of employers, and as the result of such assistance as might be necessary on the part of municipal, provincial and federal bodies.
Again may I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the necessity of the government exercising more in the way of supervision over moneys which are voted for unemployment relief, and of this House of Commons being given the right which parliament should have, and which has been taken from it, of controlling all expenditure on unemployment

Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Woodsworth
relief account as well as on all other accounts before other millions of dollars are spent in the fashion in which the millions for unemployment relief on blank cheque account have already been spent.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I find myself very
largely in agreement with the position taken by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). There is one point that I wish to emphasize particularly, and that is the lack of any plan in the statement which the minister has made. We are asked to allow things to continue to drift just as they have been drifting in the past, simply meeting emergencies as they arise; there is no attempt to set forth any comprehensive scheme either for dealing with the unemployment that now exists or for lessening its volume. The volume of unemployment is beyond what any of us could conceive a very few years ago. The minister puts the number of unemployed under relief as 1,357,000.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, I do not put the unemployed at that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Those receiving unemployment relief.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, if I may interrupt;
the number receiving relief from infants to old age-not unemployed. When you bring that term in it puts a different complexion on it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, those receiving relief. That means 13.5 per cent of our entire population, or 135 out of every 1,000. And I do not think that includes the relief given to pensioners, which is a very large amount and ought in all fairness to be given if we are to have a comprehensive picture of the situation. Large numbers of our pensioners are in receipt of relief. And may I point out that in a good many places there is quite a conflict of authority between the municipal authorities and the federal government with regard to the administration of this kind of relief. In some cases clothing is given, in others clothing is not given or not given in adequate amounts. In some cases fuel is given by the federal government, in some cases it is not given in adequate amounts. There is the case of children over sixteen, I think it is, who are living with their parents; no provision whatever is made by the federal government for those over-age children of pensioners receiving relief. My own city is so overburdened that it refuses to recognize them if they are living with their parents, so that there are large numbers in this category
about which we have heard nothing to-night, who yet are in great distress. Then again very many are being assisted by private charity. In some provinces this rolls up to an enormous number. In addition we have those in private homes-large numbers of our young people who have never yet had a job, have had no opportunity of obtaining employment, but are simply living with their parents. In some cases these are young people who have married, and, unable to maintain their own homes, have come back and are living with their parents. We would have to add a very large number in order to get the real total.
Then again nothing has been said about the large numbers whom we have confessed ourselves unable to keep and have deported. People have been deported by the hundreds, by the thousands, for no other reason than that they had become public charges, were not able to make a living under the present circumstances; people who had been induced to come here from other countries and then when the depression came upon us found themselves, like so many Canadians, unable to make a living. I am not blaming the federal government entirely for their deportation, although it is officially responsible, but I would point out that the municipalities have very often found themselves heavily burdened in keeping these people and have urged their deportation. But we should take this very large class into consideration. We spent millions of dollars in inducing them to come here, and now we are doing ourselves millions of dollars of harm in deporting them to other countries, trying to get rid of the responsibility that really is ours. And if you are to give any real indication of the far reaching result of unemployment I think you will have to add a considerable number of those who to-day are in our goals and penitentiaries. Undoubtedly the crime wave has risen with increasing unemployment; people have not been able to withstand the temptation to steal or to get into some other kind of trouble, and so to-day are making it necessary for us to enlarge our gaols and penitentiaries. The number thus on relief is simply enormous. The problem is no doubt one of the greatest problems that faces Canada.
It may be thought by some that there is a little improvement, since the minister is telling us that the costs are being reduced. I suppose almost anything that will lighten the load of the taxpayer is a good thing, but we have to ask, how are these costs being reduced? The minister suggests that it is
2474	COMMONS
Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Woodsworth
done partly by more efficient organization. So far so good. But I suggest that in a very great number of cases it is being brought about by reducing the schedules of relief. Case after case comes to me, as I have no doubt they do to other members, of complaints along this line. As a matter of fact, instead of the scales of relief being reduced they should be increased in these times; because two or three years ago almost every family had stocks of bedding and clothing and household utensils. Now these have been very largely depleted, and there is no way of renewing them; the ordinary scale of relief in most of our cities and throughout most of the provinces does not cover the items of this kind.
I think I am not going out of my way when I compare these reductions with other public expenditures. We are not reducing the interest on our bonded indebtedness; we are trying to pay that one hundred per cent, but we are cutting down the amounts being paid in relief, and we are forcing the poorest of the poor to bear the dead weight of the depression. It is not fair to that very large group of our citizens.
Another statement of the minister I confess rather perturbs me. Speaking of the management of some of these camps, he says that the real value of the work will equal or exceed the cost. I cannot think that that is just the right principle. As a taxpayer I am undoubtedly concerned in keeping the costs as low as possible. On the other hand I do not believe it is fair for us to take advantage of the hard times to force people to work at a ridiculously low rate and then have the whole community benefit by it. The minister was not able to tell me the amounts received by each individual man; the amounts he gave were those paid to the individual plus the cost of materials used. Even those figures are not large. But I would point out that the ordinary working man under relief is getting a very small amount in these camps.
I think it is five dollars a month in most camps.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In the airways it is 20
cents a day, plus shelter, clothing, food and all the necessities of life.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is a little
higher than it is in the other camps. I think in some of the construction camps it is $5 a month.


Peter Heenan: Ten dollars.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In some cases there is an arrangement that when no clothing is included an allowance shall be made.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: 
James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes; and if he receives $5 he is supplied with clothing. But whether it is $5 with clothing or $10 without clothing it is a ridiculously small sum for men to receive even if they are on relief, and I do not like the idea of our exploiting these men and engaging them in these works at rates below the real value of their work to the community.
Some good work has been done, according to the report, in placing men on farms, but the number so placed is comparatively small and the alleviation of the problem in this respect is more or less temporary. I cannot think that it is any real solution or points the way to any real or general solution of the problem. As to the landing fields, I am not quite sure just when the policy of having landing fields across this country was decided upon. That is a policy that should come before parliament; for undoubtedly it looks in the direction of a new method of preparation for war in the years to come. Further than that, I want to protest against putting these men under anything like military' discipline, even though it may be true that they are not drilled.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: So that the hon. member will not suffer so much, I would ask him to go to the Rockcliffe air field and see the conditions under which the men are working there. If he does, his mind will be disabused of any idea that preparations are being made for war.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I may be permitted to maintain my own opinions with regard to the reasons why the air service has been so bonused in the past. W7ith regard to this matter there are certain sources of information that are open to almost all members and we all know something of the ideals which have been put forward by certain men in imperial councils with regard to the necessity of steadily maintaining an air force in case of contingency; and I would simply express my own belief that that is one step towards the general scheme of making more adequate preparation along that line for any war that might come in the future.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Ask the
hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth what he thinks about that.
Mr. WOODSWrORTH: I am not concerned with his opinion.


Mr. GOTT:: Why is the hon. gentleman always thinking about war?

Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Woodsworth


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not like the fact that these men are placed under military discipline.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: They are not under military discipline.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. gentleman has more misinformation to the square mile than any man in Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not suggest that the men are under drill but I do suggest, from the minister's own statement, that they are under the control of military officials and that one of the reasons for this is in order that discipline shall be maintained.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is not what I said at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Law and order-you don't believe in that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I don't-


Richard Burpee Hanson: That's
right; I agree with you.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Let me finish. I
believe that the fact that civilians are in distress is no reason for either forcing them or inducing them to come under anything like military control.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I made it very clear that there was no compulsion whatever with respect to these men, and I do again extend an invitation to the hon. member to go to any one of the airways camps, visit the men there and see for himself, and he will not feel so badly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is clear from
the minister's statement that this particular relief work is under the Department of National Defence, that officers are in charge, and that these men come under certain discipline while in camp.


Mr. BURY:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Don't
make so many misstatements.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Suppose the military authorities in a certain camp employed direct relief labour to put a road through their camp. Would the hon. gentleman suggest that the workmen on the road were under military discipline in the sense that he implies?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. gentleman may decide that question for himself.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I am asking you to decide it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not deciding it. I am criticizing an arrangement of the minister.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: An honest argument would
force you to.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Don't be so solicitous of him over there. Peace, order and good government-he doesn't know the first thing about it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If this is what we call parliamentary decorum then, even for a Friday evening, it is not such as is usually regarded by the public as very desirable.


Mr. MORAND:: It shows the value of
discipline.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister has
suggested that costs are being reduced. May 1 point out that although that may be a saving immediately to the Dominion government it is not a solution of the problem of unemployment. There is no doubt whatever that a good many of our provinces are on the verge of bankruptcy. According to the statement made to-day my own province of Manitoba has not been keeping up its share of relief, and that has meant in a good many municipalities a very great deal of distress. It is only within the last few days that the city of Vancouver has been compelled to make the most rigid retrenchments, and that again has reflected itself in the treatment which is being accorded the unemployed in that city. I have had within the last few days from almost every part of Canada communications that indicate that there is still a very great deal of distress, notwithstanding the enormous amounts that are to-day being spent on relief. Let me go to the far east. Only within the last day or two I received a communication from the united steel workers' organization of Sydney, Nova Scotia, in which information is given that in a city of 23,000 over 2,000 families are on relief and about 200 single men, that the steel plant is entirely closed down and that the relief given in Sydney is as follows:	A man or woman $1
a week; a family of two, S2; a family of three and four, $3; a family of five, $4; a family of six and seven, $5; a family of eight and nine, SO; a family of over nine, S7. These are the rates per week. It is further stated that the single men and women, besides being asked to live on one dollar a week, are forced to submit to the indignity of being compelled to carry this dollar's worth of groceries in a bag on their backs from the relief station through the streets to their homes.
2476	COMMONS
Relief .Act, 1933-Mr. Woodsworth


Richard Burpee Hanson: They
should have free delivery.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. gentleman may make light of this kind of thing but-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Didn't you ever carry your groceries home? I have lots of times.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Some men may
make light of the whole performance-


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Stick to the argument;
don't broaden your base.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In some cases, it
is said, old men up to seventy-eight years of age are compelled to work for their relief and numerous cases have come under notice where men are compelled to work in cold weather without underwear or socks.


Eccles James Gott: They should be drawing old
age pensions if they are over seventy.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The communication goes on to say that in some cases men in advanced stages of tuberculosis are being denied medical treatment and are being forced to work for their relief. I quote:
Everyone in receipt of relief is compelled to work for the city at thirty-five cents an hour until the amount of their relief is worked out. The only necessities that are supplied on these relief orders are groceries and fuel and the amount of coal that is allowed for a family-
The communication continues:
There has been no provision made whatever for the supplying of clothing, shoes, medicine, medical services, bedclothing, et cetera, and although we have continually pressed for these things to the city authorities, we have been told by them that the money allocated for relief by the government could not be used for the purchase of these things.
This organization made a partial survey of the district and the following conditions were found in connection with the first 209 families visited:
Total number receiving relief.. ..	1,260
Children going to school	 280
Children kept from school for lack of
clothing	 100
Number in these homes badly in
need of clothing	 207
Number of families badly in need
of bedclothes	 188
Total amount of relief received by the above 209 families per week. $832 Average per family, per	week....	3	84Average per person, per week....	0	66Average per person, per	meal....	0	31
I do not know whether some of the hon. gentlemen who laugh and talk have ever 
lived on three and one-seventh cents per meal. The letter continues:
At the last meeting of the city council held on February 16, the council decided to suspend all relief work for the month of March.


Edward James Young: Who makes that report?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It was sent to me
by the united steelworkers' organization of Sydney, Nova Scotia.
Mr. HANSON York-Sunbury):	Have you
verified it?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No.
Mr. HANSON York-Sunbury):	But you
put it out as the gospel truth.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is signed by M. A. MacKenzie, president, and Joseph Murphy, secretary.


An hon. MEMBER:: Did you write and
ask for it?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I did not write and ask for it. Are there any more questions?
May I suggest that to a greater or lesser degree this is the position in which thousands of our fellow citizens find themselves to-day. Just before I left my own city to come to Ottawa I was asked to go down to the medical arts building to meet some of the doctors of the city who wished to emphasize the necessity of medical attention being given as a part of relief. There is no doubt that the medical men are giving an immense amount of free service; that is perhaps their duty and responsibility at this time, but this thing has increased to such a volume that it is now utterly impossible for them to cope with it. Many of the younger doctors are simply swamped with this kind of practice. We have admitted the necessity of giving to the people in distress a certain amount of food, elothing, fuel and shelter; it seems to me that it is necessary that we should go a little further and admit frankly the necessity of medical service.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Medical service is given in the province of Ontario.


Richard Burpee Hanson: My city gives medical service.


Mr. MacMILLAN:: It is given in Saskatchewan.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is given free in my city.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: While an hon. member is still on his feet I do not think it is in order for hon. members to interrupt him,

Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Woodsworlh
Mr. W00 DSW0RTII:	Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The hon. member is making an absolute misstatement when he says that the sick are not getting relief.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I did not make that statement.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The province of
Ontario is taking care of every person who is suffering.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I made no such statement as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) is suggesting.
I am trying to say that the need for free medical attention is becoming so great that it is getting beyond the capacity of our local agencies. I am urging that it should be recognized as being just as much a charge as food, clothing, fuel or shelter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not recognized by the Dominion government. This government gives approximately one-third of the cost of food, clothing and shelter, but makes no provision whatever for medical services. It may be that in the constituencies represented by some hon. members there is so little poverty that the local people are able to take care of it, but I know that in my own city such is not the case. We are more or less the distributing centre for the whole west and we have been very hard hit by this depression. Under the circumstances we have possibly an exceptional load to carry. I know of only one other city that is in anything like a similar position, that is the city of Vancouver. In these cities it is becoming next to impossible for the local agencies to carry the whole burden, and the point I am trying to make is that the Dominion government should assume a share of this kind of relief. As long as relief was thought to be a temporary matter, as long as it was hoped that prosperity was around the corner, the people could endure things for a little while and in some cases defer medical attention for a few weeks or months, but the situation has extended to such a length as to become very serious.
There is another question which has not been touched, the young people of this country. I am told that something like 100,000 young people are leaving our public and high schools and colleges each year to enlter the industrial field. Very few can1 be absorbed, and it seems to me that if there is to be no general scheme under which unemployment may be lessened, then the least we can do is to adopt some plan such as we had during the war and provide for the continued education of these people. We should arrange for their attendance at night schools, at manual training schools, and so on, so that they will not be forced to drift on the streets. There are some here who will say that education is purely a provincial matter; others may say that in their localities the schools are looking after these young people. That may be, but I submit that right across this country there are many localities in which the schools are not able to take care of even their regular work, much less provide for the young people who have no opportunity of employment. I place this matter before the house not as a question of regular education which must be carried on but as a relief measure which should be adopted immediately so that instead of our boys becoming bandits, as we were told the other day was the case by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), and being forced into the penitentiaries, we could either provide them with steady work or make special provisions so that they may be saved from a life of complete idleness and possible criminality.
I should like to take exception to the closing words of the minister. He suggested that we must not rely too much upon the state, that the unemployed should take advantage of the opportunities open to them. Everyone will admit that people should take advantage of the opportunities open to them, but the fact is that hundreds of thousands of these people have no opportunities open to them. There is no doubt of that, there are no opportunities open. It is almost adding insult to injury to lecture these people and suggest to them that if they only had a little more initiative they would get out and find work.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I think I have a right


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-


Wesley Ashton Gordon: -to deny ever having said what the hon. gentleman has just stated I did say. I never lectured anybody.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Make him withdraw.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have nothing to
withdraw.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not care whether the
hon. member withdraws the statement or not; I never said it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister said
that we must not rely too much on the state, but that people should take advantage of the opportunities op<m to them.
2478	COMMONS
Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Woodsworth


Wesley Ashton Gordon: But I did not say what
the hon. member added to that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not suggesting that the minister did. But what I do suggest is this, that there are hundreds of thousands who to-day have no opportunity to get work. I repeat:	It strikes me as
almost adding insult to injury when the minister proceeds to give vent to some pious phrases about its being too bad that people rely too much upon the state, the implication being that they would not thus develop their own private initiative.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Haywire.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Somebody says
"haywire," and others say: "Do not let him get away with that sort of thing." I want to give some more " haywire " given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) at Calgary on June 12, 1930, nearly three years ago. At that time the right hon. gentleman, who is now Prime Minister and who was then seeking to become one, said:
This is a new country, and there is no excuse for unemployment in Canada if a government does it duty.
That is haywire now; it is haywire when it is uttered by a private member of the opposition, but I do not know whether it was haywire when it was given in Calgary by a gentleman who was seeking to attain office. I am inclined to think it is true that:
This is a new country, and there is no excuse for unemployment in Canada if a government does its duty.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: How about other countries?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Never mind other
countries; I shall come to that presently. The Prime Minister came to that. He went on to say:
Law and order must be maintained. Men and women must not starve. Mothers must have clothes.
There are thousands of them who have not.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is not correct.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is correct.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, it is not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Prime Minister continues:
Children cannot be subjected to the rigours of this climate unless properly cared for.
Voice: "Thousands are starving now."
Mr. Bennett: I am sorry to hear any are starving, sorrier than I can tell. I am not for a single moment endeavouring to make political capital out of it, but I am bound as a public man who may have to accept great responsi-

bilities with respect to government to say to the people of Canada that this is a blot worthy of the condemnation of any government responsible for it. and, men and women, I propose to remedy this.
Further on he said:
I realize that this country is now living in the month of June (1930) -
That is almost three years ago, may I interject.
-and unemployment in every part of the country is not decreasing as it should.
Is it decreasing to-day? It is increasing steadily.
There are men and women without food in Canada-
The Prime Minister said that. Haywire again 1
There are men and women without food in Canada to properly sustain life and someone says it is just as bad in some other country.
An hon. gentleman across the floor suggested another country. The Prime Minister said this, and may I adopt his words:
My duty is to my native land, this dominion.
It is always a favourite practice to try to draw a red herring across the trail by referring to some other country. The present Prime Minister in those days refused to be diverted, and quite rightly so. He said:
My duty is to my native land, this dominion.
Even if there are people starving in China-


An hon. MEMBER:: Russia.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -in Russia, as there are, in Italy ; even if they are starving over there, does that make it any easier for our people in Canada who are on the verge of starvation? I continue to quote the present Prime Minister:
They say the problem is a problem of the city, let the city look after it. Another says it is the province, and let the province look after them, and someone is saying the federal power should look after them, and I confess to you that this problem has given me more concern than any other single matter engaging my attention during the last few years. After ali, no man who has a heart can see the mothers and children without clothes or food without emotion, however hardhearted he may be. What are we going to do about it? . . .
I say to you, my fellow citizens, my fellow Canadians, speaking to the larger audience, I am convinced this problem has now ceased to be local and provincial and has become national in its importance.
If it were national in its importance three years ago, it is still the same. It is appalling that year after year we continue to squabble about whether jurisdiction belongs to a provincial government or to a federal government, whether it is a municipal or a provincial

Relief Act, 1033-Mr. Bradette
responsibility, and quarrel as to whether clothing should be provided by the city or the provincial authorities, or whether, perchance, it should come from the dominion, while all this time thousands of people are suffering physically, mentally and through moral degeneration because of their anxiety and the dislocation in their lives which has come in this way. This is what the Prime Minister goes on to say-


An hon. MEMBER:: From what is the hon gentleman reading?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am reading from a report of a speech given by the present Prime Minister in Calgary on June 12, 1930. He says:
I propose that parliament shall formulate a definite plan for permanent relief, and that parliament, as representing the people, shall deal with this national problem and provide amelioration for the condition in order that next winter the Canadian people may not be facing the crisis that is upon us without having a remedy at hand.
That I propose to do. I have delayed saying that until I have come to my own city, amongst my own people of this western country, and the western country applies equally to the east as to the west. This dominion must deal with the problem that, is no longer local or provincial, but affects the life of the men and women of Canada and affects the civilization of this country.
I do not think I need add very much to that. The Prime Minister in his speech nearly three years ago laid down some general principles that are as applicable to-day as they were in 1930. It seems to me that it is the responsibility of the government to put those principles into practice.
I have nothing whatever to say in adverse criticism of many of the details as presented by the minister to-night, but I believe he should bring down to the house some very definite plan of relieving the distress of the people in a much more adequate way than it is being done to-day, and further, the government should not delay even beyond this session in providing some sort of plan which would prevent a great deal of the unemployment that is now affecting this jo untry.
May I add just a word? As far as I see the situation, I doubt very much whether under the system that exists this is possible. I do not want to put up to the government an impossible proposition, but they have again and again said: It is quite possible that we may have prosperity under this system. Then it is their duty to see that the prosperity is worked out. They have taken the ground that there is something temporarily
wrong with this system; that if they are given the opportunity they can arrange that t.he men, women and children have a decent opportunity in Canada. Then I say: Here is their opportunity; either they have to make good under this system and provide at least food, clothing and shelter adequate for the maintenance of a decent standard of living on the part of the people of this country, or they must recognize the fact that their system is failing under their very eyes.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this is the
time and the place to make some remarks on the general principles of the bill which we are now being asked to extend, and also to mention some facts bearing on the situation nationally or locally as viewed by a representative of this house.
When I spoke on this measure last year I said then that I was under the impression that it was simply a palliative measure and that it would not long remain the law in this country. I am therefore disappointed that this house is now being asked to renew the provisions of this bill for another year. This measure is not a very popular one so far as northern Ontario is concerned. In my section of the country the people want work, not charity or doles. They are out-and-out Canadians willing and able to work, and all they want is the chance.
The minister at the end of his remarks mentioned, rightly or wrongly, that one year's experience of direct relief administration had proven that it was the more economical method. Personally I believe in the principle of unemployment relief which this parliament inaugurated two years ago, of providing public works, the building of roads and so forth, as much the better plan, because it is work the people want. The minister also said that direct relief is now being administered more' economically than when it was first inaugurated. However, I believe, and I think the majority of the people of northern Ontario believe, in the principle of providing work for the unemployed through the undertaking of public works throughout the length and breadth of this country. The present system does not go to the root of the trouble. Our settlers and miners and working men in northern Ontario do not want to become mendicants. They do not want to have to go before some organization, municipal, provincial or national, and beg for a subsistence. It is contrary to the Canadian spirit and to the British spirit. No true Canadian wants to do that.

Relief Act, 1033-Mr. Bradette
I want to be fair in this discussion, just as the minister was fair this afternoon. The higher officials in my section of the country have tried to be fair, and I believe they are fair, but no doubt anomalies and injustices have resulted from some of the actions of the minor officials, which are understandable when one realizes the magnitude and complexity of the task performed. On the other hand, I could mention many instances where I believe the federal and provincial officials in our section of the country tried to be absolutely fair to all sections of the population.
Nevertheless last year I was greatly astonished when I read in the Kapuskasing Tribune this report under the heading. "Hands out $10,000":
C. K. Harrison, M.L.A. for Nipissing, this week completed a tour of the eastern part of the riding during which he distributed colonization grants totalling $10,000 to the settlers. His travels took him to Madawaska and Whitney and the townships of Cameron, Boulter, Lauder and East Ferris.
Mr. Harrison found considerable hardship in the Madawaska and Whitney sections due to a lack of employment, but noted that the settlers are courageous and optimistic.
That statement has never been denied; I do not believe it was ever denied by Mr. Harrison or by any newspaper. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that no provincial or federal member has the right to hand out public moneys for relief work. Why did Mr. Harrison have $10,000 to distribute in his own section? I do not know, but I do know that he had no right whatever, nor had any other member, to have the distribution of even a red cent of public funds in his own riding. I am just as much opposed to Mr. Harrison doing that as I would be opposed to any other member of the local house or of this parliament. We have the officials and the proper machinery for the distribution of these funds, and no member should have the right to handle them at all.
I wish to quote from an editorial in the Northland Post of Cochrane, a weekly paper absolutely independent in politics. It is headed, " Direct Relief as a Political Weapon," and reads:
Of the many undesirable features of the direct relief plan, not the least obnoxious is its political aspect. It is not hard to envision party workers in the next election going about the country telling those who are on direct relief that unless the government is retured to power their relief will be cut off. The Porcupine Advance hints at this angle to the matter, when it says: "The only people among the ordinary citizens of Canada who are not bitterly opposed to direct relief are some politicians and communists." A clear indication of how it works out was given by the Hearst local

of the N.O.S.A. recently, when the district locals were circularized in regard to direct relief versus the land clearing bonus. The president of the Hearst local would not put the matter to a vote, fearing that if he did so and the local voted in favour of the bonus, the direct relief now being received, would be cut off. In our columns last week we published the result of this circularizing which shows that a predominating majority of the settlers of this section favour the land clearing bonus in place of either road work or direct relief. The settlers quite evidently wish to be independent and should be given the opportunity through the bonus system.
It is not only in the north, however, that the direct^ relief system lends itself to political usage. Wherever men are directly dependent upon the government for sustenance, there will be undue pressure brought to bear at election time. And If there is anyone artless enough to think that politicians will forbear to take advantage of the situation, they do not know politics!
The practice of direct relief is wholly detestable, from whatever angle one may view it, and while it may be justifiable and necessary as a temporary expedient, as a solution of the unemployed problem it is a costly and burdensome failure. As the Advance has often remarked, there is only one solution of the unemployed problem and that is employment.
That is the consensus of opinion in every section of the country that I visited last year.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Can the hon. member give me any instance in northern Ontario where relief has either been given or denied because of the person's political persuasion?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I believe that question was answered a moment ago when I read the press dispatch.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am speaking of any
incident within the hon. member's own knowledge. He is a member of a large riding in northern Ontario, and knows something of the district.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Surely the hon. minister should distinguish between direct activities and the moral of the thing. I have already quoted to the house an article in which it was stated that a member of the provincial house in Ontario had the actual distribution of the sum of $10,000 in the riding of Nipissing. I have also said that as far as I knew the higher officials in my section have not played partisan politics in any way. I said that last year, and I repeat it now. I have also cited an editorial corroborating the viewpoint of the Porcupine Advance, and the same applies to the Northland Post. I am not mentioning any cases in my section because I believe the higher officials wanted to play the game. But no doubt the minister knows that, happily in few instances, some of the minor officials have played the political end of the game.

Relief Act, 1938

Mr. Bradette


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I know nothing of it.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I do know something
of it, but I do not believe it would help this measure to bring the matter up here. I wish to go to the root of the question, to the moral of it. It is not necessary to bring up local matters which would not be at all beneficial to the bill or the problem before us. The point I want to make is that work is preferable under all conditions and circumstances to direct relief.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Premier Taschereau does
not think so, having regard to the expense.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I do not know what he thinks about it, but I saw this article in yesterday's Montreal Gazette under the heading, "Hon. J. N. Francoeur deals with relief. Hope expressed Ottawa would forego direct aid in favour of public works":
Hope that the Dominion government would adopt public works and forego direct relief as a means of lessening unemployment was voiced in the Quebec legislative assembly to-day by Hon. J. N. Francoeur, Minister of Public Works, when he continued the budget debate.
Relief of unemployment by providing jobs was a better method than by providing clothes and shelter, Mr. Francoeur stated and he hoped the Dominion government would soon take that view of the matter as it would be better for the jobless themselves and brighten the general situation.
These words were uttered the day before yesterday in the Quebec legislative assembly, so if I have to take the word of the minister there can be no peace in the Quebec cabinet, because the Minister of Public Works for the province says that it would be better to provide work than direct relief. He must have been voicing the sentiments of the premier of the province of Quebec. I repeat what I said a few moments ago, that the people of Canada to-day want work and not charity.
There is one anomaly up in my section which I believe at this time should be mentioned. When the scrip system was inaugurated, which is the only practical one under present conditions, a man received a scrip carrying with it a guarantee by the provincial government to the effect that he was entitled to receive provisions at a store. The man was left to his own initiative to buy the goods where he could get them at the best price, which was the best system. But for that scrip he was supposed to work. I maintain that when a man works either at manual labour, at professional or clerical work he should be paid in Canadian dollars and not by scrip. If a man received $10 he was compelled to work five days on road construction at $2 a day.
At the end of the five days they would receive not Canadian currency but scrip, which was good in itself, but to some extent limited. The holders could buy only certain lines of goods, commodities necessary for the sustenance of life. There was no provision for medicines and various other things of that type. The people who held the scrip, although they had done manual labour, were compelled to buy the goods stipulated by the government. I contend, after making a thorough inquiry, that if a man is compelled to do work for consideration he receives from the government, he should be paid in Canadian currency.
There is another matter which no doubt the Minister of Labour will remedy as soon as possible. Perhaps he is not aware of it, and I should like him to understand that my statements are not made in a spirit of criticism.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am quite aware of the situation; it obtains just the same in the province of Quebec, and I have no control over it whatever. The hon. member knows that, I am sure.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I want to be fair; I want to bring these matters to his attention, because I know that through the bill to be introduced and by the powers given by this House of Commons he will have charge of direct relief. Surely the Minister of Labour must have some great power in dealing with these matters when in some instances he is paying 50 per cent and in other instances 33J per cent for direct relief. The point I wish to bring to the minister's attention-and I know he will deal fairly with this-is the fact that to-day the retailer has to pay cash for his goods. Throughout the country when retailers receive scrip they are called upon to give goods for the amount appearing on the order. I do not wish the minister to think I am criticizing, but I am suggesting that there should be a remedy for a condition which is detrimental to the retail trade in general. Some of the scrip has not been paid, although the goods have been delivered for over three months. I believe that condition is not fair to the retailer. Probably it is only a matter of delay, but to the small man these delays are very important. In this House of Commons we hear a great deal about the farmers' problems and the problems of the working man, but we very seldom hear anything about the retailers. I believe they constitute a part of our population which during times of stress and depression have given great help in advancing goods. I have no
24S2

Re'iej Act, iCSS-Mr. Bradette
doubt this condition will receive the attention of the Minister of Labour as soon as possible. The scrip is not transferable; if a man goes to his banker with it, due to the fact that he has to pay cash for his goods, the money he would raise would cost him eight per cent per annum. Therefore on that score alone I believe the Department of Labour should make a very thorough investigation of the matter. In these days it is unfortunate if a retail dealer has to hold papers for three or four months before obtaining cash; he cannot afford it. We know that dealers in northern Ontario have suffered because of that condition.
I say work should be given in my section of the country. There are undertakings being carried on which are not only local in their nature but are of a national character. In this connection I could refer to the trans-Canada highway. It is a great sight when one travels from here to North Bay, through the Ottawa Valley, to see many camps, where men are finding healthy and useful occupation. Perhaps salaries and wages on these works are not as high as they might be, but they would be of help in these times. This matter of the trans-Canada highway was dealt with at great length by the Minister of Labour and other. Conservative candidates during the last general election. I am sorry to say, however, that outside of a few minor repairs made to the Ferguson highway from North Bay to Cochrane there has been no actual work done on the trans-Canada highway. Other sections, however, are receiving more benefits than we are. Of course we are glad they are receiving them, but we feel we are not being treated fairly so far as the trans-Canada highway is concerned. I was astonished to learn the other day that large sums of money have been spent on the trans-Canada highway from North Bay along the north shore of lake Superior. I have no quarrel with that section of the country. I am glad that those people are receiving the benefit, but I hope the minister will not tolerate one section of the country being left out of the picture.
Last week at a meeting in Ottawa Mr. James Sinton, chief engineer of the Ontario Department of Northern Development, spoke about the trans-Canada highway as follows:
Luring the period November 1, 1931, to October 31. 1932, a total of 2,118,498 cubic yards of earth and 681,333 cubic yards of rock were excavated on Ontario's portion of the trans-Canada highway. In addition to the 96 miles of completed grading, partial grading on the highway extended over a distance of 550 miles.
Ontario's contribution to the mileage of the trans-Canada highway, Mr. Sinton pointed out. is in the neighbourhood of one-third of the

entire coast to coast mileage, or roughly 1,400 miles. The route has been designated from the Quebec boundary through the Ottawa valley to North Bay and from Schreiber, on the north shore of lake Superior to the Manitoba boundary. The remaining portion of the route will not be decided upon until such time as aerial and ground surveys have uncovered sufficient information in regard to the alternative route available.
The last part of that paragraph leaves a certain amount of hope for our section of the country. The provincial government has been working on the aerial survey for the last two years, and surely their report should be ready now. But, Mr. Speaker, I have never doubted the good will of the Minister of Labour in the present government, and his desire for fair play, and I have no doubt that our section of the country will be directly connected with the routing of the trans-Canada highway. At the present time thousands of young men could be usefully employed in the building of the road in our section, particularly west of Ilearst, the same as they would be employed at the head of the lakes and the Ottawa valley. I believe the spring would be the time to start that work. We also have a road which would prove very useful for the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, joining the northern sections of those provinces, the Cochrane-LaReine highway. There are only about seventy-five to eighty miles to be constructed. Then you have a straight highway along the Canadian National railway to the Ontario border through the towns of Cochrane and Kapuskasing. In that section quite a number of men could be employed in useful work giving direct communication with the province of Quebec.
Another question with which the Minister of Labour is well acquainted at the present, and I believe has been for the last few years, is the building of a road between Timmins and Sudbury. All our local papers have been agitating for it, particularly the Porcupine Advance of Timmins. It would give direct communication to such great mining sections as Sudbury, Kirkland Lake, Elk Lake and Porcupine. Work on parts of this road has already been done, and I believe a few hundred men should be put to work there to give that needed communication. The opening of such a road would link up the mining camps of Sudbury, Shiningtree, Gowganda, Elk Lake, Matachewan and Porcupine.
I might say that the towns of Cochrane, Timmins and Haileybury at present are not giving direct relief; at least they do not give money without work. The authorities in Haileybury decided to clear the townsite to do away with the fire hazard. I believe that principle should apply to all municipalities.

Privilege-Mr. Duguay
In that work thousands of men could be given useful employment, beneficial to themselves and to the country as a whole. In Cochrane no direct relief was given to people who were not prevented from working by ill health; they were set to cut stove wood or to do road and street work. I believe the town of Timmins did the same. If the municipalities can carry out that principle, it can be applied even more readily by the central government. In this respect I am voicing the sentiments of my riding as expressed in the local press, regardless of political affiliations. With one voice they criticize what has been done under direct relief, and they are asking that as soon as possible the Canadian people in that section be given an opportunity to earn their living and not be mendicants.
The hon. minister mentioned the work that has been done on the trans-Canada airways. Last fall when this matter was mentioned during the preliminary session I praised the government for that work. Only a few days ago the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) was kind enough to give me some information about that work. There again I believe the government is deserving of praise for the work done. Blit on our own section, the Hearst-Cochrane-Winnipeg division, we have not received the amount we expected, and for that reason many single men have not been able to find employment this winter. I realize that there are also almost insurmountable physical obstacles in proceeding with that undertaking, but I hope the work will be proceeded with early this year so that those single men in the urban and rural centres of northern Ontario will find useful occupation.
A few minutes ago the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said he knew some sections of the country where the people on direct relief were not receiving medical attention. Again I must praise the government for having last summer in our section of the country inaugurated a system of providing medical attention to those in need in the organized and unorganized districts. On that score I think the government should be complimented. Some farmer settlers were not receiving the medical attention that they required. To-day I am glad to say that there is a wonderful improvement as far as my own section of the country is concerned.
Another matter that I want to bring to the attention !of the minister is this; before I left home after the Christmas holidays, the provincial government sent a circular letter to the municipalities and towns to the effect that the doctors should not receive more than
8100 a month for medical attention and medicine. 0'f course in cities where they have a great number of doctors that might be reasonable. But the hon. minister knows well the situation in the north. Take for instance a doctor living in Kapuskasing, surrounded by a large number of unorganized municipalities where there is no doctor. If that doctor is limited to $100 a month, then the people who have suffered in these distressed times are not going to be benefited by this new legislation; they will not receive the required medical attention. Speaking for the doctors in the Porcupine, Cochrane, Kapuskasing and Hearst districts, I know that they do not charge more than, thirty or forty per cent of the usual fees, but I believe with the $100 limit it is impossible for the doctors in those vast scattered and unorganized districts, where there live quite a number of people, to give the attention that the people need. Before leaving that subject I wish to say that the government merits praise in connection with that important matter of looking after the health of the people in these scattered districts in northern Ontario.
I listened with a great deal of attention to the statement of the hon. Minister of Labour regarding the back to the land movement. I am absolutely with him in the work that has been accomplished there.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, February 27, 1933