1935-03-08

HOUSING POLICY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. D. GANONG (Charlotte) presented the second report of the special committee on housing as follows:
Your committee recommends that it be granted' leave to sit while the house is sitting.
Mr. GANONG moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 28 for the relief of Mary Wynifred Bayford Bennett.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 29 for the relief of Lillian Gurden McIntyre.-Mr. White (Mount Royal).
Bill No. 30 for the relief of Minnie Elizabeth Lyons Dafoe.-Mr. Jacobs.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Ar-genteuil) (for the Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to establish the Economic Council of Canada and to provide for the employment of such officers and employees, and for the payment of such expenses as may be necessary to carry into effect the proposed legislation.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.
Canadian Pacific Railway

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: I would draw the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals to an interview given at Montreal by Mr. Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. May I be permitted to preface a question I am going to ask by stating that the interview is based upon a report submitted to the house in reply to a question asked by me some time ago concerning the amount of subsidies in land and cash given to the Canadian Pacific and its subsidiaries by the federal government? In this interview Mr. Beatty denies the accuracy of the statement submitted to the house by the Canadian National Railways through the Department of Railways and Canals. I wish to ask the Minister of Railways whether he has taken cognizance of this interview and whether he is in a position to make a statement concerning it?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Yesterday evening the hon, member for Gloucester drew to my attention the interview of Mr. Beatty and therefore I made some inquiries regarding it. The hon. member submitted to the house five different series of questions, and I think each series contained five or more questions, so that there were altogether some twenty-five or more. Those questions related to specific subjects. As the hon. gentleman has pointed out, one of the series referred to land grants and cash aid to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and matters of that sort. The questions asked did not refer to other matters to which Mr. Beatty referred in the statement made to the press. The information which we obtained, which was partly supplied through the Department of the Interior, as to land grants for example, was from recognized sources and is in accordance with the statistics as given out by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics for many years. For example in regard to the 26,000,000 acres of land to which Mr. Beatty refers, on page 12 of the Statistics of Steam Railways in Canada for the year ended December 31, 1933, exactly the same figures are given as those which we gave to the hon. gentleman, or which were given by the Department of the Interior in the returns furnished. Naturally we did not deal with the entire question of money grants or other grants to the Canadian National for instance, to some of which Mr. Beatty referred. But this blue book as put out for many years gives exactly the same figures as those in the return furnished to the hon. gentleman. There is nothing new in the figures, they are the same as submitted to the royal commis-

sion on railways. I do not wish to deal with the question further than that except to say that the figures given have been of public record for many years, and no exception has been taken to them as far as the land grants or other figures submitted are concerned.



MARKETING SCHEME FOR FISH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. OLOF HANSON (Skeena):: I have a question to direct to the government based on a telegram received this morning signed by the Vessel Owners Association and the fishermen of Prince Rupert. If any communication has been forwarded to Ottawa opposing the passage of a marketing scheme, they would like to ascertain who the parties are who sent in representations, and also what the possibilities are of the Pacific coast halibut fishermen getting under a scheme before the season opens.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) is not in his seat at the moment; that question will stand for answer at some future session.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 7, 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. MacDonald in the chair.
George Halsey Perley: Before we start with the clauses that were left over yesterday I wish to say that the copy of the bill which I have is as printed originally. I noticed that once or twice there was some confusion about the number of the sections. I think it arose in the following way. I ask the chairman to look at page 3 of the bill; about the middle of the page he will find the figure 3 in brackets, and "the remainder of this act may be referred to as follows:" That ought to have been a large 3, because that is really section 3, but they have renumbered them in such a way that it looks as if the one marked 4 is really number 3. The 3 in brackets should be a big 3, and if that were followed the sections below would be correctly numbered. I mention this, although it is a matter for the officials of the house to straighten out when the bill is completed.

Unemployment Insurance


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) drew attention to that when we had the bill before us at an earlier stage, and I think it was agreed in committee that the numbers . we would discuss would be the numbers as printed in the bill.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to
a point of order. At page 1514 of Hansard 1 find the following:
Mr. Mitchell: I rise to a point of order. At page 1088 of Hansard for February 21 I find the words, "Section 48 agreed to."
The	Chairman	(Mr.	MacDonald,	Cape
Breton): It is marked here as standing.
Mr. Mitchell: The discussion is all out of order; the section has been agreed to.
The	Chairman	(Mr.	MacDonald,	Cape
Breton): The section is marked here as standing.
Mr. Mitchell: I am quoting from the records of this house.
The	Chairman	(Mr.	MacDonald,	Cape
Breton): Our records show that this section is standing.
Later on the chairman said:
The clerk find's that the section has been carried, and consequently this discussion is out of order.
My point of order is that in the original procedure before you it did not appear that that section was agreed to; what was published in Hansard is only a copy, therefore when you stated as chairman of this committee that section 48 was not agreed to the committee should stand by you, notwithstanding what has been printed in Hansard. Therefore, sir, I submit that section 48 has not been agreed to, because you so stated yesterday in your capacity as chairman of the committee of the whole. May I ask you, sir, to rule in accordance with the statement you made yesterday as chairman of the committee of the whole.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton):: For the information of the hon.
member I may say that it was discovered afterwards that section 48 had been carried. Previously I had gone on the assumption that it had not been carried; when it was discovered that it had, I ruled the discussion out of order.


Mr. IRVINE:: Mr. Chairman, what is this
discussion about?


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, but if you quoted from the original procedure which was before you and it did not appear on that original that the section was agreed to, I submit that whatever is told you by an officer of the house does not count. Whether or not in fact it has been agreed to is entirely immaterial if it does
not appear on the procedure. I take your word to that effect. Therefore, sir, I submit that according to the statement you gave as chairman of the committee of the whole, clause 48 has not been agreed to. Will you kindly give your ruling on that? And if you rule against that contention I shall respectfully appeal to the Speaker for a ruling.


Finlay MacDonald: The only explanation I can give
is that from the bill itself it appeared that the clause stood. On the clerk's minutes it appeared that it had been carried, therefore I had to rule as I did.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, sir, you were so
nice to me yesterday that I will not insist any more about it.


George Halsey Perley: What is the first clause? I think the first clause that stood yesterday was section 20. You might look and see if there is anything before section 20.
On section 20-Statutory conditions for receipt of unemployment benefit.


George Halsey Perley: With regard to
subsection 4 of clause 20, I have had the question carefully looked into, and I have decided in my own mind at all events that this clause is quite in order as it is printed. Its purpose is to provide that any three days of unemployment, whether consecutive or not in any week, will be counted as continuous unemployment in order to qualify a man for the benefit of this legislation. The man is unemployed this week for three days; next week he is unemployed for another three days, making six days of continuous unemployment. If he is unemployed for three days the following week that makes nine days of continuous unemployment. There is no restriction in this section of the bill to any particular week. Yesterday the hon. member for Comox-AIberni (Mr. Neill) argued that this section applied only to the first two weeks. I do not read it that way at all. It states:
-any two such continuous periods-
That does not refer only to the first one and two; it refers equally to the second and third or the third and fourth. That is the way 1 read the act, and that is the way it is interpreted by the officer of the Justice department with whom I discussed it this morning. Further I take it the bon. member for Comox-AIberni argued that because nine days of unemployment is required to qualify in this country while only six days is required in Great
Unemployment Insurance

Britain, this section should read a little differently. As a matter of fact a man can come under this section, in my judgment and in the judgment of the officer of the department whom I consulted, after having three days of unemployment in each of three consecutive weeks, making nine days in all, or in the weeks that come afterward providing there are at least two such periods in each six weeks. This section is based on the British act. I would refer the hon. gentleman to page 34 of the evidence taken before the royal commission in Great Britain, where he will find the British interpretation of this section, which amply supports this view.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Do I understand that if a man coming under this act is unemployed for three days in each of three weeks then he becomes entitled to unemployment benefits in the event of three ensuing then three more days of employment before the next three days of unemployment, or if any period of employment ensues? Is he not then outside the operation of the act?


George Halsey Perley: Certainly not; he comes under it if he has nine days of unemployment. If he works half the time, three days a week, for three weeks he is unemployed for nine days and the following week, if he is unemployed part of the time, he is entitled to claim benefits.


Edward Joseph Garland: In the
case raised by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) the other day, that of the coal miners in the Crowsnest pass district, these men have some employment every month in the year and sometimes every week in the year, but it is not continuous employment. As the hon. member pointed out, very often they have three days this week and three days next week, but each week they will have three or four days of unemployment. Do I understand that the interpretation is that as soon as nine days of unemployment have elapsed, as provided under subsection 4 of section 20, at page 11, these men would become entitled to unemployment relief for any subsequent periods of three days or longer whioh might ensue from time to time during the year?


George Halsey Perley: That number of days would qualify such a man under this part of the act. Of course he would have to comply with the other sections which provide that he must pay in for so many weeks before drawing any benefits.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, I am assuming that.


George Halsey Perley: As I understand it three days of unemployment in each of three consecutive weeks would enable the man to qualify under the act.
Mr. NE'ILL:	If the acting leader of the
government has made up his mind that he is not going to amend this section I suppose that is all that can be- said. He lias quoted the opinion of his law department as well as some authority in England. It is peculiar that I should have to stand up here and contradict the right hon. gentleman, claiming as my authority his own, leader, but surely the ability and wide experience of the Prime Minister is sufficient to justify me in placing some confidence in his statements. Yesterday I quoted the Prime Minister

I need not repeat the quotations to-day-as saying clearly and definitely not only that there was doubt about it but that it would be necessary to readjust it. Those are the identical words he used. As I say, it is useless to waste the time of the committee, but I would direct attention to one point, in connection with which the minister indicated his willingness to give way yesterday. On the ground that half or a very small moiety of a loaf is better than no bread perhaps he might be willing to take the same attitude to-day. The section 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-
Having regard to the words "and any two such continuous periods" I do not see how this section can be extended to mean any six or ten or twelve periods; the section says any two periods. If that does not limit it to only two and not more than two I do not know what it means. The right hon. gentleman suggested yesterday that he might amend it to read "any two or more." That might possibly help the situation. I do not think it would improve it much, but it would be better and would carry out what my right hon. friend claims to be the meaning of the section.


George Halsey Perley: I may say to the hon. gentleman that I have discussed that very point. I am not a lawyer, and yesterday I thought perhaps that might solve the difficulty, though the hon. gentleman said it would not be of any help. After discussing the matter, however, it is pointed out to me that the words "any two such continuous periods" apply to the first and second, fourth and fifth, sixth and seventh or any other two

Unemployment Insurance
consecutive periods. It applies to them all in equal measure, and I was told that the words I suggested yesterday would not make the provision any broader than it is to-day.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then take the case of the railway shop workers who work fairly steadily for three days a week, but not more. We have their first period of three days put in and registered as continuous unemployment under this section. Next week we have three days more unemployment, and the following week three days more. What I want to get very clearly from the acting Prime Minister is that once those three periods of three days each have elapsed, it is construed that the provision in regard to nine days waiting has been complied with and that in regard to each three day period in each subsequent week, the other statutory provisions having been complied with, the man will be subject to unemployment benefit. Is that the interpretation of the acting Prime Minister?


George Halsey Perley: That is the way I understand it. I understand that if a man works three days a week for six weeks his period of unemployment will be figured out as eighteen days; they will all be counted in that way. If he complied with the other provisions of the act then he would be entitled to benefit.


Mr. NEILL:: Then why did the leader of
the government say, according to Hansard at page 979:
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 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.... 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.
That is only one expression; the Prime Minister conveyed the same thought on several occasions. Now we are going to tear that all up; I suppose it is a case of the king is dead; long live the King, but possibly the king may come back-I hope he will-and want to know why his wishes or opinions have been, disregarded. Personally I pin my faith to his knowledge of the subject. He was the sponsor of the bill; he has studied the matter deeply; he has admitted that this is a condition that bad not been called to his attention, and he says some adjustment is necessary.


George Halsey Perley: I may say to my hon. friend that the question has been very carefully looked into. My hon. friend suggests that he will be more content when the Prime Minister returns, and I may say that I hope he will return at the earliest posable moment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Alan Webster Neill: Under protest.
On section 27-Determination of questions by commission.


George Halsey Perley: This section
stood in order that it might be redrafted, and I have the amendment here. It is moved by myself, seconded by the Minister of the Interior, that section 27 of the bill as printed be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
Determination of Questions
27. (1) If any question arises-
(a)	as to whether any employment or any class of employment is or will be such employment as to make the person engaged therein an employed person within the meaning of this act or whether a person is or was an employed person within the meaning of this act; or
(b)	whether a person or class of persons is or is not, or was or was not, a person or class of persons to whom a special or supplementary scheme under this act applies or applied; or
(c)	as to who is or was the employer of any employed person; or
(d)	as to the rate of contribution payable under or in pursuance of this act by or in respect of any person or class of persons or as to the rates of contribution payable in respect of any employed person by the employer and that person respectively; or
(e)	whether a person was or was not employed in any excepted employment during any period falling within the period of two years specified in the first statutory condition; the question shall be decided by the commission: Provided that the commission may. if they think fit, instead of themselves deciding such question, refer the question for decision to the exchequer court.
(2)	In determining any question as to whether any occupation, in which a person is or has been engaged, is or was such as to make him an employed person within the meaning of this act, regard shall be had to the nature of the work on which he is or was engaged rather than to the business of the person by whom he is or was employed.
(3)	The commission may, on new facts being brought to their notice, revise any decision given under this section.
(4)	The governor in council may make regulations prescribing the procedure under this section.
I believe that complies with the understanding at which we arrived yesterday. Therefore I move, seconded by Mr. Murphy that the section I have read be substituted for section 27 as printed.
Unemployment Insurance


Mr. MacINNIS:: In this amendment as
suggested by the leader of the government I find there is a provision whereby the commission may, if it thinks fit, instead of themselves deciding a question, refer such question for decision to the exchequer court. Then we find in subsection 3:
The commission may, on new facts being brought to their notice, revise any decision given under this section.
As I understand it, after having referred a matter to the exchequer court the commission may, on new facts being brought to their notice, make a decision themselves.
I think it would be much better to have the commission make all decisions, in the first instance, without any reference to the exchequer court.


George Halsey Perley: The hon. member is desirous of having all these questions disposed of by the commission. This subsection leaves the matter in the hands of the commission. If the commission thinks it can be helped in a decision by referring a matter to the exchequer court, surely the hon. member would have faith enough in the commission to give them authority to do so.


Finlay MacDonald: Shall the amendment carry?


Edward Joseph Garland: No; if it carries it will carry under protest.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Let it pass. *


Edward Joseph Garland: That would be all right, according to that right hon. gentleman-or who soon will be one. It was under subparagraph (ii), as the bill was printed, that the objection was raised yesterday. The condition still remains whereby the commission may, if they think fit, instead of deciding a question refer such question to the exchequer court. I say they should decide all questions, with the exception of questions of law or of interpretation of the act. Under the suggested amendment they may make the decision, or may refer decisions on all the preceding paragraphs, namely paragraphs (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e), which paragraphs do not include questions of law or questions concerning the interpretation of the act. They are questions upon which the commission could easily make decisions. Yesterday we asked that the clause be amended so that the commission could, if they thought fit, instead of themselves deciding any question of law or interpretation arising out of the act, refer such question for decision to the exchequer court. That was the. suggestion made.


George Halsey Perley: I remember that; that is what was said yesterday. The sug-

gestion however is not accepted. We feel the commission are given authority, and that is all that has been asked by those people who represent the workers. By the amendment the matter is left entirely in the hands of the commission. They do not have to refer matters to the exchequer court; they may do as they please, and that is the way we wish to leave it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 17-Contributions.
George Halsey Perley: Mr. Chairman,
there is an incidental amendment I wish to make, seconded by Mr. Murphy. This amendment arises out of the change we have made to section 27. Now that we have done away with an appeal we believe section 17 should be amended by striking out subsection 4. Hon. members will note that this subsection refers to what will happen in the event of a decision being reversed or revised. If there is no further provision for an appeal, then there can be no necessity for subsection 4. With that in mind I move:
That section 17 be amended by deleting subsection 4 and renumbering the following subsections to read 4, 5, and 6 respectively.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 33 (1)-Civil proceedings by employee against employer for neglect to comply with the act.
George Halsey Perley: This subsection was discussed at great length yesterday and this morning I have had the opportunity to give it some further consideration. My view is that it is the duty of the worker to see that the stamps are put in his book. We do not wish to accept the suggestion made by hon. members to the effect that the state should lose the money in the event of an employer accepting the workman's share and not turning it in to the fund. All these contributions are paid by way of revenue stamps. It is necessary that the workmen should do their share towards seeing that these stamps are put in their books at the proper time. If they do that there can- be no chance of loss to the workers.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Why do we have the section at all then?


George Halsey Perley: That is a fair question. However, if the workman does not see to it that the stamps are put in his book,

Unemployment Insurance
and the employer fails to pay to the fund, the workman will have the right of civil action against the employer.


Humphrey Mitchell: I believe that would not be so in practical operation. In a big steel company, for example, where there are 4,000 or 5,000 employees I believe we will find that the books containing the stamps will be kept by the employer during the time the man works for him.


Mr. ARTHURS:: What about the smaller fellow?


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall come to him later. I believe it would be a practical impossibility for these men to come to the office and insist upon seeing that the stamps are placed in their books.


Alan Webster Neill: They would just go once.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, that is true; they would go only once. In big firms that is the way it would be done, and I believe the acting Prime Minister will find that is the way it is done in England, too.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I believe the evidence given before the price spreads committee shows that on many occasions the minimum wage legislation has not been lived up to, and that the employee has not been in a position to enforce it. The employer would simply refuse to give the minimum wage, and there have been all sorts of tricks used to get over the difficulty. In those cases the employee has had to coniform to the wishes of the employer, or lose his job. I believe it is unfair to place the onus upon the employee.


Alan Webster Neill: It is sometimes said that we are very far removed from the common people. I do not believe that fact could be better illustrated than by the argument now raised by the acting Prime Minister. Picture to yourselves men out in the bush, connected with logging camps, coming in to the office and demanding to see their books to find out if the stamps have been put in. Picture them arguing with the boss and quoting section 33 of the act indicating that they are liable to a loss which they do not purpose suffering. A working man, a logger, is supposed to be familiar with a very complicated section of this act, and we are supposing that he will come into the office and demand his rights. If we could grasp the point of view as to what would happen to that man I believe we would make a change in this section. He is to have the whole responsibility of enforcing a law which has been forced
upon him-there is compulsory contribution -and he must line up the boss and say to that gentleman, "I do not believe you put those stamps on my book last week; I want proof." The boss would say, "What! Don't you think my word is good? You ought to be a lawyer. We can get along without you; you know too much about the act. We can get along without your services." In the environment of this chamber it sounds all right to say that it is the duty of the man to see that the stamps are put on, but in actual practice it will be impossible for him to do so-at any rate, if not impossible it will be impracticable. And if he tried to do it he would be a marked man.


William Irvine: I am sorry that the right hon. gentleman who has charge of this bill has not seen fit to make the alterations suggested yesterday in connection with this clause. The general fund out of which the insurance will be ultimately paid is of course provided by the state, the employer and the employee, and it is supposed to be an insurance fund. In the clause before us it is assumed that the workman has paid his share, but that the employer has failed to pay into the fund, in which case the employee is deprived of his insurance, and the only thing that is given to him in return is his right to sue his employer in the courts for neglect of duty. I want to emphasize the point made so strongly yesterday by the hon. member for Bow River and others, that the employee should not be penalized in any way for the default of his employer. If he has paid in his share he should have the right to draw from the fund. If there is any individual who has violated the provisions of the act that individual should be prosecuted by the government itself and it should not be left to the employee to take action.


Humphrey Mitchell: The Workmen's Compensation Act is a practical example of the point under consideration. A good many problems would arise under that act if the responsibility were left to the employee to see that the employer discharged his obligation. That responsibility rests with the board, and I think it will be found when this act gets into practical application that the money for the stamps will be deducted from the pay envelope of the employee. That is the way it is done in Great Britain, and a regulation to that effect will be necessary. If you leave it to all these fellows to chase around getting stamps, a good many of them will not get the stamps.

Unemployment Insurance

I have had experience with union dues and I know that all the king's horses and all the king's men will not make them do it. It is absolutely unfair to place the responsibility on the employee of prosecuting the employer if he has not complied with the law. I could understand it if the scheme were voluntary; but where you have a compulsory insurance scheme I think the obligation rests squarely on the shoulders of the government.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yesterday, in connection with this section, I suggested an amendment which would have fully covered the objections taken against it. The amendment would be to delete all the words in lines 33 and 34 and up to and including the word "he" in line 35, and inserting therefor the following: This shall not be taken as reason for loss in whole or in part of the unemployment benefit to which he would have been entitled under this part of the act, and the commission shall be entitled to recover from the employer as a civil debt a sum equal to the amount so lost. That would place the responsibility squarely on the commission and it would do the just thing, the obviously fair thing, in relieving the employee of any possible loss of benefit in whole or in part as might now happen under this provision. There are two serious objections to the clause. Both have been dealt with several times in the committee and frankly I am surprised that the government cannot see the reasonableness of the position we take in this regard. Any possible loss could not be great so far as the commission is concerned, a commission on the job, looking after the trust which is in its hands; and the commission might afford a small loss where the employees could afford no loss at all. I dislike moving the amendment, but if the government does not see fit to propose it I intend to move that amendment.


Angus MacInnis: In section 17, subsection 3, we find that the employer is responsible for the contributions of the employee:
Except where regulations under this act otherwise prescribe, the employer shall in the first instance be liable to pay both the contribution payable by himself (in this act referred to as the "employer's contribution") and also, on behalf of the employed person, the contribution payable by that person, and subject to any such regulations shall be entitled to recover from the employed person, by deduction from his wages or otherwise, the amount of the contributions so paid by him on behalf of the employed person.
Here we find that the employer is made responsible for a certain act, and if the
[Mr. Mitchell.)
employer does not fulfil that function the employee is supposed to take action against him. It is perfectly ridiculous.


George Halsey Perley: I am sorry I
cannot agree with the hon. gentleman. As a matter of fact, this clause is put in partially to protect the employee. I do not suppose the hon. gentleman wishes it thrown out altogether.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is all very well to turn a sharp corner like that-I do not mean that in any derogatory sense. I know of no better protection for the employee than the knowledge on the part of the employer that he would be subject to the law if he did not comply with it.


George Halsey Perley: So he is.


Humphrey Mitchell: But why leave it to the employee to take the necessary action? On page 28 of the bill we have the punishments set out, but as the bill stands we are simply asking the employee to do something that the government itself should do.


George Halsey Perley: If the employer misuses the fund he is subject to the penalties. That is one of the reasons the penalties appear in the bill.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think it is as grave a crime for him not to comply with the act in regard to paying in the contribution. You cannot differentiate between misuses of the funds and failure to make contributions under the act. Take the lumber camps, for instance. How will these chaps run around collecting stamps? It seems to me ridiculous to suggest that the employee should be asked to enforce the law for the government.


Alan Webster Neill: The Workmen's Compensation Act as it operates in British Columbia affords a good example. There the procedure is to collect a percentage of the pay roll, and an inspector comes along once or twice a year and checks up the books of the company. He says, "There is so much due from the company." I have known of cases where companies were hundreds and thousands of dollars in arrears. The government gets after them, pointing out that the money should have been paid at the stated time. But it was not paid, and when the slump came it was discovered that the fund created by these payments had been enormously overdrawn because these people had not observed their obligations. In some instances they have gone bankrupt and owed the government thousands of dollars. If we had the sample section as in this bill, some man looking for compensation would be told,

Unemployment Insurance
"I am sorry you cannot get compensation because the money was not paid over, although perhaps eventually you may collect it from the employer." The Prime Minister did not agree with me the other day when I gave a parallel instance. If I pay my taxes and the government agent to whom I hand over the money absconds with it, all that is required of me is to produce evidence that I paid it to the official authorized to receive it. The government does not come along and say that because the man to whom I paid the money absconded I shall have to pay it again. The absurdity there is apparent, and the case here is similar, only it is worse, because the man in this instance has not an opportunity to see that the money is sent in. If the workmen went into the office to see about the stamps at the end of each week, and if five or six hundred people came into the office demanding to see the actual stamps placed in the book, they would be called bolsheviks or reds. They would be asked who started it. They might say, "John Jones says that under section 33 we are liable to lose our unemployment insurance." The reply would be that Jones has too much to say and presently he is let out. It sounds all right here to say that it is his obligation, but it is different when you get on the ground. Cases have happened repeatedly under the Workmen's Compensation Act where the employer failed to pay over the money or the company went bankrupt, but the men got their compensation.


Mr. HANBURY:: Under the Workmen's Compensation Act in British Columbia the workmen's compensation is recognized as the first charge against the assets of any company in default for any reason. If the company cannot meet its liabilities the workmen's compensation is the first charge, even before deferred wages. Under that act the employee has no responsibility whatsoever and the employer himself collects from the employee certain sums which in turn are handed over to the workmen's compensation board, the board accepting full responsibility for the man's injury. In connection with this particular clause, I am sure that the employer himself would much prefer to have the responsibility of -collecting the money and turning it over to the board rather than having to be bothered with his employees coming in and asking -for stamps, and having to provide stamps for them, and things of that sort. The government could very well put -this insurance on such a basis that it becomes one of the first charges against any company, thus giving the employee the insurance to which he is entitled and which he would not otherwise
92582-97}
have. It could not be real insurance if there were any question about it, and on the interpretation the government is placing on the wording in this case, there would be question about it.


Mr. POWER:: Following up the argument
advanced by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, I would point out that the very essence of the insurance principle is that a number of persons combine together to take the risk. If the risk is to be borne individually, as it appears to be proposed under this bill, there is no longer any insurance, so that that most important element of this whole bill disappears; if there is no insurance, it is no longer an unemployment insurance bill. Insurance in any phase of it implies a number of people dividing up the risk, and when one fails to meet that risk, then the others are called upon to meet it. In this case, all those others are represented by the commission. The commission collects from everyone in order to be able to distribute the benefits, and if I understand this article correctly, the benefits will not bn distributed to the insured unless each individual company is in a position to make the payments required under the bill. That destroys every vestige of an insurance principle as contained in this measure. The point raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is in my opinion well taken, and the government should clearly state in the bill that the commission should be responsible for the payment of the benefits. The government may make any other provision it wishes as to how the contributions are to be collected; that is not of great importance, but the important point is that the commission should be responsible for the payment of the benefits which are conferred upon the individual workman by the bill.


George Halsey Perley: I suppose we will all agree that the British have had a great deal of experience in connection with unemployment insurance acts. The first one was passed many years ago and has been amended several times. There is now before- the British House of Commons a bill consolidating the acts concerning unemployment insurance, and I shall read the following section 19 of that bill:
Where an employer has failed or neglected-
(a)	to pay any contributions which under this act he is liable to pay in respect of any employed person in his employment; or
(b)	to comply, in relation to any such person, with the requirements of any regulations relating to the payment and collection of contributions;
Unemployment Insurance

and by reason thereof that person has lost, in whole or in part, the benefit to which he would have been entitled under this act, that person shall be entitled to recover summarily from the employer as a civil debt a sum equal to the amount of the benefit so lost.
That is a stronger clause than the one we put in. I am reading now from the bill as it is at present before the British house.


Alan Webster Neill: It is not passed yet.


George Halsey Perley: But it is a consolidation; it is not a new act.


Mr. REID:: In Great Britain does the
employee lose his benefits if the employer does not comply with the requirements?


George Halsey Perley: The provision
reads that where an employer has failed or neglected to do certain things and by reason thereof the employee has lost in whole or in part the benefit to which he would be entitled under the act, that person shall be entitled to collect from the employer as a civil debt a sum equal to the amount of the benefit so lost. We are following the British act in putting in this clause.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In Great Britain
they have a very strong trade union movement which alters the situation materially. In this country we have no strong trade union movement, especially in those trades *where this legislation would apply, and it would be very difficult for an isolated worker to take action. In England the whole trade union movement would stand behind a victimized worker, and go on a general strike rather than permit an injustice. Here the worker has not that protection, and therefore the state or the commission has a duty to protect the welfare of the individual worker.


Charles Gavan Power: May I point out without
being unkind that at the present time we are legislating for Canada, and in the words of a very great statesman, our concern is Canada.


George Halsey Perley: That is quite
right, but none of us is above learning from the experience of others. That is true of this side of the house at any rate.


Mr. BURY:: May I ask the leader of the
house whether the British act has in it any provision enabling the commission to sue employers for contributions in default? In this bill there is nothing of that nature, and what I am afraid of is that in the event of such a default, if the suggestion is made that the commission should sue the defaulting employer, the answer may be: We have
I Sir George Perley.]
no power under this measure to sue him; the only person under it who has power to sue in such case is the workman.


Alan Webster Neill: Put in the necessary provision.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Yes, but it is not there. I
am suggesting that there should be in the bill a provision enabling the commission in such case to sue. If there is no such provision, I am very much afraid the commission will answer that under the legislation they have no power to do so. That provision might be added to subclause 2 of clause 31. After the provision in regard to fine or imprisonment there might be some such clause as this:
And in addition the commission shall be entitled to recover from the employer so in default, as a civil debt the amount of contribution so in default.
I submit that to the leader of the government.


Angus MacInnis: The commission has power to sue.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Where is that provision?


Angus MacInnis: Clause 4, subclause 5:
The commission shall be a body corporate having capacity to contract and to sue and be sued in the name of the commission.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: That is a very general clause; that may not be sufficient. There is a specific clause in relation to the suing of an employer who is in default; that is the only provision in the bill relating specifically to the suing of an employer in default, and it is one which only gives to the employee the right to sue. I still maintain that such general provision as is contained in subclause 5 of clause 4 is not sufficient for the particular purpose which I mention.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am inclined to agree with the remarks of the last speaker. There should be in the bill a definite, specific and mandatory clause dealing with the point raised. But that is somewhat aside from this particular question. Under subclause 1 of clause 33 there is a distinct admission that the employee will be subject to possible loss in the case of a swindling or defaulting employer. If the acting Prime Minister will turn to page 8 and read subclause 3 of clause 17, he will find this:
The employer shall in the first instance be liable to pay both the contribution payable by himself and also, on behalf of the employed person, the contribution payable by that person,

Unemployment Insurance
and subject to any such regulations shall be entitled to recover from the employed person, by deduction from his wages or otherwise, the amount of the contributions so paid by him on behalf of the employed person.
In the event of the employer defaulting or failing or neglecting to turn in the payments that he has collected from the employee there is in my opinion no sense in penalizing the employee or in asking him to take suit to recover. That is the responsibility of the commission, not of the employee.


George Halsey Perley: I have tried to explain that the theory of this legislation is that all these fees or contributions are paid by stamps. These stamps have to be purchased beforehand and affixed to the books and so forth in order to comply with the legislation. Therefore there should not be many such cases arise as are provided for in this clause. The idea of inserting it is to follow the British act giving the employee a chance for an action in the few oases that might arise. I must admit that I have listened for a long time to this debate, and I am interested to hear the views of different members on the subject. I have not close at hand the reference I hoped to have with regard to the application of the British act which is exactly the same. I will try to get it, and if the committee wishes I will leave it for a time and perhaps come back to it again to-day. I want to get the reference from the British act, because if they found it all right in Great Britain-


James Shaver Woodsworth: It does not follow that it would be suitable here.


George Halsey Perley: I do not say it follows, but it is a strong indication that it is wise.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I suggest that if we are going to follow the British act we shall have to make a great many alterations in this, and it would be of great advantage to the employees if we did.


Mr. MULOCK:: It is a question of principle, whether these men who have part of their wages kept back for protection in case of unemployment are to be protected if unemployed. To keep part of a man's wages back and have him deprived of his rights under this bill through the neglect of the commission or through misappropriation of funds- because it is not the employer's money but the money of the employee-does not seem fair at all. I protest against the section in this form. I absolutely agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think there is a misapprehension as to the purpose of subsection 1 of section 33. The reason for this section, as for the similar section in the British act, is to give an additional remedy to the employee. It does not take anything' away from the rights of the commission or otherwise to collect from the employer, but in case the employee suffers by reason of the default of the employer it gives the employee an additional remedy which ought to be there for his benefit and protection. My difficulty is that I am not familiar enough with the act to find the section which casts the onus on the commission to collect the premium.


Wilfred Hanbury: Is there one?


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is in the British act, and I think there is in this. If there is not one such as subsection 2 of old section 20, which provides a penalty for non-payment, there ought to be. Certainly this subsection is put in for the protection of the employee and should remain in; but it should not be his only protection. I am not sufficiently familiar with the act to say whether it is the only protection or not. I suggest that the section stand for the time being and we will find out whether there is a corresponding provision that I think ought to be in the act for the protection of the employee. But I would leave this subsection in.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I do not think that answers the objection, no matter what may be in the British act. The difficulty in this country, is that once an employee sues his employer he ceases to be an employee; that is the practical difficulty. A man is not allowed to stay once he sues his employer. That provision may be workable in England or some other place where the employer has not the same power to discharge his employee that he has in this country, but here it is an absolutely impossible provision, it never will work. The remedy is not worth anything.


Humphrey Mitchell: This afternoon we
amended section 27 dealing with the court) that section I imagine was taken from the British act. In analyzing it we found that there were serious objections to it here. Now this comes to the courts again. I see this serious difficulty: assume that the workman has lost, say, $30, he' will probably have to pay $50 or $60 or S100 to collect that $30 in the courts.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: If he has Sommerville to act for him it will cost him more than that.
Unemployment Insurance


Humphrey Mitchell: Great Britain is a compact country, but in Canada we are dealing with half a continent. I do not know any situation in Great Britain that would be similar to that of a man in a logging or a mining camp in British Columbia, or to activities carried on in out of the way places while probably the bookkeeping is at some central point. To ask an employee to go from a camp in northern British Columbia to Vancouver to see that a stamp is stuck in a book every week would be ridiculous.


George Halsey Perley: I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman, but I have not the reference to the British act, so I suggest that this clause stand, and if the committee rises I shall hope to take up this section again later to-day.


Edward Joseph Garland: Before the committee rises I want to point out that in my opinion this clause in certain aspects should be unnecessary and should not be here at all. This does imply the possibility of loss to the employee after he has complied with the provisions of the act, has actually made his contribution, or it has been deducted from his wages. In such case I object to his being held liable for any loss, or it being incumbent upon him to take suit to recover. In this act we are setting up a commission to handle a trust fund, contributions being made to it by the employer, the employee and the state. If there is a failure on the part of any of those to make the contributions called for it should be the duty of the commission to see to it, not the obligation of the employee. And the employee under no circumstances should suffer any loss Of benefit.
I wish to put on record a proposal that I have written out to deal with that aspect, in the hope that the government will take it into consideration. I suggest that that clause should read:
Where an employer has failed or neglected to pay any contributions which under this part of this act he is liable to pay in respect of any employed person in his employment, or has failed or neglected to comply, in relation to any such person, with the requirements of any regulations relating to the payment and collection of contributions, this failure on the part of an employer shall not be taken as reason for loss in *whole or in part of the unemployment benefit to which the employee would' have been entitled under this part of the act, and the commission shall be entitled to recover from the employer as a civil debt a sum equal to the amount so lost.
In my humble judgment that is the way that clause should read if it is to do justice to the act and to the employee.


Mr. PETTIT:: I think we are losing sight of the fact that the working man is being paid out of a fund, and he will be paid what he is entitled to notwithstanding any default of the employer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon.
gentleman has not read the act.


George Hamilton Pettit: This is merely an additional remedy.


Wilfred Hanbury: If the hon. gentleman
can prove what he says it will end the argument.


George Hamilton Pettit: But I agree with the hon.
member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) that the employee should not be obliged to take action, it should be up to the commission.


Finlay MacDonald: This section stands for the present.


Mr. STITT (Selkirk):: I wonder if I might make a suggestion before the debate is concluded? It seems to me that the government are right in insisting that the right of the employee to sue for the recovery of any benefit that he might lose ought to be retained. And I believe that the opposition are right in claiming that the onus of recovery ought to lie with the commission. I think the act could be very easily amended to meet both these points if in line 35 the words "the commission" were substituted for the word "he." It would then read: the commission shall be entitled to recover from the employer as a civil debt a sum equal to the amount of the unemployment benefit so lost.
And then add these words: and in the event of the commission refusing to exercise such right it shall be the right of the employee to sue for the recovery of such sum.
That casts the onus on the commission to collect the amount, and if the commission refuses it still gives the employee the right to use the courts to see that the act is properly administered by the commission.
.Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before it
stands I would like to point out that under section 18 the governor in council is authorized to provide for this very matter by regulation. So far as I can see it is not in the bill otherwise, but subsection 2 of section 18 provides:
Subject to the provisions of this part, the commission may make regulations providing for any matters relating to the payment and collection of contributions-

Unemployment Insurance
The whole purposes of the act is that the commissioa shall collect the contributions and have power to enforce them. We are trying to arrive at a fair and equitable conclusion; I want to make the act as workable as possible, though I have not given much consideration to it up to the present. Subsection 2 of section 18 does give the governor in council authority to provide by regulation all that hon. gentlemen are asking for.


Humphrey Mitchell: All but the payment of benefits.


Olof Hanson: Yes, all
but the payment of benefits. In subsection 1 of section 33 there is an additional protection for the employee; without question that is the intention of that section of the statute. I agree that probably it will not be very useful, but it is an additional protection and that is why it is put in. But that- does not put the onus on him in the first instance to collect the contributions; undoubtedly that onus is on the commission and if it is not there the whole thing ought to be revamped. I do suggest, however, that it is there under subsection 2 of section 18. It may be done by regulation; that regulation may be changed from time to time. It is flexible, and probably that is the best way to do it. No doubt that is what the draftsman had in mind.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask if this
does not contemplate the possible loss of benefits to the employee, through n.o fault of his own?


Edward Joseph Garland: Further
than that subsection 2 of section 18 deals solely with the question of payments. It reads:
Subject to the provisions of this part, the commission may make regulations providing for any matters relating to the payment and collection of contributions payable under this act-
That is the manner in which they shall be paid and collected. It does not do away with the difficulty we have raised, of the threatened loss of benefit to the employee in the event of a default on the part of the employer.


Olof Hanson: I think
it is a little wider than that.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not want to say so,
nor do I want to delay the passing of the act, but I think perhaps we are taking an undue amount of time in connection with this matter. I should like to point out to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that there might be something in his argument if the act were other than it actually is. With the act as it is, with subsection 1 of section 33 imposing upon the employee the obligation to sue, his
employer as the proper procedure, then I submit to my hon. friend there cannot be anything in the general power given in a previous section. Here is a particular power given to the employee to sue, a particular obligation cast upon him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is not
an obligation; it is a permissive right.


John Campbell Elliott: No. That is his remedy. That being the fact the general provision to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has referred will not be helpful at all.
I think hon. members are losing sight of the fact that a fund is established under the bill from contributions by the employer, employee and the state as set out in section 17, out of which the employee is to be paid his benefits.


George Hamilton Pettit: If we look at subsection 3
of section 17 we will observe that the employer is given the right to sue the employee in case of default. In subsection 1 of section 33 the employee is given the corresponding right against the employer in case of default on the part of the employer. I agree with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) that the remedy given the employee in section 33 is additional protection for him, for the commission has the right and duty to collect and to sue and be sued.


John Campbell Elliott: It would not make for a
very happy relationship in either event.


George Hamilton Pettit: I agree, but it is a corresponding duty. Whether an additional remedy or not I think with other hon. members that the commission should be the one to take action against the employer and not the employee in case of any default on the part of the employer.
Section stands.
On section 38, subsection (i)-Penalties.


George Halsey Perley: Yesterday the
right hon. leader of the opposition raised some objection to this subsection, and I have heard him make the same argument in this house in regard to other matters. The right hon. gentleman suggested that no penalties should be prescribed except under the criminal code. I ventured to state yesterday that I thought acts containing similar clauses had 'been passed while the right hon. gentleman was Prime Minister. He challenged me to name one and I was unable to do so yerterday because I had not the papers before me. I have made some inquiries, however, and I find that in 1927 an act was passed which contained the following provision:
Any by-law of the commission may impose penalties not exceeding fifty dollars, recoverable
Unemployment Insurance

upon summary conviction, for the infraction of its provisions, and may provide for the imprisonment of offenders in default of payment of such penalties for any term not exceeding two months.
That is subsection 2 of section 4 of the Federal District Commission Act, assented to April 14, 1927.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is in default of payment of such fine.


George Halsey Perley: I quite agree,
and I suggested to the right hon. gentleman yesterday that if it would suit him I would insert those words, but he said that would not alter it, and that he did not want any penalties imposed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is right.


George Halsey Perley: Then in an act
providing for the regulation of vehicular traffic on dominion property, assented to May 30, 1930, the governor in council was authorized to make regulations which, among other things might-
(g) Prescribe the penalties to be incurred for the breach of any regulations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
governor in council; a different body from a commission.


George Halsey Perley: None of these
regulations of the commission have any validity until they have been agreed to by the governor in council. It is the same thing exactly; the governor in council must accept the regulations or they have no force at all. Then I have another act, rather similar to the one under consideration. Yesterday the right hon. gentleman spoke about social legislation, and I think the act regarding old age pensions was one of his pets, as I remember it. That act was assented to March 31, 1927, and it includes these words:
(q) The penalties to be imposed for breaches of the regulations, such penalties not to exceed a fine of fifty dollars or imprisonment for three months, or both fine and imprisonment.
That is.exactly the same thing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was laid down by this parliament.


George Halsey Perley: And parliament
is laying down this commission.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. My right hon. friend does not see my point yet. I am not complaining about there being penalties attached to the violation of the provisions of statutes, but I am saying that this parliament is the body to say what the penalties shall be. What I am taking exception to is the

government giving to a commission here and a commission there, to a board here and a board there, the right to define new offences which are punishable by imprisonment, thereby making it impossible for any citizen to know at any given time for what particular offence he is liable to go to jail. Let the government prescribe any penalties they think proper with regard to legislation, but let this parliament say what the offence so punishable is to be, and not some body that may be appointed by this parliament.


George Halsey Perley: In the first act
to which I referred it was the federal district commission that was given the power.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think that is a parallel case. The matter of looking after government property is a very different thing from social legislation of this kind which has to do with workingmen, the payment of their dues and their behaviour before a commission.


George Halsey Perley: These penalties
cannot be fixed by regulation except by authority of the governor in council. That is the provision in this act, and I submit to the right hon. gentleman that it is very much in line with the other acts to which I have referred.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then my right hon. friend intends to keep the section as it is? I have nothing more to say except that I think he is making a mistake, but it will not be the first mistake that has been made by this government.
Section agreed to on division.
On the first schedule.


George Halsey Perley: Yesterday I suggested an amendment to this schedule, and I do not think the amendment was passed.


Finlay MacDonald: No, it was not passed.


George Halsey Perley: Then perhaps
the committee would agree to pass it now.


Edward Joseph Garland: The acting Prime Minister promised yesterday that he would make a statement in this connection.


George Halsey Perley: Yes; I have the statement here, with regard to excepted occupations. This is a memorandum prepared by Mr. A. D. Watson, chief actuary of the department of Insurance, and Mr. M. C. Maclean, of the bureau of statistics:
Excepted Employments
Stated in general terms, unemployment insurance can only be satisfactorily extended

Unemployment Insurance
to persons in employments where there is a material degree of unemployment and where the employment is carried on at such places and under such conditions that is it reasonably practicable to adapt a scheme of unemployment insurance with real advantage to the persons insured.
It is rather difficult to know in advance of actual contact with the problems of unemployment in many occupations, especially in a country such as Canada, just how far it may be practicable to go on the start. It is best, however, that the initial difficulties of getting a scheme set up should not be accentuated by bringing in employments which will result in very special problems before the machinery and technique of administration are sufficiently devoloped. A glance at the employments covered by the British scheme of 1911 makes it possible to get a concrete notion of the characteristics of any employment which is fairly easily insurable.
The British scheme of 1911 applied to all manual workers over 16 years of age in the following trades; mechanical engineering, ironfounding, shipbuilding, construction of vehicles, sawmilling and machine woodwork when carried on in connection with an insured trade or of a kind commonly conducted in connection with such a trade, and construction of such works as railroads, docks. harbours, etc. The workers insured numbered about 2,500,000 in the whole of the United Kingdom.
It will be noted that in all employments of the above classes there would generally be

(i)	a more or less fixed place of employment;
(ii)	no persons in the occupation working on their own account or on shares;
(iii)	a substantial number of workers to one employer;
(iv)	a concentration of workers and that not usually in remote places; and
(v)	no very marked seasonal fluctuations in work.
Having regard for the administrative machinery of the bill, it will be seen how important these characteristics of employments are. The whole administration centres about the employment office or branch. It is at the employment office that an insured person gets his unemployment book when entering insurable employment and he returns his unemployment book there as soon as he is out of work. While unemployed he will in general be required to register from time to time at the employment office; it is there he will look for information concerning work; and it is there that he will receive the payments of his insurance benefit. There is necessarily a limit to the number of employment offices and branches which can be established, and to be of service insured persons must be relatively near an office.
Furthermore, a measure such as we have in this bill must be enforced both with respect to employers of labour and with respect to employees. There must be no evasion of the requirements of the scheme by either employers or employees. To this end an elaborate inspec-tional service will be necessary. Inspectors must know where employment is supposed to be carried on, and if the area covered should be too great relatively to the number employed the cost would be prohibitive. In this connection reference may be made to section 34 to get a picture of what will be necessary by way of inspection to see that the act is being properly complied with, and with that picture in mind an examination of excepted employments very generally will show the difficulties of administration which would be encountered from this point of view alone.
Again, some occupations are so highly seasonal, especially in some parts of the country, that if workers therein were insured they would have little or no opportunity to qualify for insurance and obtain unemployment benefit within the normal season.
It was not until 1916 that any enlargement of insurable employment was made in Britain. In that year munition workers and allied trades which would be adversely affected by the termination of the war were brought under the scheme. But it was not until 1920 that the application of the scheme was made fairly general to all wage-earners except persons employed in agriculture, horticulture, forestry, private domestic service and numerous specified employments some of them of a miscellaneous character.
Thus it was only after nine years of experience that the scheme was made about as comprehensive in its scope as the scheme of the bill before the house. By availing ourselves of the experience gained in Britain over the past twenty-four years, it is believed that in Canada it is not a greater experiment than undertaken in Britain in 1911 to start with a scheme about as extensive in its scope as now in operation over there. Likewise, it is believed that it would not be wise to attempt at the beginning to out-run British experience.
In particular, it may be noted that agriculture, including horticulture and forestry, are not yet included in the scheme in Britain. In January of this year the unemployment insurance statutory committee made a report on a scheme of insurance for agriculture. It is clear from that report that new and serious difficulties will be confronted in the administration of such a scheme as recommended. The conditions of wage earners in agriculture in Canada differ so fundamentally from conditions in England that there is no prospect that a similar scheme would be appropriate here. Conditions vary widely in agriculture in different parts of Canada and employment is far more seasonal in some parts than in others. It is in fact only after a most careful survey of the whole Canadian field that a scheme can be devised to meet the needs of agricultural workers. For this provision has been made in section 7 of the bill.
Having dealt at some length with the underlying conditions which make unemployment insurance a_ practical proposition, and with the difficulties inherent in insuring agriculture, it will perhaps be clear enough the insurance of employment in fishing and logging will require careful and mature consideration. It would be a disservice to persons working in these occupations to bring them under a scheme of insurance almost certainly unsuited to their needs. The seasonal difficulties, especially in certain parts of the country, are most serious.
The insurance of stevedores has given rise to more intractable problems in England' than any other class of insured employment. It is intended that the needs of these workers
Unemployment Insurance

should also be carefully studied before they are either brought under the general scheme or a special scheme. It should be clear that any scheme applied to them or to any other class of workers will on the whole be for their advantage before being made effective.
Coming now to employment in banking and insurance, which employments are also excluded, it is to be noted that even through this long depression banks and insurance companies have not found reductions in staff necessary. By refraining from making new appointments, the natural decreases in staff through retirements, death, marriage of females, and so on, it has generally not been found necessary to decrease staff on account of reduction of work arising out of the depression. It would therefore appear that insurance for such employment would be somewhat analogous to insurance for a fireproof building; the contributions would be required without any material benefit in return.
If in the light of what has been already said, the other excepted employments are considered with care, it will be found that they have been excluded on sound grounds.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me this is a most unsatisfactory statement. It may be all very well from a purely actuarial standpoint, and it may be satisfactory from the point of view that the government does not desire to involve itself in any obligations. It is highly unsatisfactory however from the standpoint of providing for the needs of the unemployed workers. I believe it is fair and reasonable at this point to recall the circumstances under which the unemployment insurance legislation was brought down. We were practically informed that the government was about to bring in a splendid scheme which to a large extent would solve the problem of unemployment among the workers. I am sure it was a shock to the entire country when the Prime Minister upon introducing this legislation stated it would not touch the needs of any men or women now unemployed.
For me it is an equally great shock to find a large number of excepted classes, thereby rendering the legislation of very little service to those who most need it.


Alan Webster Neill: The excepted classes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes. We are told the legislation is based upon the report of actuaries. The report is not based upon the conditions found in Canada, but it is based primarily upon-


Edward Joseph Garland: Theory.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, not theory. It is based primarily upon the original tentative legislation as adopted in Great Britain in 1911.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, no.


James Arthurs: And experience since
that time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No. Had it been based upon experience since that time it would be modified and there would be fewer excepted classes. We go back to the tentative legislation introduced in Great Britain twenty-five years ago. We ignore absolutely the experience of Great Britain in those twenty-five years.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, that is too steep.


George Halsey Perley: That is going a little too far.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think the acting Prime Minister, in the very memorandum he read to us, has shown that it was not wise for us in Canada to modify and amend the legislation as it has been modified and amended in Great Britain.


Edward Joseph Garland: That it
was not wise to bring it up to date.


George Halsey Perley: Will the hon. member excuse me, while I read part of that which I read previously:
By availing ourselves of the experience gained' in Britain over the past twenty-four years, it is believed that in Canada it is not a greater experiment than undertaken in Britain in 1911 to start with a scheme about as extensive in its scope as now in operation over there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes; it was a perfectly absurd statement for the hon. member to make.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: That is not correct.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the acting
Prime Minister mean to say that our legislation as it appears before us is almost as extensive as the British legislation?


George Halsey Perley: That is what
the memorandum says.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then it is very far from being in accordance with the facts.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a matter of opinion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I believe I am right, but if I am wrong I am subject to correction. I state the legislation we have before us to-day is based to a great extent on the original tentative legislation of Great Britain in 1911.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With regard to the exceptions, yes.

Unemployment Insurance


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes; of course, we have introduced legal matters, and so on, to bring it up to date, but with regard to the point under discussion we are back where Great Britain was twenty-five years ago. We are accepting what to them was tentative legislation. In 1916 Great Britain, faced with a serious unemployment crisis, broadened her legislation. Again, in 1920, nearly all the workers with the exception of those engaged in agriculture were brought within the scope of the legislation. Now they are bringing in even those agricultural workers. That is the development which has taken place in Great Britain in the last twenty-five years. But in this country we seem to be satisfied with the first faltering steps Great Britain took. We disregard the experience she has had in these past twenty-five years. While as regards social legislation we may be twenty-five years behind Great Britain, I do not think we are twenty-five years behind her so far as social conditions are concerned. We have just as much need for advanced legislation as has Great Britain.
I would point out, further, that the memorandum read by the acting Prime Minister calls special attention to the differences between conditions in Canada and those in Great Britain. We have greater irregularity in our labour; we have certain seasonal fluctuations; our workers live long distances from public offices. I recognize that these are difficulties. Of course, it would be a great deal easier if we lived in a small compact island. It would be a great deal easier if the greater part of our population were engaged in industrial work. It would be a great deal easier if we had a more equable climate. It would be a great deal easier if we had not the divisions of the nine provinces. It would be a great deal easier if our workers lived in the cities instead of on the far flung frontiers. But then we are not dealing with a situation of that sort; we are dealing with Canada as it is, a Canada in w'hich a great part of the population is still engaged in agriculture and the other primary industries and is likely to be so engaged for a good many years to come. We are dealing with a country that extends between three and four thousand miles; a country in which there are these various provincial difficulties; a country in which the workers are scattered in construction camps, logging camps, mining camps, in the most remote districts. I submit therefore that this legislation should not be brought down to suit conditions as they existed in England twenty-five years ago but to suit conditions in Canada in this year, 1935; and any legislation that does not do that is hardly worth the paper it is written on.
I do not want to go into all the details of these excepted employments, but I would urge the necessity for dealing with those engaged in agricultural work. We have had in the past a very large army who were engaged part of the time in our cities and part of the time in rural work. In fact, I do not know how we could have managed in the past to harvest our crops in the west unless we had had the assistance of large numbers who were for part of the time engaged in logging or construction work or farm work in other areas. Hon. members will recall the excursions we used to have from east to west, but as a result of combines and other machinery, that has not been quite so necessary in recent years. But we still have large numbers who are engaged for part of the time in other work and part of the time in agriculture, and any scheme of unemployment insurance which is to be at all adequate should look after this class of people, and should seek to dovetail one occupation into the other. I do urge that we shall not begin to solve the problem which ought to come within the scope of an unemployment insurance scheme until we look after these people who at least part of the time are engaged in agricultural or horticultural or forestry operation.
I come now to fishing. Admittedly the situation differs widely on the west coast from the situation which we find in the east or in some of the lake districts in the central part of the country. Here again there is great necessity for some provision to be made during off season for those engaged in fishing. It is not always the same kind of fishing; one group of men are engaged in one type of fishing at one season and in another type of fishing in another season. And some are engaged in fishing for part of the year and during another part of the year in the tillage of their own soil. Surely this class of people should be cared for. We have already had a slight enlargement of the scope of the act with regard to lumbering and logging. I do not think I need remind the committee that the conditions vary very greatly in British Columbia from those that prevail in the northern sections of the central provinces and again from those in the mari-times. But logging is one of the primary industries of the country; in the past it has been one of the outlets for the unemployed during a part of the year. It seems to me that anything like a proper scheme of unemployment insurance, adequate to meet the needs of the country, ought to look after all those engaged in that great primary industry.
I will not discuss in detail the occupations of hunting and trapping. These may present a greater difficulty because of the character of
Unemployment Insurance

the occupation; but certainly hunting and trapping-and I would include prospecting- ought to come within the purview of 'the unemployment insurance commission. Then there is transportation. We have very large numbers of people engaged in transportation by water in our ports both east and west. Above the main door of this building we find this reference to the sea:
The wholesome sea is at her gates Her gates both east and west.
But so far as this legislation is concerned we are excluding the people that go down to the sea in ships; we are excluding them almost entirely from the scope of our legislation. I would like to refer particularly to stevedoring. Undoubtedly there was a great deal of difficulty with this class of work in England, but they did manage to a large extent to regularize it. It is different with us, because all our ports are not deep water ports. In Montreal the workers are engaged in stevedoring for part of the year and during the other part of the year they find other occupations. A commission charged with the functions which this commission will perform ought to take into their cognizance the whole of the stevedoring business and seek to dovetail one occupation into another. Otherwise what will these people do? Are they to be on public charity for a part of the year-and this through no fault of their own? I think it is absurd. In the deep water ports, where the regular steamers ply, we might succeed largely in regularizing the stevedoring occupation. As it is to-day, however, it is casual work that attracts the unemployed from other parts of the country, and unless the situation is dealt with there will be trouble in the days to come.
I am not at all convinced by what * the memorandum states with regard to those engaged in the banking, mortgage, loan, trust, insurance and other financial businesses. What does this memorandum say? It says that owing to the peculiar conditions of the last few years a great many of these people have had to be turned off and that we have pretty nearly reached rock botton, or something of that kind. But that is no reason why those engaged in these occupations today should not be looked after. We were told in the earlier part of the memorandum that the underlying principle was that there must be some material degree of employment, regularity of employment. Surely bank clerks and those engaged in insurance companies ought to come under that head. I cannot see, according to the very principles enunciated in the memorandum itself, why these should not be included. Then we come to
[Mr I. A. Mackenzie.]
unemployment in domestic service, where the unemployed person was employed in clubs or in any business carried on for purposes of gain. Again, the same thing applies. Why should people in domestic service not have some protection? I ask the acting Prime Minister why he has not followed the British lead in this regard, whether he would take the trouble before this is passed to study the British act and find out what are its provisions, according to its latest amendment, and adopt these provisions in that regard just as much as in regard to the other clause we were discussing a few minutes ago. The same with respect to professional nurses and probationers training in the hospitals, and teachers of all kinds. Why should not these come under an unemployment insurance scheme? A great many of them have no unemployment insurance schemes of their own. And why not include many of our civil servants who do not come under the superannuation act and hence cannot get any benefit therefrom? Why should not these classes in our community come under the scheme? I can understand that if the scheme is to be on a purely actuarial basis there may have to be a gradation in payments. In fact, I am not at all sure that a flat rate is a fair way of collecting, because there are some who are receiving a comparatively high income and some a very low income. Why should they all have to pay a flat rate? I cannot see the justice of that. If it is to be a pure insurance scheme, the benefits ought to be in proportion to the amounts paid in. We were told yesterday that we ought to be willing to be our brother's keeper. If we are to go on the principle not of an absolutely sound insurance scheme but rather on the more general altruistic basis of the strong sharing the burdens of the weak, why do we not include in this scheme the poorly paid classes in the community or those who are more frequently out of work? In this connection I might as well read to the committee a statement which I promised to submit-a statement received a few days ago from the executive board of the All Canadian Congress of Labour. They are urging that the bill be amended in two important respects:
First, it is submitted that the rate of contributions provided in the bill as introduced is beyond the means of workers receiving low wages and that the graduation according to age and sex should be replaced by a scale of contributions according to earnings.
Comparison may be made between the case of a woman earning, say, $125 a month in a railway office and that of a railwayman, who, through demotion due to staff reduction, is earning only $45 a month in full-time employ-

Unemployment Insurance
ment. It is felt that the requirement to pay a dollar or more per month out of wages which may be as low as from $45 to $75 a month will inflict a real hardship on many workers; it is certain that it will place beyond their reach the protection which they might secure by membership in a labour union, by rendering it impossible for them to pay union, dues.
Second, it is submitted that the qualifying period for benefit under the unemployment insurance provisions of the bill should be reduced from forty to twenty-six weeks, at least at the inception of the scheme, in order to make the benefits available without unreasonable delay. Should this change disturb the actuarial basis of the scheme it is felt that the present stressful conditions would warrant temporarily a larger measure of assistance for the fund from the public treasury, it being recognized that such additional assistance would be largely compensated bv the reduction in the cost of relieving destitution.
It is not my purpose at this point unduly to labour these arguments, but I wish to put before the committee the seriousness of limiting the scheme as the government has done. Had the expectation of the workers not been so buoyed up, the situation would not perhaps have been so bad. When I was a boy, we used to keep hens and when we heard a great cackling in the henyard, we went out feeling quite sure there was an egg laid. In this case there was a tremendous cackling long before the egg was laid. Now when we come to look for the egg, it is such a tiny peewee of an egg, we hardly know whether it is worth anything or not. In all seriousness, I presume the government is in earnest in bringing down a bill which will help the situation in Canada, but if in our act we adopt a twenty-five year old model, that does not begin to touch the situation which actually faces us. I repeat we ought to face not the situation which they faced in England long before the war, but that which faces us to-day in the post-war period. We should recognize the very serious depression with which we are and may be confronted for a good many years to come.
Sir GEORGE PERLEY; I am not claiming that this bill embraces as much as does the present British act, but the hon. gentleman is entirely wrong in claiming that this bill goes no further than the original British act that was passed as far back as 1911. A memorandum I have states that it was only after nine years of experience that the British scheme was made about as comprehensive in its scope as is the bill at present before our house. In other words they started quietly and by experience they learned and made changes in their act. That is what we are doing to-day. This bill is brought in for the purpose of covering as many of the people
of this country as possible, but it is not final; it is not supposed to be a measure that will not be amended to advantage by succeeding parliaments. I hope it will be so amended; we want to make it as effective as possible, and if the hon. gentleman thinks no egg was laid, he ought to get his glasses enlarged so that he may have a better chance of understanding the matter. He has overlooked also the clause in the bill giving authority to the commission to consider matters of this kind, that is the question of excepted employees. Clause 7 reads;
In addition to the powers and duties of the commission as otherwise provided by this act, the commission shall, as soon as practicable after appointment, undertake investigations for the purpose of making proposals to the governor in council for-
(a) providing unemployment insurance for the employments excepted from the operation of part III of this act, or for any of them, either by extending thereto the provisions of that part, with such modifications, if any, as may be found necessary, or by special or supplementary schemes.
In other words, it is definitely contemplated in this bill that it is not a final measure and that the commission shall look into any questions which may be raised regarding excepted types of workers and make recommendations to the governor in council, so that when parliament meets again, this bill may be amended if it is found advisable to do so, or if there is any way in which it can be improved. The hon. gentleman, very wisely, voted for the second reading of this bill which is a good one. It may not go so far as he would like, but at all events it is the beginning of a first class piece of legislation which is for the good of the country. I think he makes a mistake in criticizing so strongly the fact that we are not trying to go too far at the beginning, but want to make our way with certainty as will be done under this bill.
Mr. MacNICOL; I want to make a few comments on the remarks made a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). I certainly do not like his attitude in the way of making a vigorous endeavour to belittle this bill. I have spoken to a great number of foremen and workmen in industry with whom I am acquainted, and he is not voicing the opinion of the ordinary workingman in reference to this measure. Their endorsation of all its clauses may not be one hundred per cent, but in general the average employee in industry-I cannot speak for those outside it, but I can say something for those inside it- endorses the present legislation.
Unemployment Insurance

The hon. member made some comparison of the number covered by the present bill with those covered by the act adopted in Great Britain in 1911. I do not think such a comparison is at all fair. The hon. member knows very well that the 1911 British act covered about 2,225,000 to 2250,000 out of 15,000,000 employees. The present Canadian bill covers 1,701,834 out of less than 3,500,000 employees. In that particular I maintain the present Canadian bill, which I quite agree might be amended as time goes on, compares very favourably with the first British act of 1911. My hon. friend therefore is entirely wrong if he intimates that the number covered by the present Canadian bill is not much greater in percentage than that covered by the first British act of 1911. The Canadian bill covers a little over fifty per cent of all those employed in this country to-day, whereas the British act of 1911 covered as I said a moment ago, about 2,225,000 out of 15,000,000 workers.
The hon. member also said something about a flat rate of contribution. A flat rate may have some merit or demerit, but so far as I can ascertain only two countries to-day have a sliding or percentage rate based on wages. Those countries are Germany and Poland, in which two countries the rate is made by a percentage of the wages. For instance, in Germany the employer pays three and a quarter per cent and the worker pays three and a quarter per cent on wages. In Poland the employer pays one and a half per cent and the employee pays one-half of one per cent. In other countries with contributory insurance schemes, for instance, Queensland, Austria, Bulgaria, Italy and Great Britain, the rate is a flat rate as is proposed in the bill for Canada. The rate is not the same in the countries I mention, but it is after the manner of the Canadian rate. Therefore the contributions proposed in the Canadian law conform to those of the nine states which have compulsory contributory unemployment insurance excepting Germany and Poland.
Just toward the close of my hon. friend's remarks, he said something about the present bill being comparable to a very tiny egg. The hon. gentleman is wrong in that. Workers in industry in making comparison of the scope of the Canadian bill with that of the bills of other countries find that the proposals made in our legislation compare very favourably with the best schemes in the other countries, and the two best are those in Great Britain and Germany. And further, to the British act, adopted in 1911, there have been

twenty-five or thirty major amendments since, as well as minor revisions, and I believe there is a bill before the British house now either adding to or amending the act. I feel that this present bill is a good start. It may not be all we want, it may not be all that is hoped for, but as time goes on we shall watch its operations. I shall do so very closely, and if in my contact with industry and managers and foremen and employees I see that it can be improved, I shall gladly support any necessary amendment in the future. But I feel that the hon. member who claims to represent labour should not take the vigorous attitude he does against this act. What the workingman wants to-day is to get the bill enacted, so that the 1,700,000 odd whom it embraces may sooner have an opportunity to participate in its benefits in the event of their being unfortunate enough to be laid off. I would like to see the hon. member take a different stand and support as strongly as he has recently denounced what certainly will result in a very great benefit to the 1,700,000 people employed in industry and over vocations covered by this measure.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I say to the
hon. member for Toronto Northwest, that I am at this time speaking particularly of those who are excepted under the act. The merits of the act itself I am not discussing at the moment, but I am urging that its scope must be extended if it is to be at all adequate to the actual needs that now exist. With regard to the figures given by the hon. member, may I venture to read a paragraph from a document, which I think members of the house have received, issued by the board of governors of the Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare. It is dated February 27, 1935, and is entitled:
A national relief plan, an urgent need.
With regard to unemployment insurance it says:
The proposed measure necessarily excludes, in its present stage, the seasonal and casual employments subject to heavy lay-offs-an estimated number of 860,000 wage workers. In addition, however, to this group and the 1,700,000 eligible for insurance, it should be recalled that Canada has roughly 1,350,000 more persons gainfully occupied-employers, merchants, workers on their own in industry, agriculture, business and the professions, not at all contemplated as insurable. Of these, 728,000 are farmers. Thus 1,700,000 of the gainfully occupied population will be eligible for insurance, and a total of 2,260,000 not covered by any such measure. This means that social assistance for dependents in this great group must be provided indefinitely through other funds and methods than state insurance.

Unemployment Insurance
I am pleading that instead of leaving these people on the dole they should be included in an unemployment insurance scheme.


Edward Joseph Garland: From the
document read a little time ago by the acting Prime Minister it would seem that this government in drawing up its present bill had accepted, as far as the British act is concerned, rather the restrictive and conservative aspects than the more up to date clauses. I could submit particulars to the acting Prime Minister, and probably will do so at the proper time, but I have already directed attention to some of the anomalies of the bill, such as the differences as to days of benefit and the number of contributions to be made. But in my view, there is one difference that stands out above all others, and reflects very seriously on this administration.. Before the bill goes to third reading I should like to have a statement from the acting Prime Minister as to why the same privilege was not extended under this bill to disabled ex-service men that is extended under the British act. If the acting Prime Minister has read the British act he will realize that under it a person who during two years is in receipt of pension in respect of disability contracted during the late war is able to draw benefits after he has made only ten contributions, instead of the thirty provided for in the case of others. Frankly I regard that oversight, if it be that-I am putting the kindest possible interpretation on it-as an extremely serious one. I think after the reminder,-shall we call it?-that we had last night at the theatre, to which most members of the committee went, of the tragic sufferings that the boys endured over there, we should recognize in all measures, and particularly a measure such as this, a special obligation to them. I am certain that the government must have overlooked this, and I ask the acting Prime Minister to take it into consideration before the bill comes up for third reading. I would like to have the same privilege granted to ex-service men in Canada suffering from disability that is granted in Great Britain.


George Halsey Perley: There is no one in this house who has a greater sympathy for the ex-service men than I have. I was in England and in France 'a great deal during the war, and though a non-combatant I think I know more about the sufferings they endured than most men. But this bill is not intended for the benefit of ex-service men, as I understand. I call the attention of hon. gentlemen to the fact that we are treating the ex-service men in Canada a great deal better in the matter of pensions than they are in the old
country; and I am glad we are. We are also looking after them in other ways through the Department of Pensions and National Health.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And war veterans' allowances.


George Halsey Perley: So I submit that, while I am sure I have as much sympathy with the ex-service men as the hon. member who has just spoken can possibly have, this bill is not intended for the purpose of looking after them; we are doing that in other ways.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the
acting Prime Minister about that class, of exservice men who are not disabled but are thrown on the labour market at this time of great unemployment? They are not receiving the help that disabled ex-service men receive, and on the other hand they do not come under the provisions of this bill.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I was very glad to hear
the acting Prime Minister say that railway men who work only three days a week will come under this act and get unemployment insurance. I would like to mention also that I have had several communications from municipal employees, saying that they desire to come under this act. They have- no group insurance or retirement plans of any kind. Their salaries are usually too small for them to save much, and I have been asked to mention at this time that many of -them are desirous of coming under the act.


George Halsey Perley: I think they come under the act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, thel are excepted. See page 32.


George Halsey Perley: That is true. Well, I think that would be a matter for the commission to take up under the clause we were considering a feiw moments ago. This bill is only a first attempt to do a good thing, and we do not think for a moment that it is final. The commission will have to consider all these cases.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
First schedule as amended agreed to.
On the second schedule-Weekly rates of contribution.
James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
ask why the discrimination is made between men and women?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are the same under the British act.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Unemployment Insurance


Mr. WOODS WORTH:: I am asking the
question in all seriousness, Mr. Chairman. There is a discrimination here in the amounts to be asked for from the women and also in the benefits to be paid. I ask the reason for the discrimination. We were told that this legislation is 'being introduced in order that we may implement the promises made under the treaty of Versailles, but under that treaty we were told there should not be discrimination according to sex. I ask why this discrimination is introduced here.


George Halsey Perley: I am sorry that I cannot agree with the word discrimination, but as a matter of fact we all know that the remunerations paid women are not as large as those paid men, and they are not as well able to make contributions as the men are. Therefore they are called upon to make smaller contributions and they receive smaller benefits.


Charles Stephen Booth: Is it not true that, as in the memorandum I read a few moments ago, to-day a good many women are receiving more than certain groups of men?


George Halsey Perley: Quite so, but those are the exceptions. We must go by the general average.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I admit that those are exceptions, but a flat rate is being charged all men even though there are very great variations in the amounts being received, so I cannot see that that principle applies in the matter of discriminating between men and women. Then on the other hand I take it that these amounts are supposed to be equal to the needs of the people, and I submit that when it comes down almost to relief-because that is practically what it amounts to-a woman requires just as much on which to live as a man requires. I do not see how a woman can be expected to live on less, and I do not believe there should be any discrimination of this kind.
Second schedule agreed to.
On the third schedule-Rates of unemployment benefit.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would like to ask the acting Prime Minister what is the basis of this schedule. There is a daily rate and a weekly rate. Let us take a man working a five day and forty hour week, as many are working at the present time; would he be paid on a weekly basis of $6 a week or $5 a week?
[Mr I. A. Mackenzie.]


George Halsey Perley: If he has complied with all the provisions of the act he will receive SG a week when he is unemployed. Surely there can be no question about that.


Humphrey Mitchell: Take the case of the miners who work twenty-four hours a week, while other trades work forty hours a week. Do I understand that their week will be considered a six day week notwithstanding the fact that they work a five day week? There is a differentiation in the schedule.


George Halsey Perley: I understand so.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not want an understanding; I want a definite reply.


George Halsey Perley: That is the way I read it; that is what it says:


Angus MacInnis: I have given some little thought to this matter, and I have come to the conclusion that the weekly rate is paid for a week's time, and that where there are odd days the amounts for those days would be as stated.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is it exactly.


Edward Joseph Garland: I should like to ask the acting Prime Minister if he thinks a dependent child sixteen years of age can be maintained on ninety cents a week.


George Halsey Perley: This is a scheme of insurance which has been worked out on an actuarial basis; it is expected that the money received will take care of the money paid out. That is the basis on which this scheme has been drawn up, with these various types of benefits.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have only this to say, with the kindliest feeling in the world, that I hope that actuary some day will have to live on these benefits, and I hope the acting Prime Minister will not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is very small.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, it is not. It would be very small if my hon. friend opposite had to live on $6 a week for himself and ninety cents a week for a child.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I point out that in England the corresponding amount is sixty-one cents.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have that here also, but the hon. gentleman is not getting away with anything like that. I say the benefits are very small.



S, 1935

[Stage Direction]
Unemployment Insurance
Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not say small; I said smart. I think you are smart.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, I think I am, in comparison with this government.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think the reply of the acting Prime Minister is quite right. He suggests that this is actuarially sound, that it is on the basis of a certain percentage being contributed by the employee, a certain percentage by 'the employer and a certain percentage by the state. But if the sum total of these three contributions is not sufficient to enable these people to live then it seems to me it is at this stage that we should ask whether or not that basis is correct. I do not see why the state should not contribute double or treble this amount if the scheme as actually worked out does not provide a sufficient living during periods of unemployment for those who are supposed to draw benefits. It is all very well to say it is on an actuarial basis and silence criticism in that way, but we have to get behind that and ask the basis of the actuarial computations. The basis is that the state, the dominion government, is giving very little indeed, and the greater part of the burden falls upon the worker and the employer. Undoubtedly the employer will pass his part on to the general public so that the state, as an organized body, is not contributing very much. The result very well may be that the people benefiting in this way will receive considerably less than the people actually on relief. It is going to be a serious state of affairs if the people benefiting under the unemployment insurance scheme will be in receipt of less than the people who have to depend entirely on charity. It is not going to commend the bill or even its extension to the favourable consideration of the public.


Edward Joseph Garland: The point
raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is exactly the one we should take into consideration at this stage. My own impression of this bill is that it is going to have the general effect of reducing relief rates in cities where labour, highly organized, has succeeded in securing a fairly adequate measure of relief. Under this bill the total allowance, provided the full scale is drawn, will be $6 a week or $24 a month for a man. For his wife it will be S2.70 a week or $10.80 a month. He will receive ninety cents per week per child, and if he has three children that will amount to $10.80 a month. Then the total allowance under this scheme would work out at $45.60 a month; that is the total
benefit procurable by a family of five in which the father is the sole gainfully employed person. The present rate of relief to unemployed families of five in the city of Edmonton, where labour is well organized, is $53.75, with no contribution being made. In the city of Calgary it is $53.70; in Winnipeg it is $50.99, and in Toronto it is approximately $54. This will give the acting Prime Minister some idea of the possible effect of this legislation. After all what attraction is it going to have for the workers of this country if they find that they have been able to secure as much or more without making contributions as they will be able to secure under this scheme after contributing for two years? Frankly I believe the benefits under the scheme are altogether too low; I think they are quite inadequate to maintain a family in anything like decency.


George Halsey Perley: I would ask the hon. gentleman if he does not think the keeping of self-respect is worth a great deal.


Edward Joseph Garland: Undoubtedly.


George Halsey Perley: If they are unemployed they will draw money to which they have a right. It is quite true it will not keep them in any great luxury, but I know many families throughout this country now who are not on relief and who have less than $45 a month on which to live. They are only too happy to keep off relief, because they are independent and keep their self-respect.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask if
judges contribute to their pensions? I fancy they manage to maintain their self-respect even if they do not do so. I think to-day, when we have conditions existing that make it impossible for a great many people to get work with any regularity, there is no great disgrace in receiving money from the state when the state cannot possibly provide work.


George Halsey Perley: The hon. gentleman must not misunderstand what I said. I agree that it is no disgrace; I am not suggesting that. I will ask the hon. gentleman, however, whether he would not prefer to have an amount given him as of right rather than to receive it from the state, even though no one would consider it a disgrace. '


James Shaver Woodsworth: Of course I would prefer to have it by right, but if we in this house pass a measure providing that if a man cannot get work, through no fault of his own, he shall receive a pension, then I do not consider that he would be incurring any disgrace by taking that pension.

Unemployment Insurance


Edward Joseph Garland: But surely if it enters at all the question of right should entitle the man to live in decency, and if the effect of this bill is going to be to reduce the standard which already is below the level of decency it does not come within the ambit of right, according to my understanding of what a man is rightfully entitled to.


Angus MacInnis: I think the acting Prime Minister has put himself out of court by his own statement. He asked if it would not be better to have a man receive money by right rather than, as he would suggest, receive it by charity as he does now-


George Halsey Perley: I did not say
by charity.


Angus MacInnis: If it is not by right the implication is that it is by charity; we might as well put it plainly. What else can we say? Give me another word to use and I will use it. The position is that after due consideration by charitable institutions, municipal and otherwise, the conclusion is reached that it takes a certain amount of money to keep a family alive, a certain amount of subsistence. Then if the amount received is below the stated amount, the family in question is living below subsistence level or the amount coming to them by right. Surely if we are going to give them something by right-if they are going to live on their self-respect- we should give them something by right, which would afford them a better standard of living than they now receive through what the acting Prime Minister is pleased to describe as charity.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He did not use that word; the hon. member has no right to use it.


George Halsey Perley: I did not use the word "charity"; would the hon. member please withdraw it?


Angus MacInnis: I am waiting for the acting Prime Minister to give me a word to use. The implication is there. If they are not getting it by right, then they are getting something to which they have no right. What is the term? What term will' you use? They have no right to relief?


George Halsey Perley: Certainly they have.


Angus MacInnis: All right, then they have a right to it. Why should the acting Prime Minister say that the people of this country who are receiving relief are receiving something to which they are not entitled? I would like to have him withdraw that statement.
fMr. Woodsworth.]


George Halsey Perley: I have nothing to withdraw. All of us regret that these relief measures have to be passed, but we agree on the fact that the people must be provided with sufficient food, clothing, and so on, as is being done by relief. Of course the man who has an insurance policy gets his money in a slightly different way, at all events.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is not
a relief measure at all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The acting Prime
Minister suggested that the man who drew it without contributing something directly was not maintaining his self-respect. That is the reference to which I object. When I think of men and women I know personally and have known for years, people who have given their best years towards the building of our country-our railroads, our cities- and when I am told that those people can hardly accept help and maintain their self-respect because they have not contributed to some fund or other, I say such a statement must not be allowed to remain unchallenged.
Mr. POiULIOT: Before the section is carried may I make this one observation, namely that the discussion which has taken place this afternoon proves once more just how carelessly this legislation was drafted.
Third schedule agreed to.
On section 33, subsection 1-Civil proceedings by employee against employer for neglect to comply with act.


George Halsey Perley: I am sorry I cannot agree with the argument concerning this subsection put forward by hon. members opposite, and I must ask the committee to pass it as it is. As a matter of fact hon. members will note that section 18 provides for payment to be made by revenue stamps. The governor in council is to prescribe the condition under which those revenue stamps shall be issued and sold. It is the duty of the employers to see that the stamps of the employees are affixed. As I understand it section 33 (1) gives the employee an additional right, namely the right to sue in the event the money is not paid over. Then as I understand it subsection (2) of section 18 gives power to make regulations in connection with the payment of contributions, inspection and everything else that is to be done. Regulations may be made whereby the books may be made available to the employee once or twice a month, and even put the duty on the employer of showing the books. The object is to be sure that the plan is carried out strictly and carefully. The experience in the mother country which 'has

Unemployment Insurance
included in its act a section similar to section 33 (1) leads me to the belief that we ought to have it in our act. As provided under section 31 a penalty can be enforced by the commission against an employer, and then under section 33 there is a further remedy which would be hardly necessary if the other provisions were properly enforced. It is very necessary to make sure that the stamps are put on and the collections properly made. I believe that the British legislation has had a similar clause since 1920. The real safeguard is in seeing that the provisions are enforced, and imposing penalties upon those who fail to live up to the provisions of the act. For these reasons I do not see my way clear to accept the amendment offered by the hon. member for Bow River.


Humphrey Mitchell: I wish to protest against asking the working man to go to the court when, in fact, the government should do so. I do not care what the arrangement is in England; I have had some experience in this country in connection with compensation, and I believe we should keep the working man out of the courts. The more we do so tire better it will be for him. In my judgment it is unfair to ask an employee to do a job which should be taken over by the government. An employer may break a law under circumstances over which an employee would have absolutely no control, but we say to the employee that he must sue his employer. Manifestly in such event the law would have been broken by the employer.


George Halsey Perley: I suggest that the subsection affords an additional right to the employee, because if the regulations are carried out and the stamps placed on the books no difficulty will arise.
Mr. MaoINNIS: I am sorry the acting Prime Minister has not seen fit to accept our suggestion. First we take away from the employee the right to make his own contribution. We pass that over to the employer. Them if the employer does not comply with the act we say it is up to the employee to take civil action against the employer to force such employer to do what the aet states he must do. That provision is supposed to apply to the individual employee, the man working here or there. But suppose employers in all industries refused to comply with the act; would all employees have to take action or would the commission take action? If the commission would take action in the event of the employers refusing to Carry out the act as it affects all employees, why should not the commission take action 92582-98i
when the provisions of the act are violated, as affecting one employee? In my opinion all the employers have to do to make the act inoperative is to refuse to make contributions for employees, and let the employees sue.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, I am going to move the following amendment :
That section 33, subsection (1) be amended by deleting all the words in lines 33 and 34, and up to and including the word "he" in the 35th line thereof and inserting therefor the following:
"this failure on the part of an employer shall not be taken as reason for loss in whole or in part of the unemployment benefit to which the employee would have been entitled under this part of the act and the commission"
And by deleting the words: "of the unemployment benefit" in the last line of the subsection.
It would then read that the commission would be entitled to recover from the employer as a civil debt a sum equal to the amount so lost.
Amendment (Mr. Garland, Bow River), negatived: yeas, 17; nays, 22.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was paired with the Prime Minister. I would have voted for the amendment had I not been paired.


John Campbell Elliott: I was paired with the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards). I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn). Had I not been paired I would have voted for the amendment.


Edward Joseph Garland: This is not in order, Mr. Chairman. Hon. gentlemen are virtually registering a vote which is not registrable in committee. I am anxious to have my vote registered if that is to be the procedure.


George Halsey Perley: The hon. gentleman is quite right. It has not been customary for hon. members to rise in committee and state how they would have voted had they not been paired. There is no record either in Votes and Proceedings or in Hansard of the names of those who have voted one way or the other.


Charles Gavan Power: On the point of order raised by the leader of the house, may I point out that this same point was raised three or four years ago. Pairs are not officially recognized in this house in any event. So far as most of us are concerned, the pair is simply a gentleman's agreement made by one member with a member on the opposite side of the house, which provides that when one is unable to vote
Unemployment Insurance

or is absent the member paired with him shall not exercise his right to vote. Personally I have always maintained that my pair is a special agreement with the member opposite and I may declare it or not in my discretion. It has nothing to do with any arrangement made between the whips. On one occasion the question was raised-I forget by whom-and the right hon. gentleman who is now leading the house agreed that pairs were not official and that as a matter of fact it was not the business of the house to deal with pairs. I submit that in a matter of this kind any member who wishes to do so has the right to explain why he remained seated. The reason I remained seated is that I have an arrangement with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) whereby when he is absent I do not vote on any subject which comes before the house. Had I not remained seated I would have voted for the amendment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Robert James Manion: I must respectfully differ from my hon. friend, and I will give my reason. I was also paired, but I would point out that if in a vote in committee we were permitted to rise and declare our pairs, as has been done to-day and on a number of occasions recently, it would bring about this extraordinary condition, that the man who happened to be paired and who declared his pair would be recorded as having voted one way or the other, whereas the man who was not paired and who did vote would not have his vote registered.


George Halsey Perley: The men who actually voted would not be recorded.


Robert James Manion: They would not be recorded, whereas those who did not vote because they were paired would be recorded. I was paired, and I will not say how I would have voted, because that would be contradicting the principle I am upholding, but I think that such an extraordinary condition as I point out should not be brought about in this house. My hon. friend from Quebec South, whose mind is always so clear, will agree with me I think that the practice of announcing pairs in committee would not be fair to those who voted.


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend, with that
artful Irish ingenuity of his, knows very well that if the point of order raised by himself and the leader of the government were well taken there would be nothing to prevent members from rising before a vote was taken and saying, " I was paired with the member
(Mr. Power. 1
for so and so; had I not been paired I would have voted for or against the motion." It would be easy to get around any rule that might be laid down in consequence of the observations made on the other side, and we might as well allow the practice to continue which has existed in the past. It is the first time to my knowledge that the question has been raised with any degree of responsibility behind it, but if it is pressed, then I suggest that we shall be obliged to have a formal vote of the house on the point, because it does bear on the privileges of members.


Edward Joseph Garland: It certainly does; and if this practice is to be allowed to continue then I shall have to seek the authority of the house in some way to have the chairman register the votes of those who actually vote, because otherwise, as has been pointed out, a grave injustice is done them.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was paired, but the
member with whom I was paired being in the house, I voted for the amendment.


James Arthurs: I have been a member
of this house for many years and this is the first session in which this question has arisen during my term in parliament. It has been unanimously agreed in the past that votes in committee, according to the rules, should not be registered. Why therefore should those members who refrain from voting have the privilege of registering their ideas either pro or con? That is not the intention of the rules of this house. That privilege has never before been exercised in this house and I am quite sure that many members, probably including myself, were very glad to take advantage of the rule whereby we could record our vote in committee without being reported in Hansard.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Am I allowed to
record-


Charles Gavan Power: I hope that this will not
be taken as a precedent to prevent members from recording their pairs in committee at other times. If it is to be regarded as a precedent then we shall have to have some formal decision.
Sir GEORGE PERLEY": It is not a rule of the house. I should be glad to have it discussed whenever the hon. gentleman wishes, but it certainly used not to be the custom for pairs to be declared in committee.


Charles Gavan Power: There is no rule against it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall the said bill
be read the third time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.


Edward Joseph Garland: There is
another rule of the house-


George Halsey Perley: The hon. gentleman need not say anything more. It has to be unanimous.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is more
important than that. I am asking the acting Prime Minister to postpone it because I want to see the printed amendments. I want to have an opportunity of reading the reprinted bill.


George Halsey Perley: Does the hon.
gentleman wish to have the bill reprinted before it passes third reading?


Edward Joseph Garland: I suggest
that we should have access to the reprinted amendments.


George Halsey Perley: They are all in
Hansard; they are comparatively few.


Edward Joseph Garland: They are
really not worth while.


Charles Gavan Power: Does that apply to the
whole act?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Shall we be
taking up further social legislation to-night?


George Halsey Perley: We shall take
supply, national defence first, and after that, if there is time, trade and commerce.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Salaries and contingencies, $448,640.
Charles Gavan Power: I understand, when this item was last before the committee, there was some discussion in regard to the unemployment conservation camps being operated by the Department of National Defence, and some hon. members from British Columbia made some observations in respect of the manner in which those camps were being conducted in that province. I should like to say a word concerning the camps in Quebec, but before doing so I should like to
assure the minister that any remarks I may make are not to be considered as being in criticism of him or of his department, but are rather by way of criticizing what I assume to be a major policy of the government. The minister is new; he is taking over his position with this policy already laid down and being carried on. He is certainly not to blame for its inauguration, and if we have any remarks to make derogatory to that system I hope he will take them in good part and understand that they are not at all directed at him personally.
At Yalcartier there are about 1,700 men who are engaged in a number of different occupations, but according to a return brought down in the house, part of their occupation is that of erecting permanent buildings. On further questions w'ith regard to the nature of these permanent buildings, I was informed that they were to form the nucleus of an arsenal, a place in which would be carried out the manufacture of ammunition, and that the present cartridge factory in the city of Quebec was to be removed to Valcartier. This cartridge factory at Quebec employs approximately sixty-two persons. During the year 1929-30, the payroll was $61,241.05, and during 1933-34 it was $41,038.29. I object to the work being carried on by the population of this camp, on many grounds, the first being that it is a distinct violation of the promises, pledges and even the actual program of the government, to employ hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country at a wage of twenty cents a day. We have been told that one of the principal pieces of legislation to be brought down during this session is a minimum wage measure. May I point out to the minister that it is not at all necessary to bring down a bill of this nature, or to ask the house to ratify a convention made in Geneva, in order to give reasonable wages to men employed in government concentration camps. These men are being paid twenty cents a day, and I believe they are being paid at this rate in violation of a statute of this parliament. I am under the impression that by a statute passed I think in 1930-and I shall perhaps be able to find it later-all employees on government work were to be paid at prevailing rates, which were specified at thirty cents an hour. By what authority and right the Department of National Defence is now paying those men twenty cents a day I have yet to be able to find out, unless it be that by authority of an order in council which permitted the creation of those camps a salary of twenty cents a day was authorized.

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
But if such were the case, the statute which applies to work on government construction and so forth should have been specifically modified or repealed for the purpose of carrying on this work. May I point out that by one stroke of the pen, by the passing of an order in council, reasonable wages could be restored to those men. The effect on the community would be to raise the general standard of wages throughout, and the effect on the men themselves would be to give them back some of their self-respect which they cannot possibly have if they are confined in camps such as these and paid the niggardly wage of twenty cents a day.
The second point I wish to make is that in connection with this particular camp the men are carrying on wrork which could be distributed and given to the tradesmen, artisans and workmen of the country. There is in the city of Quebec a very large number of carpenters, masons, men skilled in the construction trades, and we are deliberately setting these married men aside, allowing them to remain on relief, in order to give employment to persons in these camps. I pointed out at the time this legislation was introduced two or three years ago that there might be some justification for this when the works which were being carried on were not permanent or could not be carried out by persons in the community, but there was no justification for taking twenty cents a day men and giving them employment which would take away the bread and butter from the married men of the community. It was in reply to those remarks of mine that the Solicitor General, I think it was, stated that there was no danger of that. In this particular instance we are building an arsenal within fifteen miles of the city of Quebec where there is an ample supply of unionized labour, where persons who have been accustomed to carrying on construction trades would be only too glad to get work instead of remaining on relief. Yet this department is employing seventeen hundred men taken from all over the country and paying them twenty cents a day.
There is another point I might mention, although I do not want to touch on anything that might appear to be sectional. In other parts of the country where military buildings such as arsenals, drill halls, armouries are being constructed, these are being built under the Public Works Construction Act, and the men employed thereon are drawing reasonable rates of pay. Therefore I see no reason why within the district of Quebec we should not be allowed to enjoy the same

benefits as do people from other districts. It will be said I suppose that good work was done by men in these camps at the citadel at Quebec and Yalcartier, and I will not deny it. I suppose if it had not been for the concentration camp at Quebec citadel the ancient walls and fortifications would not have been repaired. But that does not alter the fact that the repairing of these walls would have given employment to a substantial number of men in Quebec who needed it, other than those now in the camps. I will not deny that there may be some justification for their employment in forestry work, I think in the United States they call work of that kind non-productive. As I understand it, in the United States the men taken care of in this way are employed in forestry operations and sometimes in the making of roads and trails through national parks. But this is an altogether different matter. This is a building the advisability of which is doubtful, being constructed by the aid of a special kind of labour which a great many people in Canada call slave labour; and at the very threshold of the place where that building is being put up are hundreds, aye thousands of married men on relief who are capable of doing this work.
In order to indicate the disapproval of at least of some members of the house of this particular form of government dealing with the unemployed, I propose to move:
That item number 17, national defence, salaries, be reduced by $1.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: To one dollar?


Charles Gavan Power: By one dollar.


Mr. STIRLING:: The hon. member was good enough at the outset to say that he was directing his criticism rather against the policy laid down than against the present incumbent of the office of Minister of National Defence. I am grateful to him for that kindly allusion. On the other hand I do not wish in any sense to shelter myself behind that. He has stated it as his opinion that these single homeless unemployed men whose care the dominion government has taken over should not be paid a wage as low as twenty cents a day. I contend, and the government has contended all the way along, that this payment is certainly not a wage. How did the dominion government come into this position? They agreed with the provinces to take over the care of the single homeless unemployed, to clothe them, feed them, keep them warm, supply them with a small quantity of tobacco in the form of a ration, and give them such facilities for recreation as were possible. The only practicable way in which that could be

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
done was to collect them in camps in the various parts of the country. Some of those camps were taken over from the provincial governments, some were erected by this government. It was therefore necessary for the dominion government to come to a decision as to where the camps should be, and what work the men in them should undertake. It was considered, for I think sufficient reason, that this work at Yalcartier, laid out it is true for military purposes, could well be undertaken. In that camp the men were given food and clothing and the other things which I have mentioned, and over and above that provision which the dominion government on behalf of the provinces undertook with respect to the men they also supplied a small allowance of money, but certainly not a wage. The men had to do certain work, which was of a labouring kind. As the assistance of trained artisans was required, key men in the various branches of work were employed at current rates of pay. These key men were taken from the locality, and the key men received whatever wages men in that locality were receiving in these trades. The rank and file of the single homeless unemployed worked with the key men, in some cases under their direction, anyway in gangs which were led by them. The hon. member of course is entitled to his own opinion as to whether or not the policy laid down and carried out was a good one, but it is a policy which has been laid down by this government and it has in the opinion of the government worked out satisfactorily enough to be carried on as such.


Charles Gavan Power: The justification offered by the minister, that a certain number of men receive prevailing rates, seems to me only to make the matter worse. It would appear then that a few men-which I might tell the the minister were appointed by patronage at the request of political heelers of the constituency-obtained fairly good jobs. The remainder, who were doing just such work as is being done on building jobs throughout Canada, such as making cement forms and the ordinary work of the building trades, were receiving twenty cents a day. I understood the minister to say two or three nights ago that the cost to the government of maintaining these men in the camps was something like $1.30 per day. Am I right? That was exclusive of the overhead of the department, but included the cost of food, clothing and lodging. That plus twenty cents makes $1.50. It would have been a reasonable thing to add a further fifty or sixty or seventy cents a day and give employment to the people of the locality at not much more
expense to the country. It would have given a great deal of assistance to the persons most in need of government assistance at this time. I quite agree with the minister that something had to be done for the so-called homeless transient single men, but in order to do something for them it was not necessary to take the bread out of the mouths of the married men in the locality. That is the situation as it exists in the city of Quebec. This is not a non-productive undertaking; this is an arsenal, a building for the purpose of making ammunition. There is no reason why the district of Quebec should be treated differently from any other district. Here again I disclaim any intention of raising a sectional issue. It merely happens that I know what is going on at Valcartier; I do not know what is going on in the other unemployment camps. The men at Valcartier are doing exactly the same kind of work as men throughout Canada who are working on the public works program. That there was an agreement with the provinces to care for the homeless unemployed men, and that two or three or five or six out of each gang are being paid prevailing rates of wages, does not alter the fact that the government is having its construction work carried on at a miserably low rate of wages compared to that which a private individual would have to pay in the same part of the country. This is a bald statement of the facts. I contend that this government above all governments is not justified in reducing the standard of living by lowering rates of wages in order to carry out undertakings Which should be paid for the same as any other public works throughout the country.


Frederick George Sanderson: Like the hon. member for Quebec South I want to say at the outset that any criticism I may have to make of the policy of the Department of National Defence does not apply in any way to the minister personally. I do contend, Mr. Chairman, that the minister must take full responsibility for the estimates of his department which he has brought before this committee. I notice that there has been a very substantial increase. At page 25 we find that in administration there is an increase of $41,000. In the non-permanent active militia there is an increase of $6,000, an increase of $54,666 for the permanent force and an increase of $15,470 for the Royal Military college, or a total increase this year of $117,136. I contend that if the minister cannot show good and sufficient reasons for the increase, these estimates should not pass this committee. I want to put one or two questions to the minister, and I hope that when I resume my seat he will at least endeavour

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
to give me an answer. First of all I want to ask what salary the chief of staff now receives, whether he was given an increase within t'he last two years and, if so, to what extent.


Grote Stirling: I am perfectly ready to answer the hon. gentleman's questions, but may I suggest that they should come under the appropriate item. At the moment we are discussing civil government, in which there is a decrease, while the question put by my hon. friend comes under administration. Does he desire to proceed now?


Frederick George Sanderson: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, and that of the committee I would rather proceed under this item. I do not see what difference it makes; the matter must come up for discussion anyway.


Mr. MUNN:: Mr. Chairman, in connection with the relief camps-


Frederick George Sanderson: Just a moment.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Morand):: Inasmuch as this matter does not come under this item I rule that it should be considered when the proper item comes up for consideration.


Frederick George Sanderson: I would point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that relief camps are not mentioned at all under this item, which provides for salaries and contingencies.


Edward Joseph Garland: The reply to the hon. member for South Perth, in that case, is simply that the minister had this point raised when he went into the estimates. One hon. member on this side asked if it would be all right to discuss these camps under this item, and the minister acquiesced.


Grote Stirling: I am in the hands of the committee. I think hon. members proceeded to discuss relief camps under the first item because that matter might be discussed on several of these items. Certainly they come under civil government to a small extent, but the matter raised by the hon. member for South Perth is in no sense covered by civil government. However, if it is the wish of the committee to discuss everything under administration or civil government I have no objection. Administration will be the next item called.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: May I suggest to the minister that it is somewhat difficult to know just where to discuss these matters. As I understand it the Department of National Defence are carrying on work which is paid for out of the general vote, which does not appear in the estimates at

all. I am rather anxious to know when we may discuss those unemployment relief camps. The difficulty under which we are labouring is that some of this work is being done by the Department of Public Works, some by the Department of National Defence and some by the Department of the Interior. We do want to discuss this relief item and this general vote, this lump sum which the government take annually, and we scarcely know where to find the proper item under which to discuss it intelligently. If the minister will give us an idea of just how he operates in his department with the relief sums that are voted to him, then we can discuss the matter much more intelligently under the proper items as they come up.


Grote Stirling: I have not suggested any objection to a discussion of the unemployment camps under civil government, but the hon. member for South Perth asked a question with regard to something that is quite definitely under another vote. That was why I raised the question whether it was desirable to discuss that matter under this item. The last time these estimates were before the committee the whole discussion on the matter of unemployment camps took place on this item of civil government, and I suggest that if the hon. gentleman desires to discuss that matter it might 'be taken up under this item as well as under any other. The particular matter the hon. member for South Perth brought up, however, happens to come under administration, and not under civil government..


Frederick George Sanderson: I thank the minister for his courtesy in saying that he has no objection to this discussion going on under item 17, and I assume that I am justified in going ahead.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: On relief camps.


Frederick George Sanderson: I will come to the relief camps eventually but I want to talk about something else in addition.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Anything that comes under this particular vote.


Frederick George Sanderson: I put this question to the minister a few moments ago; I asked if he would be good enough to tell me if the chief of staff had received any increase in salary within the last two years and, if so, what that increase amounted to. While the minister is looking that up I would also ask him if any other officers of the staff received

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
increases in pay and, if so, who the officers were and what were the amounts of the increases.


Grote Stirling: With regard to the chief of the general staff, his salary was increased two years ago from 88,000 to $10,000, less ten per cent.


Frederick George Sanderson: Was the increase made retroactive for some months, at that time?


Grote Stirling: No, it was -not retroactive. I am informed that no other officers have received increases in the last two years other than those which would follow ordinary promotions.


Frederick George Sanderson: The minister informs
me that the chief of staff had his pay increased within the last two years from $8,000 to $10,000. It does appear to me that an increase of $2,000 in the salary of any official here in Ottawa cannot be justified under present conditions, and I think that increase never should have been made.
I want to say to the minister also, in all kindness, that I think perhaps the greatest close corporations we have in Ottawa is the staff down at the Woods building. I well remember, and other hon. members of this house will remember also, that when the salaries of civil servants, members of parliament and senators were reduced, the measure which was brought into this house did not include the staff officers in the Department of National Defence. Later on it did include those officers; I am coming to that, but why was that not done in the first place? I have an idea that it was not done in the first place because the staff over at the Woods building runs the Department of National Defence. That ten per cent deduction finally did apply to these officers, but it was only after the opposition in this house and public sentiment throughout the country demanded it. They should have been included in the first place; they never should have been omitted. I want to give a word of advice to the minister, and I hope he will take it in the kindly spirit in which I give it to him. He has come to this department as a new minister, and I want to say that he should keep his eye and a firm hand on his staff over in the Woods building.
There are some things for which the minister must assume responsibility. He was sworn in as a minister of the crown on the 17th day of November, 1934. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, it appears that the new deal was first put into force in the Department of National Defence. I have under my hand a document by
which I believe I can prove my statement. The minister must take the responsibility for it, because it is dated December 20. 1934, just one month and three days after he assumed the responsibilities connected with the Department of National Defence.
I believe I would do well to take up the time of the committee to place this letter on record. The letter is headed "Department of National Defence, Militia service," and is numbered "M.3-1-8-3." It is dated at Montreal, province of Quebec, December 20. 1934, and is as follows:
District Circular Letter 11, 1934.
Officers Commanding.
P.F., & N.P.A.M. Units, *



M.D. No. 4.

[Stage Direction]
I presume, Mr. Chairman, that all the military districts in the Dominion of Canada received the same circular. The letter begins: Mess Dress Ties
1. N.D.H.Q. Circular Letter No. 21. 1934, is quoted hereunder, for your information:-
(a)	"In view of the many different patterns and sizes of mess dress ties which it is observed are now being worn by officers of the Canadian militia, I am directed to request that all officers may be advised as to the correct pattern and size of mess dress ties and that such steps as are possible may be taken to secure uniformity.
(b)	Paragraph 49, Dress Regulations for the Canadian militia, 1932, prescribes a black bow tie, and this paragraph is being amended by-
And this is where the new deal comes in-
-adding thereto the w'ord's 'with square ends.' Ties with pointed ends should not be worn
[Stage Direction]
I hope all hon. members will listen carefully to this.
-and the edges of the bow should be straight and parallel.
(c)	Particular attention should be paid to the dimensions of the tie, which should be about two inches wide at the ends and the length of the tie. in inches, should be twice the size of the collar, namely an officer wearing a 1 ;>* collar should wear-
And this is very interesting-
-a tie approximately 31 inches long.
(Signed) B. W. Brown,
Lt.-Colonel,
A .A. & Q.M.G., M.D. No. 4." Copies to all officers.
I submit that apparently the minister was the first to issue some of the new orders-the new reform-and this is very interesting. Perhaps the orders should have gone a little farther and the circular should have included something about the size of the hats the officers wear, recommending that the sizes be in accordance with the sizer of their heads.
Mr. ROBINSON:: Statesmanship.
Supply-Defence-Relief Camps


Frederick George Sanderson: I ask the minister in all seriousness: under conditions now existing in Canada does he take the responsibility for sending that trash out to the officers of the militia? The thing is absurd. It is ridiculous, and is on a par with what I said a few moment ago-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frederick George Sanderson: -that the staff
officers-


An hon. MEMBER:: A year ago.


Frederick George Sanderson: I did not say it a year ago, but probably I shall repeat it another year. The staff officers of the Department of National Defence control the minister, the minister does not control them. I hope none of the officers of the Canadian militia will get into very serious trouble if they do not wear the right kind of tie or the right size of collar, and in carrying out the regulations of this overworked staff.
I should like to say one or two words more, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I have not before me to-night a list of the militia buildings which have been built under the joint supervision of the departments of national defence and public works. Although I have not that list before me I believe it would make very interesting reading for the people of Canada. Since 1930 millions and millions of dollars have been expended in this way; some of the buildings are under construction, in an unfinished state, and some have been completed. These are military buildings. I want to tell the Minister of National Defence that he cannot make a military country out of the Dominion of Canada, and the sooner the government realizes that fact the better it will be for them and the country at large.
Under the items I have before me it would appear that the vote for the permanent force is increased by $54,666 over the amount voted last year. May I say a word about the permanent force. I have not much criticism to make about the rank and file of that force, but I do want to say that with a very few exceptions the officers are what I would call war lords, men who are attempting to create the feeling throughout the country that Canada must be prepared for another war.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Bunk.


Frederick George Sanderson: Hon. members opposite are entitled to their opinion, and I am entitled to mine. But the fact that the new Minister of Trade and Commerce says "bunk" makes no impression upon me.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Oh, no.
fMr. Robinson.]


Frederick George Sanderson: This country came
through one war. With the exception of some officers and a few non-commissioned officers of the permanent force, who gave good service, this country sent a civilian army overseas. I am willing to admit that, but I wish to say that had it not been for the young Canadian boys who enlisted and were trained overseas the Canadian forces would not have met with the success with which they did meet. However, I do not intend to dwell upon the war further than to say that if in the next fifteen, twenty, twenty-five, thirty, thirty-five, forty or fifty years Canada should be unfortunate enough to be drawn into another war, we will have enough Canadians, men who were very young at the time of the last war, who could very well officer any army of the future. The expenditure of $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 a year to keep up a permanent force, most of whom are brass hats and men who send out circulars such as the one I have read, is a waste of money. Even if conditions were normal it would be a waste of money, but the waste is greater having in view the distress and unemployment common throughout the country.
Many buildings are being erected throughout the country. About $2,000,000 is being spent for an armoury in the city of Calgary, and in other places throughout the country. We had enough armouries in Canada during the war. Perhaps it was fortunate we had the armouries which were built prior to the war by the late Sir Sam Hughes. They were very useful. I will go so far as to say that the armouries which were built came in very handy. But we do not want the country studded with militarism and covered with armouries from coast to coast. If certain gentlemen in the employ of the government receiving $8,000 or $10,000 a year could possibly put over the propaganda, militarism would increase, but I do not think they will be able to do it.
In my opinion there is a great deal of waste in the money spent by the Department of National Defence. I-will not say anything about the relief camps, because other hon. members may take up that matter. I do say in all seriousness to the minister, however, that so far as possible he should cut out a lot of the red tape down in his department. The people of Canada do not want it; they expect something else. The minister, I think, has a wonderful opportunity if he will assert himself with the officers and the officials of his department, and instead of the officers running the department and running the minister, the minister should

Supply

Defence-Relief Camps
take a firm stand and control those who are under him, and if he cannot control them he should get rid of them. I go further. I say that the staff in the Woods building is overmanned. You cannot get into the place; they are like an army of chocolate soldiers down there. You can hardly get into the door. We do not want that in this country. I am fair enough to say that you must have a certain amount of discipline in a department such as the minister presides over, but there is a danger that you are going too far, and I think perhaps you have got to that point now. This country does not want to be ruled by war lords. I hope the time will never come when this country will be embroiled in another European war. It is all right to have a force for defence, and I am not offering much criticism of the active militia, although I think that a good deal of the money spent on the maintenance of the active militia is wasted and no good results come from much of that expenditure. 1 do repeat, however, that the money spent on the permanent force could be largely cut out and the service would be better off if many reductions were made not only in staff but in expenses.


Angus MacInnis: Before this question was raised on Monday evening I had made an arrangement with the minister to take up the matter, so far as I was concerned, with the head of the department, General McNaughton. I had no particular desire to raise the question in the house, but the question was raised and I gave the house at least a part of what I would have submitted to General McNaughton. However, since Monday evening I have received further information to the effect that conditions in the camps in British Columbia are just' as bad as ever and possibly worse. I have before me an item that appeared in one of the Vancouver papers of February 28. I will read this item:
Relief Camp Deserters Prefer Gaol to Hunger
Twenty-eight relief camp deserters who some days ago were given the option of leaving town or serving three months in gaol after being convicted of obtaining meals by fraud in city cafes, gave themselves up at police headquarters Wednesday night. They expressed their willingness to serve their sentences as they had been without food for twenty-four hours.
The minister says that if a man has a grievance he may take it to the foreman of the camp, and if he does not get satisfaction from the foreman he can take it to the superintendent, and if he does not get satisfaction from the superintendent he can take it to the officer of the district. That may be true so far as the minister is concerned, but it is not
true in actual practice. A number of men in the camps have told me that the moment they bring a complaint to the foreman they are branded as agitators and told that if anything more is heard from them they will have to leave the camp. They are dismissed not only on the word of the foreman but on the word of the straw boss on the job. I have before me a note from a young fellow in a camp in Ontario. He complained about the food in the camp anid the foreman told him that he was an agitator, and that if he did not like the hash he could get out. But not only did he say that-and the same condition prevails in British Columbia; he also said, "I will see that you do not get any relief in Toronto." When they are sent out of the camp the provincial government and the city of Vancouver are advised to give them no relief, so that they have no alternative but to commit crime in order to obtain food. I was talking to one man who had been in four or five camps under a different name in each camp because he was blacklisted for "agitating" and dismissed from the camps. Now something must be done about a situation like this. The minister says that the provincial government can send inspectors into the camp at any time and inspect it for themselves, but the provincial government dare not send inspectors in because if the inspectors found fault with the camps it is just as likely that the federal government would say, "All right, look after the single unemployed yourselves." That is one of the reasons why the provincial government, even if it were anxious to see that the men are well looked after, will not take any active steps towards inspecting the camps. When we take the matter up with the provincial government they say that it is entirely in the hands of the federal government and that they have no jurisdiction; and when we take it up with the federal government, they in turn say that they are merely aiding the provincial government and not substituting for it because it is a provincial matter. Wherever you turn you are met with refusal to do anything. I think that the first essential in order to get some contentment in these camps is to see that the men in charge, the foremen and other officers, are men who have some of the milk of human kindness in their make-up. The minister says that conditions prevailing in the camps he visited were favourable compared with camps he had worked in. But these men are not in the same position as men working in construction camps. In the first place, they are getting the magnificent wage of twenty cents a day, and that is enough in itself to cause discontent. They have a
COMM ON b
Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
different psychology from men in ordinary work, and consequently the man who is competent to run an ordinary construction camp is not necessarily competent to run one of these camps; it needs an entirely different type of person. I suggest that if the officials of the department would give a little more consideration to the men in the camps and less time to considering the length of the ties worn at mess, things would go much better than they are going at present. I am convinced that we shall never have contentment in the camps-certainly we shall never have satisfaction to any great extent -unless the minister appoints men who understand the peculiar psychology that exists in these camps, or has an investigation made by an impartial tribunal who will fearlessly report on what they find.


Albert Edward Munn: After listening to the minister with a great deal of interest I want to say a few words in reply to. the statement he has made. When the hon. gentleman was appointed Minister of National Defence it ran through my mind, " Now we have a practical man who will surely see the necessity of a change of administration in the relief camps, especialy in British Columbia." I am very much disappointed and discouraged to-night to hear him say that in his opinion they are fairly satisfactory. I have a great deal of regard for the hon. gentleman and I must take his word for it that in his opinion the camps are satisfactory, but I do not think he has investigated the matter as carefully as he might have done. I have looked into it carefully myself. I know a good many of these boys, who have worked for me in the logging camps, and as the hon. member for Vancouver South says, conditions in these camps are altogether different from those that prevail in logging and construction camps. In the logging camps and construction camps the men get paid; they are there to make money and the contractors take care of the men, because otherwise they would not stay with them. But here the men are bound to stay. Now I suggest that the same condition could be brought about in these camps and there would be results; there would be something to show for the money that had been spent. For instance, if you put these men on for five hours a day at forty cents an hour, that would be S2 a day and you could charge them for their board. In other words, it would cost you $12 a week. Under the present administration it costs $9.10 and you get nothing done. They are supposed to be working but they are simply pussyfooting, and I do not blame them. But with an

additional $3 a week the men would work, everyone would be satisfied, there would be no more trouble, and at the end of the season there would be something to show for the season's work. As it is, you have nothing to show. I agree one hundred per cent with the hon. member for South Perth; the statements he has made are absolutely correct. Not only the Department of National Defence, but I think all the departments of the federal as well as of the provincial governments are overmanned. That is one of the factors that are holding us back. This is going to be tough for some of the people, but if I had my way, a number of highly paid civil servants would be looking for jobs. I am not picking on any particular men; if a man is required, that is all right, but a number of them not only in the Department of National Defence but in other departments are not needed.
I have nothing more to say than that there is too big a spread between $10,000 a year and twenty cents a day; that is the spread between the remuneration of men in the employ of the Department of National Defence. As I said before, I am very much disappointed in the minister. I have a high regard for the hon. member for Yale, who, being a practical man, knows what construction work is, but I think he will agree with me when I say that it is quite a different matter when you have a construction camp for logging or building a railway. In that case you have to take care of the men and pay them, and you will get the work done. In this case the situation is different; you simply have the men there, and in my opinion the way in which these camps have been and are at present being conducted is a disgrace tc the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. BARBER:: I should like to say a few words on this subject which seems to have appealed very much to hon. members from British Columbia. First, I think some of the statements made by hon. gentleman opposite in regard to conditions in the camps have been exaggerated. In the particular riding which I have the honour to represent, there are from twelve to fourteen camps; I have made a point of visiting them from time to time, and I would say that from seventy-five to ninety per cent of the men there appreciate the service that is being rendered by the department. There is of course an element which one could not satisfy under any conditions. I was present at one of the camps when a young man of about twenty-five years of age came up to the foreman and said that he was leaving; that he was going to take the train out for the east.

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
The foreman, who was a very fine type of man, talked to him like a father, but the boy turned and said: "I am twenty-five years of age; I have never worked a day in my life; I don't intend to either and I am taking the train." So he checked out. There is, as I say, in those camps a certain percentage of men who do not want work and who do not appreciate whatever might be done by any department of government.
Something has been said about the foremen. I think the foremen in every camp I visited and the superintendent of that division are men of the finest type. They are sympathetic; they give fatherly advice to the men and I think the men appreciate it.
The question of purchasing supplies was I believe dealt with the other day when this subject was up, and the department was criticized for not purchasing certain lines of products from local people. I have gone into this matter very fully, because I live in a district which produces great quantities of the products required by the camps. The problem which we ran up against was that of continuity of supply. It is impossible to expect any official to go around from farm to farm collecting a few sacks of potatoes here and there. When you have thousands of men it is necessary that you have a continuous supply from day to day. When dinner time comes along you must have the meat and the potatoes; you must have food for the men or you will have a riot on your hands. In different parts of the district the experiment was tried of having men collect from the farmers vegetables. and so forth, and in some cases meat. The supply was satisfactory for a very short time, but as I said before, it was found that it was impossible to maintain the supply. Let me repeat that I have found seventy-five to ninety per cent of the men in the camps appreciate the services rendered, and so far as the meals and accommodation are concerned I do not think there is any ground for complaint, because I believe the men in those camps are to-day getting perhaps better food than seventy-five per cent of the people in that district.
I have some criticism to offer, and I agree to a certain extent with some of the arguments advaced by hon. gentlemen opposite. I have been told by the department that this system is not permanent. I fully realize and I believe the department realizes, that a change should take place in the matter of wages. We have in British Columbia already what is known as the relief wage on works, twenty-five cents an hour. If the men were paid at the rate of $2 a day and were required to pay for their board,
clothing and other necessaries, they might not be as well off, but they would be a great deal happier and would feel better than they do to-day. After going into the question with some of the officials, I believe board of even a better variety than is at present being furnished could be supplied, including all kitchen expenses, at a rate of sixty cents a day. The men could pay sixty cents a day for their board and purchase their clothing from the camp as long as the stock lasted, say at cost, or anywhere they saw fit. If this were done it would be of benefit not only to the men themselves but to the communities in which their camps are located. It would create a sort of pay-roll for purchasing supplies from the local merchants, and I am sure it would distribute throughout the country a certain amount of money that is not being distributed at the present time.
In this connection I have pointed out to the department before, and it was brought to my mind the other day when we were discussing -the tourist business, that in the particular district which I have the honour to represent we have a large portion of what is known as the Cariboo trail, which I think I can state without fear of contradiction is perhaps the most scenic piece of road on the American continent. It lacks one thing, and that is the surfacing of the highway. If that highway were surfaced for one hundred and fifty to one hundred and eighty miles, it would bring to this country thousands of tourists and hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue. But with the surface of the road in its present condition tourists would not undertake to make more than one trip on it, and when they returned home they would tell the people about the condition of that road. My proposal to the department has been- and I repeat it to-day-that we must cooperate in this work. There are camps located all about this highway, and if the thousands of men employed in the camps were paid a proper wage and the provincial government were to furnish equipment and materials, the work could be done. We would thus accomplish two things: we would put the men in a better position than they are in to-day; they would feel like free men, and we would be producing something that would bring a revenue to the country. This work -must be done in cooperation with the provincial government. I would advocate that the provincial government furnish all equipment and materials and the federal government the labour. They do not receive a direct benefit from the work performed; but it is only fair that when they have the care of these men and
Supply-Dejence-II diej Camps

spend large sums of money on 'the camps, they should do something along this line. The cost would not, as someone suggests, be doubled; it would mean an increased cost, but there would be a return from the expenditure made, not directly to the federal government but certainly to the province in the useful work that would be carried on in the way of improving that highway. Work of this kind could be done not only in that district but in others in which similar camps are located. I should like to leave that suggestion with the department. They have admitted, and we hope it will prove to be true, that this system of camps is not permanent; I believe under the conditions which are improving each day they will not last very long. But in the meantime I should like to see serious consideration given by the minister and his department to the proposal to place these men at a fair wage. I would not call twenty-five cents an hour a fair wage; it has already been adopted in our province as a relief wage. Even if we went a little further and made it forty cents an hour or two dollars for a five hour day I think would be fair. Having discussed this matter with some of the officials and the men I am sure they would be much more satisfied. This might not take care of one hundred per cent of the men, because there are men in those camps who perhaps are not physically fit to carry on this heavy work, and there are some who perhaps could not be made to work unless put somewhere where they can be controlled. But the large percentage of the men will appreciate this, and I think as far as their morale is concerned it is the only way it can be restored. I appeal to the minister and the department to consider this matter seriously.


John Campbell Elliott: I notice item number 17
includes salaries. Could the minister tell us what new officials, if any, have been engaged in the department to carry out the construction program undertaken under the Public Works Construction Act? While the minister is obtaining that information I want to say that I quite endorse what has been said by other members with regard to the folly of spending at the present time the large amount now being committed for the building of armouries and arsenals and other military structures throughout this country.
There is some more information that I would like to obtain, and perhaps this is the proper time to get it, to what extent has the staff of the department been increased for the purpose of carrying out this construction. According to the statement filed by the Minister of Finance, up to December 31 the
(Mr. Barber.]
amount expended out of the $2,530,000 allotted to the Department of National Defence was $274,587. There were commitments up to December 31 amounting to $535,824. I wonder if the minister can tell me the details as to how these works are being carried on, the locations of the various camps, the total amount being expended at the various works, and the amount that is now committed of that $2,530,000.


Grote Stirling: The first question I think was as ,to the increase in staff made necessary by the relief work.


John Campbell Elliott: No, by the public works construction program that is being carried on now by the minister's department.


Grote Stirling: There have been eight supervising architects and assistant architects; one structural engineer; two clerks; three stenographers, grade two. All of these are at headquarters at Ottawa.
Then the- hon. member asked with regard to the items of construction under the Public Works Construction Act of last year. Item 18 was for barracks to foe erected in the province of Alberta, at Calgary or elsewhere, and the sum allotted was $1,200,000. The approximate expenditure on that item to January 31 is $79,192.99. Item number 33 was for the reconstruction of the Royal Canadian Air Force station-


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask the minister to give as he goes along a short explanation of the work done-for example, at Calgary?


Grote Stirling: Item by item?


Charles A. Stewart: Unless it is inconvenient.


Grote Stirling: Item number IS, barracks, in Alberta: A suitable site for barracks and aerodrome was located to the southwest of Calgary containing about 344 acres. Of this about 317 acres are owned by the city and are being conveyed to the crown for a cash payment of $10,000, and 52-55 acres of old rifle range site estimated at $1,261.20. In addition there were certain subdivision lots held by private .parties containing about 27 acres which have been expropriated. These have been valued at about $100 per acre, making $2,700. The total estimated cost of site is $13,961.20. The acquisition of this site on the terms stated w-as authorized by order in council P.C. 1857 dated August 16, 1934.
The proposed works: one barrack building, $165,500; contract awarded to Messrs. Bennett

Supply-Defence-Buildings
and White, Calgary, at $163,546. One men's mess building, $150,000; contract awarded to Forster Construction Company, Calgary, at $147,250.


John Campbell Elliott: If I may interrupt, would the minister say as he goes along what form of tenders these were, whether private tenders or by public advertisement?


Grote Stirling: They were called for from firms in proximity to the city.


John Campbell Elliott: The minister means that it was not by public advertisement but by invited tenders?


Grote Stirling: Yes, a list of firms.


John Campbell Elliott: Does that apply to practically all the structures that have been erected in Calgary?


Grote Stirling: All those so far in Calgary.


John Campbell Elliott: None were let by public advertisement ?


Grote Stirling: No. They are divided into these items that I am just going to read:
One married men's quarters, estimated cost $36,000; contract awarded to R. H. Peach and Company of Calgary at $35,169.
Grading landing field, $128,000; contract awarded to Messrs. Manvin and Owens, Calgary, $128,756.
Extension of city services, $47,000; being carried out by the city of Calgary.
Sewer and water services within the barracks, $110,000, being carried out by the city of Calgary.
Grading sites of buildings, $4,000, being carried out by day labour.
One administration building, $166,500, plans and specifications nearing completion.
And so on for the next six or eight items. Does the hon. member want me to read the whole list?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Grote Stirling: One stable building, $50,000.
One married officer's quarters, $20,000.
One Army Service Corps depot building, $16,000.
One forage barn, $3,500.
One officers mess building, $125,000.
One mechanical transport garage, $23,000.
One riding school, $55,000.
One guardhouse, $4,000.
Road construction, $20,000.
Gas and power lines, $5,000.
Grading parade ground, $20,000.
Purchase of property, $12,000.
Tree planting and landscaping, $10,000.


John Campbell Elliott: Could the minister tell us the dimensions of that $50,000 stable?


Grote Stirling: The plans are not completed yet. This is the whole scheme.


Charles A. Stewart: In respect to how many of the buildings has construction been begun?


Grote Stirling: Suppose I finish the list and then read to the committee the progress report:
Salaries, $12,000.
Architect's fees, $15,000.
Incidentals, $2,500-Total, $1,200,000.


Charles A. Stewart: That is the estimated cost of all those works?


Grote Stirling: Yes. Now I come to what I may call the progress report: The barrack building, Bennett and White, have the contract for $163,546. The approximate expenditure to January 31 was $5,400. The contract for the mess building, to .the Forster Construction Company, had not had any money spent on it up to January 31. The same applies to the married quarters' contract to Peach and Company, for $35,169, which has not been commenced. The grading of the landing field, amounting to $128,756, of course was not commenced1 during the winter. The extension of the city services, work done by the city of Calgary, amounting to $47,000, has been almost completed. The sewer and water system within the barracks, being done by the city of Calgary at $110,000, had cost $15,000 up to the end of January. Then, of course, there was the purchase of the site. The minor services and incidental expenditures to the end of January amounted to $12,766.99.


Mr. STEW  ART@Edmonton: The minister has just informed my colleague that there were no public tenders requested, that a selected list of contractors were invited to tender on all this work, as I understand it.


Grote Stirling: In the neighbourhood of Calgary and Edmonton.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
know where they live; I am merely asking the question. As I understand it the department. took upon itself the responsibility of selecting half a dozen or less contractors to tender for this work. It was not opened to the public generally by advertisement. That is correct, is it not?


Grote Stirling: Yes, the practice followed for a considerable number of years was followed in this case. The total sum was divided up into a variety of contracts and they were let through a list, as contractors have been let for many years past.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
going to got into a controversy with the minister over this matter, but my attention has been directed to one of these contractors, a
Supply-Defence-Buildings

gentleman named Forster. Is it a fact that he should have commenced operations some time ago but has not done so as yet?


Grote Stirling: The Forster Construction Company contract was let on the 22nd of January.


Charles A. Stewart: Has the
bond been put up for due performance of the work?


Grote Stirling: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: How long
ago?


Grote Stirling: Before the contract was
entered into.


Charles A. Stewart: But a start
has not been made on the construction?


Grote Stirling: This progress list I have before me is made up to January 31. I am not in a position to say whether or not actual work has been commenced under that contract, but I can easily ascertain the facts.


Charles A. Stewart: 1 am interested in this gentleman, because he is one of the faithful in Calgary and plays a pretty important part there. Before the estimates of the various departments are passed I intend to make further inquiries about the activities of this gentleman. He is sometimes engaged ini contracting and sometimes not, but he has a considerable amount of say in connection with other contracts let in Calgary, particularly the sub-contractors who are doing work for the general contractors. I am very well acquainted with Bennett and White. They are very reliable contractors, and I am quite certain that the department can be assured of receiving full value in anything they may do, because thiey have had many years of contracting experience. So far as I know they do not 'belong to my political party, but they did a good deal of work for the department when I was minister.
I do want to say to the minister now that it will be worth his while to watch some of those contractors, and I am interested to know what progress this man Forster is making with his contract. If I am not misled by the information I have been given it will be worth while seeing that he performs to the fullest extent what be agrees to do. As I understand it this is not in any sense a military barracks; it is to house the police force in the province of Alberta, is it not? Is that not the main object of this building?


Grote Stirling: Permanent force barracks.


Charles A. Stewart: There is
already in Calgary a very fine barracks or

armouries right in the centre of the city. If this is an additional barracks I suggest that it is quite unusual for a city the size of Oalgary. There is a suitable armoury building located right in the heart of the city; perhaps the minister knows as much about it as I do. My understanding last year was that this new building was to be the headquarters of the police force for that province. The minister shakes his head; is that not a fact? Surely it is not another armoury? Has thie minister some further explanation to give?


Grote Stirling: Mr. Chairman, I well recall that last year when this matter was being discussed the Prime Minister explained that the barracks in Calgary to which the hon. member is referring was the barracks of the non-permanent active militia, which for the time being was used by the permanent force of military district No. 13 pending the time when provision could be made for a barracks for that district. This is that barracks, and it is for the permanent force, not for the police. This will enable the nonpermanent active militia to resume full use of their own armouries.
iMr. STEWART (Edmonton): I am sorry that I was misled by the explanation given by the Prime Minister last year; no doubt that was my fault. I fail to understand why a city like Calgary requires another armoury, as we call it, or barracks, when I do not know of another city in western Canada with a building of this sort. The impression I received last year was that probably the headquarters would be moved from Edmonton to Calgary. I well remember that I was confirmed in that impression because the city of Edmonton made a very considerable row over the matter shortly after the discussion arose in the house. I also recall that when this matter was being discussed the Prime Minister intimated that possibly there would not be a definite decision made with regard to the construction of this building, that the money might be used for some other purpose in order to provide relief. I think if my hon. friend looks up Hansard he will find the statement was made by the Prime Minister that nothing was definite about this. I admit at once that it was made after a good deal of discussion over this very matter, but do I understand that the city of Calgary is to have two fine, large armouries? The building located there now is a splendid armoury, of the regulation size, I should judge. Is this new building to house the Strathcona Horse? Of course that force has a splendid reputation and record, but why should it be continued and why should we

Supply-Defence-Buildings
continue to encourage and 'build up these forces in times like these and in a country like Canada? That is beyond my comprehension.
If it is definitely decided to go on with all this work, and if this is to be an additional armoury for the city of Calgary, all I can say to the minister is that I think the money might have been expended much more advantageously. One thing is certain, that this will not be relief in any sense, as we understand it in connection with the relief camps; this work will be paid for. I presume the cost comes out of the money voted under the general bill last year, but of course the Department of National Defence is in charge of the work. I do not know that I can make any further protest, but I will say to the minister that he had better pay very careful and close attention to the progress of this construction, which has been divided up in this way and the contracts for which have been let in this manner. Apparently the contractors have been selected and given the various units that are being constructed, with little or no competition except from others who were invited to be competitors. One can come to no other conclusion, and anyone who has had anything to do with public construction knows pretty well that it is not a very difficult matter for these gentlemen to get together and fix the price a building is going to cost. I want to register my protest against this sort of thing. If that is the method by which work is being carried on, either under the public works expenditure or with relief money, then I think the opposition are warranted in registering the strongest possible protest against this sort of thing. If one is to avoid criticism in letting contracts for buildings I would say the safest method to pursue would be that of allowing the general contractors to come in and do their bidding, rather than arousing suspicion by a selection of individuals who may tender on public works.


Grote Stirling: I have a clear recollection of what was said in the session of 1934 when we were considering a vote for a barracks- not an armoury-for the housing of the permanent force in this particular military district. It was contemplated that the department would build at Calgary, but at that time a site had not been definitely settled upon. Only a few weeks after the conclusion of the session the decision was made that Calgary would be selected as the site. As the hon. member knows, it is on the flat land above Sarcee camp. He has suggested that the selected list, as he has called it, was so
small that there was no competition. I have before me a list of sixteen firms which were asked to tender on the piece of work the Forster Construction Company are now doing. I think he will agree that number of firms would afford a considerable amount of competition. The lowest figure was taken.


John Campbell Elliott: How did the government get the names of those firms?


Grote Stirling: In the ordinary manner followed by departments of government for a good many years past.


John Campbell Elliott: What departments?


Grote Stirling: As the hon. member was at one time minister of public works, I believe he will follow me.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, as I was at one time minister of public works I know that is not the way it should be done.


Grote Stirling: In this particular instance the Forster Construction Company was up against considerable competition. In a contract of that size it is rather interesting to note that the dollars separating the tenders were not very great. The lowest tender, for $147,500, was that of the Forster Construction Company.


Miss MACPHAIL:: It seems we have mixed up expenditures on public buildings-mostly armouries-with a discussion on relief camps. I should like to say one or two things about each. It does seem to me that-I suppose we must say the government, but it has been true of other governments in the past-the government lacks imagination when it comes to expending public funds to provide work. I wish to protest as strongly as I can against the expenditure of vast sums of money on military buildings, arsenals, armouries or whatever they may be. In thinking over the things that Canada needs I would put additional armouries or military buildings at the bottom of the list rather than at the top. I can think of just a dozen other things which could be done. I dare say there would be constitutional objections, but one begins to notice that when governments want to get around constitutional objections they do not seem to have much difficulty. For instance, we could eliminate all level crossings in Canada. Of course that would be preventing people from being killed instead of getting ready for the killing of some more. We could carry out a large program of reforestation, something which is very much needed; and we could eliminate slums and build improved roads where they do not exist.

Supply-Defence -.Buildings

We could have sanitary equipment installed in homes already built, and could have extension of electrical energy to all houses in Canada. We could do all that. Then if we ran out of jobs we could have vast beautification projects, and could remove much of the man-made ugliness we find in Canada. One does see some very ugly things the removal of which would provide work. While the hon. member for Fraser Valley was speaking these ideas occurred to me. Oh, yes, we could have more post offices. Of course I do not know that we need clocks in the towers of all post offices, but let us have the post office buildings anyway. Then, we could have community halls through grants made by the federal government. Surely we do not have to go on with this stupid business of erecting more military buildings, especially in times like these, in order to provide work.
Now I come to the second point, namely relief camps. I wish I could agree with the optimism of the hon. member for Fraser Valley who thinks we soon will not have unemployment. I noticed only a few days ago the social services gave the number of those on relief as 1,350,000. That being the fact it would not look as though we would be free of unemployment for some time. If the minister insists upon all the expenditures being for buildings, I would suggest that we might build permanent homes for the unemployed, the people on relief. At the rate we are going it would seem that such action will be necessary.
I believe there are two points which may be argued against the camps as they are now conducted, one is that they are almost bound to undermine the spirit of the men. The second is that it is going to help continue the greatest of all our evils, namely the lack of purchasing power. The men in tthe relief camps are out of the purchasing group; they are not in a position to buy the things which other people want to sell. I think it would be very much better to spend even larger sums of money in public works, and to pay the men wages-not twenty cents a day; if only we could get around to doing something sensible and not spending the money in the erection of military buildings.
When speaking about the work which could be done I omitted to mention the reclaiming of the drought area. That would take a great deal of money and many men would be employed. Why not do it? But I think we are soon coming to the time-and as I sit here year after year I wonder how soon-when we are going to short circuit some consuming

power from the central authority direct to the people. I shall name some of the ways in which we could relieve our present difficulties. We could give or-I shall use the word again- short circuit purchasing power, without putting it through production, direct to all the blind in Canada. I suggest that would be infinitely more sensible than building more armouries. We could have a superannuation scheme for all people in Canada who desire it. I am not dogmatic as to the age at which such a scheme should become operative; it might be sixty-five years or it might be sixty years, but I do suggest it should be at a sum upon which they could live comfortably. In that way we could increase purchasing power and absorb into productive industry many of the young men who are in labour camps. It would be better to spend two, three, four, even ten times as much money as we are spending, and thereby absorb these unemployed people into natural public works and natural jobs such as they would have had if we had not gone through these trying days. It would be better to do that than to spend less money and run the chance-and we certainly are running the chance-of having all these people in camps forever unemployable.
Some may ask: Where would we get the money? I suggest there are two ways. One is to tax very severely large pools of money, whether through income, inheritance or business profit pools, and the other would be to draw upon the national credit. A person may again ask:	What is national credit? It
simply means that the federal government would be doing the trick the bankers have learned to do so well-the making of money out of nothing. Coupled with that would come an increase in the price of farm commodities, through a depreciation of currency. I am better satisfied to make what I believe is a more constructive approach to the problem of relief camps than simply saying that the men running them are not preparing the right menus and so on. I am sure the men running them are doing the best- they can, and I believe the minister is doing his best. I do not believe the present Minister of National Defence is responsible for the nonsensical expenditures suggested for military buildings. I believe he is a gentleman, and if he were allowed to do the sensible thing I am sure he would be only too glad to do it. But we have gone along stupidly for so long that if we did begin to do things according to common sense standards the shock would be too great. I can understand why the minister does not get around to it.

Supply-Defence-Buildings


John Campbell Elliott: I did not understand the minister to indicate the proportion of the 82,530,000 to which we are now committed. I refer to the 82,530.000 allotted to the Department of National Defence.
Mr, STIRLING:	Of the 82,500,000,
roughly speaking, the amount to which we are committed is 81,495,094.33.


John Campbell Elliott: Have any of the contracts been let by public tender, and if so, to what extent?


Grote Stirling: The building for the
Royal Military college at Kingston, $241,950, was let by public tender to Anglin & Nor-cross.


John Campbell Elliott: Is that the only one?


Grote Stirling: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: I think it would save
time if the minister would let us have, before the next sitting of the committee, a statement showing exactly what contracts have been let. The list of those let by public tender has been pretty well given, I take it, so that that will be rather short. The minister might let us have the expenditure up to the present time so that we shall know how much of that 82,530,000 is still uncommitted.


Grote Stirling: I was in process of
reading the statement when I was interrupted by other questions. I had gone as far as item No. 18 for the barracks at Calgary and had begun to read item 33 of the Public Works Construction Act. For reconstruction of the R.C.A.F. station at Dartmouth, 815,000 was allotted and authority to execute the work under the direct supervision and control of the officers and employees of the department was granted by order in council. The expenditure to the last day of January was $13,572, so that that is almost complete. As regards item No. 37, the reconstruction of the armoury at Dundas, which was destroyed by fire, the contract was let to C. P. Muntz Limited for 841,290. That has only just been let. As regards item No. 84, which was the one I have already alluded to, the Royal Military College, first a contract was let for the pouring of the foundation walls to Holdcroft of Kingston, 83,281, and that is complete. A contract was let to the Hamilton Bridge Company for the supply and erection of structural steel, and the construction of the mess and recreation building for 8241,950, was let to Messrs. Anglin & Norcross. That is the one I referred to as having been let by public tender. As regards item No. 100,
92582- 99}
the armoury for the Duke of York's Royal Canadian Hussars, that has not yet been let. Tenders have not yet been asked for that, but we are all but ready to ask for them. Item No. 123 is the new photographic building at Rockcliffe for the R.C.A.F., and authority to execute this work, under the direct supervision and control of the officers and employees of the department, was granted by order in council. That building was 837,700. As regards item No. 135, public buildings generally, that was a composite item, of which National Defence was allotted $472,000 and covers a variety of smaller pieces of work, of which perhaps the addition to the Windsor armoury was one of the larger ones, and that was let to R. J. Wilson & Company of Windsor, the contract amounting to $60,490. The addition to the Fredericton armoury was awarded to New Brunswick Contractors Limited of Fredericton, 829,370.


John Campbell Elliott: So far as I am concerned, if other members of the committee are of the same opinion, I have no desire to take up the time of the committee troubling the minister to read the statement. I would suggest that he place it on the table so as to give the committee the information which we should like to have. We could look it over and there might be questions which we should like to ask at the next sitting.


Grote Stirling: I shall be glad to do
that.


John Campbell Elliott: If there is any information in connection with the matter which is not contained in the statement, I should be glad if the minister would be good enough to furnish it at the request of the committee. When he refers to the building at Kingston being let by public tender, why should a building at Kingston be let by public tender after public advertisement and all the rest of the buildings be let by private tender?


Grote Stirling: The building referred to
there is a considerably larger one.


John Campbell Elliott: Larger than any of the
others?


Grote Stirling: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: Is that the minister's
reason?


Grote Stirling: That is the reason.


John Campbell Elliott: What was the price of the Kingston building?


Grote Stirling: The contract was for $241,950
Supply-Defence-Buildings


John Campbell Elliott: And the buildings covered by the balance, about a million and a half, are let by tender without public advertisement-I mean the total of them. What is the principle that governs, if there is a principle? What is it that determines whether it will be let by tender obtained after public advertisement or whether it will be let by inviting a number of people to submit private tenders? The minister is quite in error when he refers to the Department of Public Works as letting large quantities of its building program-or practically any quantity, unless it were an emergency where a work was being damaged by storms-by inviting tenders which were not publicly advertised. I think it is a most pernicious principle in the construction of public buildings, asking various people to submit tenders; it is not in the interests of the public and does not get the best results. Moreover, it makes trouble for the man in charge of the construction, the minister.


Mr. QUINN:: Did you hold the same opinion five years ago?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, and I practised it as a policy.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I doubt it.


John Campbell Elliott: Tell us where we erected buildings of this kind under the policy followed here, if you know anything about it.


Grote Stirling: The hon. member has referred to the difference between this contract which we are discussing and the total of $2,500,000.


John Campbell Elliott: The total of what you are committed to.


Grote Stirling: I would point out that the total of what we are committed to is divided into a considerable number of contracts, and in some instances the desire was to employ contractors, if they were available, in these localities, and they would employ the tradesmen and people in the localities concerned who required work.


John Campbell Elliott: If that was the desire why not say that tenders will 'be received from people in the city of Calgary, or in the province of Alberta or of Ontario, or that only local contractors will be allowed to tender?


Mr. CAMPBELL:: The former minister, I take it, wants to know on what principle the department decides to call for public tenders, and when it decides to confine it to a few invited friends. Is it decided by the size of the building or the cost, or what is the determining factor?
f\Ir. Stirling.]


Grote Stirling: Each case is judged on its merits. I do not think the hon. member really means that a few invited people are asked to tender in connection with a certain building such as we have been describing. I have given one list in which sixteen firms in Calgary and vicinity were asked to tender, and in another instance eighteen. That pretty well covered the city of Calgary.


Milton Neil Campbell: That is true but it
does not answer the question. Can public tenders not be called and the advertising, regardless of who the contractor may be, stipulate that local labour must be employed?


Frederick George Sanderson: Before the item passes, I should like to ask the minister whether he would be good enough to give to the committee a list of the relief camps by provinces, where they are located, and the number of men in each camp.


Grote Stirling: Does the hon. gentleman suggest that I read that now?


Frederick George Sanderson: No, so long as it is
on Hansard. Will the minister put it on Hansard?


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps I might return to
the question of the unemployment camps which I was discussing some time ago. Before doing so, I am reminded, on listening to the discussion and on hearing the details set forth by the minister, of a speech made some time ago by a United States senator, in the course of which he exclaimed that they were furnishing certified food for the Louisiana hogs and building palatial residences for the Mississippi mules, whereas the people of the city of New York were going without food and clothing and being allowed to starve to death. Here we are with one-half of the brains of the Department of National Defence being utilized in order to ascertain just how long and wide a black tie must be worn with a mess jacket, and the other half in designing stables in Calgary for the Strathcona Horse, while thousands of men throughout the country are being employed at twenty cents a day to take away work from married men, artisans and labourers who are entitled, if anybody is, to get a day's work from this government. It is a crying shame and a disgrace to our country and our civilization.
But before leaving this subject, I would like to get from the minister answers to two questions. The first is: How does he get away from the fair wage policy, so-called, of this government and of the government which preceded it? I am now quoting from

Supply-Defence-Buildings
the Labour Gazette. This is the act of May, 1930. the effect of which is stated in the Labour Gazette of March, 1932, to be:
This act applies both to contracts for the construction, remodelling, repairs or demolition of any work for the government of Canada, and to works carried out by day labour, and provides for the payment of "such wages as are generally accepted as current from time to time for competent workmen in the district in which the work is being performed for the character or class of work in which they are respectively engaged: provided that "wages shall in all cases be such as are fair and reasonable;" also that "the working hours of persons while so employed shall not exceed eight hours per day."
That is the law. I am not quite sure whether the statute provides for day labour, but it certainly provides for contracts, and I think it provides for day labour on all construction work by any department of government. That is the law of the land. Am I to understand from the minister that there has been a derogation from the law in connection with these unemployment camps, particularly when they are carrying on construction work? I pause to ask the minister for a reply to that question.


Grote Stirling: As I pointed out before, we do mot have to meet the difficulty to which the hon. member refers, because the unfortunate men who are without work and in the camps which are at present under discussion do not get wages; they receive food, shelter and certain other provisions, and they are given not a wage but an allowance of twenty cents a day.


Charles Gavan Power: So I am to understand that the answer of the minister is that because it is called an allowance he is permitted to violate the law of this country-


Wilfred Hanbury: Because they do not call it wages.


Charles Gavan Power: -simply because they do not call it wages? This is what is stated in the Labour Gazette:
This act applies both to contracts for the construction, remodelling, repairs or demolition of any work for the government of Canada, and to works carried out by day labour-
And provides for the payment of wages- the government is obliged to pay wages; it is not obliged to get free work. The obligation entered into by the Canadian people with any person who is employed by the government of Canada is that he shall get wages. The provision goes further; it says that those wrages shall 'be at the rate prevailing in the locality; it does not provide and it never was intended to provide that by calling this
an allowance or saying it is free labour with a gift of twenty cents at the end of the day, the government can violate laws and repudiate the most solemn engagements entered into with the workmen of this country. I am anxious to find out by what authority this is done. I hate to use a word for which I might be called1 to order, but if it is simply by the subterfuge of saying that those men are not working for wages, I say to the minister that he is not serious when he tells us that. Those men are as much entitled to be paid as any other category of men. Simply because' they happened when the minister picked them up to be in such a position that they could not bargain with him, is he to say: We are not going to give you any wages at all; we are going to treat you as slaves? If any individual, any ordinary employer of labour, tried to do that in any province where there is a minimum wage law, he would be put in gaol-


Wilfred Hanbury: There would be a Stevens committee.


Charles Gavan Power: -or there would be a Stevens committee, as the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard suggests. A very large number of persons in the industries which were severely criticized in the Stevens committee were glad to take wages of ten, fifteen or twenty cents an hour. They had never had any wages at all before those factories were established in their communities. Will he allow these sweaters of labour to say: "We are not paying them wages; we are paying them allowances," and thus get away from their responsibility? I think we shall have to appeal to a higher authority than the ministers who are at present in the house. It seems to me that all these radio sermons will have been given in vain if the very ministers in the cabinet are to be able to say:	We are not paying wages; we are
paying allowances; we will give the men a package of cigarettes a day and let them work eight hours. If that is to be the effect of any minimum wage laws or social legislation that may be introduced in this country under the aegis of these great reformers, I regret it very much, but I think the Canadian people will soon know what to do with such reforms and the advocates of reform as we have them on the other side of the house.
Let me tell the minister what I suspect is the authority he has. I suspect the authority he has for paying these slave wages-


Wilfred Hanbury: Allowances.
Supply-Defence-Buildings


Charles Gavan Power: -is the peace, order and good government legislation; the very legislation which was crammed down our throats and passed by closure on the plea that it was to relieve the hungry, poor and miserable of this country is being imposed and enforced in order to lower the standard of living in Canada to a degree hitherto unknown. That is what I believe is the effect of the peace, order and good government legislation and what will ever be the effect of setting up a dictatorship in this country.
I come now to another point. The minister said that the department were spending SI ,200,000 in Calgary to put up a military building, erecting a stable for the horses of the Strathcona Horse and a mess room for the officers. Last year they spent at Val-cartier camp in Quebec 1507.889.35 for, among other things, erecting a building in which to manufacture cartridges for the army in case we ever again go to war. Why should the building for the horses in Calgary be treated so far as labour is concerned on a different scale from the building for the purpose of making cartridges? I cannot see any distinction in principle. I will tell the minister this: neither he nor any other minister would dare go into Calgary and endeavour to justify the erection of a public building with twenty cents a day labour. But he is going .to try to do it in Quebec.


Edward Joseph Garland: The workers in Calgary are organized.


Charles Gavan Power: Our workers are organized, perhaps, but may not be so vociferous as those of Calgary, and they have not the same support in this house as the workers of Calgary have. Would the minister say that the Seaforth Highlanders armoury in Vancouver is to be erected by twenty cents a day labour? No fear. They would not dare to bring twenty cents a day labour into the city of Vancouver and take the bread and butter away from the people engaged there in the construction trades. Will they do it in any of the cities of Ontario? Will they do it in Belleville, where they are putting up a new gun shed. No fear. Will they do it in Kingston? Will they do it in Gananoque, in London, in Perth? No. But Quebec being a sane, quiet, conservative province, it is easy to say to our workmen: We will treat you well; we will give you an allowance of twenty cents a day. You do not have to be treated like the workmen of other parts of Canada; be grateful to the people who give you the job. My hon. friend says they did not even do it in

Montreal, but perhaps he is not quite right, because in fact a large proportion of the men employed at Valcartier come from Montreal; they are not from the district of Quebec. The people from the district of Quebec who are in these camps are those employed in the citadel, and they are neither homeless nor indigent men; most of them are farmers' sons from the surrounding parishes, and it is these people you are using to take work away from the citizens of Quebec.
I think it is only fair that the minister should explain first how he gets away from the so-called fair wage policy, and second what argument was used by him or his colleagues or anyone in his department to bring about the decision that in one part of Canada they should carry on construction works at a fair and reasonable rate for labour and in another part should carry it on with slave labour. I think we are entitled to an answer.


Grote Stirling: In regard to the first reference that the hon, member has made, I have nothing to add to what I have already said. We do not pay a wage; we supply food and clothing and certain other assistance, including twenty cents a day allowance. With regard to why work is done in this way in one part of Canada and that way in another part, the work was devised in accordance with the requirements of the different parts of Canada. If there is a considerable number of unemployed men in Quebec as he has said, and there was desirable work to be done in that neighbourhood, the work was so done. In Alberta there is other work available for the single homeless unemployed for whom the dominion government is responsible. So there is in British Columbia; so there is in other parts of the prairie provinces. The men are employed in accordance with the requirements of the district where they are found in considerable numbers.


Mr. PLUNKETT:: I would like to ask the hon. member for Quebec South one question. I understand that these were unemployed men who were brought or came into this camp, among whom there may be a few skilled workers. How is he going to use these men for construction work? Sometimes even in the building line men require brains, as they do in legal service. That may seem funny to the house, but it is possible. The difference between the two is that the builders produce something, while the legal services do not produce much, but live off the people. So there must be some brilliant labourers and some brilliant artisans in these unemployment camps. Would the hon. member for Quebec

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
South tell me how he is going to pay one man S5 a day and another twenty cents a day in that camp and have them in agreement?


Charles Gavan Power: It will not require any of the brilliance which is sometimes associated with the parasitic trade to which I belong to answer the hon. gentleman. Perhaps my hon. friend misunderstood me. What is going on in these camps is that skilled and unskilled labourers are building an arsenal. I am not urging the government to build an arsenal; as the hon. member for Southeast Grey has said, that is the last thing that is desirable, and it shows a remarkable lack of imagination on the part of the ministers that in this great crisis they can only think of putting up military buildings. But they are spending money to put up an arsenal with the labour of unemployed men. My hon. friend, I know, will feel, as I do, that those men should not be asked to do work which should be done by tradesmen and labourers of the vicinity. I think he will agree with me, now that he understands the question. Apparently he does not yet understand it. I shall have to send to Valcartier for some of those highly skilled artisans that he talks about to explain it to him. But now that he sees what it is about I think he will agree with me. My whole complaint-and I have been complaining for half an hour or more, probably too long-is that we are using that class of labour to carry on public works which should have been done under the Public Works Construction Act; that work of that kind should have been given to the unemployed married men who are on relief in the city of Quebec and vicinity where the work is being done. That is what should have been done; that is the whole point of my argument.


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: I would remind the
hon. member for Quebec South that it takes an artisan or mechanic anywhere from four to six years to learn his trade. Now he is telling us that in these unemployment camps they are using men who just come in there for the purpose of putting up buildings.


Charles Gavan Power: Don't you use day labourers in your country?


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: That is not the question. I congratulate the government on their brilliance in finding mechanics in unemployment camps who can construct a building. I never heard of it before. If you engage a man to do a little work around your home, which I hope you will be able to do to help the situation, you will find that there is quite a difference between a skilled mechanic and an unskilled man.


Charles Gavan Power: I am sorry to say that
having given myself to the service of my country I have no home. But there are something like 1,700 men in Valcartier camp, and whether or not they are competent to do the work, the work is being done. They are actually taking one brick and putting it on another, and taking a bit of cement and putting it on; they have a saw mill and are sawing up boards and taking them to another place and hammering them together, and that kind of thing. I do not know whether or not that is construction, but to me it looks like construction. Not only that, but the minister-and he is a good minister, such a good minister that he was selected from all the members from British Columbia to represent that province in the cabinet-this good minister in reply to a question put by me some time ago said they were building an arsenal. He did not say they were building it with artisans from elsewhere; he said they were building it with labour from that camp. It may be incomprehensible to my hon. friend, but that is what he is doing. Now does the hon. gentleman understand?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have not said
anything with regard to these camps, because the ground has been so well covered by some of my colleagues. I should like, however, to join with them in protesting against these camps being placed under the Department of National Defence. That should never have been done. If we had had a labour department worth anything at all such provision for the unemployed would have been put under the labour department, where it ought to be. It is almost adding insult to injury to place the unemployed under the control of the national defence department. I am not suggesting that much of the work has not been well done; I think it has. In many ways the men are better in these camps than they might be in the congested quarters in which some would be living in the cities; nevertheless it is not a policy that as a country we should adopt in dealing with the unemployed.
Then I should like to join with my friend the member for Southeast Grey in saying that the kind of work which men should be called upon to do is necessary work. I need not traverse the ground that she so admirably covered as to the many projects that are very much needed in this country, this only half developed country of ours; yet we go on making the men mark time, as it were, for they cannot throw themselves with any enthusiasm into most of the work

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
they are required to do in these camps. I also feel that we are under a considerable debt of gratitude to-night to the hon. member for Quebec South for having put the case of the men so strongly. Although we say we are offering them a living, men in this country should have much more than a living. In reality it is not a living, it is only a poor subsistence. I am not going to worry whether they get a sufficient number of ounces of food to maintain them; perhaps they do. But it is a serious indictment of the policy of this country when the hon. member for Fraser Valley says that these men are getting better food than the majority of the people. I think it is a terrific indictment if the majority of the people in Canada are getting worse than they are getting in these camps. But it is not so much the quality of the food or this or the other detail; it is that the people of this country have a right to a full life, and these men are not getting a full life. You say they go into the camps voluntarily. That may be true, but what are the alternatives? As a rule the alternatives are simply two, either crime or starvation; those are the practical alternatives. When these men go out and attempt to carry on in an irregular way they are run in as criminals, but the only other alternative is for them to starve. Under such circumstances they go into the camps voluntarily. I am not so much concerned with whether they are skilled or unskilled, but I think it a serious thing that we should permit men who have spent many years in acquiring a trade to work for twenty cents a day, as I have seen them work in these camps. It is almost as bad to have unskilled men who could make a decent living if they had an opportunity working for the same small amount, call it an allowance if you like.
I am not going further into that matter to-night. On behalf of my constituents and others in this country I want to protest against the enormous expenditures which are being made in Canada for military purposes. We have formally declared that we have abandoned war as an instrument of national policy, yet we are constantly spending large sums in war preparations. I quite freely grant that as compared with certain European countries, even with England, or as compared with Japan our military expenditures are not heavy-


An hon. MEMBER:: How about Russia?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Or Russia; quite so. Their military expenditures are heavy. I quite agree that compared with these countries 
Canada does not spend a great deal, but I submit that in comparison with other expenditures in this country these sums are very heavy. If you put all the expenditures for national defence together, including the militia services, the naval service and aviation, most of which comes under this department, you have a total of about $15,000,000. Then if you take our mounted police, which is practically a military force, you have another $6,000,000. There you have over $20,000,000, and on top of that you have these expenditures being made for elaborate public buildings for military purposes. The case of Calgary has been cited already. We have the barracks for the militia; we are to have a new building for the permanent force and we are told that in addition we need some sort of home for the mounted police, all in our little city of Calgary, and the same is more or less true of some other cities. Where are we getting in this country? Some of us had imagined that Canada was a peaceful country, but this does not look very much like it. We cannot find the money for peace purposes. Why, it was only to-day at noon that I happened to be attending a meeting of the executive of the League of Nations Society, and I found them struggling to get enough money to carry on the distribution of their literature. They receive a net grant from this government of something like $2,000. The government can spend some $20,000,000 in national defence, but the same government throws out a mere $2,000 to an organization that is trying to support the policies of peace for which the League of Nations is supposed to stand. So we have $10,000 given to the national defence department and the allied services for every one dollar given to such an organization as the League of Nations Society. I am not here to point out the excellent work that is done by that society, but I think that is a fair way of looking at our expenditures. We spend enormous sums on national defence, so called, but we spend very little on those constructive measures which might prevent us from ever being dragged into another war.
We have a new minister this year, and I should like to direct to him some questions which I have asked his predecessors and to which I have received no satisfactory replies. Why the expenditure of this $15,000,000 by his department? For what particular purpose is this money being spent? When we consider the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, for example, we ask them why they are spending the money and they tell us of this, that and the other thing which they have in view. I should like to ask, and I think we

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
have a right to hear from the minister, why we need this huge expenditure of $15,000,000 in this peaceful country of ours. Has the Department of National Defence a policy for defending this country? If so I think the house should know what it is. I should like to know whether the minister has met with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who I suppose in this case is the Prime Minister, who perhaps is overloaded with other duties and has not much opportunity to devote himself to external affairs. Even at that I would ask if the Minister of National Defence has consulted with the Secretary of State for External Affairs as to the general policies of Canada with regard to foreign nations. One of the predecessors of the present minister told me across the floor of the house that the only reason we needed an army in Canada was to keep our own unruly elements in order. I can hardly believe that he was serious in that statement, but if he was we ought to know it. Does it take this $15,000,000 to keep the unruly elements in order? If it does I think a little larger allowance than twenty cents a day would go a long way in dissipating the unrest we have in Canada; I think it would go much further than $15,000,000 spent in repressive measures. But I do not believe that can possibly be the real reason why we have an army and a navy, such as it is, in Canada; I cannot think it is the real reason.
I take it that this is more or less of a hangover from the old days when, for some reason or ocher, we were under the impression that preparedness was an insurance against war. That was the old idea. Is the minister convinced that that is true to-day? Surely the last war must have convinced every thinking man that those nations which were the best prepared were among the greatest sufferers. Preparedness is no guarantee whatever that we will not be dragged into another war; the contrary is the ease. When we are armed we are more apt to be attacked, and sometimes perhaps we are a little more apt to exhibit an aggressiveness which is rather provocative to other nations. There would be no guarantee even if we had a large army that we would be saved from another war.
Now let us come to concrete matters. I think we ought to know who is the possible enemy that Canada is likely to face. I have said to previous ministers that I cannot very well conceive that we are going to fight the United States. I think we would be very foolish to attempt anything of the kind, and I do not think the United States has any hostile feeling towards her northern neighbour. Are we going to fight on the
Atlantic or the Pacific? I think we should consider these points. Then may I point out that if we are going to defend ourselves alone, this little army and this tiny navy that we have would be absolutely useless against any large nation. What could we do with our small army and navy, even with the air force, which seems to be growing? What could we do? The next question is, are we going to ally ourselves with some other nation? Are we going to throw ourselves into a defensive alliance with the United States? That has been suggested by some people. It has been said that if Japan, for example, should break loose across the Pacific and threaten the Pacific coast, then the only possible thing for us to do would be to join forces in some way with the United States. I do not know whether these two boats of ours that now convoy the seals from the United States border up to Alaska are supposed to be sufficient to guard our shores against the attack of Japan; I cannot think it. Then are we going to enter into some sort of defensive alliance with the United States? The Secretary of State for External Affairs has never informed us with regard to that matter. I hope that when his estimates come up some hon. members will raise the question. If someone else does not do it I think I shall 'be tempted to do it myself, because I think we should know. I mention it at this time because it does seem to me that the policy of the Department of National Defence ought to be very closely correlated with the policy of the Department of External Affairs.
Are we proposing to enter into an alliance with the United States? On the other hand are we proposing to back up Great Britain? There have been suggestions in the last few months that the presence here of certain high officials from Great Britain would lead us to believe that some arrangement was being developed under which we would have a sort of imperial defence alliance. I should like to ask the minister, before he is through with this item, to tell us whether there is any ground whatever for believing that he or any of his officials have entered into any arrangement with Great Britain with regard to national defence. Is our air force to become a unit in an imperial air force? In considering these matters I think we have a perfect right to know whether or not something of that kind is in the wind. Further than that I think the Canadian people would like to know what the position of Canada is going to be if a war should break out in Europe, which is not an impossibility. I

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
remember once mentioning this matter two or three years ago and one of the ministers answered by stating simply that when I referred to war I was encouraging war. To me that is the veriest nonsense. In my view we ought to be open eyed and open minded enough to look at the possibilities. If a war should break out in Europe is Canada to be called upon to go to the defence of the motherland or of some other nations in Europe? That is a question which should be answered. I believe I would be expressing the opinion of what could be called the ordinary man in the street were I to say that if a European war broke out no Canadian troops would be allowed to leave this country to go to Europe. I believe that would be the general feeling. I should like to knew whether or not that is the policy which has been adopted by the department, or whether they contemplated that Canada at some future time again might be called upon to go to the help of Great Britain in connection with some trouble concerning which until that time we had had nothing whatever to say.
Then there is the further matter of our relationship with the League of Nations. Any person who has followed closely the work of the League of Nations will know that again and again there have been discussions as to how far Canada would be involved in the event of a war breaking out in which league members were involved. I know that Canada has signed that part of the treaty with some reservations; yet we are part of the league. We would call upon the league to assist us if our borders were being attacked. Have we any responsibility towards other nations? Is it wise that our air force, we will say, should be internationalized so that it might act as a police force and go to the help of any nation finding itself in difficulty? We have never to my knowledge had a frank discussion of such matters in this chamber. Year after year we have come here and voted 810,000,000 or $20,000,000-enormous sums- but we have not inquired what all this money is for. I am not blaming the minister for not hitherto having made a statement on this matter, because he has only recently taken over the Department of National Defence. He is an intelligent man; surely he must have made some sort of survey of the whole situation. That is his department; that is his job. I say that we in this House of Commons are entitled to know something about the conclusions at which he has arrived, [ Mr. Wood s worth. ]
and that we should not simply go on voting these moneys for purposes which are very vague indeed.
I have no doubt some of the newspapers will report me as saying that, assisted by the hon. member for Southeast Grey, I made my annual protest against war. Yes, but these matters come up annually, and I am convinced the only way in which we can represent our constituencies and make our contribution to the general welfare is by stating frankly when these matters are brought before	the	house what	we	believe.I was present,	and	I believe a	good manyother members	were present, at	the	Capitoltheatre to see	the	showing of	the	picture
Lest We Forget. Unfortunately I was not in a position to attend until rather late, but I did see part of the picture. I do not believe anyone could see that picture without being stirred-stirred not because it showed that finally the allies were victorious, not because some of the heroes of the war appeared on the screen and were cheered, but stirred by the thought that in a great modem war the individual is absolutely helpless, that it is all such a waste of human life and heroism. It is all a waste. One is almost obsessed with the utter helplessness of all in it. You saw those poor German boys coming up, and you felt pity for them. "They ought never to have been called to the front," you say? Yes, but our guns were blowing them to smithereens, just as their guns were mowing down our Canadian boys.


An hon. MEMBER:: We cannot do anything about it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think I hear
someone say, "We cannot do anything about it." That is just where I differ from my friend across the way. Surely we as intelligent people must not simply throw up our hands in despair. A year ago I had the opportunity for a few moments to speak to a group of returned men, and I ventured to say to them that I thought their job was not complete until they had established peace in the world. I believe that is true; their job is not complete, and our job as citizens is not by any means complete when we choose simply to sit down helplessly and do nothing while all the time war forces are steadily extending themselves.
I suppose I am as proud as anybody of Great Britain; I think I am, but I am not proud of the fact that so far as we can see Great Britain is simply falling in line with other nations and building more and more

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
ships, thereby adding more and more to her military equipment. I suppose Great Britain has as much right to do that as has France, Germany or other nations; but that is not the point. I hope no hon. member will say, Oh, well, this is being said simply because I am against Great Britain, or something of that kind. That is not the idea. I go back to the atmosphere of last night's picture, and I believe no one could easily get away from the idea that we must rise above narrow nationalism if we are to get anywhere in the solution of this great problem. That is my reaction. We must rise above narrow nationalism and that narrow nationalistic spirit which has characterized us in the past, if we are to find a solution of the great world problem which confronts us.
At this time, when the estimates for the Department of National Defence are before us, I take the opportunity to state that if we simply pass them and year after year say nothing, we are not doing as much as intelligent citizens of Canada should do towards the solution of the peace problem. I do not think we are. I object to that fatalistic idea that the problem is too big for us, that we cannot do anything about it, and that we must sit down and let things go. Of course we say that if some of these times things break loose we will have a few trained men who will be able to organize our forces, drill us and march our boys away to a still greater slaughter than we had last time. I do not think that is good enough. Surely we know enough about science to-day to realize that every effect has some very definite cause. We are learning that in the medical realm; we know that certain germs are responsible for disease. Our social engineers and medical men have worked to get rid of many of the diseases which have harmed us in the past. I woidd urge that we apply similar reasoning and a similar technique to the great social problem now before us. I do not think that wars come out of the thin air. I do not think that they come, as we sometimes say, using a pious phrase, by "act of God" in punishment for our sins. We know perfectly well that war comes from certain predisposing causes, and we in Canada, though a small country so far as population goes, are surely one country in the world which has very considerable influence. If we are fifth or eighth-whatever it is-among the trading nations of the world, and if we are allied with a great empire on the one hand and neighbour to a great nation, the United States, on the other, surely we are in a position to
do something to save ourselves from any such cataclysm as came upon the world back in 1914. I do not think we serve any useful purpose simply by going out and praying, "Give peace in our time, O Lord!" No, that will not bring peace. We have to do it in a more constructive way than that-a much more constructive and more definite way. So I plead while these estimates for the Department of National Defence are under consideration that the minister give us some outline as to what is in his mind, and as to what is in the minds of officials of the department with regard to the purpose for which these funds are being expended. Further than that, if I am not considered too idealistic, I should like to have this chamber devote a little bit of time before the estimates are passed to a consideration of the definite and constructive steps which we might take towards making our contribution to world peace.


Frederick George Sanderson: Would the Minister of National Defence be good enough to place upon Hansard a list of the relief camps, by provinces, where they are located and the number of men in each?


Grote Stirling: I understand that tables should not be placed on Hansard unless they are read to the house. I had the information in front of me, and for the past half hour I have been ready to read it, but at the present time it would not look as though there would be time to place the information on Hansard. It could not be completed by eleven o'clock. I wonder if it would suit the purposes of the committee if the information were tabled.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By consent it may be done.


Robert James Manion: I wish to say a few words, because it is obvious the committee does not intend to allow the item to pass to-night. As an ordinary citizen I resent the idea that Canada should be painted as she has been painted to-night by hon. members from various sections on the opposite side of the house, in an effort to show that so far as the treatment of the unemployed is concerned we are in a class by ourselves. Listening to this discussion, as I have been listening since eight o'clock, one would come to the conclusion that Canada alone of all the countries in the world has been having some trouble in regard to unemployment. No mention has been made by any speaker on the other side, whether among the Liberals or in the little group in the comer-and they can become more excited than the Liberals

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
on a question of this kind-no hon. member, I say, has admitted that at any time in the last four years the world has been going through a very serious crisis. No hon. gentleman has suggested or admitted that Canada is merely participating in a world wide crisis. But I make this statement, that Canada has come through the crisis better than any other country in the world, and I make no exception to that statement. I do not except Great Britain or any other country. According to the figures given out by Great Britain and by the United States, the two countries with which we most frequently compare ourselves, Great Britain has more unemployment according to population than we have to-day. Her figure is 2,500,000 and her population is four times ours. In other words, on that basis, we should have about 600,000 unemployed, whereas we have been 450,000 and 500,000. And in the United States it is admitted by the government itself that they have 10,000,000 unemployed. Indeed it is claimed by Green of the Labour group over there that the number of unemployed in that country is between 11,000,000 and 12,000.000, which is twice as large as ours, per thousand of population. There have been 30,000.000 unemployed throughout the world, yet Canada has taken care of her unemployed better than any other country.
The hon. member for Quebec South is usually pretty fair, but he is playing good politics; I will not question that. But he attacked us in regard to the relief camps and he called them slave camps. I do not think that was worthy of him. His predecessor of the same race who went to the provincial house used to talk about slave camps and I thought we were rid of that word when he left us, because it is ridiculous. H it is slavery to take boys who are running around getting into mischief, who have nothing to do, who have nothing to engage either mind or hand, and to bring these boys into camps and feed, clothe and shelter them, and give them a little money to spend while they are working in these camps-if that is slavery, then I know of millions of people in various parts of the world who would love to indulge in slavery of that kind.


Charles Gavan Power: They gave the same
excuse when they took the negroes from Africa.


Robert James Manion: And as the Minister of
Finance says, they go voluntarily to the camps; they are not driven there. One of my hon. friends from one of the Vancouvers complained bitterly because one of these men

had been called an agitator and had been turned out of the camps. He went under an assumed name to five or six different camps and was kicked out of each one. He must have been a rotten agitator and I imagine he was well kicked out. But he asked to get back into the camps; he kept changing his name, begging his way back into the camps, and he must have liked them. I am not trying to introduce politics into this. But because I speak in a firm or fairly emphatic voice I am accused of playing politics, though my hon. friends can talk any way they like and that is not politics. I am merely stating the Canadian point of view when I say that I do not think it is good for this country that anyone should be continually describing conditions in Canada as if we treated our unemployed worse than other countries have treated theirs, when as a matter of fact we have treated ours better. No one can become so excited on this question as the hon. gentleman who has just sat down. One would think that he was the only man in this chamber who was interested in the Canadian people who are unemployed. I make this statement without fear of contradiction, that there is not a gentleman on the other side of the house or on this who is not just as much interested in the unemployed and in the poor as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-no one on either side of the house, either the lady member or any hon. gentleman.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman-


Robert James Manion: Keep your seat; I have the floor.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would ask that that expression be withdrawn. There is nothing I said that warranted such a statement.


Robert James Manion: I have nothing to withdraw. The hon. gentleman has stood up forty times in my hearing and in a loud and emphatic voice talked about the unemployed and the injustice done them. He works himself into a passion, and if he were full blooded he would burst a blood vessel; but he is not a bit more interested than anyone else in the unemployed except to appeal to the group who are unemployed, and appeal in a demagogic way. He is not a bit more interested in the unemployed than is any hon. gentleman either on the other side or over here.
And when he starts talking about peace, can he tell me one person in all this country who suggests anything but peace? Is there anyone in Canada who does not want peace?'

Supply-Dejcnce-Reliej Camps
There are a few hon. gentlemen on both sides of the house who went over to the front, and I can say that there is no one in the whole world who wants peace more than the men who were at war. Yet the hon. gentleman talks about peace as if Canada were preparing for war. Well, after listening to a lot of this balderdash-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman-


Robert James Manion: -I have copied down-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I ask for your ruling as to whether that expression used by the minister-balderdash-is parliamentary or not.


Robert James Manion: It is the best I can think of.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I ask that the word be withdrawn.


Robert James Manion: It is at least better than the word humbug, which is so often used around this house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I ask that the word be withdrawn.


Charles A. Stewart: I fancy that the minister did not apply that word to the hon. gentleman personally.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not understand the English language if he did not, and I ask that he withdraw it.


Robert James Manion: I do not withdraw it, because I apply it to what the hon. gentleman has said in many of his speeches. It is a description that can be given his speeches.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I rise to a point of order. I claim that the word is unparliamentary and the minister should withdraw it.


Robert James Manion: I submit it is not unparliamentary. It is as good a word as humbug or rubbish, and either one of those words would be applicable to a great deal of what the hon. gentleman has said.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I ask for your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Stewart  Lethbridge@Deputy Speaker and Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: I must rule that the minister applied the word to the hon. gentleman's opinions.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is not a ruling. I appeal against the ruling of the chair.


Robert James Manion: That is the way the hon. gentleman takes his medicine. He sees it is nearly eleven o'clock-


James Shaver Woodsworth: I appeal against the ruling of the chair.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Call it eleven o'clock.


Robert James Manion: I should like to put on record-


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have appealed against the ruling of the chair.


Charles A. Stewart: Does the committee desire that I state the case or will the committee vote without having it stated?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think, Mr. Chairman, that once the ruling of the chair is appealed against the rules are plain that the chairman must state the case in writing.


Robert James Manion: H it will save time, I will withdraw the word. I would rather sleep than spend the time in voting. I know how the vote will go. I withdraw the word if it will permit me to put on record certain figures I have here. I was going to give the cost per capita of various countries for defence
purposes. Here are the figures:
Canada	 $ 1 24
New Zealand	
1	50Denmark	
2	18South Africa	
2	20Australia	
2	40Japan	
3	70Belgium	
4	10United States	
5	60Switzerland	
6	00Italy	
8	00Great Britain and Northern Ireland' 9	50France	
14	80
Canada is the lowest in the world. Even Switzerland spends $6 per capita, and I cannot remember from my historical reading when she was ever in a war; yet Canada, with an expenditure of $1.24, is talked about as if she were getting ready for a war. I am sure that all nations are trembling as to what we shall do with this great military power of ours.
We talk about the treatment of our people, and we hear a great deal about the wickedness of capitalism. Well, there is only one country that has tried anything but capitalism and that is Russia. And Russia has had in the last year at least 5,000,000 people who have starved to death.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And they have the biggest air force in the world.


Robert James Manion: Yes, and some of the greatest military defences of all kinds. No one realizes more than I do that there have been some
The Deputy Speaker

terrible errors committed by capitalism, but decent people of all parties in this country are trying to work out something in the way of a remedy for the condition that exists, and I submit that we should not take the attitude of always belittling our own country. We should not take the attitude that Canada has done so badly, because the fact of the matter is that she has done better than any other country in the world.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, March 11, 1935