1935-02-19

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister moved:
That the names of Messrs. Veniot, Stewart (Lethbridge) and Bourassa be added to the select committee appointed on the twelfth instant to study and report on the best method by which the British North America Act may be amended.
Motion agreed to.
STANLEY PARK, VANCOUVER On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I should like to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to the extensive damage that has been done to Stanley park in the city of Vancouver by the unprecedented storms; and in view of the fact that this is a national park and a national asset in every way, in view also of the very great fire hazard created there, I would ask if the Prime Minister will consider cooperating with the provincial and municipal authorities with respect to assistance in this regard.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was good enough to send me a memorandum indicating that he proposed to ask this question. I found it on my desk five minutes ago. I can only say that thus far the government, so far as I know, has received no intimation of the matter to which the hon. gentleman refers, but when the matter is brought to the attention of the government and the nature and character of the damage is indicated and its extent ascertained, the government will give its most careful consideration to any request that may be made through the provincial government in that regard.
RADIO IN SOUTHERN ALBERTA On the orders of the day:


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: I desire to ask the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) a question. In view of the fact that Canadian radio programs can hardly be heard in southern Alberta, and practically not at all on Sundays, and in view of the fact that many protests have been received that the radio sets are no good on account of the din and roar from some interference that cannot be located, will the minister be good enough to make an investigation?
Unemployment Relief


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: Mr. Speaker, nay hon. friend was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to put this question to-day, and I asked the officials of the radio commission to advise me with regard to the matter. My information is that the commission has investigated the troubles in the southern part of Alberta, and they report that they have a program of construction under contemplation which, if it can be put into effect, will remove the trouble.



PRINCE ALBERT NATIONAL PARK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. F. TOTZKE (Humboldt):: I would direct a question to the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy). Has it been brought to his attention that owing to the protection afforded to wild animals in the Prince Albert national park, timber wolves are rapidly increasing in number and forming themselves into packs, causing great damage to trap lines and to animals protected under the game laws in the northern part of Saskatchewan; and if so, what steps are being taken to deal with this nuisance ?


Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior):: This matter was brought to my attention a few days ago, and I am now awaiting a report from the officials. When I receive it I shall be in a position to answer the hon. gentleman's question.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In view of the announcement some time ago that direct relief would terminate on March 31, I would ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) when he intends to make a statement to the house in regard to the assistance to be given for unemployment relief for the next fiscal year.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: I do not know that I made the
announcement that direct relief would terminate on March 31, but this government is keeping in close touch with the provinces and a decision will be arrived at as to what method may have to be employed with respect to assisting them. Up to the moment we have not had any information or request from the provinces as to what assistance they may need.



TRACADIE LAZARETTO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: On
lanuary 23 an order was passed for the

production of correspondence, reports and other documents, including a statement of the results of any examinations by the civil service commission during 1934, in connection with the appointment of an assistant engineer at the lazaretto in Tracadie, New Brunswick. May I ask the Secretary of State when the papers will be brought down.


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: I will look into the matter immediately.
IMMIGRATION OF CHILDREN On the orders of the day:


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I have a question to direct to the Minister of Labour. According to press dispatches it would appear that the child immigration society of Great Britain intend to send four hundred children to Vancouver island to be taught farming according to Canadian methods. Is that statement correct? If so, has it the approval of the minister?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I was not able to hear the
question but I shall read it in Hansard to-morrow.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 18, consideration in committee of Bill No. 8, to establish an unemployment and social insurance commission, to provide for a national employment service, for insurance against unemployment, for aid to unemployed persons, and for other forms of social insurance and security, and for purposes related thereto-Mr. Bennett-Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 15 (as printed; now section 14) -Persons to be insured against unemployment; "employed persons" defined.
Mr. POULIOT:: Yesterday the Prime
Minister gratified me when reciting those delightful words of Tennyson:
An infant crying in the night:
An infant crying for the light:
And with no language but a cry.
In return, may I dedicate this little poem to him:
Year after year, day and night An infant cries for the light;
But, alas! he cannot know-
The P.M. always says " NO."


Mr. DUFF:: This section deals with the
persons who will come under the act, and

Unemployment Insurance
also with those who will be exempted or excepted. I notice in part II, page 31 of the bill, the following excepted employments enumerated:
(a)	Employment in agriculture, horticulture and forestry;
(b)	Employment in fishing;
(c)	Employment in lumbering and logging;
(d)	Employment in hunting and trapping;
(e)	Employment in transportation by water *or by air, and stevedoring.
And so on. It seems to me that if we are going to pass in this parliament an act to take care of persons who are unemployed, giving them some protection or insurance, the measure should be broad enough to cover all classes in the community. I remember that once when I was a boy I took home from school three or four of my chums and my mother got out the cookie jar. We helped ourselves. At the bottom of the jar there was an extra cookie and I tried to get it, but she said that there were no stepbaims in our family. I submit that there should be no stepbaims in the family of Canada; everyone should be treated alike. I have no objection if all the people who work with their hands in this country come under the bill, but I do object to certain classes coming under it while others who will not benefit by it will have to pay to help those who do. In the speech delivered by the Prime Minister on the second reading of the bill, in discussing those who did not come under the bill he gave certain figures. I cannot put my hand on the particular passage in which he dealt with those who would not come under the fishing section in paragraph (b) which I have quoted, part II, but if I remember rightly he said that there were only ten thousand fishermen who would not come under the act. I have here a copy of the annual report of the Department of Fisheries and while I realize that figures differ, at the same time, in this annual report for 1933-34, the total number of persons employed in fishing is given at page 7 as 79,328, of whom 65,391 were engaged in catching the fish and 13,937 were employed on shore in canneries and fish-curing establishments. I do not know whether the Prime Minister got his figures from Mr. Watson or not, but if I remember correctly the figure he gave was 10,000. When he gave this figure I realized immediately that there was a mistake somewhere; I believe 79,000 is much more correct. I would say to the government that if this bill is to be particularly operative the fishermen have a right to come under it as well as other employees in the country, whether in manufacturing establishments or anywhere else. The fishermen are labourers; they are employees who are giving their time
and labour to create business in this country and to bring new wealth into Canada. But it seems to me that these fishermen should be placed in the same position as those engaged in other callings who will come under the act. At page 728 of Hansard, on February 12, the Prime Minister gave the figure of excluded males in fishing and trapping as 10,379. If the figures the right hon. gentleman read yesterday are no more accurate than those which somebody gave him and which he quoted on that date, then it appears to me that we are dealing with this matter in the dark, and we should get further information before going on. I contend that if these people are going to pay toward unemployment insurance, the legislation should be broadened so that our fishermen may come under it.
There is another class that, I notice, is exempted. Paragraph (e) of part II of the first schedule on page 31 reads:
Employment in transportation by water or by air, and stevedoring.
Surely if people in factories and manufacturing plants are entitled to consideration or relief under this measure, stevedores should be included. I would like to know what the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn) has to say with regard to the fact that stevedores and longshoremen are not included in this legislation. Not only in Halifax but in Saint John, Quebec, Montreal, Vancouver and elsewhere there are hundreds and perhaps thousands of stevedores and longshoremen who earn their wages by the sweat of their brow and they certainly should come under this measure. I respectfully submit to the Prime Minister that the legislation should be amended so that paragraph (e) of part II of the first schedule will read so as to remove stevedores and longshoremen from excepted employment. In that way stevedores and longshoremen would have the benefit of this bill if it is going to be passed by parliament. I notice another class of people is not mentioned, but they may come under the class of stevedores. I refer to the men who work on the different wharves or in the different fish plants, especially in Nova Scotia. In Halifax and other centres in that province we have a large number of men who work by the day, who are paid by the hour, who certainly handle the products of this country and who should also be included. I respectfully submit to the Prime Minister that these men, both stevedores, longshoremen and labourers in fish plants as well as fishermen should be included in and receive the benefits of this legislation,
Unemployment Insurance

because, if they are not included they have to pay their proportion of the amount which the government puts up.
Yesterday in suggesting that this legislation should not be handled by a commission, 1 modestly stated that perhaps an amount of $250,000 would be saved if instead it were administered by one of the departments of government. Latdr on the Prime Minister said that the expenses of handling this legislation by commission would amount to something like $7,000,000. This huge amount must come out of the taxpayers; it must come out of the fishermen, longshoremen, farmers and others. Although the committee adopted that particular clause providing that the legislation should be entrusted to a commission. if we can save $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 by having one of the departments instead of a commission handle the matter, I say to the Prime Minister that in view of the financial situation in which we find ourselves to-day, it would be a waste of money to spend $7,000,000 and to inaugurate and put into operation another commission with a nulnber of unnecessary employees, to do work which could very well be done by the Labour or some other department. I protest against the fishermen, longshoremen and labourers in fish plants being excepted. If this law is going to be broad; if we are going to have a proper act to look after the labouring men and other employees in this country, every class in the community should be included instead of there being certain exceptions as set forth in paragraph (e) of part H in the first schedule.


Peter John Veniot: In speaking to the subject
now before the committee, I have no intention of opposing the clause as it stands. I have no amendment to offer, but I feel it my duty to call the attention of the promoter of this measure to the fact that I believe an injustice is being done to a large proportion of the population I have the honour to represent in this house. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough has referred to the fishing industry, pointing out that the figures given by the Prime Minister are incorrect. When the statement was made by the right hon. gentleman, I was somewhat surprised to learn that there were only 10,000 fishermen in the dominion earning their living. As the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough has said, the correct number is far in excess of 10,000. He referred to -the report of last year of the Department of Fisheries, -but I wish to refer to the census report of 1931 which shows that there are 34,340 persons gainfully engaged in the fishing industry. In the county of Glouces-
ter -there are more than 2,500 fishermen. Not all of these are gainfully employed; some are proprietors who could not come under this act and nobody would expect them to do so. But in my county alone there are more than
2,000	engaged in fishing. It is true it may be stated that fishing is a seasonable occupation, but if we are going to protect those who are engaged the whole year around on salary or wages and who are able to maintain their families, why should we not do something for those engaged in seasonable occupations? They certainly should be given- a chance, if not -to such a great extent, at least along the same lines as those engaged the year around.
Having said that about the fishing industry, let me now deal with the logging industry. My wish, while I am on that point, is to ask a question for the sake of information and I am going to cite a concrete ease. A pulpmill in my home town works part time; the work is not carried on during every working day of the month or the year. For instance, about 300 men are employed about the pulp-mill. A certain number work for a given number of days in the month; then they are replaced by another group. How can such workmen come under this measure? I take it, as this is not logging and lumbering in the sense in which I understand the term in the exemption clause, they could come under the legislation if they were constantly engaged the year round. But what will be the result? When this legislation comes into force, the men will be demanding compensation, if I may use that expression-, or the benefits provided by .the bill; they will be demanding to be allowed to come in under it. The result is going to be that this company instead of employing 150 for a period of a fortnight and another 150 for another period of a fortnight, is going to employ 150 regularly and -the other 150 will be thrown on the street. Therefore the effect will be increased unemployment instead of a benefit.
Further, I should like to have from the Prime Minister a definition of what is meant by employment in lumbering and logging. I understand logging to refer to the operations in the bush; would it include driving down the streams in the spring? Would lumbering include men engaged in the sawmill yards, and in sawing lumber? I see no definition of that term, and I know .that when I return home I shall be waited upon by the lumber interests of my county, which are very large, and asked for an explanation of this. I ask the Prime Minister to give a definition of the term "employment in lumbering and logging" as used in clause (c).

Unemployment Insurance
For the present I have nothing further to say except to correct the figures given by the Prime Minister the other day as to the number engaged in the lumber industry. I think the number he gave as engaged in gainful employment in the lumber industry in Canada was about 41,000. Now that figure is certainly wrong. There is one province alone in this dominion in which almost that number are employed in gainful operations in the bush, on the streams or at the mills. In order to have accurate figures before the committee I suggest that the matter foe looked into more carefully. The census gives 49,960 in forest and logging operations; that census was taken in June, 1931. People were asked at what they were employed at that time, There is some lumbering going on in June, but very little in the province of Quebec and the maritime provinces. So those figures are not correct. Not that I wish to say that the census enumerators made false returns; far from it, but the census questions were not arranged in such a way as to distinguish between those employed almost continuously in lumber and logging operations and those so employed merely at the time they were visited in the month of June.
Mr. MaoLEAN: I wish to support the contention raised by the hon. member for An-tigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) and the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Yeniot). 1 do not know that I can go quite as far as they did as to the whole 75,000 noted as employed in fisheries coming- under the act. But part 1 of the schedule reads:
Employment in Canada under any contract of service or apprenticeship, written or oral, whether expressed or implied,
While a number of our fishermen work on their own behalf there are large numbers employed by various companies. I quite see the difficulty in obtaining and reporting the forty weeks of continuous employment in the year, still 'I believe that there are large numbers of them who should receive consideration, because it is their sole employment; they have no other means of livelihood. Take the lobster packing plants and other plants that employ men in the packing and shipping of fish; some of those people are given almost continuous employment, so that if other people employed in other industries are to receive the benefits of this measure it would seem fair that some consideration should be given to the fishermen who are thus employed.
Another point is that the cost of the operation of this measure will be borne by the community as a whole. Men in business can
pass the cost on by adding it to their price, as they do the sales tax, so that the consuming public at large will in the long run contribute the largest proportion towards the upkeep of this scheme. For that reason alone I think that everyone who can reasonably be brought under the measure should be given consideration. I know there are difficulties, but consideration should be given to every class of the community and an endeavour made to work, out a plan that will be just and fair to all.


Mr. MARGIL:: given the benefit of this measure? And why should not the same thing apply to lumbering? I know men who are employed the year round in lumbering, they are in the shanties in the winter and in the sawmills in the summer, and in the spring they are occupied in driving operations. They are employed practically the year round by large lumber firms; why should they not have the benefit of this measure? I appeal again to the Prime Minister, who has evidently given a great deal of consideration to the matter, to reconsider his decision and give these people a fair deal, because the benefits of the measure should be extended to all classes as far as possible.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I am in somewhat the
same position as the hon. members who have just spoken, since I represent a district in which there are farmers, lumbermen and fishermen, and I endorse the remarks that have been made by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough, the hon. member for Gloucester and the hon. member for Bona-venture. Ever since this bill has been before the house I have been wondering if the Prime Minister would not reconsider his decision and try to include under it those people engaged in forestry, lumbering, fishing and farming. We were told that this measure was to help all classes of the community, and I would not like to see the people who will be called upon to pay their share of the cost indirectly, that is, the farmers, fishermen and lumbermen, get no relief. I think we should have a final, definite explanation from the Prime Minister as to why he has not seen fit to include these classes under the bill and as to whether at an early date in the future we may expect them to be so included.


Mr. HEAPS:: Under the provisions of this section it appears that the commission has power to put certain industries in the excluded class, but the commission has not power to include industries which are now excluded under the provisions of this bill. It seems to be a very one-sided affair. I observe that among those excluded are some that certainly should be included. I am not going to refer to those classes that have been mentioned already, but I should like to know why bank employees should be put in a different category, together with the employees of other institutions in which at times unemployment becomes rife. I have had representations made to me by bank messengers and others who feel that they should come within the provisions of any act insuring against unemployment. According to the

statement made by the Prime Minister about a week ago there are some 57,000 people employed in financial institutions who will not come under the act. I think they should come under it; I do not think we ought to give favoured treatment to banks or any other financial institutions.
There is one other point I should like to raise at this time. When the Prime Minister introduced this bill last Tuesday he said there were approximately 1,700,000 people who would be eligible to come under the provisions of the bill. I believe those figures were based on the census of 1931. I should like to know the number actually qualified at this time to come under the provisions of the bill. After all there may be a great difference between the number qualified in 1931 and the number qualified to-day. The figures given by the Prime Minister with regard to the 1931 census may be absolutely correct according to the statements given the enumerators, but I have a very strong feeling that with the vast increase in unemployment since 1931 the number who may be qualified will be very much smaller than the number stated by the Prime Minister a week ago. So I should like to know if the Prime Minister has any later figures to give the house as to approximately how many working people, men and women, would be able to qualify as participants in the proposed measure.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Coming as I do from
an agricultural constituency, and as the farmer receives no benefits whatever under this bill, naturally I am not very enthusiastic about it. The only thing the farmer has to do is pay the bill.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Who?


James J. Donnelly: The farmer. Since there seems to be some doubt as to who are included under this bill, I would like to ask the Prime Minister with regard to two classes, as to whether they come under this act. The first is the man operating a grain elevator. He is the agent for one of the grain companies; he buys and sells grain. Will he be considered a farmer, or will he be able to take advantage of this act? The other case is that of the man operating a lumber yard in a small town on the prairies. Is he considered a lumberman; is he brought under this act or is he excluded? I should like the Prime Minister to tell us how those two classes will be dealt with.


Mr. EULER:: The debate so far this afternoon has consisted more or less of protests by certain members that certain classes of the

Unemployment Insurance
community do not come within the operations of the bill. I have a matter of a different nature to bring up, not with any intention of urging action but simply to ask the question. I have been approached by owners of commercial establishments, stores as they are popularly known, and representations have been made to me that in an establishment employing some fifty or sixty clerks, after a check up it was found that if there had been an unemployment insurance scheme in force for the last five years benefits would have been obtained in only one instance. That may not be typical of the situation in general, but I rise to ask whether the commission which will have charge of the administration of the act could take steps to exclude from the operations of the act, if it should be found desirable to do so, such establishments as I have mentioned. I know the act provides that the commission shall make recommendations, presumably to the governor in council, for the inclusion of those who do not now come within the act, and I should like to ask whether the commission has similar power to make recommendations or actually to exclude certain classes which they find it inadvisable to include within the scope of the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that members of the committee apparently have not found it desirable to read the section. We are dealing with section 15, and if the section were read I think some of the questions that have been asked would be readily answered. The section reads:
(1)	Subject to the provisions of this act, all persons of the age of sixteen years and upwards who are engaged in any of the employments specified in part I of the first schedule of this act, not being employments specified as excepted employments in part II of that schedule (in this act referred to as "employed persons"), shall be insured against unemployment in manner provided by this act. and the employment in which any such person is engaged shall in this act be referred to as "insurable employment."
(2)	Where it appears to the commission-
Not to the governor in council.
-that the terms and conditions of service of, and the nature of the work performed by, any class of persons employed in an excepted employment are so similar to the terms and conditions of service of, and the nature of the W'ork performed by, a class of persons employed in an insurable employment as to result in anomalies in the operation of this act, the commission may. by regulations either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as may be specified in the regulations, either:-
(a) provide for including the class of persons employed in insurable employment among the classes of persons employed in excepted employment; or
And, turning over the page-
(b) provide for including the class of persons employed in excepted employment among the classes of persons employed in insurable employment.
Just why the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) read paragraph (a) of subsection (2) and did not read paragraph (b) on the following page, I do not know. He said, in effect, "You can take them out of it, but you cannot take them in." If he had just turned over the page he would find that there is a provision for taking them in, a provision which is as clear as words can make it. What purpose is served by making a statement of that kind in this committee, knowing I would be here to answer it, unless such a misstatement is calculated to arouse prejudice in some minds that we are going to be fair to one class and unfair to another class. There it is. Anyone knows the commission may place workers in the excepted class or, if circumstances warrant, take them out of that class. Then there is the further subsection:
The commission may by regulations provide, subject to such exceptions and conditions as the commission think fit, for adding any class of employment to the excepted employments but only as respects persons who are in any week employed in that class of employment to such extent (being in the opinion of the commission inconsiderable) as may be specified in the regulations.
The question we are asked this afternoon has to do with why fishing is not included. I endeavoured to give an answer the other day, but I shall repeat it now. Fishing is a seasonal employment, and if it does create conditions such as those which have been referred to either in that industry, or in some other industry-notably lumbering- then there is a provision for bringing them within the operation of the statute.
Then the question was asked as to whether or not a man in this or that particular occupation would be classed within or without, and the answer is that at the inception of a measure such as the one before us in all countries it has been found impossible to lay down any hard and fast rules. The commission itself will after an investigation of circumstances determine to what extent there shall be any variation from the rule laid down. Behind it there is the answer which I endeavoured to make yesterday, namely that this measure is founded upon the basis of benefits being paid out of a fund proportionate to the sums that are paid into that fund. The difficulty of ascertaining what sum should be paid into the fund with respect
Unemployment Insurance

to classes mentioned this afternoon is too great to enable the legislature in the first instance to lay down a rule. In Great Britain, under the amendment of last year, the provisions with respect to the commission bringing in or taking out are substantially the same as those now before this committee. It will be found of course that if you bring arbitrarily within the operation of this measure large numbers of people who may not be able to continue to make payments or who by the very nature of things are not employed for forty weeks in two years you might find a position in which the fund would be insolvent. This is a solvent fund; it is built upon scientific bases and is intended to be maintained in that position.
The difficulties to which references have been made, notably that of determining whether a man is a logger or a lumberman are not inconsiderable. My own judgment would be that a man who works on the sawing of logs, the planing of them and the production of the finished product of lumber is in the lumbering business, while on the other hand a man engaged in cutting trees is probably classed as a logger. It may be thht when this measure begins to operate it will 'be very desirable to include within its provisions some of those who are not now included, and shutting out some who are now in. That however is a matter which will have to be determined in the light of the effect upon the fund itself.


Peter John Veniot: Would the act have to be
amended?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; there is provision
already in the measure. May I direct the hon. member's attention to the bottom of page 7 and the top of page 8, paragraphs (a) and (b), which cover the point to which he has made reference, and especially the language in subsection (2) which states that if anomalies may arise by reason of the operation of the classifications, then changes should be made.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With
reference to paragraph (a) of subsection (2), may I say that I can see no difficulty in including employees who are now excepted, but if the commission decides to except employees now insurable would there be any compensation to those employees who while in insurable employment have made actual contributions to the fund?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a provision at
a later point in the measure for taking care of that particular situation. I know the hon. member has studied the matter with a great 
deal of care, and realizes that there must be some method of detling with anomalies which are bound to arise.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By
regulations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, by regulations, and especially upon the introduction of the measure. That is the reason the act of 1920, the first of the English acts, had to be amended nearly once a year for several years until-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Thirty-six times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I have one or two
observations with regard to the number classified as fishermen. Hon. gentlemen speaking about this point perhaps know better than I do that numbers are classified as sailors, rather than as fishermen, when they are working on ships, schooners or other fishing vessels. I have made no specific inquiry as to that particular number, and I cannot say that I have given a complete explanation, but I shall be able to ascertain definitely and tell hon. members whether or not the difference in numbers arises from the method of classification. If we classified as sailors twenty men on a schooner, including the captain and officers, and did not classify them as fishermen we would have a corresponding diminution in the number of men classified as fishermen and an increase in the number classified as sailors. If they are on the articles they are classified as sailors; if they are not on the articles they might be classified as fishermen. However, I shall make inquiries and ascertain definitely with respect to the matter. I believe, however, that I have given the correct explanation. All names appearing on the articles of these vessels which go to sea are classified, under the present procedure, as sailors. That is my understanding of it.
Then there was a question asked by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). My reply is that the measure is broad enough to meet the situation he has described. I think it would not be broad enough to meet a situation of only one store.


Mr. HANBURY:: Mr. Chairman-


William Duff: Just a minute; if paragraph
(a) of subsection (2) provides for including the class of persons employed in insurable employment among the classes of persons employed in excepted employment, why is it necessary, the commission having that power under the act, to have any schedule? Why not leave out the schedule? If the commis-

Unemployment Insurance
sion has the full power to take in or leave out any group of persons, then it seems to me that the schedule appearing at page 31 of the bill, under part II, is not necessary. I repeat that if this is to be an insurance act it should cover every person who works-and I do not care whether he works in a factory, in a lumbering camp or anywhere else. By some means or another every working person should come under the provisions of this measure. If as the Prime Minister said a moment ago he is following an insurance act which had to be amended in Great Britain thirty-six times, surely it does not follow that there must be brought down to this parliament a measure which in the next and in the following years we will have to amend, in order to bring satisfaction to all people in the country. If this is to be proper legislation, then every person who works should come under it. For instance, the fishermen have to pay their contribution to the classes which are not excepted. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the operation of the act would cost $7,000,000.
In addition to that the employers of labour in a few special cases must pay in some forty per cent, if I remember aright, of the total funds, which would make at least another $15,000,000. That is what the employers themselves pay in. There is some $22,000,000 which must come out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this country-the $7,000,000 for overhead and organization purposes, and the $15,000,000 which the employers pay in', and that $15,000,000 must be added to the cost of the goods which these employers sell to the consumers of this country. I say, Mr. Chairman, that if the fishermen or the farmers or the lumbermen or anybody else have to pay for insuring certain classes of people, this act should be broad enough so that all the workers of this country who work with their hands should come under it.
The Prime Minister, in order to substantiate a statement that he made in the course of his remarks-I am not accusing him of giving incorrect figures-said that perhaps the reason that he was given the figvrre of only
10,000	fishermen was because these fishermen on the articles of a ship are classed as sailors. Let me tell the Prime Minister that that is not the fact at all. A sailor is an entirely different person from a fisherman. The fisherman has articles of his own in the case of every ship over ten tons, and he must go to the shipping master and sign on as a fisherman before he can proceed to sea. He has nothing to do with the sailors. He is not a sailor; he 92582-61
is a fisherman. A sailor is in an entirely different class from a fisherman. In fact, on every fishing vessel in Canada there are no sailors in the strictest sense of the term. It is the fishermen who run the vessel. These fishermen, of course, are sailors as well as fishermen, but whilst they are engaged in fishing they are fishermen and not sailors. I do not know where the Prime Minister got his figures but it seems to me that if I were in his place I would want to know why somebody gave him that figure of only 10,000 fishermen, when the Department of Fisheries itself gives the figure of 78,000 fishermen, and in my opinion the number is even greater than that. In the figure which the Prime Minister gave the other day it is only fishing which includes the 10,000, fishing and trapping. Perhaps there were 10,000 people trapping.


Mr. POWER:: Lobster trapping.


William Duff: That would not be lobster
trapping. Whoever gave the Prime Minister that figure was not fair to him or to this parliament because the number of fishermen in this country must be at least as many as the figure of something like 80,000 which was given by the Department of Fisheries itself? I say again to the Prime Minister that these men are not sailors; they are real fishermen, men who are signed on the articles as fishermen. In the smaller boats, of course, they do not sign articles, but these 78,000 are classed by the Department of Fisheries as real fishermen and not sailors.
As far as I am concerned, I am in favour of all classes of the community who work with their hands coming under an unemployment insurance scheme in order to protect them from unemployment or sickness. I have paid in for years under the Workmen's Compensation Act in Nova Scotia certain moneys in order to proteot fishermen in the case of accident and their families in the case of a fisherman being lost; and I am still willing to pay it for the fishermen or for the longshoremen or for the men who work in my own fish store and the men who are handling the fish and bringing them into the store, or packing them. I am willing to pay that as long as I am able to do so. But I say to the Prime Minister that if this act is to be a proper one and in the interests of the whole country, then every class in the community that work with their hands should come in under it, and we should not leave it to the commission now or later to decide whether John Jones or Bill Smith shall be accepted and get the benefits of the act.

Unemployment Insurance


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Chairman, I have asked
the Prime Minister two questions which he has not answered. The first one was why employees of banks and financial institutions should be exempt from the provisions of this act. My second question was whether the figures as given to this house from the census of 1931 on which this act is partly based would be even approximately correct at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Frederick William Gershaw: Would the same apply to clerical employees of municipalities?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman will turn to page 31 of the bill he will find before him the excepted employments. The first is (a) agriculture, horticulture and forestry. The reasons are obvious I think

with respect to those. Hon. gentlemen who have spoken this afternoon in regard to employment in fishing have indicated why in their opinion certain portions at least of the members engaged in fishing should be included. and I have pointed out that there is a provision under clause 2 (b) of section 15 as printed, whereby, if that creates an anomaly, that situation could be dealt with.
Next is (b) fishing; then (c) lumbering and logging. I indicated on the second reading of the bill that possibly where logging is followed as an avocation all the year round, rather than a seasonal employment, the commission has power at once to bring such employees under the. operations of the act.


Mr. NEILL:: And saw-mill workers?


Charles Gavan Power: Where is that provision to be found? I do not see it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have just read that the commission may do one of two things; (a) they may exclude, or (b) they may provide for including a particular class of person employed in excepted employment among the classes employed in insurable employment.


Charles Gavan Power: Where otherwise there would be anomalies in the act; is not that the case?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will read the section:
(2) Where it appears to the commission that the terms and conditions of service of, and the nature of the work performed by, any class of persons employed in an excepted employment are so similar to the terms and conditions of service of, and the nature of the work performed by, a class of persons employed in an insurable employment as to result in anomalies in the operation of this act, the commission may, by regulations either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as may be specified in the regulations, either:-
(a)	provide for including the class of persons employed in insurable employment among the classes of persons employed in excepted employment; or
(b)	provide for including the class of persons employed in excepted employment among the classes of persons employed in insurable employment.
As I read the section, and it is the construction placed upon it in Great Britain, if anomalies are apparent in the administration of the act, the commission is empowered to cure them by taking one of two courses; (a) by adding to the excepted class those that are now in the insurable class.


William Duff: But they cannot go outside of schedule 3?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If my hon. friend will just wait a moment till I finish my sentence-

Unemployment Insurance
or (b) the commission may add to the insurable class those that are now in the excepted class.
Schedule 1 covers all employments. It will be observed that it is intended to cover employment under any contract of service or apprenticeship, written or oral, whether expressed or implied. Then there are the excepted employments. I had just concluded reading the third of them and I came to the fourth, employment in hunting and trapping; and as I was reading lumbering and logging the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) said that lumbering should include saw mill operations. I have no doubt that if you have, as you have on the Pacific coast, continuous employment in that class of work known as saw milling or the production and manufacture of lumber, the commission would bring them within the operations of the act and determine the conditions under which they should be brought in.


Wilfred Hanbury: But the conditions in the lumbering business vary so much across Canada. I was wondering whether there was any provision in this bill that would permit the commission to establish regions in the lumber business. As the Prime Minister has said, in British Columbia and particularly on the coast, there is no reason why employees in the industry should not be brought under the act, because it is permanent employment the year round, whereas in Ontario the employment is seasonal, and it is seasonal in a great part of the rest of Canada. Is there such a thing as a regional interpretation of any part of this act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: While there is nothing in the schedules that places a limited construction upon the language used, I should say that if it is apparent from the operation of the act that you have the anomaly to which the hon. gentleman has referred, it is clear that the act would not apply to cases where purely seasonal employment would be involved, and that by the regulation-there is no limitation placed upon it-it could be made applicable to communities or sections of the country in which you have continuous employment as an occupation rather than seasonal employment.
The point with respect to transportation by water or by air does not call at all for observation. But with respect to stevedoring, to which the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough referred and which was mentioned by one other, stevedoring has not thus far in Canada been of such a continuous character as to establish a classification for it which would bring it within the provisions of this measure on any basis we might now 92582-614
set up. If however, as compared with other occupations, it could be ascertained that there was employment for forty weeks continuously, and in other particulars it came within the provisions of the statute, I see no reason why the commission should not make a recommendation to council. This is drafted in the broadest possible sense to cover at any rate every occupation that should properly be brought within its operations to maintain its solvency as a fund-I desire to dwell on that point and I cannot repeat it too often-to maintain the solvency of the national fund that is being set up by the provisions of the bill. Possibly nothing would more clearly indicate that no province would have the jurisdiction to enact legislation such as this, having regard to the jurisprudence of which we have knowledge and the observation made twice this afternoon in this committee, namely, that this is a tax which would be passed on to the consumer, which was exactly the point on which the privy council decided in the Crystal dairy case, when it was held ultra vires of the province to pass any such legislation, which was therefore wholly within federal jurisdiction.
The next point is with respect to employment in banking, mortgage, loan, trust, insurance, or other financial business.


William Duff: May I interrupt the Prime
Minister. In Vancouver and Halifax as well as in St. John stevedoring is a continuous employment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question is as to
whether or not it is sufficiently continuous to bring it within the provisions of the section. The opinion expressed by the actuaries in the preparation of the matter was that it was desirable to put it into the excepted class in the first instance and then ascertain whether it should be brought in under the provisions of section seven or by reason of its exclusion creating an anomaly, and for that reason it was placed in that class in the first instance.


Charles Gavan Power: The condition under which
new classes or classes at present excluded may be brought in is clear; the condition is that there shall be an anomaly if they are not brought in. Now, by the phraseology of this act we absolutely except and exempt from its operation all persons engaged in lumbering and logging, let us say. I cannot conceive of a ease where there would be an anomaly in only some of these persons being excluded, that is to say, those who are employed all the year round. I would say, if I were a member of the commission and were told, "Why should not persons employed in the
Unemployment Insurance

saw mills of British Columbia be brought under the operation of the act? There is an anomaly there"-I would say there is not an anomaly; it is not a borderline case, where you could compare them to other loggers. You could compare them to people in factories, but you could not compare them to any other loggers or to people engaged in lumbering operations. Therefore they will, because they are in the exempted class, be excluded from the act. If the Prime Minister were to say, "I will take in persons employed in woodworking establishments," and pointed out that there is a woodworking establishment in Ottawa and one in Montreal operating all the year round, then it would be an anomaly if the woodworking establishment in the place where my hon. friend from Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury) speaks of is not also brought in; but not otherwise. I cannot conceive of an anomaly where you exempt a whole class unless there is a borderline somewhere. I could perhaps imagine, in the case of stevedoring, that if we had not excluded men working on the wharves, longshoremen, then it might be an anomaly to exclude the stevedores, and you might be able to bring them under the operation of the act. But when you deliberately exclude a whole category of operations, then I am sorry I cannot agree with the Prime Minister that under the section as it is drawn the commission can afterwards bring them in.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would direct the hon.
gentleman's attention to the fact that the anomalies are not with respect to the same class of employment; they are in the operation of the act as a whole.


Charles Gavan Power: All right; then I will follow the Prime Minister to the logical conclusion. We have laid down then the principle that only those who are employed in occupations which are not seasonal, which are steady the year round, shall be taken in. If that is the principle, let us state it, and then we will say there is an anomaly if some of the persons who come under logging, and so on, are other than seasonal. But we do not do that. We actually violate that principle of steady employment by saying on the one hand that fishermen, loggers and so on, who do not get steady employment shall be exempted; then we turn round and mention the class which possibly is the steadiest in employment- clerks and those employed in financial houses -and exempt them too. So that the principle is not based on steady employment, because I know of no employment which lasts longer than that of persons working in banks and in financial institutions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the reason they
are exempt.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: "Except" and "exempt" are two different words in the bill.


Charles Gavan Power: They are all under the
same class of exceptions, therefore there is no general principle laid down unless it appears somewhere else in the bill. The general principle is not quite clear. I understood from what the Prime Minister said on the second reading of the bill that the broad principle was that persons employed in seasonal occupations should not enjoy the benefits. But in other sections of the bill we exclude from its benefits, or except or exempt, whatever term you like to use, people who are employed in steady occupations. Therefore I cannot see how there can be an anomaly in these particular trades.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The anomaly is not with respect to trades it is with respect to the operation of the bill, and if the operation of the bill brings about an anomaly, then there is power given to the commissioners to cure that anomaly.


Alan Webster Neill: As of one class against
another?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the operation of the measure. It is not limited to comparisons of class; it is an anomaly in the operation of the measure as a whole. The hon. gentleman says that the general principle of the measure is to provide that those who have seasonal employment should not be within its provisions. Part I of the first schedule specifies those who are affected by part III of the bill and part II of the first schedule gives the excepted employments. Those that are not excepted are insurable.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Except where they are excepted under clause 16.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is another matter that comes under the next clause. Let us leave that for the moment. If the committee has any doubt about the matter, I desire that there shall be no doubt and it should be quite clear that the power to which I have referred that is vested in the commission should unquestionably be vested in it in the light of experience and of the knowledge which will be gained when the commission is set up to function. It is not intended to treat it in the sense of making it appear it is one thing when in reality it is another. I have no doubt that clause 15 as it reads makes it possible for the commission to do what I have indicated, but it does not of course give them power to

Unemployment Insurance
include within the statute those who may work thirty weeks a year at a particular avocation because the very last exception mentioned in the schedule deals with that very detail, that is:
Employment of any class which may be specified in a special order made by the commission, and declared by the commission to apply for the purposes of this act, as being of such a nature that it is ordinarily adopted as subsidiary employment only and not as the principal means of livelihood.
In other words, to follow for twenty weeks the ordinary avocation as means of livelihood and then change for ten weeks to something else and say that is the ordinary avocation or occupation of a person, is not intended by the act. I do not think it is open to doubt, but if the committee feels there is any doubt as to that power being clearly defined and vested in the commission, I would be glad to make it clear beyond peradventure, but I feel the language, having regard to the whole language of the legislation, is clear beyond doubt.


William Daum Euler: I do not wish to dwell too long upon the point I raised a few minutes ago, but I have some doubts as to the power of the commission to withdraw from the operation of the act a class of people such as I spoke of a moment ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that they could not take any one store.


William Daum Euler: Take the example I gave before: just one store. We find stores of the same general class have the same conditions. The purpose of the legislation is to pay indemnities to people when they lose their employment. If it were found that in a certain class, say of stores, people did not really lose their employment to any extent, then the purpose for which they entered into the operation of the legislation would be lost, I would think, and it might be desirable that they be withdrawn from its operation. Under the clause as I read it, the only condition upon which the class might be withdrawn is because they are anomalies. Surely it would hardly be argued that it is an anomaly because it happens or is the fact that most of the people in this class never become unemployed and therefore there is no necessity for unemployment insurance. Does the Prime Minister say that that could be regarded by the commission as an anomaly in the operation of the measure and therefore empower the commission to withdraw them from the operation of the legislation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Undoubtedly if the case
mentioned by the hon. gentleman were found; that is, workers in stores or shops having over a period of years had only one
person who had been of! duty or unemployed and if it were found that that extended throughout the country, that might be claimed to be an anomaly under the operation of the act having regard for the fact that the very purpose for which it comes into being is unnecessary with respect to that class. I say to the hon. gentleman frankly that I cannot think it possible such a condition would prevail except in an extraordinarily well ordered community, if I might use that expression. Perhaps the hon. gentleman might regard his community as being in that class, but I do not think that condition would prevail generally.


William Daum Euler: Probably not.


Mr. BRADETTE:: With regard to mining, I wish to speak about the class of prospectors. Some hon. members may think prospectors always work on their own initiative, but it is a branch that belongs to mining and there are to-day thousands of prospectors who are doing pioneer work, opening up new resources in the northern sections of the country, working for corporations, and also on their own initiation. I would ask the Prime Minister to define the status of prospectors under this bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would say that prospectors are not covered by the benefits under it because their employment is not such as comes within the provisions of the insurable class.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: May I point out that
many of the prospectors referred to by the hon. member for North Timiskaming are employed by the mining companies themselves and are on the payrolls of those companies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then they are included.


Colin Alexander Campbell: Then, in reference to
the statement made by the Prime Minister a few minutes ago about fishing and lumbering as seasonal employments, these prospectors can work only during certain seasons of the year. This is true not only of prospectors but of many other men on the payrolls of mining companies who are working in out of the way sections. It would include also labourers who are assisting prospectors. Therefore, according to the right hon. gentleman, the mining companies which are paying them and paying also a very large share to ensure steady employment will not be able to have these men looked after. That is the way in which I understand the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry, but that is
not what my answer was. In the one case
Unemployment Insurance

you have men on their own. In the other you have them employed by a company. The question put to me by the hon. member for North Timislcaming had reference to prospectors on their own. The question now put by the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington is with respect to prospectors who are on the pay list of a company. Those are the two classes. I said that the first class, the man on his own, did not come within the operation of the legislation; with respect to the second, if he is on the payroll and meets the requirements of the statute so far as time of employment is concerned, he unquestionably comes within the provisions of the statute. The contribution would have to be made by the mining company and deducted from the pay to which the employee is entitled.


Alan Webster Neill: The Prime Minister was kind enough to say on the second reading of the bill that he would take the temper of the house in committee in regard to including some of these presently excepted occupations. Now he seems rather to suggest that this will be taken care of under the clause dealing with anomalies. I would suggest that the fewer of these anomaly cases, the better. It would be better to include in the bill such cases as can be agreed upon or are obviously entitled to come in now. It would mean delay or confusion if one industry were to start at one date and another later on under the anomaly clause. In (British 'Columbia, logging and lumbering are distinctly all the year round occupations and stevedoring is the same. Stevedoring is not now a catch-as-can employment as it used to be where one would pick up a man here and there; the stevedores are regularly organized and do nothing but work at that particular employment. I think it would be proper that they should be put in without the trouble of having to make an appeal to the commission later on and proving that an anomaly exists.
Another thing that the Prime Minister might be kind enough to mention when he replies is the question brought up by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie): Will coal miners who work perhaps three days a week be included? The hon. member for Assiniboia said he had a class of miners who work twenty-four to twenty-six weeks a year in the mines, and the remainder of the time on farms and elsewhere. The men I represent do nothing else; when they are not working in the coal mines they are idle and they only work some twenty-five weeks a year. I should like to know what their status would be under this bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to the last question, I think it is in part dealt with by section 16 and in part by the excepted provisions of part II of schedule 2. A person employed in an occupation which is seasonal and does not ordinarily extend over more than twenty-two weeks in the year, and who is not ordinarily employed in any other occupation which is insurable employment, or who works habitually for less than the ordinary working day, is entitled to a certificate.


Alan Webster Neill: These men work the full day but only three days a week.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the question is,
does it extend over more than twenty-two weeks in the year.


Alan Webster Neill: You cannot find that out
until the end of the year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the reason the provision is here, to enable these cases to be dealt with on a basis of principle rather than of guess.
With respect to stevedoring, the hon. gentleman realizes that he himself placed the matter properly before the committee when he said that nowadays it is different from what it was. That perhaps is not true in every part of the country, but to the extent to which it is it would enable them to ask to be brought within the operation of the measure.
As to the first question, namely that the temper of the house might be ascertained, I desire to make it clear that I was not going to disarrange the financial structure of the fund by making amendments in that regard. But if there was any doubt or uncertainty on the part of the committee as to the provisions of the statute, making it clear whether in the cases to which attention has been directed the commission has power to bring them in, I would certainly be glad to make it abundantly clear that there is no doubt on the part of the government that that should be so.


Alan Webster Neill: But not to put them in now.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: As we have been discussing fishing, lumbering and logging, part of the excepted employments, I would ask the Prime Minister if it is contemplated that any of those engaged in agriculture shall be included? Could the Prime Minister suggest anybody engaged in that business would come within the operation of the bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The experience has been that farmers do not desire to make the weekly contribution, that is the experience in Great

Unemployment Insurance
Britain at any rate, and other countries. Apart from everything else, they do not think it desirable.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: Granted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought my hon. friend was a lawyer, not a farmer. The other question, as to whether or not there may be any engaged in agriculture who might come within the provisions of the measure, is one which obviously I would not care to answer, for it would depend on the classification which the farmer had in his occupation. If he were classified as farmer the answer would be no. If, although a farmer, his classification is something within the provisions of the bill, then obviously the answer is yes.


Mr. McKINNON:: There is a very large
body of men who while they may come under the insurable provision it appears almost impossible that they will ever derive any benefit from the bill. I mean railway shop-men and also men in the running trades. In the running trades there are men with from fifteen to twenty-three years' service, who have spent their lifetime in this work, but who probably get only six weeks' or two months' work each year. Yet this is their ordinary employment I cannot see how these men would come under the act. Then there is another body of men in the district I have the honour to represent, that is saw and planing mill employees. They are employed five or six months in the year. Of course they are exempted. In the winter these men work in the bush. I feel that they should be included in the benefits, in fact I have a number of resolutions from them asking that they be included. As far as the men employed in the planing mills are concerned they are really year round employees. I should like particularly to have the railroad aspect of the matter further clarified.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do I understand the
hon. gentleman to suggest that the railroad employees should be excepted from the operation of the act?


Hugh Bathgate McKinnon: I want to have them
included.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, are they not included?


Hugh Bathgate McKinnon: But obviously it is
impossible for them to derive any benefit, because a great percentage of them work only six weeks or two months in the year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I just pointed out that
by the provisions of section 16 under certain circumstances a certificate would be granted exempting them from liability to contribute.
While holding such certificate the men would not be insured under the act.


William Daum Euler: But he wants them insured.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There are certain sections
of railway employees who would not come under the act; those who work two or three months in the year would be barred under the section which says they have to be employed so many weeks in the year before being eligible for benefit. There is another section in a similarly anomalous position, that is the men working in the railway shops. To-day thousands of them are working approximately twenty-five hours a week during the whole year. This you might say is a trifle over three days a week. This has been going on for a number of years now and the twenty-five hour week evidently has become more or less a permanent thing for them.
I find it difficult to ascertain what their position is under the bill, because at times these men will be working continuously fourteen days per month, as they are now, and then there are times that they are laid o2 two or three weeks. They are not continuously employed. I would ask the Prime Minister to tell the committee what the position of these many thousands of railway employees would be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is my personal opinion that the provisions of the bill meet the case to which attention has been directed. If for two years there have been forty weekly contributions made to the fund they would come within that provision. It is true they might not be working six days a week, but working forty weeks they would be making forty weekly contributions to the fund during the preceding two years.
I regret that I did not catch the question as put by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. McKinnon). I thought he was anxious that his friends should be excluded from the operation of the act. I gather that he desires that they should be brought within it.


Hugh Bathgate McKinnon: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If they make the forty contributions during the two years they are entitled to benefits, because the benefit sections deal with the conditions under which the payments are to be made. They come later, and if the hon. gentleman will direct attention to this point when we come to that section, I shall be glad to discuss it with him further. I quite follow his point. I thought, as he does, that they should be exempted on the ground that the benefits would not be in proportion to the payments made.
Unemployment Insurance


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I find it difficult to see how the coal miners will receive very much benefit under this act, even if they can take advantage of it. According to the census figures for 1031 with regard to the coal industry I find that the average number of weeks worked in Ontario was 20-71; in Manitoba, 21-95; in Saskatchewan, 30; in Alberta, 27-31, and in British Columbia, 27-92. Obviously it will be a long time before these men can qualify even if they come under the act, and the benefits they might receive would be very small. I wonder if the Prime Minister has anything more hopeful than that for them.
Mr. BIEIN'NETT: It will be observed that they all worked a sufficient number of weeks to qualify for benefits; that is, if they worked twenty-seven weeks in one year that would be fifty-four weeks in two years, and the requirement is forty weeks. The lowest number mentioned was 20-71 weeks; that would make over 41 weeks of employment in two years. The fact that the work is not continuous is what militates against the operation of the act; that is, they are not able to spell out a sufficient number of weeks of continuous employment within the period of time to bring themselves within the operation of the act. But if they once start paying to the fund and make payments continuously of course the provisions of the statute apply. They have made the forty payments; they have made them within two years; they are now unemployed w-ithin the statute and claim the benefit. What the hon. gentleman has in mind, I suppose, is that they cannot claim benefits for the periods of time between their employment in one year and the time when they take up employment in the next year.


Alan Webster Neill: They never qualify for unemployment relief.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If they were in and then passed out of the picture for the reasons I have mentioned, they can claim under the statute itself.


Edward Joseph Garland: Can they make contributions if they are not employed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, they cannot do
so. But supposing a man was properly on the fund; he made his contributions in good faith and the general plan of employment was less than the number of days that he had been working per week when he went on the fund; he continued to make his payments regularly and then, at the expiration of two and a half years, we will say, he became unemployed after having been employed for

forty weeks during a period of two years, although not for the full time per week. Having made his contributions my reading of the act would bring him within its provisions.
Mr. NEdLL: Would the Prime Minister explain the converse, that is, with regard to his claim for unemployment 'benefits? He has put in his time and made his payments; then he finds that he has been idle for twenty-four weeks in the year, or something like that. He wants the benefit but he cannot get it, because he is never idle for more than three days at a time. Must he pay in and get nothing out?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The act is based on the assumption that there must be a cessation of employment as a condition precedent to the right of benefit. By "unemployment" is meant unemployment for a period of nine days during which he is without any opportunity gainfully to employ himself.


Wilfred Hanbury: Nine consecutive days.


Alan Webster Neill: Then he cannot qualify.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Read subsection 4 of section 20 on page 11.


Alan Webster Neill: Apparently he qualifies to
pay in but does not qualify for any benefit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the condition under which he can qualify has not arisen.


Alan Webster Neill: Pretty tough on him.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I think the whole
problem is based on what constitutes a week's work. In this case, with the eight hour day it would be twenty-four hours a week. I think we should have some definition of a week's work. Then in connection with the payments, I notice in one of the schedules there is a daily payment and a weekly payment, based on one day and a six day week. Where do these men working a three day week fit into the picture? Do they get paid on a weekly or on a daily basis?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot answer that
question; I do not think anyone can.


Humphrey Mitchell: In its practical application it has to be worked out.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then this
does not hold out very much hope for a great proportion of the miners in my province. As the Prime Minister knows, very often they have a working period as short as twenty-five or twenty-seven days a year, and several of the mines operate for an equally short time. Many of those operating for longer periods

Unemployment Insurance
operate spasmodically; perhaps they work for a week in the summer time and a month in the fall, and then lay off until the cold weather comes. There is nothing like steady employment in the coal mining industry in Alberta, and from the explanation given 'by the Prime Minister I am afraid this act is dead as far as the coal miners are concerned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When we come to section 20 I think perhaps the hon. member for Comox-AJberni and the hon. member for East Hamilton will find the answers to many of their questions. I have notations here as to the corresponding sections in the English act, and I think many of the questions which have been asked will be answered when we come to that section, because the points with which we are now dealing really anticipate the section I have mentioned. We are considering unemployment benefits now, and I think if we wait until rve come to sections 19 and 20 we will be a little further ahead.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have only this to say in support of the contention made by hon. members this afternoon that certain classes are exempted that should be included. If the Prime Minister's chief argument is the seasonable character of their employment there is no more reason to exclude those employed by fish corporations or companies, or longshoremen or stevedores, than there is to include the miners. These are all extremely seasonal occupations, as I have indicated by the figures I have quoted.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I am convinced that
we can never have a satisfactory unemployment insurance scheme until all employees are included under the scheme, but undoubtedly there is quite a difference between what we would like to have and what we can have at the present time. A moment ago the Prime Minister said, as I understood him, that bank employees were exempted because their occupation was constant and there was no unemployment. If there are going to be exemptions for that reason I can give the Prime Minister another occupation that is not now excepted from the act; I refer to street railway employees, motormen and conductors. Only this morning I received a protest against these men being included under the act, and I think if one occupation or trade is to be exempted for the reason that there is very little if any unemployment in that occupation, all other occupations in the same category should be exempted as well.
Coming down to section 15 which we are discussing now, or which we began to discuss, under which the commission is allowed certain
latitude in including or excluding certain occupations, may I say that personally I believe this is a wrong principle to follow. Under section 7, which we passed yesterday, together with its other duties as administrators of this act the commission is given power to carry on certain investigations. In my opinion the act should be amended by parliament after a report by the commission as to the desirability of bringing other occupations under the act or of excluding occupations that are now under this measure. I say it is leaving to too great an extent power in the hands of the commission to amend the act either one way or the other.


Colin Alexander Campbell: In the constituency I have the honour to represent there are probably more cheese factories than in any other constituency of Canada. Some of the cheese-makers would like to know where they stand in regard to the benefits to be derived under this measure. Some of the factories are owned by large dairy companies which make ice cream and other dairy products. Other factories are owned by local farmers, some who have joined to form joint-stock companies and others who have formed associations. I should like to know where they stand?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If they can be classified as manufacturers they are employers within the operation of the measure.


Colin Alexander Campbell: What about the factories owned by the farmers themselves?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If they are entities owned by the farmers the position would be the
same.


Paul Mercier: And the same with regard to milk drivers?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The same thing.


Mr. MULOCK:: I presume the same regulation would apply to butter as applies to cheese, so far as dairy companies are concerned?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, quite so.


William Pate Mulock: We will suppose a farmer on his own farm buys milk from adjoining farmers, and manufactures butter. In that operation he engages men to make the butter. Does he come within the provisions of the measure? I understand if he operates on his own farm the measure would not be operative, but if it were a separate entity, if a corporation were running it, the measure would be effective.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The one is a case of employment and the other is not.
Unemployment Insurance


Mr. HOWDEN:: Following up the remarks of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River may I say that many thousands of men are working in the railroad shops of Canada, and in most cases they work only fourteen days a month. That condition raises the question as to whether they are casual workers or would come under the measure, and receive benefits. This is a serious matter, so far as the people in the railway shops are concerned, because practically all of them work only fourteen days each month, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if in his opinion these men will come under the measure and receive benefits as being employed for the required number of days.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I said a minute ago the matter is dealt with in succeeding sections, particularly section 20. That section deals with the benefits, and the right to claim benefits. The section we are now considering deals with the definition of insured persons, and at page 31 of the bill, part I of the schedule we have a statement indicating who come within the act, and what constitutes employment. Practically every person would come within the definition appearing in part I of the schedule. It is believed that that is the easier way to deal with the matter. Then in part II of the schedule we have the excepted employments, and where an employment comes within the excepted class obviously it is not insurable. That however is subject to the express condition to which I referred this afternoon and shall not repeat. When we reach sections appearing later in the bill, dealing with contributions and the right to claim benefits-especially in section 20-we will find amplification for the point with which the hon. member is now dealing. Nothing further than what I have already said can be said respecting section 15.


Wilfred Hanbury: Speaking earlier in the afternoon the Prime Minister said there was authority under the act for the commission to interpret the distribution of benefits under the scheme on a regional basis. I should like to know in what portion of the measure we find power for such regional interpretation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say it was in the measure; I said distinctly that it was not stated in terms within it, but I had some reason to believe that because of the wording used there might be power to declare that where, as in British Columbia, there is logging and lumbering, occupations which are no longer intermittent or seasonal, it was not in accordance with the general scheme of the measure that they should be excepted, and therefore they should come within its operation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By regulation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, within the provisions of the subsection to which I directed attention.


Alan Webster Neill: I wish to ask only one further question, and I believe it must be asked at this point because this is the only section referring to part II of the schedule, appearing at page 31. I should like to know why domestic servants, other than those working where a business is carried on, should not be included?


Richard Bedford Bennett: For the same reason that it has been impossible to find cases, except very exceptional ones, where there has been continual service for a period of two years, which would enable them to make the forty payments. That is the reason.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 16 (as printed; now section 15), agreed to.
On section 17 (as printed; now section 16)- Contributions by employed persons and employers.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would suggest that we take this section by paragraphs.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Morand):: Very well; we are now on subsection (1): "Contributions by employed persons and employers".
Subsection (1) agreed to.
On subsection (2)-Rates of contribution.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I should like to make a few observations regarding some of the industries in my section of the country. I have in mind particularly the mining industry and permanent industries. May I state at the outset that I have always supported a system of contributory unemployment insurance, but I believe the operation of the present measure would be injurious to the gold mining industry. I have in mind the fact that the Hollinger mine for example has been operating consecutively for twenty-two years, and the McIntyre mine, the Dome mine and others have been worked for long periods of time. Geologists maintain that most of those mines will function for another sixty years at least.
Under the present scheme the employers and employees each contribute a third. For the sake of argument we will suppose that one of those mines operates steadily for the next twenty-five years. We can readily see that the men working in them would receive no compensation for the money they had paid.

Unemployment Insurance
In such cases I am convinced there should be a gradual decrease in the contributions made by the employers and employees. For instance, some men have been working in the Hollinger mine seven days each week for twenty-two years, without losing one hour of time. It is fair to assume that many workers will work as steadily in those mines for the next twenty-five years. The present scheme I am convinced would do an injustice to those men and to the corporations affected. They would not be making mere contributions; their insurance payments would be, purely and simply, a tax. I repeat, that so far as these industries are concerned the insurance payments would be a tax. I should like the Prime Minister and the committee to consider inserting clauses in the measure which would provide that contributors making payments for a period of five consecutive years, for instance, who have not lost any time through lack of work would enjoy the benefit of a gradual decrease of 20 per cent each year down to a minimum of five cents per week. Payments could continue at that rate until the close of the mines working period.
Hon. members familiar with gold mining in this country will know that the history of that industry indicates it has been a permanent industrial organization. It has given employment for three shifts each day, seven days a week. This has been going on for the last twenty-two years in the case of some mines. Take some of the mines in the constituency of my hon. friend the Minister of Labour, some of the old silver mines at Cobalt, for instance, which have been working consecutively for the last thirty-five years or more, and I believe that the same remark applies just as strongly to our gold mines in northern Ontario at least.
I am making an earnest appeal to this committee to see that no injustice is done to the mining institutions that must be regarded as permanent. Otherwise it would be simply encouraging some other industries which have been highly seasonal in their employment to be more seasonal in future. I have a case in point. I hold no special brief for any of the big owners; I am speaking for the working men, and also the industries, and I say that steady employment has been provided over a long period of years in the gold mines, and these contributions would be simply an added tax on the working men. To illustrate the permanency of some of the mines in Canada I need only mention the Hollinger, McIntyre and the Dome mines, where men started in to work when the mines were first opened and have continued to work there for
twenty to twenty-two years, and have now their sons working alongside them in the same mines. I think the committee will be vividly seized of the permanency of employment in some of these mining organizations when I mention that, and again I make this appeal very sincerely, more particularly on behalf of the working men. In the case I have just cited it would be simply direct taxation on the shoulders of the miners to support an insurance scheme from which they will get no benefit whatever.
The committee must also bear in mind that so far as the mining industry generally is concerned there is only a definite amount of ore, a certain amount of minerals, to be taken from the bowels of the earth, and when that is done the life of the mine is finished. I want the committee to study this question very thoroughly so as to be fair to that section of the population. I know the miners and the mine-owners in our section of the country want to be fair to this act. They know that it can be very beneficial in many cases, but I believe that it is not the intention of the Prime Minister to put an added load on people who will receive no benefit from this legislation, but will simply be an additional direct tax on them.
I would like to hear the Prime Minister's views on the case I have presented.
Mr. BEiNNETT:	I have listened to a
good many pleas in parliament in my time. My sympathy for these fortunate gold-mine owners is not so great as that of the hon. gentleman. Their inability to make the contribution required under the act does not move me greatly. When I hear the hon. member for Bow River speak of the difficulties and privations which the miners in another industry have to undergo, and then when I hear the hon. member for North Timiskaming speak of the richness of the natural conditions under which other men are working in other parts of Canada, and with no unemployment at all, it indicates the necessity for having a national bill so that the richness of the one part may compensate for the paucity of demand in another section for another deposit that we call coal.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I did not mention the
word richness.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that is what it
means. Gold means that. There is just one other point I should like to make. In my lifetime I have not been unfamiliar with the plea that has been set up by the very rich who claim that they should not pay the
Unemployment Insurance

high taxes because they do not get corresponding benefits from them. That is an old story, as old as time itself. It is the old plea, but it does not go with respect to this bill.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: They do not want to
be excluded. I would ask this question of the Prime Minister. Does he not think it would be fairer to the workers themselves if there was a graded tax, just as insurance premiums are graded and become less after a certain period of years? If you take out automobile or accident or life insurance, after a certain number of years the premium you have to pay is less. The mining companies want to play the game, as they showed in connection with the gold taxation last year. The miners in my section are also willing to help their comrades in other occupations, but surely the committee should be fully seized of this fact, that under this scheme men may be paying contributions all their lives without any chance of receiving benefits whatsoever. I am going to leave that for the consideration of this committee. Would it be fair to ask people to make payments for a long period of time without any expectation of them being able to receive benefits under this scheme? This scheme is not intended to penalize anybody I know, but it would seem to be in the nature of a penalty in the case I have just mentioned. There is no question of richness among the miners in our section. They are receiving fair wages but no riches, and these contributions would be a direct tax on them. It would mean that they would be paying into the fund for years and years without receiving any benefits whatsoever under the present provisions.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, I wish to
ask some questions touching the actuarial work that was carried on. Would it be in order for me to do so under this section?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no objection, Mr. Chairman.


Peter John Veniot: With respect to the computation made by the actuaries, am I right in saying that the years they included were from 1922 to 1931 inclusive?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Might I just say to
the hon. gentleman that in view of the suggestion that was made yesterday afternoon I have asked the printers to complete as quickly as possible the printing of the reports of Mr. Wolfenden and Mr. Watson, and I think they will be completed and distributed before six o'clock. One has just come to my hand. If the hon. gentleman will wait

until he has these documents before him he will perhaps be enabled to deal with the matter a little more readily.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am personally opposed to the provision for contributions by employees, and I propose to give to the house a few reasons why.
In the first place it is very clear that this act does not propose to apply itself, nor can it be applied, under the insurance principle, to the unemployed. They cannot contribute so they are out.
Then those who are employed may be divided into three classes; first, those who are permanently employed, such as bank clerks; they also are out. It seems to be the view already that those who are permanently employed and are not likely to be unemployed should not against their will be taxed contributions to maintain the operations of this act.
There is the third class, the seasonal class, and the Prime Minister has already used an argument in the house this afternoon to show that they should not be included. So we have left the class in between as the only ones who may be expected, in accordance with the discussion this afternoon, to contribute. Let us take them-no, not them alone; we will take them all.
We find by reference to the figures supplied by the Dominion bureau of statistics showing the average earnings by wage-earners in Canada and the provinces for 1931, that the average earnings of all adult males was $927 per year and of females $560. I emphasize at this moment the very, very meagre annual earnings of all wage-earners in Canada as indicated by those figures. If we subdivide them into some of the more important branches of industry that come under the operation of this bill, we find that in manufacturing the average annual earnings amounted to $1,038 for males fully employed and $542 for females, or an average of $790. In the construction trade the average for males is $709 per annum and the average for females $732. In the vegetable products branch of manufacturing the average for males is $910 and for females $453, while in the animal products branch the average for males is $941 and for females $479. I could go on to cite many more, for instance, the earnings in the coal mining industry. The figures show positively appalling wages, on the basis of which it is not possible to maintain any decent standard of living in this country, much less a comfort standard; and until the wage earner is in receipt of a decent standard of living there

Unemployment Insurance
should not be exacted from him a contribution for any period of unemployment that may ensue. One of my reasons for that statement is this. The evidence that has come before this house in the past, still on record, the evidence given before the industrial relations committee some years ago with respect to standards of living, as well as the results of investigations by social service councils and other bodies on this continent, have definitely shown the serious effect upon the health and character of the citizens of the country when they are subject to such desperately miserable conditions by reason of lack of income.
The labour bureau, following the example of Paul Douglas, a research student of the United States, undertook for the benefit of the industrial relations committee some years ago to compile for the use of that committee and of members of this house what they called standard of living budgets, taking various levels of living for the basis of their budget. The minimum subsistence level, according to the labour bureau, is 11,077 per annum. May I point out that this is not the minimum subsistence level budget of 1926 or 1930; it is the minimum level brought up to December, 1934. The health and decency level required in December, 1934, was $1,339 and the comfort level was $1,878. Let it be noted that only under the comfort level budget is there any provision for medical or dental care, and only under the health and decency level and the comfort level is any provision made, meagre as it is, for such necessary things as soap and, let us say, a daily newspaper or a magazine or something like that once in a while. In other words, the average standard of living in Canada is far below the minimum subsistence level, which does not enable the average wage earner in the country to indulge in such things as I have mentioned.
To me this is a shocking state of affairs because it must inevitably lead to a health condition that is not good. Great Britain has had in operation for many years an unemployment insurance act, and yet it has been discovered that the benefits under that act are so low, the general standard of living is so miserable that the general health of the country is suffering; and Dr. Kenneth Fraser, the Cumberland school medical officer, in his report for 1932 stated that there were a large number of children then carrying on in Great Britain without adequate food. Precisely the same thing may be said of 'Canada; for every hon. member knows, as indeed we were told in testimony in the inquiry that took place some years ago, that the income
of the earner is low especially among women workers, and they are disposed to scrimp on food supplies and use the little income they receive to buy clothing so that they may have an appearance of decency. The result of the combination of unemployment on the one hand and low standards on the other has led to the discovery in medical circles recently of something that is now coming to be known as depression shock; I think they copied it from the phrase that became current throughout the world after 1915-shell shock. But the effects of these standards are not merely physical. It is not only a question of having enough to put in your stomach, but the mental and moral effects must also be considered, while there is inevitable humiliation and bewilderment. And these mental conditions are just as real as not having your breakfast or not having sufficient clothes to put on your back. It destroys self-reliance and the sense of usefulness, and once these are gone the situation is hopeless for the people.
I know that hon. gentlemen, or some of them, may contend that a non-contributory unemployment insurance would lead to that very lack of self-reliance of which I speak That is not necessarily so. If you can grant the citizens of the country an element of security in keeping with the richness and the productive capacity of the country then I am satisfied that you will raise their conception of life and create in them a desire for more of the cultural things which they can acquire only by personal effort. It is just as well for the committee to recognize therefore that under the modern trend of the system which the Prime Minister has made popular under the name of capitalism, there is a steady drift of the total income of nations, or the total value of manufactured products in nations, towards those who draw their incomes in the form of dividends, bonuses, profits and so on.
I have here the last monthly survey of the American Federation of Labour, and in a chart they published in a recent statement they show that the wage earner's share in each dollar created by manufacture has steadily contracted. In 1849 the wage earner received 51 per cent of the value created in manufacture, the other class receiving 49 per cent. In 1919 the wage earner received 42 per cent and the others 58 per cent; in 1933 the wage earner received 36 per cent and the others 64 per cent, and so the tendency to contraction in the wage earner's share is continuous. This bill in its present form, with the contributory feature included, simply
Unemployment Insurance

means that there will be a definite decline in the available amount of purchasing power in the hands of the wage earner. That is inevitable. Every contribution he makes to the trust fund is a dollar or two dollars out of purchasing power, and he needs the money and would spend it. Furthermore, every dollar the employer contributes will be passed on whenever possible-and that is usually possible-in increased cost of goods; for the employer does not take anything of that sort to himself which can be avoided. They make their books annually; they make their budget preparations annually with everything foreseen that can be foreseen; and every foreseen charge is charged into the cost of goods. And so you have a second system by which total purchasing power is limited.
Now you cannot restore the system in Canada by that sort of thing. What the country needs is increased and not decreased purchasing power-certainly an increase in the pockets of the people. Under this scheme the third method, the minor method of securing contributions, is what the state provides. It is fractional. I might at this stage direct the attention of the committee to the fact that though the bill is said to be based on the British act, this government has not accepted the same measure of responsibility in regard to its contribution that the British government has. Under the Canadian proposal there is a contribution of twenty-five cents from the employee, twenty-five cents from the employer, and from the government ten cents plus administration. Under the British act the contributions are eight pence from the employer, seven pence from the employee and seven pence from the government. On that basis the government here might consider twenty-five cents as its contribution in keeping with the contribution of the employee. But I shall be told: We are taking responsibility for the administration costs. Let us examine that. It has been stated that the cost of the operation of the British act is twelve and a half per cent. Twelve and a half per cent of the total of sixty cents that would be collected under the three-way method under this scheme means seven and a half cents, which would then be the maximum cost that the Canadian government would have to pay in administration. In Great Britain the total contribution translated into Canadian money is forty-four cents. Twelve and a half per cent of forty-four cents is only five and a half .cents, so this government anticipates that this legislation is going to cost them seven and a half cents 
and the cost under the British act is five and a half cents. This does not look very good to me, and it is not as bright an act as one would have hoped to come from this government after the radio addresses we heard. Has the government really recognized what is fundamentally wrong with the system? It should not endeavour to finance this scheme by reducing the total volume of purchasing power in the country-and that will be the inevitable effect of the legislation from the beginning-but it should undertake to finance the scheme by a direct issue of currency backed by the national wealth and carry on all that is required of the scheme in that fashion. I make that suggestion as strongly as I can to the Prime Minister. I am definitely opposed to this contributory feature under present low wage levels and will remain opposed to any contributory feature until the wage earner is receiving at least the average income set forth by the Labour department as required for an ordinary healthy and decent living, or an average of $1,339 per annum. Until the wage earner is receiving that on an average I am opposed to the contributory system. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maelnnis):
That section 17, subsection 2, be amended by deleting the words "every employed person and."
So that the clause would then read:
Subject to the provisions of this act, every employer of any such person shall be liable to pay contributions in accordance with the provisions of the second schedule to this act.
I move this in order to direct the attention of the members of the committee to this situation, and not because the amendment in itself would do what I have in mind, namely, increase the purchasing power of the people; that must remain a responsibility of whatever administration is in power. If the government is not prepared to make the necessary financial changes in the bill to increase instead of decrease purchasing power, then I tell them that this bill is not worth the paper it is written on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will explain why he voted for it.


Edward Joseph Garland: I voted for the principle of unemployment insurance in order that I might have an opportunity at this time of moving just this type of amendment. If the contributory feature is retained in the bill, I shall not support it on third reading.

Unemployment Insurance


Mr. MacNICOL:: I would like to say a word in reference to the remarks made by the hon. member for Bow River. If I understand the latest British act which I have before me, the contributions are not such as are indicated by the hon. member. Taking the adult contributions, I find that the government contributes not eight but ten pence per week or, in Canadian money, twenty cents; the employee contributes an equal amount of twenty cents and the company an equal amount of twenty cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is one word I should say. When the hon. member for Bow River referred to the portion of the earnings of companies that now went to wage earners as compared with what that proportion was in previous times, he should in fairness to this chamber have indicated the amount that now goes for taxes as compared with previous times. When he left the impression that the proprietors of the enterprise received the difference between the proportion that went to the wage earners and the sum total of profits, he was stating something that is fundamentally unsound. The fifty-six per cent or fifty-one or fifty-two per cent that in earlier days went to wage earners has been reduced to as low as thirty-six per cent. The taxes payable by enterprises in these days because of the demands made by the public for social and other services has increased between the date when the rate that went to wage earners was fifty-one per cent and now when it is thirty-six per cent in a far greater ratio than the lessened distribution among wage earners.
I have never been able to follow the figures to which the hon. gentleman referred as the amount necessary to be received on the average by every wage earner in the country to enable him to live in comfort. It is not the first time I have heard these figures used, but although I have not had an opportunity to investigate them, I think they must refer to the average of all wage earners probably including apprentices and youths in ascertaining the sum total of wages, because even those who fish by the sea sometimes receive as much as ten, twelve or thirteen dollars a day and those engaged in many occupations to which reference might be made, receive during the time they are employed, fairly large sums. But that is beside the question. This is a contributory insurance measure. It was for that measure, the principle of which is contributory insurance as has been explained in the house, that the hon. gentleman voted yesterday. Just why beween then and now he has had a change of heart, he has seen a new light, I cannot say. But at any rate he now says that he did that
for the purpose of enabling the bill in committee to be amended by striking out the contributory clauses. That is an excellent reason why one should vote against the second reading of it; it is a little difficult to give it as a reason why one should vote for it on second reading and then destroy it in committee. This measure falls if this amendment carries. It falls in its entirety, for it is predicated upon actuarial computation based on contributions being made by the three parties to it: the state, the employer and the employee.


Mr. COOTE:: I am sure there are in Canada certain low paid workers who are not in a position now to make any contribution, and it should be possible to provide in the bill for the establishment of a minimum wage line whereby workers receiving wages below that line should not be asked to contribute. The contribution in such cases might come from the industry and the state combined. It might be possible to include in the bill a provision of that kind. I feel strongly there are certain people who will be called upon to contribute under this scheme and whose wages are now so low that it really does not seem proper to compel them to make such contributions.


Angus MacInnis: Just a word or two in
connection with this amendment. Following the remarks made by the hon. member for MacLeod (Mr. Coote), I think we can readily see that the first effect of this legislation will be a reduction in purchasing power and consequently an increase in unemployment. So that when the purchasing power in the hands of the workers is reduced the first result of this measure will be to hasten the day when they are unemployed. It may equalize itself to a degree when they begin to receive benefits, but undoubtedly, as has been pointed out already, the first result will be to increase what it aims to reduce. Then again we found during the investigation by the price spreads and mass buying committee that many of those who are employed had to receive help from the relief departments of the cities in which they lived. If something more is to be taken out of their wages by contributions under this bill that will have to be made up by the municipalities. So I do not think we are getting anywhere by this legislation as long as it remains on a basis requiring contribution from those who are already receiving far less than is necessary for a decent standard Of living.
Unemployment Insurance


Edward Joseph Garland: Last year
we had an illustration which should have made it clear to the Prime Minister how one can vote for the general principle of an unemployment insurance bill without committing himself to the contributory feature-. That was not regarded as the principle of the bill either on second reading or at any time. Last year when the central bank bill was under consideration an attempt was made to move an amendment providing that the central bank should be publicly owned, and the house was informed both by the Minister of Finance and by the leader of the opposition that the principle of the bill was the setting up in Canada of a central bank, not the question whether it was to be publicly or privately controlled. That, they said, was a detail which could be determined in committee. So in this case the contributory or non-contributory feature obviously must be a detail, and was held to be so from the beginning; nothing to the contrary has ever been said.
As to the question whether or not the figures I have given in regard to the distribution of the wage earner's dollar are fair, the Prime Minister is probably as good a judge as I am. I gave the committee exactly what appeared in the monthly survey of the American Federation of Labour. I quote further in order to make it very clear:
That the workers have taken the "rap" during the depression is graphically revealed by Department of Commerce figures quoted by the "Survey." They show that during 1933 dividend and interest payments were 64 per cent of the 1929 level, while wages were only 41 per cent.
Even more startling was the statement that workers are getting less and less from the income they create. This is demonstrated by a graph reprinted herewith-
From which I have already quoted.
On the other hand, profits and overhead during the same period increased from a half to nearly two-thirds of the value created by manufacture. This, the "Survey" pointedly remarks, has steadily decreased the amount of goods workers can buy, with the result that efforts to get back to normal conditions have been halting.
So is it with this bill. This is going to halt recovery instead of advancing it. To the extent that it extracts purchasing power from the people, to that extent it hampers recovery.
Amendment (Mr. Garland) negatived.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I want to call the
attention of the committee to another feature of this matter. There is no doubt this question has been thoroughly studied in England and elsewhere. When I spoke last year on the resolution of the hon. member for East

Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) with respect to unemployment insurance I said that the machine should also be taxed. I believe that unless this is done the present bill is going to have the effect of bringing about more rapid industrialization of industry. No one can quarrel with the use of machines in the present industrial order, yet the fact remains that the machine is replacing men in great numbers, and unless it is found possible under this measure to tax to some extent the mechanization of industry it will defeat its own end, for the good reason that industries will try to use more and more machinery. I could give many instances of mechanization so highly advanced in some factories that practically no men are employed. This does not apply so forcibly in the mining and the newsprint industries. I want the Prime Minister to study that question. I am very serious in making the statement that this legislation will operate to encourage higher mechanization, replacing the human worker more and more, and unless something is done towards a graded ratio of taxation on the machine we are going to have more and more people unemployed, because it will simply hasten the natural evolution towards higher mechanization. Some two years ago the civilized world was startled by the famous term "technocracy." It was recognized that machinery was creating an anomalous situation, although perhaps not so serious as some of those American engineers tried to make the world believe; nevertheless the fact remains that at the present time when we are suffering so much from unemployment it is largely due to the fact that man is the servant and not the master of machinery. This has become more and more pronounced in our industrial life. I repeat the statement I made last year, that unless we find it possible to make the machine that is replacing men so rapidly pay something toward the state so as to allow men to remain at their occupations it will not help the functioning of the new social order. No doubt this angle has been studied by different committees, but I believe it would be in order for this committee to establish a ratio, inasmuch as the machine is entering to a greater degree into some industries than others, as a means towards the establishment of an equilibrium in the working population. If this is not done unemployment is going to become more and more pronounced. Anyone who has been studying the industrial evolution of this country for the last twenty-five years can see the stupendous changes that have taken place. These changes should work for the

Unemployment Insurance
welfare of civilization, but unluckily they have worked to the detriment of the workingman. This bill should provide that highly mechanized industry should be taxed on a higher scale than industries which do not use so much machinery. I make this prophecy, that unless it is found possible to establish an equilibrium so that the replacement of men by machines is made to serve the welfare of the working population as a whole, such legislation as this will defeat its own end.
Subsection 2 agreed to.
Subsections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On subsection 5-employer's contribution payable in respect of exempted person:


Mr. BUTCHER:: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Subsection 5 says:
The employer of a person who holds a certificate of exemption under this act shall be liable to pay the like contributions as would be payable by him as employer's contributions if -that person were a person insured under this act, and in this act any reference to the employer's contribution shall be construed as including a contribution payable under this subsection.
Section 16 was rather glossed over, but I notice among the exempted persons under subsection (b) we have-
-a person who is employed in an occupation which is seasonal and does not ordinarily extend over more than twenty-two weeks in any year and who is not ordinarily employed in any other occupation which is insurable employment; or
(c) a person who habitually works for less than the ordinary working day-
I wonder why it is provided that in this case the employer must pay the contribution. Will the Prime Minister explain?


Richard Bedford Bennett: A certificate of exemption-is in certain cases granted to an employee under section 16. By subsection 5 of section 17 the employer must continue to pay in the case of one exempted under section 16 as in all other cases. Therefore the employer must pay, just as if he had not applied for the certificate, so far as the individual employee -is concerned.


Harry Butcher: Then the employee would not receive benefits if he -became unemployed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, he would not.
Mr. HO-WDEN: That covers a large number of employees. Subsection (b) of this section deals with persons employed in 92582-62
seasonal occupations. There must be very many persons who are employed seasonally in the one industry alone.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 16 deals with the case where the person himself applies for and obtains from the commission a certificate. Under subsection (b) he is a person employed in an occupation -which is seasonal, which does not ordinarily extend for more than twenty-two weeks in a year, and who is not ordinarily employed in any other occupation which is insurable employment. That is one class; the other is composed of persons who habitually work for less than an ordinary working day. The application is made by the individual, in order to relieve himself of any further interest in. the matter. The counterpart of this section will -be found in the English act of 1920. If he did not ask for the certificate he would have to pay. By asking for the certificate he is exempt from the opportunity of obtaining insurance in the event of his falling within the provisions of the act concerning benefits, but the employer must continue to pay. It is an arbitrary exercise of power; he continues his payment to the fund.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsections 6 and 7 agreed to.
Section agreed to.
On section 18 (as printed; now section 17) -Payment by stamps or otherwise.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Might I ask the Prime Minister how these stamps are to be distributed, either through the post offioe or otherwise?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought the h-on. gentleman would ask that, because it is a reasonable question. The government has given some thought to the matter, and my personal view is that this should be the method of distribution. But it is thought that possibly the commission should make its own regulation in order to deal with the matter as it thinks best under the circumstances. My own view, which I -believe is shared by a great many persons-I shall have something to say about it in connection with another measure that will be submitted to the house later-is that the post offioe does offer the facilities to enable the stamps to be distributed.
Mr. MITCHE-LL: Will they be special stamps?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Unemployment Insurance
[Stage Direction]
Section 19 (now section 18) agreed to.
On section 20 (as printed; now section 19) -Statutory conditions for receipt of unemployment benefit.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think this section might be taken by paragraphs. It is a very important section, to which I particularly directed the attention off the hon. member for North Winnipeg and the hon. member for East Hamilton.
Subsections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On subsection (3)-Enlargement of first statutory condition.


Mr. MTJLOCK:: Are the benefits paid regardless of whether or not the person entitled to them remains in Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman will remember that in the first part of the first schedule, at page 31, the following words occur:
(b)	Employment under the dominion, or under any province of Canada with the concurrence of the province-
(c)	Employment outside of Canada, or partly outside of Canada, for the purpose of the execution of some particular work, by persons who were insured contributors immediately before leaving Canada-
So it might be that to a limited extent and under certain conditions payments might be made out of Canada.


William Pate Mulock: What I had in mind was that if it was cheaper to live in the United States people might draw benefits under this act and spend the money in the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That contingency we
know is always a possibility, because in connection with the pensions paid returned men that is so. Perhaps the hon. member for Labelle will permit me to continue without interrupting.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith, Cumberland) :: Order, please.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Thank you. The provisions of the statute in that regard of course could not be made mandatory, for it might well be that one who had made his payments here might in some case receive his benefit outside the country. I do not think it would be possible to make operative any provision prohibiting that.


William Pate Mulock: I just wanted to draw
that point to the Prime Minister's attention, because I understand that at one time there was some difficulty in Great Britain in regard

to money being spent in France because of the lower cost of living there. That condition corrected itself over a period of time, when the cost of living in France increased.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am obliged to the hon. gentleman, but I know of no method through which by statute the difficulty to which he refers could be adequately met unless it might be thought desirable to say that no benefit should be paid to any recipient of benefits outside of Canada. That would not cover it, either, for he might have the cheque sent to his ordinary address and then have the money sent to him after the cheque was cashed.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would like to ask the Prime Minister why the forty weeks and why it should be confined to two years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With which subsection
is my hon. friend dealing?


Humphrey Mitchell: Paragraph (i).


Richard Bedford Bennett: You must have some
period of time, and the period that has been selected is two yeans. Rightly or wrongly the theory is that there must be a period of time in which to allow the fund to accumulate in order that it may be solvent, and a period of time within which the workman must be continuously employed in order that the fund may be available for the payments to be made under it. In other words the solvency of the fund has been determined to be dependent upon these conditions. There is nothing I can possibly say about it beyond the fact that this, arbitrarily, is the time that has been regarded as proper, and the period of service that has been regarded as proper.


Mr. BOURASSA:: Hear, hear. Under the
principle of contributory insurance the fund accumulated from the contributions of all parties, whether employers, employees or the state, must be sufficient to ensure the payment of the benefit. Unless that is done the contributory principle disappears. That principle obtains throughout all forms of insurance, whether it be fire, life or accident insurance. The benefits conferred by the insurance fund must be supported by the amount of money contributed to that fund by the interested parties.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the principle upon which this measure is founded.
Subsection 3 agreed to.
On subsection 4-Meaning of continuous period of unemployment.

Unemployment Insurance


Mr. BOTH WELL:: I have one question
to ask in connection with this subsection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the subsection
to which I directed the attention of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), who is not now in the chamber. I thought we should deal with it very carefully, because it deals also with the question of mining, to which the attention of the committee was directed by another hon. member.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: Subsection 4 states:
Any three days of unemployment, whether consecutive or not, within a period of six consecutive days shall be treated as a continuous period of unemployment, and any two such continuous periods separated by a period of not more than six weeks shall be treated as one continuous period of unemployment....
Another section of the measure indicates that that man is considered unemployed and entitled to receive benefits only after he has been, unemployed nine days. Would three of these periods of unemployment constitute the nine day period mentioned in the other section?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The paragraph reads:
Any three days of unemployment, whether consecutive or not, within a period of six consecutive days shall be treated as a continuous period of unemployment.
That is, after six days of the week have passed and a man has been three days unemployed, whether those days have been consecutive or not they shall be regarded as three unemployed days. That is one period. Then, the paragraph states:
And any two such continuous periods separated by a period of not more than six weeks shall be treated as one continuous period of unemployment.
That means that if within six weeks we have this event happening twice, you have six continuous days of unemployment which go to make up the nine. That is the position.


Charles Edward Bothwell: He has credit for the
six days?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How would that affect the railway shops to which I referred earlier this afternoon? Men are employed on practically a three days per week basis; they are three days off and three days on. Would this clause affect those men?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It appears to me that
the situation described this afternoon by the hon. member who has just spoken creates some difficulty. I had not been fully advised that there were cases in which there were
92582-62J
lengths of time such as have been mentioned here. The hon. member said that for a period of a year men worked only three days a week.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is no doubt about
that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under those circumstances I should like to look into that subsection a little farther, because if there is a period as long as a year in which men are employed only half a week, obviously there should be some readjustment of the provisions of the subsection.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is another point: Suppose men are working twenty hours a week, spread over a five day week, what would the situation be? The basis of their employment is probably only a half or a third of the total regular weekly employment. I believe there is nothing in the measure which takes care of a situation of that kind, and I am wondering whether men working those hours would come under its provisions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall look into that
point.


George Gibson Coote: I should like to draw to
the attention of the Prime Minister a condition among the coal miners of my constituency. They may be employed on an average of two days a week over a period of several months. That period of employment may drop to one day a week at one time and go up to five days a week at another. This is a bituminous coal mining district. I am wondering whether those miners would be covered by subsection 4 as it now stands.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would suggest that
subsection 4 be allowed to stand.


George Gibson Coote: If possible I believe this subsection should be redrafted so as to include men who have employment of such a precarious nature. I believe if that were done it would be worth while.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have noted on my bill the hon. member's suggestion, and we shall deal with it.
Subsection 4 stands.
Subsections 5 and 6 agreed to.
On subsection 7-Employment which is unsuitable within the third statutory condition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suggest that we take this subsection by paragraphs.
Unemployment Insurance


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: We are on paragraph (a), "unemployment due to trade dispute."


Edward Joseph Garland: Would the Prime Minister explain this paragraph and indicate to what it refers? By a "stoppage of work" does he mean a lockout or a walkout?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under the measure three statutory conditions must be observed in order to enable the claimant to receive a benefit under the fund. It will be observed, further, that subsection 7 provides:
An insured contributor shall not be deemed to have failed to fulfil the third statutory condition by reason only that he has declined-
That is, he must be ready to work, or to accept work, but he is not bound to accept work if it is-[DOT]
(a)	an offer of employment arising in consequence of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute.
That is, if there is a strike, or whatever you choose to call it, in connection with any particular work where he could obtain employment he is not said to have declined employment simply because at that time there happens to be a trade dispute. Then he is not said to be in default if he declines-
(b)	an offer of employment at wages lower, or on conditions less favourable, than those which he might reasonably have expected to obtain, having regard to those which he habitually obtained in his usual occupation, or would have obtained had he continued to be so employed.
That is, if the only work he could secure was work for which the wages offered were less than those he had been receiving, or the conditions of work were such as to be at variance with those habitually encountered, he could not then be regarded as being in default. Or, he could not be regarded as being in default if he received-
(c)	an offer of employment in his usual occupation at wages lower, or on conditions less favourable, than those observed by agreement between employers and employees, or failing any such agreement, than those recognized by good employers.
I realize the words "good employers" are vague, but in actual practice they have been found satisfactory. In other words, a man shall not be punished if he has not been able to find employment because there has been a trade dispute, or because the offer of work is greatly at variance with that to which he has been habitually willing to undertake, both as to wages and conditions; or, even if conditions in his usual occupation are such as to make it

unreasonable to expect him to undertake the work at a lesser wage or under less favourable conditions.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT



ABSENTEE BALLOT FOR MEN IN UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CAMPS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South) moved the second reading of Bill No. 16, to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1934.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the Dominion Elections Act is similar to an amendment which I moved on the third reading of the bill last year. The purpose of the amendment is to extend' the privilege of voting by absentee ballot to the men in the unemployment relief camps. Voting by absentee ballot was not in the Dominion Elections Act up until the act of 1934. The privilege is restricted to lumbermen, miners, sailors and fishermen. The purpose of that provision is to allow men to vote by absentee ballot who are unavoidably away from their polling division or electoral district on election day. The Dominion Franchise Act made provision for the registrating of the men in the unemployment relief camps, and I am quite satisfied that the government had in mind that they should have every opportunity of exercising their franchise. I will read the section dealing with that so that hon. members may have it clear in their minds that there was no intention, so far as the act itself was concerned, to deprive these men of their franchise. Rule 9 of subsection 2 of section 3 of the Dominion Franchise Act reads as follows:
Notwthstanding the provisions of any other of these rules, time spent by a person at any unemployment relief camp, or in any institution or refuge maintained, either by public or private moneys, for the relief of distressed or unemployed persons, shall be deemed to have been spent by that person in temporary absence from his last place of residence as determined pursuant ito these rules, and if there be any such place of residence or home, either of himself or of any member of his family, to which he could return, he shall, notwithstanding his presence in such unemployment camp, be registered at such place or residence or home, and moreover no person who is registered as an elector under this act shall merely because of

Dominion Elections Act
time spent by him at an unemploylment relief camp, or in such an institution or refuge, lose his residence qualification in the electoral district in which he is so registered.
I think that makes it quite clear that the government and parliament had in mind that these men should have the opportunity of exercising their franchise. But a peculiar circumstance in connection with the men in the unemployment relief camps is that most of them are away from the constituency in which they are registered. At some of the camps in the interior of British Columbia, for instance, no doubt a great many of the men come from Vancouver or New Westminster or neighbouring constituencies. It is impossible for these men to leave the camp and go into their own electoral districts to exercise their franchise on election day. So that while provision has been made for registering these men presumably for the purpose of allowing them to exercise the franchise, conditions are such that it is impossible for them to do so. They are, as a matter of fact, in just the same position as those for whom provision has been made to vote by absentee ballot. I remember that in the debate on this question last year the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) made this statement:
It is no crime to have to earn your living away from home and by the methods I have indicated. There is no suggestion that these people are of a low standard because they have to go away to earn their living. Surely they are entitled to a chance to vote.
He was referring at the time to lumbermen, miners, sailors and fishermen. Now I take it that what holds for these occupations holds equally well for the men in the unemployment relief camps. It is no crime at this time to be unemployed. It may be inconvenient, but it certainly is not a crime.
The amendment would apply only to such men as are entitled to vote in the particular province in which they live. That is, if a person in an unemployment relief camp in British Columbia is not ordinarily entitled to vote in the province of British Columbia, and is not registered in any constituency of that province, this amendment will not give him that right. He must 'be registered in some constituency in the province before he is allowed to vote.
I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker, that we should give every consideration to these men. They are in rather difficult circumstances, and because of their condition they feel that society is, as it were, against them. We should employ every means possible to disabuse their minds of that idea, ideas which they have every opportunity of
hearing propagated. I was at a meeting only last week where one of the questions asked was: "How can we change the present order by constitutional means when the men who are now in the camps are disfranchised? And this is only a beginning. Next year we might see more of them disfranchised." Now unless we take steps to see that these men are placed at least on the same basis as those already provided for in the act I believe they will have a good case for the statements that are being made.
During the debate on the elections act last year the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) said:
If people go about and try to raise passions and prejudices by saying that parliament is endeavouring to take away from persons the rights and privileges they enjoy, that argues ill for democracy and for its future.
But people will do these things as long as we give them an opportunity, as long as we leave any loophole for them to do so. I am convinced that if we are to get out of the difficulties we are in now we can only do so through the cooperation of all our people, and that includes the men in the relief camps.
I noticed in the press a few days ago a statement by the Archibishop of York. The church officials were discussing the problem of unemployment, and this is what the archbishop said:
The great thing is to make the unemployed feel that they still count as members of the community.
I do not know of any better way at the moment to make them feel they are members of the community than to make it as easy as possible for them to exercise their franchise. It is a duty we owe to them, and it will take away any excuse they may have for saying that they have no part in the government of the country. I would therefore ask the house to consider this amendment seriously, to try to see the justice of it, to pass the amendment and extend to these men the privilege which we have already accorded those who are fortunate enough to have employment but are away from their constituency on election day.
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: As my hon. friend (Mr. Maclnnis)
has said, this identical motion was introduced by him last year when the Dominion Elections Act was up for its third reading in this house. Last session a special committee studied the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act and one of the proposals which I think the committee very fully considered was * that now put forward in the bill before the
Dominion Elections Act

house. I think the committee spent two meetings in a discussion of this question, and we unanimously agreed that the men in unemployment camps, while they could not and should not be disfranchised, should not be entitled to vote in the particular riding where the camp happened to be situated. It was pointed out to us, and I think everyone is aware of the fact, that to a very large extent the men in these camps are transients and not residents of the riding in which the camp happens to be located. My hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) who is not in the house, was a member of the committee and he pointed out very forcibly that there was a very large camp in his riding, that the men there were not residents of the riding, and that it would be most unfair to allow them to vote in that particular district where they were merely transients.


Angus MacInnis: This amendment does
not suggest that they should be allowed to vote in the constituency in which the camp is located, any more than the amendment proposed last year provided that the miners, sailors and fishermen should vote in the constituency in which they were employed.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, but these men in
the camps were largely transients and provision was made in the bill to permit them to vote in their ordinary residential constituencies, in the place where they were accustomed to reside, and machinery was introduced into the act for that purpose.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was
that for voting or registration?


Hugh Guthrie: Both.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was
arrangement made for transportation?


Hugh Guthrie: No. On this point the
committee was unanimous and we reported the bill to the house. A suggestion was made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) that there should be special provision with regard to fishermen, sailors, miners and lumbermen-not for such sailors, fishermen, miners and lumbermen as were in unemployment camps, but men whose business called them away from home and made it very difficult if not impossible for them to reach their homes to vote. A special amendment was introduced by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni to allow men living within a radius of fifty miles, I think-


Alan Webster Neill: Twenty-five miles.


Hugh Guthrie: within a radius of
of twenty-five miles of their home, to vote by special ballot at the nearest poll, in the event of their not being able to go home.


Alan Webster Neill: Living beyond twenty-five
miles.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. Now, when that
amendment was before the house-and it was adopted-my hon. friend from Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis), who has moved the second reading of the present bill, made the motion which he has made to-night, and on that occasion a vote was taken. It is recorded in Hansard, and I see his proposal was negatived by a vote of forty-three to ten. It was at the end of the session and there was a small house, but in the committee there was unanimity in regard to this proposal and a certain degree of unanimity also in this house when the vote was taken.
I cannot accede to the request. I think it is going beyond the bounds of common sense. It is not a reasonable request that men from Nova Scotia or New Brunswick or the prairie provinces settling in Ontario, say, should be entitled to vote in a constituency in which their camp happens to be situated. There is nothing to prevent them-


Angus MacInnis: The amendment does
not ask for that.


Hugh Guthrie: There is nothing in the
election act to prevent these men from voting in their own localities. The question of transportation is a serious one, but I am not in favour of the proposal. I was not last year, and the house was against it then, as was also the committee. I must vote against the bill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The statement of the Minister of
Justice (Mr. Guthrie) in regard to what took place last year is eminently fair. It is quite correct to say that there was a unanimous understanding in the committee, of which I was not a member, in regard to the special concession in the bill with respect to absentee ballots. At the same time, when my hon. friend from Vancouver South introduced the amendment last year I took the same stand as I take to-night. I see no reason why these men who, through no fault of their own, are compelled to live in unemployment camps, should be deprived, not actually of the franchise through registration, but of the opportunity to register their votes in whatever riding they may be registered. A considerable number of these men have been registered-in our province at any rate some have been

Dominion Elections Act
registered in more than one riding-but unless the Department of National Defence, in charge of these camps, makes some arrangement for transporting them to the polls when the election is held, these men are inferentially deprived of the franchise, though through the regulations in connection with the Franchise Act they may have been given the opportunity of registering. I am certain that many of these men in the camps in British Columbia will be inferentially deprived of their right to vote unless the government makes some arrangement to transport them to the riding in whiah they are registered under the procedure adopted last year.
The minister is entirely correct in the statement that there was an understanding by the committee last year, a unanimous agreement as a concession for having inserted the provision with respect to absentee ballots, that it would be limited to the four classes mentioned in the act; and after that agreement my hon. friend from Vancouver South, on the third reading of the bill last year, moved his amendment and ten members of this house supported it. On grounds of equity and justice, I submit that these men in the unemployment camps are entitled to exercise the franchise either by the method suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver South or by arrangements made between the government and the proper officials for the transportation of the men to the polls, because they themselves have not the facilities for their own transportation. They are Canadians, and they should be entitled to vote, and for that reason they should be given the proper facilities for registering their votes when the election is held. My hon. friend has suggested one means of enabling them to do so, but there is another way of doing it. That way is to have proper guarantees given by the officials in charge of the election that the necessary facilities will be provided for the transportation of these men.


Thomas Reid: I think there is perhaps a little misunderstanding regarding both the present bill and the act which was passed last year. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Mac-Innis) asks that men within the province of British Columbia working in unemployment camps be given the privilege of voting. Last year when we were discussing this matter it was urged that if a man coming from Ontario were working in a relief camp in British Columbia it would be unfair to ask
him to vote in the latter province. Since that time the subject has been discussed from one end of the province to the other. I am going to cite one case. In the constituency of New Westminster there are two camps, both close to White Rock, and in those camps there are four hundred men, mostly returned soldiers. During the registration period one-half of the men gave t'heir address as the city of Vancouver, which is twenty-eight miles from the camp, and if they are going to vote on election day they will have to be transported to that city. The hon. member for Vancouver South is bringing up this question to give to those men the same right as is given under the act to four other classes, and for that reason I support the bill.


Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: I
think there is some misunderstanding in regard to the registration, at least as to the ruling given by the commissioner. In my riding there are some twelve to fifteen camps and over four hundred men are registered in them. The commissioner classed the camps as urban districts; registrations took place in them and I believe close to five hundred registered as residents at the camps for the simple reason that they swore that they had no previous place of residence. The commissioner ruled that anyone who had no previous place of residence could register as living in the camp. Thus we have between four and five hundred men who are registered as voters in the camp. I understood and I understand again to-night this is contrary to the provisions of the statute as passed last session.


Colin Alexander Campbell: May I add a few words to what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie has said? I should like to relate this incident to the house. In the riding which I have the honour to represent there are two camps with a registration of around seven hundred men. The registration last fall allowed only one hundred and thirty-one men in one camp and forty-seven in the other to be placed on the list; one hundred and seventy-eight men out of the total strength have the privilege of voting in that riding. At the present time there are more than five hundred men in the two camps who will have no vote unless they are allowed that privilege under this bill. I agree with the principle of the bill and should like to support it.
Dominion Elections Act


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston. City):: While, as the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Campbell) said, some hundred men voted, I have before me the list of about three or four hundred-


Colin Alexander Campbell: May I say that I have a list for the coming election-


Arthur Edward Ross: I think I have the floor. In the camps there are to-day nine hundred in one and two hundred in the other. It is most unfair to the voters in that constituency that eleven hundred men should come in and exercise the franchise there. I have their names before me. In June some of them voted in Kingston City and also voted in the camp. There is no way of controlling the vote; it is a most difficult matter.


An hon. MEMBER:: Put them in the penitentiary.


Arthur Edward Ross: There is a way of controlling them which we are not mentioning at the present time. All a man in the camp had to do was to go into Kingston and exercise his franchise and then return to the camp and take an oath that he had been in that camp for so many months. We have them checked up from the time they entered that camp, and I can give the house hundreds of instances-


Colin Alexander Campbell: I rise to a point of order.
I understood the discussion was about an amendment to the elections act of 1934. The matter about which the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Ross) is speaking is with regard to the old elections act.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member for Kingston City is quite in order.


Arthur Edward Ross: This is most unfair to the constituents proper. I do not care whether they are in a Conservative or in a Liberal constituency, it is most unfair that by accident a camp is established in some riding and men may gather there from Nova Scotia or British Columbia to a number equal to nine hundred or a thousand and be given the vote, thus offsetting the desire of residents in that constituency who should have the say as to its direction rather than men who happen to be there for a few months. The provision has been unfairly used. This affects not only men in the camps but students in the universities where perhaps two or three thousand may be gathered. Why not give students the vote the same as the men who are gathered in camps? These students have not been given the vote; they are required to be residents so long and they were ruled out. This question 
affects both parties. It would be most unfair to make an amendment which would apply to constituencies where these camps for unemployed men are situated.


Charles Gavan Power: I have just entered the chamber, but after listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Ross) I am rather of the opinion that the distinction between the franchise act and the elections act is not quite clear in his mind. The matter of giving the franchise to persons in these camps was discussed before the committee which considered the Dominion Franchise Act last year and I think it was pretty generally, almost unanimously agreed that persons who were in these camps should not have the right to be registered on the electoral list of the place where such a camp was situated. That is the point brought up by the hon. member for Kingston City. It would be grossly unfair to colonize any given constituency by opening unemployment camps there and allowing the persons who temporarily are in that camp to have the right to vote in that constituency. It was with this in mind that when the Dominion Franchise Act was passed there was inserted in it a provision dealing with residence, stating, among other things, that no person should be inscribed on the list unless he was a bona fide resident of the constituency in which he wished to be inscribed. I am reading from the franchise instructions issued on August 15, 1934, Dominion Franchise Act, part I, page 46, rule 9. Rule 9 governs the registrar in deciding whether or not a person living in an unemployment camp should be registered- that is, who shall have the right to vote in the constituency in which the camp is situated.


Mr. ARTHURS:: When was that issued?


Charles Gavan Power: August 15, 1934, under the authority of the Dominion Franchise Act, 19.34. The rule says:
Notwithstanding the provisions of any other of these rules, time spent by a person at an unemployment relief camp, or in any institution or refuge maintained, either by public or private moneys, for the relief of distressed or unemployed persons, shall be deemed to have been spent by that person in temporary absence from his last place of residence as determined pursuant to these rules and if there be any such place of residence or home, either of himself or of any member of his family, to which he could return, he shall, notwithstanding his presence in such employment camp, 'be registered at such place or residence or home, and moreover no person who has registered as an elector under this act shall merely because of time spent by him at an unemployment relief camp, or in such an institution or refuge, lose his residence qualification in the electoral district in which he is so registered.

Dominion Elections Act
So that under this rule the registrar and the enumerators at the time of the general registration last summer were not permitted to register persons living in unemployment camps as voters or electors of the constituency in which the camp was situated. But there was nothing to prevent relatives or friends, the wife, employer, or anyone connected with these persons living in the unemployment camps, from registering them in their home town, where they had a perfect right to vote, the place in which they resided prior to taking up residence in the unemployment camp. I understand that in some camps at any rate that was done. In the camp with which I am familiar, that in my own constituency, there were five or six hundred persons, but the enumerators, acting under instructions from the registrar, placed on the list only those who had no other place of residence and who on being questioned stated that they had no home to which they could go. So that out of approximately five hundred, some two hundred I think remained on that list. In Valcartier, in the constituency of the hon. member for Quefoec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion), there were I believe some 1,700 voters. The enumerators there made the mistake of believing that everyone who was in the camp had the right to have his name placed on the list. I happened to see some of those lists, and they registered people somewhat in this fashion; Mr.-inski, Russia; Mr.-oski, Roumania; Mr. So-and-so, England; Mr. So-and-so, Montreal, and so on. Well, it was pointed out to the registrar that in the first place an address in Russia did not give a person the right to the franchise in Canada; neither did one in Roumania, and after a while he understood that and these names were stricken from the list. The next step was to bring to his attention the fact that residence in Montreal did not under any franchise act in force in Canada give the right to vote in the constituency of Quebec. After considerable and careful perusal of the act he came to the conclusion that perhaps that was so, with the result that the 1,700 names on the list at Valcartier camp were eventually reduced to eighteen.


Mr. MANION:: Eighteen hundred or
eighteen?


Charles Gavan Power: Eighteen names. So my hon. friend from Quebec-Montmoreney will enjoy the pleasure of having eighteen votes in his favour-or let us hope against him-at the next election.


Mr. COTNAM:: I wish they came in my
riding.


Charles Gavan Power: Well, he was a very good
registrar, appointed I understand on the recommendation of my hon. friends opposite, and he did a good job once he became convinced that the list should be purged.
But that has not much to do with the question now before us, which is this: shall any other persons who came to the unemployment camp afterwards and who are registered in their home towns have the right to the benefit of the provisions of the absentee clauses? The absentee clauses were inserted in the act at the urgent request of my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni, who stated that in his constituency and a number of constituencies in British Columbia there were persons who registered in their home towns but who, owing to the exigencies of their occupations, were obliged to be absent for long periods of time, such as sailors, miners, loggers and fishermen. He submitted to the committee and to the house that a great injustice would be done if these men were not permitted to vote by the system known as absentee voting. Many members of the house I think were not very keen on beginning what was a new departure, for us in eastern Canada at least, although I understand that absentee voting has been in effect in western Canada; but after some discussion it was agreed that four specific classes could enjoy that benefit. But as was pointed out at the time, no sooner had it been agreed to open the door for four classes than every other class, from gooseberry piekere to commercial travellers, wished to come under this benefit. If the doors be opened widely enough, sooner or later people will not take the trouble to go home to vote; they will expect to be able to vote anywhere. The provisions are of course well known to hon. members: any person in the categories named who on election day happens to be at a polling division in another constituency, or even in his own constituency twenty-five miles from his home, may go to the polling booth, demand a ballot, state his residence and qualification, and swear before the deputy returning officer that he is on the permanent list; and having fulfilled those formalities he is handed a ballot. He votes, and on the night of the election the result of the vote is telegraphed to the proper constituency-


Mr. BURY:: It must be within that province, must it not?
Dominion Elections Act


Charles Gavan Power: Within, that province. The ballots are afterwards sent on to the constituency in which the voter is registered, and if on checking up it is found to be a bona fide ballot it is counted. That applies at the present time to four categories.
The object of this bill is that a person who through no fault of his own happens to be in an unemployment camp, but whose name is registered in his home town, shall be allowed to go to the poll nearest to that unemployment camp and vote as in his own constituency. Personally I have no strong views on the matter, except that I am rather inclined to share those of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), that if you open the doors still wider, sooner or later the whole effect of the act as to forcing a man to go to the poll nearest his own home, and providing a great many other safeguards, will be defeated. It is perhaps easy enough to provide safeguards for a small number of categories, but if we increase the categories to any great extent there is no telling where we will stop, and we do not know how difficult it may be to provide efficient safeguards for ordinary voters. I think last year I said I was in favour of this principle; I have no objection to it, though I must say that I should be just as glad if there was none of this absentee voting under the act at all.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I am and always have been of the opinion that the absentee vote should apply to everyone in Canada, subject of course to the restrictions in the act confining it to the particular province in which the man or woman is domiciled. I was not a bit enamoured of the act we .passed last year; I do not think it was an improvement in any way upon the old act which, by and large, gave us a pretty fair deal and provided a ready and convenient means of getting on the list and voting. In the final analysis everyone was protected by the opportunity of swearing himself in on election day. That did away with any possibility of wrongdoing or of people being left off deliberately, yet it provided safeguards so that there was very little abuse.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) introduced that bill he referred to the fact that in many respects it resembled the act that had been in force in British Columbia for a number of years, but as I pointed out at that time unfortunately he did not adhere to the British Columbia act in all particulars and, as the saying goes, that spilled the

beans. For instance the British Columbia act provides that the court of revision shall be held every month, whereas under our act it is to be held every year, which makes a very great difference. Again, British Columbia has the absentee vote applying to everyone, while we restrict it to the four classes that have been named. When the resolution was brought in last year I pointed out these facts. I need not read what I said, but I pointed out that if we were going to follow the British Columbia act we ought to take the bitter with the sweet, whereas we appeared to have taken the worst features of the British Columbia act and to have left out the better ones, the safeguards. At all events my opinion, which I urged in the house, was that we should have the absentee vote applying to everyone. It is quite true that if you look at Hansard you will see that, speaking selfishly for my own district and others in the vicinity, I said that it would fall particularly hard on the four classes I named; when the matter came up in committee the minister was good enough to grant my request, and the act was so amended. I was grateful for that; on the principle that I should accept what I could get if I could not get what I wanted, which is always a good principle in politics, I was grateful for that concession, but at the same time I see nothing wrong with the idea that this privilege should be extended to everyone.
The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) indicated that if the privilege were extended everyone would get in, berry pickers and people like that, but why not? It would also allow school teachers to vote, as many of them cannot vote to-day. It would also allow many ministers to vote. Very often they change their stations, as school teachers change their schools, at such times that under our existing system they are not able to vote because they are not permitted the absentee vote. When I was speaking last year I stated that this system would disfranchise hundreds of people in my riding, and my experience since that time amply bears out that statement. The way the act has been carried out, with the list being made up on a fixed date last fall, has worked very much to the prejudice of a great many of the people whom I represent. The enumerator would go to a certain place where he would find ten people. He would put those ten people on the list, but he would not want to put a poll there because ten people would not be enough. That might be so, but by next July there might be 150 people there, or vice versa.

Dominion Elections Act
Take the ease of a cannery; when the enumerator went there, with the cannery running there might -be 150 voters at that point, but when the actual election comes along there may not be ten or even three people there. Under the old system the list was made up within sixty days and it included the people actually at the particular point, not people who might or might not be there. The old system was infinitely preferable, even with the improvement in the new system that has been brought about by giving the absentee vote to these four classes. There are still large numbers of people who are going to be prevented from voting in the district I represent and in the adjacent district of Vancouver island and the lower mainland.
While I am quite willing to vote for this bill as indicating my belief that these people should have the absentee vote, I would very much prefer to have the h-on. member who introduced the bill widen it to allow everyone to have that privilege. A great deal of the antagonism that I have found in connection with this absentee vote has come from our friends in the east, simply because they are not familiar with it. I do not think you will find any man from British Columbia who has had experience with this system who will say there is anything wrong with it, or that it lends itself to any kind of manipulation or graft. It does not, or we would have found it out before this. As a matter of fact we did; it was corrected and the leak was stopped, so that now the system cannot be abused at all. I would prefer to see the absentee vote extended to all those who are entitled to vote according to the act.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that for once I must disagree entirely with my deskmate (Mr. Neill) for whom I h-ave so much esteem and consideration. Quite contrary to his opinion, I am not only opposed to this bill but I think we are going too far away from the basic and solid principles of sound democracy, by extending the franchise to many people who should not be allowed to use it to defeat the influence of the people who are really interested in and who compose the mainstay of the state. Under conditions as they exist at present in Canada I believe people who are living at the expense of the state and who give practically no service to the state should not be entitled to vote. I do not think those receiving the dole should vote. I do not think returned soldiers who live at the expense of the state should vote. I think the people who, by their votes, determine who shall govern the country and who shall make our
laws, should be the people who pay taxes and support the government of the country. So in that regard I go beyond what the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) stated and in the opposite direction to my good friend and deskmate. I would say that instead of extending we should restrict the suffrage. If we want to save democracy we must put it in the hands of the people who have democracy at stake and not in the hands of those who want to exploit democracy simply to live upon it and make profit by it.
I do not want to say any more about this, but on the eve of an election I think the house generally and some hon. members of it are tempted to flatter as many people as they can and to appeal to the vanity or to the political influence of as many people as possible. I do not make that observation for the benefit of my good neighbour; I know he could be elected by any majority he wished by the constituents in his electoral division. He is a good Scotchman, and no matter what amendments we may -pass he would not be affected. But in its closing days parliament is tempted to flatter the masses in electoral and financial matters. Let us appeal to the reason of reasonable people who have something at stake, who do something for the support of the government and for the support of the nation, and who thereby acquire some sense of responsibility. The idea of giving votes to people living in camps at the expense of the state which would equalize the votes of fathers of families or property owners paying taxes, and bearing the load of civic and national responsibility, and the idea of making equal before the law people who are absolutely useless to the nation as compared with people who are most useful, is an unsocial and undemocratic procedure. So far as I am concerned I am prepared to vote against any measure which tends to increase the electoral franchise without giving due regard to the civic and national responsibilities of the people exercising that franchise.


Mr. A. E. MUNN (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, there are several hundred men in camps in my constituency. I should like to say to you and through you to the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Bourassa) that many of those men are real, honest-to-goodness thoroughbreds.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Oh, yes.


Albert Edward Munn: It is not their fault that they are in the camps; they are there through their misfortune. Despite the fact that they are not revenue producers and are a charge on the state they should have something to say in the affairs of their country, and should have
Dominion Elections Act

some encouragement to place their views on record. Why keep them down? I believe it is a mistake to view the matter as it is viewed by the hon. member who has just spoken, and I am strongly in favour of giving those men the vote to -which they are entitled.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East); Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word in explanation of the vote I wish to give. I am in favour of a universal franchise and in favour of the men in question herein having the right to vote, but I am opposed to the method suggested of giving them that vote.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I had not risen because I thought it would be proper to give hon. members an opportunity to vote on the motion before the house. However, as the sponsor of the bill intends, I believe, to close the debate I should like to make some observations along the line of those which have been made by the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe).
I do not share the views held by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). I believe every Canadian should vote, and that is the stand I have taken on previous occasions in my native city. However, although every Canadian has the right to vote, the law has provided that the exercise of that right shall be attended by certain formalities. Unfortunately the men in the camps cannot carry out those formalities. If by mistake the name of a man living in the very centre of the city is dropped, and he does not take the opportunity offered by law to rectify the mistake, he cannot vote. As a candidate in previous elections and one who is likely to be a candidate at the next election, I say it is difficult enough to follow the votes of those whose names are registered and who will exercise their votes in a proper way, without having to follow a flow of votes through the mail or otherwise. We have had such experiences in the past, and they have not been pleasant. I do not believe in the spreading of votes; I would be in favour of giving everyone an opportunity to register where he resides. In the event of that not being feasible, however, I should rather have a few men disfranchised than have the whole electoral system crippled by the possibility of registering votes in so many different ways. Therefore, although in principle I am in favour of every Canadian having a vote, I am also in favour of the law being strictly followed, and for these reasons I shall not vote for the bill.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) went out of his way to give a wrong impression of the amendments. The term "absentee voter" is very clearly defined in the Dominion Elections Act. Paragraph (a) of subsection 1 of section 99 states:
(a) "Absentee voter" means a person, being one of the classes of persons in the next following subsection mentioned, whose name is registered on the list of electors of a polling division of an electoral district and who seeks to vote pursuant to sections 99 to 104, inclusive, of this act.
Before a person may vote as an absentee voter his name must be on the voters' list for some constituency in the province in which he tries to vote. If his name is not on the list he cannot vote. For example, let us take two individuals both registered in the constituency of, we will say, Vancouver Centre, in the province of British Columbia. One obtains employment which takes him more than twenty-five miles outside the city of Vancouver. On election day that man may vote by absentee ballot. The other, however, has not been fortunate enough to obtain employment and has had to go to an unemployment camp. His name, too, is on the voters' list and for that reason he is entitled to vote, but because of the distance between the camp and the city he cannot be in the city on election day. Because he cannot go to the city and because he is not employed he is deprived of his vote. It is not suggested in the amendment that the vote should be extended to transients going from one province to another, but only to those who are on the voters' list of some constituency within the province.
I do not wish to carry the discussion to any greater length, but I am sure that unless we extend this privilege to the men in the unemployment camps-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I call the hon. member's
attention to the fact that it is now nine o'clock.


Angus MacInnis: -we will be doing an
injustice to those men.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 8, to establish an unemployment and social insurance commission,

Unemployment Insurance
to provide for a national employment service, for insurance against unemployment, for aid to unemployed persons, and for other forms of social insurance and security, and for purposes related thereto-Mr. 'Bennett-Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 20 (as printed; now section 19) -Statutory conditions for receipt of unemployment benefit.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. 'Morand):: we are on subsection 7, paragraph (b).


William Daum Euler: Before we rose at six o'clock I was going to ask the Prime Minister what means would be adopted to ensure that the beneficiary has complied with the conditions laid down. Is the onus placed upon the man who seeks to come under the provisions of the act to prove that he could not obtain employment, or what safeguards are provided in that regard?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He makes application for the benefit in the manner prescribed by the act, and the authorities to whom he applies make the usual investigations. It is simply a matter of local machinery, to be dealt with promptly on the spot.


William Daum Euler: But the onus is not placed on the applicant?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is merely the same sort of application that you and I would make under a health or accident policy, filling out a form and asking for the benefit.
Paragraph (b) agreed to.
On paragraph (c)-Employment less favourable than observed by agreements between employers and employees.


Humphrey Mitchell: Are these the same as in the British act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Substantially they are until you come to lines 25 to 30 on page 12 of this bill. Paragraph (b) comes from the British act, modified by the three acts of 1920, 1924 and 1927, and paragraph (c) from the British acts of 1920 and 1927 modified to meet the situation. When we come to the other it is largely taken from the social security bill for unemployment insurance, being a draft prepared by a committee of the leading authorities in cooperation with the American Association for Social Security. It seemed to meet the situation more equitably, commencing at "provided."


Wilfred Hanbury: Referring to the last line of paragraph (c) dealing with a person becoming a member of any association, organization or union of workers, it occurs to me that that should be a recognized union. Otherwise there would 'be nothing to prevent a small group of men forming some sort of association just to take advantage of the act without, properly speaking, being a national or provincial or local association.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard is not one of easy solution or answer, but it is believed that this is as near as one can approach a solution of the difficulty, and it has been recommended by those who have given it the closest consideration and study. I appreciate the point to which the hon. member refers, but I do not think he would find it easy to substitute anything which might not create greater difficulty than that which he seeks to overcome.


Wilfred Hanbury: Unless the Prime Minister cared to insert the words "provincial or national."


Richard Bedford Bennett: That raises a very distinct difficulty in a national insurance bill.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I have a letter with regard to this bill which I should like to put on record. I understand that the Prime Minister has received the same letter, and a copy of it was published in the Stratford Beacon^ Herald of the fourteenth of this month. I received this letter with a covering letter from the secretary of Pioneer Lodge, No. 103, International Association of Machinists, of the city of Stratford.' It is dated Stratford, February 11, 1935, and reads as follows:
At the last regular meeting of the above lodge considerable discussion was given to the recent press reports of the unemployment and social insurance bill now awaiting the consideration of the house, and after careful deliberation of the proposed bill, the members present went on record as strongly disapproving the unemployment and social insurance bill in its present form based on the following conclusions.
If the bill is allowed to remain in its present form will it not create a desire for employers to lay off their part time workers, thereby reducing their contributions to the fund of the bill, at the same time throwing more men out of employment who no doubt will eventually be forced to seek relief to maintain an existence? In any event it was noticed that the part time worker will be forced to contribute to the fund for a considerable length of time before he will be eligible to receive any unemployment benefits
Unemployment Insurance

due to the fact that forty weekly contributions must be made before he is entitled to any insurance benefits.
Strong objections were taken to the class of workers that are excluded under the proposed bill, such as policemen, firemen, civil servants, etc., and' persons receiving an income of $2,000 per year or more, and as a result will be exempted from contributing to the fund, while at the same time certain classes of railway workers who have sacrificed a reduction in their earning power of over 35 per cent in order that more of their fellow-workers might be given employment, and incidentally who also have agreements with the railway companies, through their respective labour organizations whereby with the existing seniority clause the railway worker will derive no benefits from the proposed bill although contributing towards its fund, it becomes apparent that the poorer class of worker is again being called upon to bear the burden, while those who are higher paid and can afford to contribute towards this fund have been exempted.
It was noted that the unemployment and social insurance bill in its present form failed to cover workers employed at seasonable trades such as the mining, lumbering, fishing and agricultural industries employ, inasmuch as the workers in these industries are to a large extent only employed part time (seasonally employed) workers, it was apparent that the workers in these industries would be practically the only workers that would benefit to any extent from the proposed unemployment insurance bill. With this in view it was felt that the proposed bill would have accomplished its purpose to a far greater degree had the bill included workers from the above mentioned industries.
A clause of the bill exception was taken to was that whereby a contributing worker will be disqualified if the loss of employment has been caused through a trades dispute, unless he can otherwise prove that he was not associated with those through whom the trades dispute was brought about; the incorporation of this clause into an act of this nature was it was felt a challenge to organized labour and a discrimination against union membership throughout the dominion.
In general it was felt that unemployment insurance was a benefit only to workers employed seasonally or temporarily, and while it was admitted that such legislation may have covered the situation fifteen or twenty years ago to advantage, it would hopelessly meet the situation existing to-day. What was needed, the members expressed, was a plan enacted that would have as its ultimate object and aim a cure to end unemployment, a promise made to the working people of Canada prior to the last federal election.
With this in view the members of the above lodge present at the last regular meeting instructed me to forward to you their protests and opposition to the proposed unemployment and social insurance bill in its present form, and to assure that they are in favour of, and endorse a non-contributory form of unemployment insurance.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of Pioneer Lodge No. 103 I.A. of M.

Wm. Lyons,
Secretary.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Should not the words:
-to refrain from becoming a member of any association, organization or union of workers ...
-be given some more explicit definition? I refer to the words "association, organization or union of workers." It might be one big union or something of that kind. In a subsequent section of the bill, section 30, subsection 5, paragraph (b), and again in subsection 9 of the same section, a limited description is given of association, organization or union of workers. It seems to me that these words should be more clearly defined.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just before the hon.
member came in I answered that question in reply to an inquiry by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. It is difficult to meet the situation by the use of any words that might be regarded as apt, and an effort to do so would create greater difficulties than those incidental to the words here. As a lawyer the hon. gentleman will realize that if we began to name organizations we should get into difficulties. One can trust the good sense of those charged with the responsibility of administration to overcome the difficulty to which reference has been made.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 8, paragraph (b)-While following any occupation for remuneration unless outside ordinary working hours.
Humphrey Mitchell: Does that mean that the workman who comes under the benefits of the bill is permitted to earn a dollar a day in addition to the dollar provided for in the bill?


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Section agreed to.
On section 21 (as printed; now section 20), paragraph (a)-Loss of work due to trade dispute.
Charles Gavan Power: What is meant by the words "financing or directly interested in the trade dispute"? Why the word "finance"?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The word I believe is
taken from the English act of 1924, No. 2, section 4. I think the reason of it is fairly clear and it was referred to slightly last evening. There might be circumstances under which the employee was actively engaged in promoting a disturbance in the property in which he was employed, for certain reasons, personal or national, as mentioned last night by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. My own view is that the provision is to

Unemployment Insurance
overcome the possibility of the very circumstance to which reference was made last evening-that is, of anyone finding himself employment for the purpose of destroying rather than helping it, and financing a disturbance. In fact, there was in this country, in the province to which reference was made last evening, some evidence that at one point in lumbering operations financial assistance came from some quarter, I will not say where, for the purpose of creating a disturbance in that particular plant.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph (b)-Disqualification on proof by an officer of the commission of neglect by insured contributor to avail himself of opportunity for work.
Charles Gavan Power: Why the words " by an
officer "?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose the only reason the word " officer " is used is that it is convenient; it is someone employed by the commission. I do not know that there is any magic in the word " officer " rather than " employee."


Charles Gavan Power: Why should it be someone
employed by the commission?
Mr. NELLiL:	I call the attention of the
Prime Minister to paragraph (e). We are dealing with claims for benefits. A man thinks he is entitled and asks for benefit, but under paragraph (e) he will not get it if he is in receipt of a pension under the Old Age Pensions Act.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: We are not yet dealing with that paragraph.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With reference to the
question asked by my hon. friend from Quebec South, the equivalent section is section 4 of the British act of 1930. The amendment as to disqualifications for receipt of benefit reads:
If on a claim for benefit it is proved' by an officer of the ministry of labour that the claimant, after a situation in any employment which is suitable in his case has been notified to him by an employment exchange or other recognized agency-
And so on. The provision in this bill is taken from that. There is no note indicating why the word "officer" is used in the British act. and I confess I know of no particular reason except that what appears in this bill has been taken from that act.


Humphrey Mitchell: H I may be allowed to refer back to paragraph (a), subparagraph (i), what is the meaning of these words:
That he is not participating in, or financing or directly interested in the trade dispute. . . .
I can understand it as it affects an employee of the particular concern. But suppose he were an employee of another firm altogether, were out of work, and took part in the strike; would that debar him from the benefits of the act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was the matter tc which the hon. member for Quebec South directed attention a moment ago, and I said that the statement made last evening by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard gave some excellent reasons why such a provision should be inserted. It merely refers to an employee who is in fact an employee but who in reality is working to promote the destruction of employment; he shall not be able to take advantage of it. That is all it means. In view of what we know of in one or two instances in this country it is an admirable provision.


Angus MacInnis: This section is rather far-reaching. We know that in the matter of defence certain trades help out others at a time of a strike or a lockout. If there is a strike or a lockout and a person who is participating in this unemployment insurance is a member of another trade which, through contributions form the union, is supporting the strike or lockout, would that person be debarred from the benefits of the act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think not. This is a combination of two sections from two amendments to the British act, section 4 of act IRo. 2 of 1924-the act was amended twice that year-and the other act to which I have referred. It is provided that the act:
-shall not apply in any case in which the insured contributor proves that he is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work, and that he does not belong to a grade or class of workers members of which are participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute. . . .
That was subsequently added to by the act of 1927 in section 6, which is not a long one but which merely clears up any possible difficulty there might be with respect to the original amendment of 1924. The section as amended in the English act of 1927 reads as follows:
Subsection (1) of section 4 of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1924, shall have effect as if there were substituted for the words "members of which" the words "of which immediately before the commencement of the stoppage there -were members employed at the
Unemployment Insurance

premises at which the stoppage is taking place any of whom," and as if all the words after "in the dispute" were omitted.
The sense of it is merely to make it clear that because a man has been a member of an organization that is interested in this stoppage, he shall not thereby sacrifice or forfeit his rights, if he proves "that he is not participating in, or financing or directly interested in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work, and that he does not belong to a grade or class of workers of which immediately before the commencement of the stoppage there were members employed at the premises at which the stoppage is taking place any of whom are participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute." That was the provision in the English act of 1927. Subsection (i) stands as it was in 1924 and subsection (ii) comes from the act of 1927, being section 6. I think it is a fair provision and it will be found that in practice it has been.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would this prevent any person coming under the benefits of the act from participating in a strike or assisting those who were on strike? Under this clause would he be debarred from assisting either directly or indirectly an organization the membership of which was either locked out or was out on strike?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The clause with which we are now dealing is one in which there is a prohibition with an exception. The prohibition against benefits is modified by the exception which says that the applicant is still entitled to the benefits if he is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the trade dispute itself; and in the second place, if he does not belong to a grade or class of workers of which immediately before the commencement of the stoppage there were members employed at the premises at which this stoppage is taking place. So I do not see just how the question as put would touch this. This is the case of a worker who under the act would come within the prohibition, but in order that the act might be construed in his benefit there are in the clause two provisions which enable him still to receive his benefit. The first is his, shall I say, non-participation in the dispute, and second, his position with respect to a class of employment in the factory or industry in which he may be engaged.


Edward Joseph Garland: I can only say that I regard this clause as one of the most ruthless provisions in the whole bill so far as the working people are concerned. Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!


Edward Joseph Garland: My hon. friends laugh rather hollowly when I say that. I wonder why they laugh when they must realize that it has taken the working class generations to build up an understanding in the minds of employers possibly like themselves, that they are entitled to some opportunities to work for better conditions in their industries for themselves as well as for those who are their fellow workers. The first part of the clause reads:
An insured contributor shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit-
(a) if he has lost his employment by reason of a stoppage of work, which was due to a trade dispute at the factory, workshop or other premises at which he was employed.
Supposing, as very often has happened, the employer himself has 'been guilty of a breach of agreement as between himself and his employees under a trade union agreement; does this mean that that class of people who strike against a breach of agreement on the part of an employer are at once to be disqualified from participation in the benefits under the bill? If so, the bill is a deliberate attempt to destroy the effectiveness of labour organizations in this country. Further, if he participates in, finances or is directly interested in a trade dispute which has caused a stoppage of work, he is to be outlawed. It will be noted that under the subclause of this clause he does not have to be actually in the ranks of the strikers. As the hon. member for Vancouver South suggests, he may belong to another organization altogether, but he may be sympathizing with and assisting those people. I have known for example groups of workers in one union in this country assist another group in another union when they were out on strike. I have in mind some of the strikes in the maritime provinces in connection with the coal industry. There will be more strikes in that industry because conditions in it, both east and west, are positively appalling. Until people go and see the hovels in which these coal miners live, the unsanitary conditions under which they exist and the miserable pittance upon which they live, they will never understand the reasons for what I am now telling the committee. A clause like this disallows not only those men but any others who are endeavouring to do what Britons will always desire to do, that is fight for decent conditions and justice. I think the clause is an appalling one, especially if it is ruthlessly enforced.


Alan Webster Neill: Read the next clause.

Unemployment Insurance


Edward Joseph Garland: The next one is just as bad. The Prime Minister, in his quite intelligent analysis over the radio of the prevailing system in this country, has fully justified what I am going to say. He must know just as well as I do that so long as capitalism exists, it will require more than mere regulations by law to compel employers to do justice to their employees. There are exceptions to the rule in all industries. There are some employers who understand the conditions of the workers and who are willing to make mild sacrifices on their behalf; but in the mass there is on the part of the employers nothing 'but callousness and ignorance of the rights of working people. To insert a clause like this, which has the effect not only of intimidation but of causing these men and their colleagues in other industries to resist in every way even the striving for better conditions, is in my opinion a violation of British justice. I do not like the clause at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In listening to the language of the hon. gentleman one would think his solicitude for those who are unfortunate was born of wide and vast experience.


William Duff: He heard Tim Buck speaking last night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That explains the situation.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, he was here with the hon. gentleman wrestling over this bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I find the parliament of Great Britain, under governments referred to as socialist or labour and known as national, in the statute of 1934 to which I referred and from which I read, making provision with respect to this very matter. Is there any country in the world in which trade unionism is as powerful as it is in the British Isles? This section having been passed into law by the parliament of Great Britain as long ago as 1920-part of it, and modified and put into its present form in 1934-is it fair to call it ruthless? Is it fair to say that this is an endeavour on the part of capitalists to grind down and destroy their workmen? I do not think it is. I am one who believes that there are many defects in the capitalistic system. I believe that in the main it has functioned very well and that the world owes much of its progress to its functioning as it has. Any system that has lasted for as many thousands of years as has the capitalist system must necessarily have become encumbered with abuses, and some of them it is B2582-63
our duty to endeavour to remove. But a denunciation in wholesale terms of a section of an act that has run the gamut of the parliament of Great Britain, where I think we may say trade unionism has manifested itself as strongly as in any other part of the world, is not in my judgment a fair criticism. In the adoption of this clause from the British act one was following what one regards as a safe precedent. If hon. members of the committee will look at the section they will see that while in the first instance it contemplates the loss of benefits, it also provides, that if the individual concerned does not come within that provision he shall suffer no inconvenience by it. That is the provision, and that is made as fair as it is possible to make it, I think, having regard to the very conditions they had to meet in England. It was proven that in some industries absolute destruction was brought about with great deliberation, not attributable in any sense, as far as could1 be traced, to the general attitude of mind of the British workers. We know that in this country there have been instances-I do not say they are numerous-in which somewhat similar conditions have obtained. It is to prevent that that the provision was made in England; it is to prevent that that the provision is made here. I cannot think it is going to work a hardship if we adopt a provision that as late as 1934 was crystallized in the legislation of the United Kingdom.


Alan Webster Neill: Is this a copy of the provision in the British act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not word for word. I will read it if the hon. gentleman desires.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If trade unionism was giving strike pay to some of its members, would the members so drawing strike pay be regarded as financing a dispute?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They would be out of
the employment under those circumstances, would they not? If they are drawing strike pay they would have to be dissociated from the industry; therefore they would not be receiving pay because they were absent for a cause that does not come within the conditions of the act. Is that not the principle on which they act in England?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Let me read a paragraph from one of the standard books on the act. It says:
Further relief is given by the acts in that the disqualification does not apply if the claimant can prove both of the following:

Unemployment Insurance

(1)	that he is not himself participating in or financing or directly interested in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work; and
(2)	that the persons who are so participating in or financing or directly interested in the trade dispute do not include any members of his own grade or class who immediately before the stoppage of work were employed at the premises at which the stoppage is taking place. An attitude of sympathy or benevolent neutrality does not amount to participation; but a person who by ceasing work or in some other way actively supports the cause of the disputants is "participating." If a trade union is paying "strike pay" to disputants, every member who ordinarily subscribes to its funds is regarded as financing the dispute; moreover, the members of a trade union are financing a dispute if the union contributes to the funds of a federation which is paying "strike pay."
It seems to me, with all respect to the observations of the Prime Minister, that there is a good deal in what the hon. member for Bow River says. Although this has been in the British act for some time, it seems to me to be a very drastic section. It certainly interferes substantially with the rights of labour in trade disputes, and to my mind amounts to an inferential conscription of labour. We should not, of course, discuss this in the language of extremism, but notwithstanding the fact that the provision is in the British act, if the correct interpretation is that given by the authority I have just quoted it certainly is going very far.


Charles Gavan Power: Do I understand from the Prime Minister that this particular provision came into the British act as a result of an amendment in 1934?
Mr. BENNETT; No. Section 21 in the first instance is from the British act of 1920, section 8, and section 6 of the British act of 1927. I refer hon. gentlemen also to the evidence taken before the royal commission at page 1200. As to subparagraph (ii)-"and where separate branches of work," etc.-that comes from the act of 1920, section 8. Then we come to (b) on the same page, which comes from the British acts of 1930 and 1934. The hon. member for Comox-Albemi asked with respect to the exact language. There is some little change in the language to make it conform to the conditions of this country, but as the hon. gentleman has heard it read by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre I think he will agree that it is substantially a statement of the section.


Charles Gavan Power: I was just wondering if this was not inserted after the general strike in Great Britain. The Prime Minister and many hon. members will recall that ever since the general strike, either when the Conservative

party was in power or since the national government has come into power, there has been a distinct tendency to try to take away from trades unions some of the power and authority which they formerly exercised. Legislation has been introduced to prevent them from using their union funds for electoral purposes or for the purpose of electing members to parliament. I suggest, although I have not all the facts before me, that in all probability this clause with respect to participation in or financing of trade disputes was inserted in order to prevent any recurrence of a general strike in Great Britain. If that is so I submit that conditions here are not at all similar and that we do not require any such provision in our act.


Angus MacInnis: The further the great reform program advances the less we find there is in it. Now we find that we are not going any further than the Conservative government in Great Britain has gone in regard to unemployment insurance. Regardless of whether or not they call it a national government nothing can hide the fact that it is a Conservative government, dominated by the capitalist class of Great Britain. The capitalist class of Great Britain are no more inclined to be generous with their workers than the capitalist class of any other country. The working class of Great Britain have through the years built up organizations to protect themselves or to minimize to some extent their exploitation. In this section there are very drastic possibilities. I am quite convinced that it could be used in the manner I suggested. Trade unions do help each other in times of strikes. Let us say the moulders' union is on strike; then the carpenters' union may through a levy on their members contribute to that strike. Under this section, just because of that contribution, an unemployed carpenter would be debarred from receiving the benefits of the act. Possibly that would not take place; it would depend largely upon the administration of the act, nevertheless the provision is here and it can be used if it ever becomes necessary to do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The observations made
by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) can hardly be supported. Section 8 of the act of 1920, which of course was passed prior to the general strike, if my memory serves me correctly, reads:
An insured' contributor who has lost employment by reason of stoppage of work which was due to a trade dispute at the factory, workshop or other premises at which he was employed shall (be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit so long as the stoppage of work.

Unemployment Insurance
continues, except in a case where he has, during the stoppage of work, become bona fide employed elsewhere in the occupation which he usually follows or has become regularly engaged in some other occupation.
The annotator writes:
Apparently if a workman during a stoppage gets other employment he rids himself of the disqualification. If he then becomes unemployed, provided the unemployment does not arise out of a trade dispute, he is entitled to benefit.
That the insurance officer may himself disallow claims for benefit under this subsection, see act of 1930, s. 8 (3) post. As to payment of benefit where claimant not disqualified under this subsection, notwithstanding appeal to umpire pending, see act of 1930, s. 8 (9) post.
Then he proceeds to give the explanations, largely in the sense of the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. I cannot think there is anything in that section as originally provided that had reference to the general strike, nor do I think it fair to suggest that the act of 1934, which retained and amplified the provisions of the act of 1920 as I have indicated, to make it perfectly clear that the exceptions could be given effect to, can be regarded as an effort of the capitalist class to fasten certain restrictive provisions upon the employees.
I agree with what has been said as to the hovels in which people have been living; it is one of the most regrettable things in a new country like this that this should be so, and the committee appointed the other day proposes to consider certain phases of that question. I do know employers who have expended much time, effort and money in attempting to make conditions for their employees as excellent as possible. Sometimes they have not been even thanked for it, and in many cases the rewards which have been received by labour have been far in excess of any returns received on the capital that has been invested. I know of that in many cases. I know of one very large industry in this country, the directors of which take a very personal interest in all these social problems and endeavour to make living conditions and wages such as to ensure the happiness and comfort not only of the employees but of their families as well. The fact that regrettable conditions have grown up under the capitalist system merely indicates that the collective power of the state has not been awake as it should have been for the purpose of preventing them. Now that they are here it is the duty of the state to do what it can to remedy these abuses. In England it was thought-perhaps improperly, according to 92582-631
what has been said in some quarters-that an unemployment insurance scheme was a means towards that end. It was believed that this was so. All I can say is that the workers in Great Britain attach very great value to it; I think that is a fair way to put it. I believe that is not an exaggeration, that they attach the very greatest value to it. In continental Europe that is also true, as well as in other parts of the world where they are now discussing this question in all its phases. I refer to the discussions now taking place in the United States, notably in the state of Wisconsin, as to how it might be dealt with This act admittedly is fashioned on the British act-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Part I of the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; I should say the British act before 1934. The reason for that is obvious; in fact there are two main reasons. One is that they are, shall I say, people who are quite as much interested in the successful operation of a statute of this kind as we are, and therefore they have an outlook similar to our own with respect to the provisions of such a measure. The second reason is the fact that it is of the very greatest value to a new country to have the decisions of courts of the highest competence as to the interpretation to be placed upon the language of the statute. When we can have the language of our statutes construed in the light of expressions of opinion by judicial bodies in Great Britain, we having used the same words that are found in the (British statute, it becomes of incalculable value to those charged with administration. I am frank in saying that this section 21, with which we are now dealing, is substantially word for word as it is in the British act, except that there are modifications as between commission and ministry of labour. I can add nothing further to what has been said with respect to that, but I do suggest that it is desirable to have some such provision as this even if we merely base it upon the single instance to which reference was made last evening by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, and of which I think the government that has had the responsibility for maintaining a certain measure of peace, order and good government had a very intimate knowledge. Putting it on that ground alone I think it is very desirable to have that section, for remember the section does not prohibit; it only conditionally says the insured shall lose his benefit, but if he desires to do so he can place himself right by coming within
Unemployment Insurance

the exception named here, and I think it can be fairly said that in most cases he would come within that exception.
The hon. member for Bow River asked why he should not be permitted to strike. Only a short time ago I was reading that the most enlightened and advanced labour leaders in both the United States and Great Britain are agreed that in the long run a strike is the most costly and ineffective method to apply for the purpose of solving difficulties of this kind. The practice of referring to arbitration trade disputes and matters of that kind has grown to such proportions that in the main it may be said that Strikes are becoming fewer and fewer. There are no great national strikes in this country such as we once knew. It may be said that this is because of the depression, but that is also true in the United States. There have been small expressions of disapproval which have resulted in men walking out and staying out for a time, until they bargained with the management, but in the main I think it is fair to say that antagonisms between employers and employees have become fewer and fewer, because we have the workmen's compensation acts, old age pensions and unemployment insurance provisions. Men are very anxious to maintain their rights and privileges, and long ago they saw that the most costly and expensive method of settling disputes was to refrain from earning more money for themselves and their families, while the easiest way to settle them was to rely on the common sense, fair judgment and, usually, the support of an enlightened public opinion, which you will find generally not on that side necessarily which has the might or the capital but on that side which commends itself most to the fair judgment of the people of the country. That creates public opinion.
Paragraph (b) agreed to.
On paragraph (c)-Loss of work due to misconduct.
Mr: NEILL: I raised a question previously, and I was told to wait until we reached this section. I should like to revert back to paragraph (b), which contains the words, " if on a claim for benefit." There you have the case of a man who has qualified, after making his payments. He comes along and asks for a benefit, but under paragraph (e), on page 14, he will not get it if he is in receipt of an old age pension.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the section.


Alan Webster Neill: At page 32 of the bill, in part II of the schedule, under "excepted employments," we find the words:
Employment otherwise than by way of manual labour and at a rate of remuneration exceeding in value $2,000.
That mian cannot come under the operation of the measure, but $2,000 per year is a great deal more than $240. This is not a dole; this is an insurance scheme for which a man has made a stated number of payments, and he comes up to claim a benefit which it seems to me is provided by the act. Why should he be cut out because he is getting only $15 or $20 a month.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member has
perhaps overlooked the fact that it is not probable he would be employed if he were in receipt of an old age pension. In order to receive such a pension he would have to negative the condition of employment. It is perfectly clear no one in receipt of an old age pension would be employed.


Wilfred Hanbury: No, or he would not
be receiving an old age pension.


Alan Webster Neill: He might have some technical ability for which he had been given temporary employment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then he would forfeit
his old age pension.


Wilfred Hanbury: The hon. member has
just referred to subsection (e), and that is why I have risen to speak. In many of the provinces we have workmen's compensation acts, and I cannot see in this measure any provision whereby an employee receiving workmen's compensation is to be exempted, although we do exempt a person receiving an old age pension.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are two ot three
reasons I could mention if I were to turn up the section. The distinction between workmen's compensation acts and the Old Age Pensions Act is, of course, very well known to the hon. member. Workmen's compensation is paid by the employers only into a fund, and the payments create a fund out of which an injured workman is entitled to receive benefits, instead of going to court and obtaining a judgment. The reason he is not exempted in this measure is that if he went to court, received a judgment and had payments made to him he would still be in a

Unemployment Insurance
position to receive his benefits under the unemployment insurance scheme. On the other hand, with respect to old age pensions as the law now stands he is practically bereft of assets before he has the opportunity to "receive the benefits of such pension. That is the distinction between the two.


Wilfred Hanbury: Do I understand the
Prime Minister to say that a workman receiving compensation under a workmen's compensation act would be entitled also to receive insurance under this bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no doubt about
that. Notwithstanding the fact that he may have received benefits under a workmen's compensation act, if he has been employed and has paid forty contributions in two years before becoming unemployed, and is capable of and available for work and unable to find employment, the fact that he had received money for an injury which he had sustained would not deprive him of his right to benefit any more than tihe fact that he had saved $1,000 and had it to his credit in a savings bank would so deprive him. That is the construction placed upon it in the English courts.


Wilfred Hanbury: If that is the interpretation I believe further consideration should be given the point. I shall not say it is a matter of common practice, but il will say we have known cases where men would deliberately maim themselves in order to take advantage of the workmen's compensation act. If at the same time they would be able to draw insurance under this measure we would be putting a premium on actions of that kind. I do not think it was ever intended that industry in Canada, which is certainly providing a portion of the funds from which insurance payments will be made, and is providing all the funds from which workmen's compensation is paid, should ever be placed in that position. I suggest the Prime Minister should take this matter into consideration, and ascertain whether some provision could not be made to take care of the condition 1 have described.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was in error in saying that the recent British act does not make provision in the event of old age pension being paid. It does provide that a person shall not receive the benefit under the act if he does receive old age pension. I did not correctly state the provision in the British act. I believe I can make it plain to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard that no one would be receiving compensation under
a provision of a workmen's compensation act unless he were free from fraud; the tribunal which deals with these matters has decided that he is entitled to receive it. He receives compensation because of injuries sustained in the course of his employment. Any money he may receive in that way could just as easily have been the result of his having been struck by an automobile and receiving $500 from the owner for the injury sustained. He would put the $500 in the bank, and after his recovery would go to work. Under this measure he would receive his benefits just the same as if no accident had happened to him, provided he had worked the requisite number of days to secure the benefit in question. The fact that an employee through a workmen's compensation act has received compensation for injuries sustained during employment cannot in any sense be said to militate against his right to recover benefits which he has secured to himself by paying his premiums during the period of his employment. Old age pensions, however, are entirely different. That is not something which he has received from an employer, and which he has a right to receive; it is something paid to him by the state after he has turned over to the state any assets he may have within a certain figure to enable him to receive the pension in question.


Frederick George Sanderson: Workmen's compensation acts are, of course, purely provincial, and are not the same in all provinces. I suppose we may assume that this unemployment insurance measure will not in any way interfere with the operation of the workmen's compensation acts in the provinces?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have explained as clearly as I can that it would not. If I have failed to make the point clear, then I desire to repeat that in my opinion at least-


Frederick George Sanderson: Perhaps the fault is mine.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is my fault; apparently I have not succeeded in making it clear that the two statutes cannot in any sense be in conflict.


Frederick George Sanderson: I have in mind the fact that this parliament would have no jurisdiction over the compensation acts controlled by the provincial legislatures, no matter what the provisions of this measure may be. Even if parliament endeavoured to bring down legislation which would interfere with the compensation acts, the provinces would not accept it.
Unemployment Insurance


Colin Alexander Campbell: The Workmen's Compensation Act in Ontario carries the provision that people who have been injured and who, having received some payments find that although they are better they cannot work, may be put on life pension. Will they be treated the same as people receiving old age pensions, or will they be considered as people receiving benefits under a workmen's compensation act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Benefits received from a workmen's compensation act would have no effect upon a person's rights under this measure as now drafted.
Paragraph (c) agreed to.
Paragraphs (d) and (e) agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 22 and 23 (now 21 and 22) agreed to.
On section 24 (as printed; now section 23) -Definition of benefit year.
Charles Edward Bothwell: Paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of this section reads as follows:
(b) also, in the case only of an. insured contributor who has exhausted his benefit rights in his last preceding benefit year, that thirteen contributions have been paid in respect of him since the Sunday last before the last day for which he received benefit;
Under section 20, in order to start to receive benefits under this act, a man must have paid forty contributions within the last two years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the beginning
of the operation.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Then after that, once
he has qualified for receiving benefits, he can receive benefits in any benefit year if there are thirteen contributions?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a period of twelve months from the date of his last application for benefit. That is the new benefit year. Then he makes his contributions for the period, thirteen I think it is, speaking from memory, and thereupon he has the right to make further claim for unemployment benefits.


Charles Edward Bothwell: The question I am
concerned about is this-it may be clear but I have not been able to see the explanation of it. At the end of a man's benefit year he still may have a credit of benefits accruing to him. Even if he has those benefits to his credit, will he still have to make these thirteen contributions before he can receive any further benefits?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The act provides that
if an applicant has in his benefit year exhausted all his benefit right he must requalify by making thirteen fresh contributions. I will discuss that matter and make it clear when we come later to the section to which I wish to refer. I asked this afternoon that subsection 4 of section 20 stand because I desired to make an explanation; I shall keep my hon. friend's question in mind when I explain subsection 4 of section 20. There are also three or four other matters of that kind that I desire to make perfectly clear.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 25 (as printed; now section 24) -Special classes of insured persons.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With
reference to subsection 4 of this section, will provision be made for tabling the regulations made in pursuance of the various sections of this bill at the next session of parliament?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 42 deals with
that matter.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 26 (now 25) agreed to.
On section 27 (as printed; now section 26) -Determination of questions by commission concerning the rights of persons and appeals to the exchequer court.
Humphrey Mitchell: I am opposed to any
appeals to court in connection with legislation of this kind. I have had some experience with workmen's compensation legislation which gives the right of appeal, and where the employer with all his financial resources is pitted against the individual worker. I would rather see the commission itself be the final court of appeal. I think it has been proven conclusively in connection with workmen's compensation legislation in its application in the broadest sense that the employee is distinctly better off when he stays out of court in matters of that kind, and I would suggest to the government that they eliminate this provision which permits either party to appeal to the courts.


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


Humphrey Mitchell: Certainly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
Civil Government-
Labour - salaries, $192,972; contingencies, $26,000.
Alan Webster Neill: I wonder if the minister
would allow me to draw his attention to a matter that applies to nearly all the departments. I have here the reports for the Department of Labour and also for the Department of Mines, both under the minister's charge, and both these reports cover the fiscal year ending March 31, 1934. I notice that they are signed by the respective deputy ministers, one on April 6, 1934, and the other on May 31, 1934. The point I
want to make is this:	If these reports are
in the hands of the minister on these dates, shortly after the end of the fiscal year ending March, 1934, why cannot they be in our hands before nearly a year later? It is a long time to wait until February, 1935, to get a report which closed in March, 1934. I always understood that it was the delay in getting the material put together, but I find it is ready within a month or two after the date given. Why could not these things be printed and distributed to members in September? On one occasion when the house was called in the fall we did get these reports early, in October if I remember correctly. H they are obtainable in one year why not ordinarily? It would relieve the pressure on printing at this time of the year. I would ask the minister and the Prime Minister as well why these returns cannot be available in the fall.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The matter, I understand, was not brought to the attention of the minister but I have looked into it. Away back in 1887, I am informed, provision was made whereby the reports might be placed in the distribution office without being laid on the table when the house was not in session, and the Secretary of State has arranged to facilitate the printing of these reports just as soon as the year has ended and the material has been completed. It is proposed to avail ourselves, or I assume that some government will avail itself, of the provisions of the order in council of 1887 to enable the reports to be sent to the distribution office when printed without waiting for the opening of parliament. My attention was directed to the matter some weeks ago, and had it not been that parliament was meeting so soon after that time, the reports would have been sent to the distribution office before being laid on the table.


Alan Webster Neill: Will that apply to all reports?


Richard Bedford Bennett: All that can be made available. The order in council was passed to meet the very situation to which the hon. gentleman refers. The fiscal year at one time ended on October 31.


Alan Webster Neill: It will be of great convenience to the public.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very great.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is the
Minister of Labour prepared to give any information in regard to his policy this year with reference to the unemployment situation, or does he intend to discuss the matter under some other item?
Supply-Labour
COMMON!)


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That will be taken up under another item later.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Under
which item of the estimates? We are passing now the labour vote, No. 14.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, civil government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Under which item shall we have an opportunity of discussing the government policy with respect to unemployment relief?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: With respect to unemployment relief, the whole problem is under consideration by the government and has been and is constantly under consideration, and it is more likely to be brought before parliament in the form of specific legislation than by way of items in the supply of the Labour department.


John Campbell Elliott: When is the unemployment policy likely to come before the house? A good many hon. members are very anxious to know what it is and when we may expect it.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The policy or plan of immediate relief will be largely determined by the position in which the provinces find themselves and by the representations that they may make to the dominion government for help. Upon their representations will largely depend the course of the government with respect to assistance to them. With regard to works that are purely federal, the plans are under consideration by the government and are not yet in such shape that they can be submitted to the house.


John Campbell Elliott: My question was as to whether it was possible for the minister to give us some idea when they would likely be submitted to the house. I assume that at the present time matters are being carried on with the provinces without any definite arrangement for any length of time. Is that correct?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, not at all. Matters are at present being carried on with all the provinces under the relief act of last year, and the time is definitely certain. The relief act expires by the effluxion of time at the end of the fiscal year, and the agreements with the provinces under which we now operate will expire with the close of the fiscal year. Between now and that time, if the representations made by the provinces seem to indicate the necessity for continuing help to them, then that matter will have to be determined by the government, and the policy of the government with respect to it

will not be unduly delayed, but will be brought before the house at the earliest possible moment.


John Campbell Elliott: If I may say so, that is not much more definite than the minister's last answer. Can he tell us when we may expect to be told what the policy is, because it is a matter in which a great many people are vitally interested at the present time. If it can possibly be avoided, and surely it can, there should not be any delay until the closing hours of the session. I should like to know whether the minister has any idea as to when he is likely to inform the house what his policies are.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: At the present time the dominion government, acting under agreements with the various provinces, is lending such support and assistance as would seem to be necessary in order to enable the provinces to discharge their constitutional responsibilities.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They
have lost them.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: They have none left.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre says the provinces have lost all their constitutional rights.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: During this session.


John Campbell Elliott: They have just their
liabilities.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Everyone will make up his own mind about that. At the moment we are carrying on under these agreements. With the exception of the province of Quebec, I know of no province that has submitted any plan that would vary the agreements which are now in existence with respect to assistance by the dominion government. The agreements now in existence will continue until the end of the fiscal year. I do not think that even an invitation is necessary to most of the provinces to approach the dominion government with respect to assistance they think they may need to carry through after the end of the fiscal year. But communications will undoubtedly pass before the end of the fiscal year between the provinces and this government with a view to determining to what extent the provinces can discharge their responsibilities, and to what extent if any they may need dominion support. When that is made apparent, then I assume, if the dominion has to come to the aid of the provinces again for the coming year,

Supply-Labour
appropriate legislation will, if it is found necessary, be submitted to the house for discussion and approval.


John Campbell Elliott: I am very much obliged
to the minister for his explanation, but it does not get us very far. As I understand the situation-and I just want to see if I have it correctly-with the exception of Quebec nothing has so far been received from any of the nine provinces as to what they expect their requirements from this government to be for the year that will start about six weeks from now. If I am correct also in my interpretation of what the minister says, he and the other members of the government have at the present time no idea whether relief similar to what has been given for this year will be required for another year, or whether no relief will be required at all. Am I correct in interpreting the minister's statement?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Communications have
passed between this government and the provinces concerning mainly the mechanics of the working out of the present agreements, but no request has been received from the provinces, nor has there been submitted to this government by any of the provinces any plan with respect to what they may need after the end of the present fiscal year. Unquestionably I think it will be necessary to consult with the provinces.


John Campbell Elliott: Do I understand the
provinces are satisfied with the manner in which the agreement for the current year is being carried out by the dominion government?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In the main, yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Do I
understand the minister to suggest that the policy of this government is to be based entirely on the nature of the requests received from the various provincial governments in regard to the next fiscal year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Largely, yes.


Paul Mercier: The minister told us a moment ago that all the provinces except Quebec were satisfied with the agreement. How much is the government paying per month to Quebec just now?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I may say that under
this item I did not anticipate having to meet the questions which have been put to me, but I will do the best I can to answer them and when the proper item or the legislation comes squarely before the house I will go into
the matter in greater detail. Under the agreements which at present exist the dominion is paying to the province of Quebec a lump sum per month as a grant in aid, and that lump sum carries with it no restriction other than it be devoted to the relief of those in distress and needing direct or other relief.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: How much?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: For the months of August and September the amount provisionally was $600,000 per month, and for the remainder of the fiscal year the amount, if my memory serves me correctly-and I think it does- was such as to provide $500,000 per month. That lump sum as a grant in aid is given to the province without any restrictions, leaving it entirely in the judgment of the province as to where the money should be spent, in other words, where the necessity for the expenditure of the money is most acute. The only restriction is that it be devoted to the relief of those in distress and needing direct or other relief.


Paul Mercier: The minister said that the province of Quebec was not satisfied with that grant. Did he receive a counter proposition from the provincial government for other amounts?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The government received
through me an offer from the Premier of Quebec wherein he proposed that the province and the dominion should assume in his province the total burden of direct relief. A few days ago a question was put on the order paper and was answered, and the question was then pursued, if my recollection serves me correctly, by the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville asking that the correspondence be tabled. That correspondence has been tabled; I do not have it under my hand at the moment, but I shall be glad later when these estimates are under discussion to read the correspondence that passed, so that members of the committee may be fully seized of the attitude of the Quebec government and also of that of the dominion government with respect to the matter.


Paul Mercier: To make a
long story short, wihat was the proposition of Premier Taschereau of Quebec? Is it true that he offered to pay fifty per cent of all relief to be paid in Quebec, the same proportion to be paid by the federal government?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I would draw the attention of the
committee to the fact that we are discussing an item of civil government-
Supply-Labour


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is the administration of the department.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Just a minute; let me finish what I am going to say. We are on an item of salaries, civil government, and in my opinion the matter that is now being discussed is not relevant to the item before the committee. That is the ruling of the chair.


Paul Mercier: The minister is quite willing to answer. He is not asking the chair for protection.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The question is not one of protecting the minister. In my judgment as chairman the discussion is not relevant to the item before the committee.


Abraham Albert Heaps: On a question of salaries
one can discuss almost anything one wishes. We are discussing the salaries of the Department of Labour and if it is so desired by the committee we can discuss the actions of any of the officials of the department during their whole tenure of office. This item includes salaries of the deputy minister and of other officials, and if the members think fit, the activities of those officials can be reviewed by the committee.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The chairman is in the hands of the
committee.


John Campbell Elliott: No, the committee is in
the hands of the chairman.


Paul Mercier: What I find very strange is that the Minister of Labour, although quite willing to answer, is stopped-


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Of course I am willing to answer any question that I can answer, but no minister in charge of estimates of this kind could be expected to be prepared to answer a particular question on relief, such as has been brought up.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: You should be after four years.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I will do the best I can. If my answers are not entirely accurate they will be subject to correction later. While it seems strange that an item such as the civil government vote should bring on a discussion of relief matters generally, I am not a bit put out about it. Go ahead and I will give the best answers I can.


Paul Mercier: I am perfectly satisfied. The last question I put was whether the proposition of Premier Taschereau was
[The Chairman.]
that fifty per cent of relief in the province of Quebec be paid by the provincial government and fifty per cent by the federal government.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The Premier of Quebec wrote to me proposing that he would cause his government to pay fifty per cent of the relief, in the municipalities I believe. Whether that means the organized municipalities or not my recollection does not serve me. He offered that on condition that the dominion government would contribute the other fifty per cent, thereby relieving the municipalities from any obligation as far as the relief was concerned. I gave a great deal of thought to the premier's offer. I felt and still feel that when the Premier of Quebec made that offer he was fairly certain that he would not have to carry out his part of the bargain, because-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Wilfred Hanbury: Because what?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Because I could not consent to it or approve or recommend it. The reasons for that conclusion I think are clearly disclosed in the correspondence tabled a few days ago, to which I will make reference later on when the relief measures are under discussion.


Mr. GRAY:: Would the minister be good enough, before he goes into supply on labour again, to bring down and table the correspondence passing between this government and the government of Ontario?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: All the provinces.


Ross Wilfred Gray: In particular that passing between the federal Minister of Labour and the minister of northern development in Ontario. I particularly wish to see the correspondence dealing with the trans-Canada highway, and also any correspondence that has passed relating to the amount finally arrived at as to monthly relief to be paid by the dominion to the province of Ontario-that is since the Hepburn government came into office in 1934.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should like the same in regard to British Columbia.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I shall be glad to bring down the correspondence that passed between this government and all the provinces, so that the committee will be fully seized of what has been done and attempted, and the propositions backward and forward dealing with this most baffling problem.


Colin Alexander Campbell: Has the government made any definite decision regarding the

Supply-Labour
matter discussed about the beginning of December between the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour and other members of the cabinet, and the Premier of Ontario, regarding the trans-Canada highway? It is a matter of vital importance to us in Ontario, and I feel that a decision should certainly be made soon.


Charles Gavan Power: Has the minister in his department a system of .departmental audit of relief expenditures?
Mr. GORDOiN: There is no labour department audit as such. Relief expenditures are checked over with respect to the proposals that have been submitted and accepted. With respect to moneys granted or allowed1 by this government to a province for specific purposes, either under order in council or under the terms of an agreement, audits are made by the auditor general. From time to time situations are disclosed where, mainly through misconstruction of the regulations or misinterpretation of the agreement by the province or municipality, moneys have been misapplied. As those items come to light-some of them through voluntary notification by the provinces, or disclosed by the labour department, or in the reports of the auditor general-the Labour department has experienced little or no difficulty in getting adjustments or refunds made from the various provinces. But a field audit is not made by the Labour department; rather we rely upon the certificate of the provincial auditors as to the correctness of an account and the proper allocation of sums towards which we have contributed. As I say, when such misinterpretations have come to light, we have had) little difficulty in arranging refunds, and very large refunds have been made by the provinces to the dominion. Particulars of them I have not 'before me at the moment.


Charles Gavan Power: Have any of these disclosures mentioned by the minister, where payments have been improperly made owing to misconstruction of the statute or misinterpretation, come to light owing to the activities of the Labour department or the unemployment branch, or have they all come to light through the audits of the auditor general?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I think I am correct in stating that the major portion of the refunds received have been as a result of checking in the Labour department. I regret that, not having anticipated this discussion on an item such as that now before the committee, I
cannot give the figures, but I shall be glad to give them later. However a considerable sum has also been refunded by the provinces by reason of audits made by the auditor general.


Charles Gavan Power: I have heard complaints that as the audits of the auditor general come in many cases months after the money has been expended, by the time a request for rebate comes nearly all trace of the particular expenditure has disappeared. It has been stated to me that the Department of Labour has a system of audit but that it is not made known to the other party to the agreement, such as the municipality or the province, until such time as the auditor general happens to strike a particular abuse or error or misconception. That causes a great deal of inconvenience, whereas if the department had been more on the job, so to speak, and had followed the work more closely it could have pointed out to the other parties concerned just where the error lay, which would have avoided a great deal of trouble and delay. That is why I ask the minister just to what extent and how closely the accounts are audited by his own department rather than by the auditor general.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not know that at the moment I can add much to what I have said already with respect to the checking and auditing of accounts. The procedure followed since 1930 follows the procedure that was adopted in 1922 when the dominion government made similar but very much smaller contributions to the provinces, which in turn disbursed the money to the municipalities, with the exception that the certificates required are very much more in detail. I am not offering this observation as a criticism of what happened in 1922; I am merely saying that, in view of the more serious situation with which the federal government has been confronted, it was thought advisable that we should be perhaps a little stricter than they were in those days. We relied largely upon the certificates of the provincial auditors for the correctness of the expenditures and the disposition of the moneys that we supplied the provinces. I do not know what other system could have been followed. I assume that the provinces in turn largely relied upon the auditors of the various municipalities. It may be said that this was not the proper way to audit accounts of this kind, but what other method could be employed when relief was being granted
Supply-Labour

throughout Canada, trickling right back into the smallest settlements? Could any other machinery be set up and be justified with respect to the expense that would be entailed, other than the machinery already in existence, which consisted of first the municipal officers and second the provinces, who had contact with the municipalities and who would be in a better position than anyone else to place the necessary restraint and check upon the expenditures? I frankly confess that I do not know how it could have been done otherwise, how any machinery could have been set up that would not result in a huge administrative expense that would be entirely unjustifiable. It is true that, as the hon. member for Quebec South has intimated, there has been carelessness or perhaps lack of business ability shown here and there; no doubt there was also cupidity or some other human weakness which would make people forget that their fellow taxpayers were carrying a heavy burden; but in the main I believe I am stating the fact when I say there has been very little money lost through unwholesome activities such as I have mentioned. I believe in many instances the provinces have brought to light cases where the municipalities have not spent the money according to regulation, and rebates have been made. That is going on constantly. I would not say for a moment that there have not been losses in the last four years; of course there have been. It could not be otherwise.


Charles Gavan Power: May I ask if an audit will
be necessary in future with the new system of lump sum payments? Will the federal government still insist on an audit being made?
Mr. 'GORDON:	The lump sum is stated
to be a grant in aid for relief purposes, and it is left within the discretion of each province to use the money where it is most needed. At the moment I am not prepared to say that there has been an instance that has come within the notice of the department where any of the money we have granted has been misapplied by any province. I do not think there will be such an instance.


Charles Gavan Power: In this case this is a lump sum payment, a grant in aid?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Exactly.


Charles Gavan Power: As I understand it that is
the system under which we are now proceeding. Will the federal government or the Department of Labour follow up these grants

and see how and where the money voted by the federal parliament is being expended, or will it not?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Undoubtedly the auditor will ask and receive from each province a report as to how and where the money has been distributed.


Charles Gavan Power: Will those reports be made available to parliament?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Quite. I suggest that this item stand, and perhaps at a later day I can furnish in greater detail the information that has been requested.
Item stands.



RAILWAYS AND CANALS

[Stage Direction]
Printing and Stationery, $5,000.
Robert James Manion: This is merely the revolving item for stationery. I do not ask that the item go through; I merely wish to get my department in, and if the committee is satisfied I will move that the item stand.
Item stands.

Salaries, $485,910; contingencies, $20,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not sure whether this is the right item, but I should like to ask the minister how much the government has received from the gold tax we imposed last year.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The Department of Mines has no record of the amount of the gold tax. That will have to be obtained from the Department of Finance. If there is to be any discussion I suggest that the item stand.
Item stands.


Alfred Duranleau: Item No.-


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I do not like to be unpleasant, but I do not think it is proper to enter into all the departments to-night. I did not object when the Minister of Railways called one of his items. Yesterday however the Prime Minister announced that he would like to take up mines, pensions and national health. Railways and Canals was not mentioned, but I did not raise any objection.

Questions


Robert James Manion: Quite correct.


Ernest Lapointe: I do raise an objection, however, so far as marine is concerned.


Mr. RHODES:: Perhaps the hon. member for Quebec East would permit me to state that the Prime Minister mentioned the Department of Pensions and National Health, but he had not in mind the fact that that department had already been opened. In the circumstances we thought the committee might substitute another department.


Ernest Lapointe: And we took railways instead.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: quite so.


Ernest Lapointe: I think that is sufficient.


Alfred Duranleau: It does not matter to
me.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house ad^ journed at 10.55 p.m.
Wednesday, February 20, 1935