1935-06-26

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

Mr. McINTOSH:: 1.	Were tenders recently asked for the transport of mail by air from Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, to Lac la Ronge, Saskatchewan?

2.	Were tenders also recently asked for the transport of mail by air from Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, to Ile-4-la-Crosse, Saskatchewan?
3. How many individuals or companies tendered for the service mentioned in question
(D?
4. How many individuals or companies tendered for the service mentioned in question (2)? 4
5.	To whom or to what company was the contract for service mentioned in question (1) awarded?
6.	To whom or to what company was the contract for service mentioned in question (2)
awarded?
7.	Was the contract in each case awarded to the lowest tender?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	3 companies.
4.	3 companies.
5.	Canadian Airways Limited.
6.	Canadian Airways Limited.
7.	Yes.


BARRINGTON PASSAGE BUOY SERVICE
Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	By whom was the contract for the buoy service at Barrington Passage held during 1934, and what was the contract price?
2.	What was the work required to be done, the number of buoys and the rate per buoy?
3.	Was the contractor required to clean and paint all can buoys and furnish all spar buoys including the iron work and stone anchor and pay for all paint out of the flat rate per buoy?
4.	Has any change been made in respect to
this contract for the period beginning July 1. 1935?	8
5.	If so, to whom has the contract been awarded, and at what rate, and for how long?
6.	Is the new contractor required to do all the work which was required under the previous contract, and if not what are the exceptions?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Harold E. Crowell; $510 yearly.
2.	Maintain 9 can buoys, 13 conical buoys, and 29 spar buoys; lump sum for the lot.
3.	Yes, out of the contract price.
4.	Yes, for period beginning July 2, 1935.
5.	Albert W. Stoddart; $425; three years.
6.	Yes, no exceptions.


RAILWAY RECEIPTS
Mr. GIROUARD:: 1. What were the gross receipts of the Canadian National Railways in 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, and in 1935, to date?
2. What were the gross receipts of the Canadian Pacific Railway during the same period?	[DOT]

Questions


Mr. MANION:: 1. Canadian National system.
2. Canadian Pacific Railway.
1930.
1932
1934
s
(to June 21)
250,968,101
200,505,162
161,103,594
148,519,742
164,902,502
75,892,000
190,100,272
147,846,119
123,936,714
114,269,688
125,542,955
53,339,000


GROSSE ILE, QTJE., WHARF
Mr. FORTIN:: 1.	Was a contract awarded' in 1930 by the Department of Public Works, to Messrs. Lemelin & Levasseur, or Henri Lemelin, J. A. Levasseur or Georges Bitner, for repairing, improving or constructing of a wharf or buildings at Grosse lie?
2.	What contracts were let, for what amounts and what were the names of the contractors, in connection with repairs, improvement or construction work done by the Department of Public Works at Grosse lie?
3.	What are the names of those who signed the said contracts?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	No.
2.	(a) Contract for renovation and repairs to buildings at quarantine station let to Joseph Dorval on September 23, 1930, at $7,374.82; (b) Contract for repairs to wharf let to Lemelin & Brousseau on July 2, 1930, at unit prices amounting to approximately $7,756.
3.	(a) Joseph Dorval, contractor, witnessed by J. E. Gravelle and Emile Dorval; S. E. O'Brien, for Deputy Minister of Public Works; N. Desjardins, secretary, Department of Public Works, (b) Lemelin & Brousseau, contractor, witnessed by Georges Bittner and Arthur Levasseur; S. E. O'Brien, for Deputy Minister of Public Works; N. Desjardins, secretary, Department of Public Works.


PENSIONS FOR THE BLIND
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: Mr. Speaker, I have received a wire from a local organization of the blind in British Columbia in connection with the grant of $50,000 in the supplementary estimates. They ask if this grant is to be regarded as separate from or a substitute for the enactment of legislation at this session.


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: This is a special grant and has no reference to any other grant or vote. It is designed to assist the organization in liquidating the very heavy overdraft which they have at present.


Alan Webster Neill: I should like to inquire of
the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) if it is the intention to bring down legislation at this session to provide pensions for the blind.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: I promised that I would make
a statement when I had an opportunity to prepare it, but that opportunity has not presented itself as yet. I hope to be able to make this statement to-morrow.
BURIAL OF SOLDIERS On the orders of the day:


Mr. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina):: I desire to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Is there any foundation in fact for a statement attributed to a Regina speaker by the Regina Leader Post of June 15, 1935, that five dollars was deducted from the pay of Canadian soldiers killed in action overseas in the great war to pay for the blanket in which they were buried?


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Minister of National Defence):: This story has been told before and has been denied on frequent occasions. The hon. member for Regina told me that he proposed to give me yet another opportunity for denying it. No such regulation was ever passed that I am aware of, and careful investigation of the records shows no foundation whatever for so heartless a story.
RADIO INTERFERENCE On the orders of the day:


Alan Webster Neill: Does the Minister of Marine anticipate that he will be able this session, either by legislation or by regulation, to make changes giving power to inspectors to enforce the prevention of radio interference?


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: The change suggested by the hon. gentleman would have to be made by legislation, and I am sorry to say we do not intend to propose any legislation to that effect this session.
PRIVILEGE-MR. GOTT On the orders of the day:


Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex):: The Ottawa Morning Journal contains an erroneous
Marketing Act-Mr. Elliott

article with reference to the section of country from which I come. I wish to take this opportunity, on a question of privilege, to refute that article. I have not the paper before me-


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman cannot raise a question of privilege with regard to an article in a newspaper, relating to the matter he has referred to.


Eccles James Gott: I wish to correct the statement.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I regret to say that the hon. member is not in order. The house would be busy listening to corrections of articles in newspapers if the hon. member could correct articles of this nature in this manner.


Eccles James Gott: Am I not permitted to correct an erroneous statement in regard to the section of country from which I come?


MARKETING ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved the third reading of Bill No. 117, to amend the Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934.
Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (West Middlesex):: moved in amendment seconded by Mr. Lapointe :
That Bill 117 an act to amend the Natural Products Marketing Act 1934 be not now read a third time but that it be recommitted to a committee of the whole house with instructions that the said committee have power to amend the said bill by striking out from section 5 thereof all the words after line 15 on page 2 thereof being the following:
(2) In any prosecution under this act or under any regulation it shall not be necessary for the prosecuting authority to prove that the product in respect of which the prosecution is instituted was produced within that part of Canada to which the scheme relates, and if the accused person pleads or alleges that the product was not produced within that part of Canada to which the scheme relates, the burden of proof thereof shall be upon the accused person.
He said: This question was debated at some length last evening and it is not my intention now to take up the time of the house repeating what was said then. I simply wish to move this motion, seconded by my hon. friend, the member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe).


Mr. WEIR (Melfart):: I believe there
has been a good deal of misunderstanding with reference to this subsection. The purpose of the subsection is very simple. In any regulated area where there is a regulated product-for example, the British
	J, J
Columbia tree fruit scheme operating in that province-the board passes certain regulations, one of which sets out that there shall be a small levy with respect to all fruit marketed; and the board, in the carrying out of its duties, makes this levy on all the regulated products marketed within that area. But if any individual in the area, dealer or otherwise, wishes to bring in a product from outside the area and to claim exemption from the application of these regulations, then in claiming this exemption he has to give proof that he has brought in the article from outside.
After careful investigation it is felt that the matter cannot be dealt with in any other way, because if this were not done and twenty per cent of individual farmers or dealers in the district simply stated that they would not pay or conform to the regulations, the board would have first to prove that the product was produced within the area, and in that event the whole act would1 fall down in that regard.
The reason for putting in this subsection is simply this, that those who wish to claim exemption from any of the orders or regulations within the area must give proof that the article is from outside, and an invoice would be the simple way of showing from where the article was shipped. In this respect this subsection is identical with the Fertilizer Act passed in 1928. If officials of the Department of Agriculture, in their work of inspecting the fertilizers that are offered for sale, find a dealer in possession of a fertilizer that is not up to standard or that is other than .advertised, they proceed against that dealer, even though he may be guiltless of the offence, unless he submits proof as to the person from whom he purchased it and the fact that the sacks had not been opened or the material altered until the time of inspection.
That, I believe, is sound legislation, because otherwise the inspectors of the department, in trying to enforce the act, would be put in the impossible position of adducing proof themselves that the dealer had not been at fault. It has worked out well, and it is felt that there will1 be no hardship on any person. There is no crime involved. It is simply an exemption from the regulations or orders of the board. I believe practically every act of a similar nature that has been passed contains a similar clause.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not the same.


Robert Weir: In the Fertilizers
Act the principle is exactly the same as it is in the bill before us. Those who have

Marketing Act-Mr. Lapointe
given every consideration to this matter feel that if this subsection, providing that the man claiming exemption must, in order to get exemption, give proof that the product was produced within that part of Canada to which the scheme relates, is not included in the bill, it would be almost impossible to administer the scheme, because then the proof would be on the board as to the product of every farmer within the regulated area. I therefore feel it would be a serious mistake to wipe out this subsection which is felt by those administering the act to be so essential while working no hardship on any person whatever.
Hon.ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East): The explanations given by the minister do not at all clarify the situation as to the advisability of this amendment. He says that those who claim exemption from criminal prosecution should bring forward the evidence that they are so exempt; hie claims also that if this amendment is not inserted in the bill the officers of the department who want to prosecute-


Robert Weir: Not the officers of
the department, the local board administering the scheme.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: He claims also that the
local board or anybody that wants to prosecute under the provisions of this legislation shall have to show that the man who is prosecuted is not guilty. Neither of those positions is right. The man has simply to be left alone, and if officers of the department or members of the local board institute criminal proceedings against any Canadian citizen, they should bring forward the evidence that that citizen is guilty of an offence and not place upon him the burden of showing that he is not guilty.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Eccles James Gott: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment,


Mr. MACDONALD (Cape Breton):: I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Urquhart). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. GEARY:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. ESLING:: I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Han-bury). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. RYERSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BURNS:: I wlas paired with the hon.
member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MacNIOOL:: I was paired with the
hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Rennie). Had I voted, I would had voted against the amendment.


Mr. EMBURY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Both well). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MOORE (Chateauguay-Huntingdon):: I was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. SULLIVAN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Brasset). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Franklin White Turnbull: I was paired with the
hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


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


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: I was paired
with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell)). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: I was paired with
the hon. member for South Timiskaming (Mr. Gordon). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MULOCK:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto-High Park (Mr. Anderson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. PERRAS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Weese). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I wias paired with the
hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. VERVILLE (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. JEAN (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Simpson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.

Farmers' Creditors Act


Mr. ROBERGE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. John-Iberville (Mr. Rheaume). Had I voted, I -would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. DUGUAY (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Bagot (Mr. Dumaine). Had I voted, I would1 have voted against the amendment.
Motion agreed to on division, and bill read the third time and passed.



FARMERS' CREDITORS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 114, relating to the application of the Farmers Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934, in the province of British Columbia.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Vancouver -Centre): When the Minister of Finance introduced this bill the other day I had occasion to make certain observations. This afternoon I desire very briefly to suggest why this measure should not be supported. I wish shortly to traverse the attitude of all parties with respect to this legislation when it was introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) a year ago. First I quote from the Prime Minister as reported at page 3640 of Hansard of June 4, 1934:
That is perhaps as far as we can go, because there is some grave constitutional doubt as to the right of the federal parliament to interfere with contracts solely within the jurisdiction of provincial legislatures, under the head of property and civil rights. But as I have indicated we believe we have power to legislate.
My right hon. leader on that occasion, while supporting the legislation, also indicated that there might be doubt as to jurisdiction. He said, as reported on page 3641:
I should say, however-and I base this comment in part on what the Prime Minister himself has said-that I hope the legislation introduced will not be of a character to raise false expectations in the mind's of those whose interests it is intended to serve. I am afraid there may be obstacles as to jurisdiction; in fact the Prime Minister has himself_ hinted at that. Those obstacles may be formidable. It would he unfortunate indeed if by virtue of a measure now to be introduced farmers receive the impression that they are likely to obtain substantial relief, only to discover a little later on that, for reasons over which this parliament has no control, hopes have been raised which are false and cannot ultimately be realized. If there is any criticism of the measure on that score I hope the government, and particularly
those in whose interests the measure is being introduced, will not feel that such criticism is directed against the objects of the measure hut rather that it is in the nature of an effort to avert any disappointment which might serve to make the last state worst than the first and' which might be prevented if matters are gone into carefully at the present time.
The act was, as I say, passed with the unanimous support of all members of this house. In fact when we discussed the measure in committee of the whole some very useful and constructive suggestions were offered from this side of the house.
The act was applied to the province of British Columbia on November 1, 1934, and as stated by the Minister of Finance when the bill was introduced, there have been effected fifty-eight settlements in that province. An action was instituted by the attorney general of British Columbia late in May, challenging the right of these boards of review to effect settlements between the province and its debtors. I might read the endorsement on the back of the writ, which I believe is returnable to-morrow, June 27:
1.	A declaration:
(a) That the defendants purporting to act as a board of review for the province of British Columbia under the provisions of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, being chapter 53 of the statutes of Canada, 1934, and amending acts and the rules and regulations passed thereunder, are acting without lawful authority, as the said act is ultra vires the parliament of Canada.	_
(,b) Alternatively, that the hoard of review is acting without lawful authority in assuming jurisdiction under the said act to formulate proposals and to make directions by virtue of which contracts and taxation powers and rights of the crown in the right of the province of British Columbia in relation to farmer debtors are in whole or in part abrogated and set
2.	The plaintiff further claims an injunction to restrain the defendants from purporting to formulate proposals or to give directions or to make orders involving contracts by the crown in the right of the province of British Columbia and its farmer debtors in relation to amounts owing under such contracts to the said province and in relation to moneys due or to become due from farmer debtors to the crown in the right of the said province in respect of any form of taxes, fees, rates or duties.
I rather gathered from the remarks of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) the other day that there had been a lack of cooperation on the part of the provincial authorities with the boards of review and the officials administering this act in the province of British Columbia. I should like to place on the record an official letter from Mr. E. S. Davidson, senior official receiver for the province, which was written to the attorney general of
Farmers' Creditors Act
[Stage Direction]
British Columbia on May 28, 1935, only about three weeks ago:
I called at your office to express the appreciation of the chief administrator of our act for the cooperation you had extended following the visit of Mr. W. R. Kinsman, K.C., in January last, by granting free publication in the British Columbia Gazette of notices, dispensing with law stamps on filings and fees in land registry matters, as well as the use of provincial buildings throughout the province for the holding of statutory meetings.
Further, Mr. Speaker, as briefly as possible I should like to refer to the affidavit in the action pending sworn to by the deputy attorney general of the province. He says:
2.	That on the 12th of April, 1935, the Honourable T. D. Pattullo, premier of the province of British Columbia, wrote to the Honourable Edgar N. Rhodes, Minister of Finance for the Dominion of Canada, advising the said Minister of Finance that the government of the province of British Columbia took the position that the "Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act" did not give any jurisdiction to the federal government to interfere in provincial crown contracts.
3.	That by a letter dated the 8th day of May, 1935, the Honourable Mr. Rhodes replied to the Honourable Mr. Pattullo in part as follows:
"I note that you have been advised by the law officers of the crown they take the position that the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act does not give any jurisdiction to a commissioner to interfere with contracts relative to the sale of provincial crown lands.
"I presume your officers intend to assume that the board of review under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act cannot alter, in any way, the terms of a contract entered into by the crown in the right of the province.
I may say quite frankly that we assert the right, under the act, to deal with all contracts, including provincial contracts, but I trust that it will not be necessary to have any legal difficulty in this regard for I am certain that you are as anxious as anyone that there be a rearrangement, readjustment and recasting of agreements in default, on a fair and equitable basis. There can be very real cooperation in respect of agreements where the crown, in the right of the province, is concerned."
Then Mr. Pattullo replied on thie 16th May, 1935, in part as follows:
We have thousands of such contracts throughout the province and from time to time adjustments have been made in accordance with conditions. We certainly cannot admit that any outside authority has the right to make adjustments in these contracts. This is a straight invasion of our territorial rights under the guise of the "Bankruptcy Act," and if admitted simply means that we are not free agents in the disposition of our crown lands.
Then there is a reference in the affidavit to the Copeland case which was cited by the minister the other day. Reference is also made in the affidavit to two other pending cases which so far, I think, are only in the 
nature of proposals, one that of John Hargreaves of Springfield in the county of Cariboo and the other that of William Smith of Vanderhoof, British Columbia. Now I wish to read paragraph 11 :
11.	That in my opinion the board is likely to formulate a proposal in the Hargreaves and Smith cases similar in purport to that of the Copeland case hereinbefore referred to.
12.	That such interference and' abrogation of provincial crown rights of taxation in the levying and the collection of land taxes, water rates and grazing fees-
In one case there is also involved indirectly the question of school taxation.
-and in the interference with contracts in relation to the sale and management of its crown lands will result in the non-payment of taxes and moneys owing to the crown by farmer debtors, many of whom have submitted proposals of similar import to those above referred to, to official receivers and to the defendants-
I further understand, Mr. Speaker, that since this disagreement arose a compromise offer was sent by those representing the dominion government to the city of Victoria, suggesting some concurrent action with regard to these difficulties. I wish to read now the reply of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), given the other day when the question of school taxes was raised in relation to this very act. It will be found at page 3863 of Hansard:
I am bound to say that I was not aware of the difficulty to which the hon. gentleman refers. I shall, however, look into it. The dominion is no longer concerned about school lands, being only the trustees; the school lands are now beyond question the property of the province. But there are limitations with respect to investments, and I believe it would not be competent for us to do more than confer with the province-
I want to emphasize those words.
-it would not be competent for us to do more than confer with the province as to what action shall be taken. I will look into the matter and be able to make a more definite statement on Monday.
Richard Bedford Bennett: May I direct the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that I was not dealing with1 school taxes; I was dealing with school lands, trust lands.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I gladly aocept the correction of the right hon. gentleman but I suggest that the same principle applies to these objections which1 have been taken by the province of British Columbia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not wish to interrupt, but I should like to tell the hon, gentleman, inorder that he may not misunderstand what I said, that it will be recalled that in the transfer

Farmers' Creditors Act
of the resources to the provinces there was a special provision with respect to these lands. What I was trying to convey to the hon. member for Maoleod (Mr. Coote) was that I did not carry it in my mind but that it was a very special provision and the lands were charged with the trust upon the effect of which I was not expressing an opinion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I gladly accept the explanation of the Prime Minister but the point I am emphasizing is the idea of conferring, which was mentioned by the Prime Minister the other day.
Now let us come to this most extraordinary bill, one of the weirdest concoctions ever dished up in this house by a bewildered government. It says:
On and after the 1st day of July, 1935, the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934, shall cease to be in force in the province of British Columbia except in the case of a proposal approved by the court or confirmed by the board of review before the aforesaid first day of July, and in the case of any such proposal the said Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934, shall continue to be in force as if this act had not been enacted.
If I read the provisions of this proposed legislation aright it means that in regard ito the fifty-eight settlements already effected, the legislation endorsed by this house last year is to be effective. That is, this parliament is going to say by this bill that the legislation now protested and contested, rightly or wrongly, by the province of British Columbia is still to be in effect in regard to those very cases which caused the dissension, but it is not going to be in effect with respect to any cases that may arise after the first day of July. So all these settlements may be rendered invalid if the provincial authorities of British Columbia choose to proceed with their litigation. If the province of British Columbia happens to win the dispute all these settlements may be declared invalid. Further than that the whole act will be declared ultra vires, because that is one of the declarations asked for in the endorsement on the writ, and though that would 'be only a declaration by the Supreme Court of British Columbia it would be very dangerous indeed to the whole existence of this legislation to which this parliament agreed a year ago. So this very legislation, which is introduced in a most peculiar fashion, which is sectional legislation, must have the inevitable result of threatening the validity of the statute right across the Dominion of Canada. I suggest that anyone who supports this bill, regardless of the dispute that may exist as between the provincial and federal jurisdiction, is helping to render invalid the operation of
this act throughout the whole of the dominion.
I suggest to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance that the government adopt the suggestion made by the Prime Minister the other day and enter into a conference, not only with the province of British Columbia but with every single province of the dominion, because there have been rumours of disputes in other provinces as well. I think this bill should be amended at the present session, not by the measure we have before us now but to provide that when any dispute arises between a board of review acting under the jurisdiction of the legislation of last year, and any provincial authority, there shall be a conference between the agent or representative of the provincial government in each case, and that settlement or terms be arrived at. I think that is the only way this legislation can be made effective. That is the only way it can really be made effective.
I am opposing second reading of the bill.
I am afraid it is introduced in a spirit of petty, political pique against the government of a province. I am not defending that government; as a lawyer I believe the legal position they have taken is sound. But as one who supported the legislation last year, and as the legislation proposed is imperilling the future existence of the act I still appeal to the Minister of Finance to have the bill withdrawn and to ha/ve a real amendment passed which will render effective the legislation of last year and the intent of parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made some reference to my observations of last year when this bill was before the house. If he would take the trouble to peruse what was said he would find that I did point out that the Supreme Court of Canada followed the decision of the judicial committee of the privy council in Leroux and the Royal Bank, and that that decision on the reference made in the preceding year on the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act was the foundation upon which we came to this house. We would have come to the house before with the legislation but until we had a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada as to the validity of the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act we did not feel that we should do so. The grave constitutional doubt had been resolved in our favour. The discussion was lengthy and took place over a considerable time. I did point out that the Supreme Court of Canada had followed the decision in the Leroux case, which was the
Farmers' Creditors Act

decision of the judicial committee of the privy council, as warranting the conclusion at which that court had arrived.
I recall many qualified practitioners were of the opinion that the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act was not within our competence, but after the decision of the judicial committee in the Leroux case, and its adoption, it was binding upon our courts and the validity of our statute was upheld. The position in this matter is simple, and I ask the hon. member, as a member of the legal profession, if he has any complaint to make with respect to this line of argument. First, there have been fifty-eight cases disposed of. The province attorned to the jurisdiction in that regard and raised no question as to the adequacy of the terms of the decision of the board of review, or whatever the case may be. At least that is the information which the Minister of Finance has, as was intimated to the house the other day.
I put this case to the house-a simple one: The government is anxious that all the prov-vinces should have boards of review deal with creditors' liabilities or farmers' liabilities to them as well as to all the other creditors. Although some of the provinces feel that there might be still some question, they have uniformly taken the view that it is desirable that this board of review, which is a judicial board, presided over in every case by a justice of the supreme court of a province- and that was the reason we provided for a justice in the act of last year-should deal also with questions that arise between the province and its creditors, in whatever way they might arise. In all the provinces this worked out satisfactorily; they have not complained. They have been glad to expedite and to assist in this arrangement. But in British Columbia they have launched a lawsuit and have asked that this act be declared ultra vires. The dominion government has not appeared in the lawsuit and does not propose to appear. All they are going to do is to stand by and let the court make an injunction perpetual as against- that is the effect; an interim injunction perpetual-and this statute merely conforms to that act. The temporary injunction having been issued, to-morrow application will be made to have it made perpetual. The dominion government will not appear, and it must be made perpetual so far as we are concerned.


Mr. GRAY:: Why do we need this act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because we are giving effect legislatively to what the court has done judicially.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Suppose it is ultra vires; what effect would it have?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not the slightest, because the other provinces have indicated they have no complaint to make, and that they are very glad to see this matter dealt with in this way. So far as this legislation is concerned it is to give effect by parliament to what the courts will to-morrow decide if the injunction is made perpetual at the instance of the province of British Columbia. That is all there is to it. It is a very ordinary and proper course to follow, when the province asked that it be done. It vrould be bad policy for the dominion to enter into a long and costly litigation in this matter. If the province of British Columbia states, "This is a statute beyond your legislative competence," we are not going to argue with them. They do not want it in that province, and the attorney general has launched his litigation. He has obtained an interim injunction which he proposes to make permanent, and by legislation we are giving effect to his wishes in that regard.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Has that decision any validity in other provinces?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not at all.


Mr. EULER:: If this bill were not passed would not the situation be exactly the same?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it would leave it o_pen to further contest with respect to individual cases, and it is to avoid any possible misunderstanding on the part of those who have sought the advantage of the act that we are making it perfectly clear that parliament is respecting the wish of the provincial government and leaving the act non-operative within that province.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to discuss the legal or constitutional phase of the matter, but had I so intended, in view of the observations of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) it would now be unnecessary. I should like however to say a word in reply to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). Within my recollection as an hon. member of this house I have never known of any measure which has met with such uniform approval and unanimity of opinion as the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. In

Farmers' Creditors Act
fact it will be recalled that last year encomiums were so embarrassing that several days elapsed before we could have second reading of the bill. That situation is well known. As is evidenced by the large numbei of settlements-5,852 in number-made up to the end of May it would appear that the act has operated extremely well.
The hon. member has said that this is sectional legislation. It is, but why? It is sectional because a sectional attitude has been taken by one of the nine provinces. The act has been accepted by the remaining eight provinces; they have given cordial cooperation and the result is apparent to all. I assure my hon. friend in all solemnity and seriousness that the political complexion of the government of British Columbia has had no bearing whatsoever upon the attitude taken by this government in bringing the bill before the house. It would have been presented if the political complexion of the provincial government had been Conservative, Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, or otherwise. It w'as brought down in no sense of political pique but as a matter of great regret, because it was the one spot upon the escutcheon, if I may use that term in the operation of the act.
The only place in which the act has been challenged is British Columbia, and as I pointed out the other day the government of that province has taken steps to resist the act; it does not wish the act to be operative in British Columbia. But, coming to the second point: would we be wise to imperil the operation of the act throughout Canada by standing aside and allowing the province of British Columbia to challenge its constitutionality in the courts? I think upon reflection the hon. member will realize that in describing the bill he rather embroidered his language. It would have been very simple to bring in a bill to withdraw the operation of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act in the province of British Columbia. What we are seeking to do is to preserve their rights to those who have effected settlements. There are some 58 cases where settlements were effected, as I recall-I may be wrong in this respect-without reference to the province. In other words, the rights of the province are not involved but assuming that they have been involved in any of these cases, the settlements have been accepted and it was only in connection with the Copeland case that British Columbia intervened and resisted the application of the act. Stripped to the bare essentials the attitude of the British Columbia
government means that they are prepared to allow private individuals, trust companies, banks, mortgage companies, loan companies and the dominion itself to make contributions in effecting settlements for the benefit of farmers in need while they themselves refuse to cooperate.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are doing it in another way.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Conferences were held by
the officers of my department with every province and we had the cooperation of British Columbia up to a point. Either the province of British Columbia is prepared to make its contribution or it is not, and no further conference is required. I say to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and the house that this bill has not been introduced in a spirit of pique or because of a desire on the part of the government to raise a sectional issue; it was brought forward with very great regret with a view to preserving the value of the act to the other eight provinces where it is acceptable and desirable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time on division, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-Operation of act in B.C. to cease on 1st July, 1935.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Just one word more in response to the remarks of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). The question is not whether the province is prepared to make a contribution; it is whether provincial authority, that of British Columbia or any other province, is to have its jurisdiction with regard to land taxes, water rates and in some cases school taxes affected by the mandatory order of a board of review. That is the clear issue, and not as the minister stated it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If we withdraw the operation of the act in British Columbia they cannot raise any constitutional question. We are not trying to impose upon them what the premier of that province has said we are trying to impose.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The government is taking a most extraordinary course. The obvious course would be to try to keep the benefits of this legislation in British Columbia. The minister is not only withdrawing this legislation from British Columbia but he is imperilling its operation in the other provinces. The minister has said that a decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia that this act is ultra vires will have no effect upon the other provinces,
Farmers' Creditors Act

but I submit that it will have a tremendous effect. * Although an edict of the Supreme Court of British Columbia does not govern in the other provinces, once a province has made such a declaration the other eight provincial governments will be invited to test the validity of this federal statute. Once the Supreme Court of British Columbia has given a decision, any private creditor who is dissatisfied will be encouraged to launch a proceeding in any other province.


Ross Wilfred Gray: This legislation affects the whole nine provinces of the dominion. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) was introducing this bill a few days ago he stated that while the law officers of the crown did not have any doubt as to the validity of this act, they did not feel like testing the act before the courts. This act is either good or bad. It has been placed upon the statute book by this government, and instead of running away from the issue the dominion parliament should place its powers behind the act and be represented not. only at the hearing to be held to-morrow but before every court in which the validity of the act may be tested. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) stated this afternoon that we are not going to defend our own legislation; we are going to permit an interim injunction to be made permanent. I could not follow the reasons which he gave for this action, and I doubt if any other hon. member could. If this interim injunction is allowed to be made permanent without opposition it is bound to bring about the result suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). I ask the Minister of Finance to reflect further upon this matter. I think he should aslc that the hearing to-morrow be adjourned in order that the dominion government may be represented, and I am sure if he does, the request will be granted. This legislation has been passed for the equal benefit of all the nine provinces.


Mr. RSID:: I am very sorry that the
government have seen fit to introduce this legislation. The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act was supported by every hon. member of the house and the government is now denying to the farmers of British Columbia the rights given under the act to the farmers of the other provinces. Apparently the government has decided not to enter into any conference or to modify the act in any way; they have decided to withdraw it entirely. If that absurdity were carried to its logical conclusion, the province of British Columbia should now perhaps endeavour to obtain an injunction against the dominion govern-
ment to prevent the province from being denied the benefits of this act. Further, the province of British Columbia will be called upon to pay a part of the cost of administration of this act in other provinces as well as a proportion of the losses which are bound to occur, and yet the benefits of the act to the farmers are being withdrawn. I ask the minister if it would not have been possible to make some change or amendment in the act in connection with agreements for the purchase of land or taxation or in connection with contracts entered into between individuals and the provincial government or dyking commissioners. The minister this afternoon, if I rightly understood him, said that the province of British Columbia was not prepared to assume its proper share of the cost but was willing to stand aside anld see bondholders and others taking a loss which would accrue when the farmers received an adjustment under the act. I would point out that there are other phases which in my opinion are responsible for a heavier load, and that has been touched upon by the minister. Let me cite an instance in my own municipality. We have a dyking area with a bonded indebtedness of $100,000. A tax levy is made every year in that area to take care of the interest and sinking fund, and that tax is spread over those in the area. Certain farmers in that district appealed to the receiver general and I understand that two cases were to go to the board of review. Would it have been fair to allow the rest of the farmers to assume a load of debt which would have been thrown upon them, through certain farmers being given an adjustment? There are some farmers who owe from $300 to $500 in taxes, and the dyking commission did not compel them to pay the taxes, but in one or two instances they appealed to the reoeiver and as well to the board of review. If an adjustment had been made with respect to these taxes owed by the farmers, the rest of the debt would have had to 'be borne by the other farmers within that area. We endeavoured, when the act was under discussion, to direct the attention of the minister to that aspect of the matter but little attention was paid to it. So far as British Columbia is concerned, it was not a matter of cutting off taxes; the point is that certain people had entered into an agreement with respect to dyking and water taxes, something on which bonded indebtedness is raised. It was not a case of redress being given by the provincial government, but the fact is that a heavier load would have been placed on the farmers of that dyking area. The government has

Farmers' Creditors Act
been high-handed in going ahead with this bill. Would it not have been possible to make some adjustment in the act to take care of the matter under dispute without withdrawing the whole act?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We must bear in mind
that of the total number of settlements effected in Canada up to the end of May, 5,852, there were 4,602 effected by compromise and agreement, and only 1,250 as the result of decisions of the boards of review. I do not think that any better evidence could be given of the fact that the spirit of the act has been carried out than to cite these figures. The whole underlying motive of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act was compromise, conciliation and amicable adjustment, and it has worked out in that manner. My hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Reid) wants to know whether there could not have been some other amendment to the act. I do not think so, but I will say this. If the government of British Columbia had made representations to us calling on us to make some special concession which ought to have been made in view of certain conditions in that province, they would have been considered. But what are the circumstances? We had some communication with British Columbia as with the other provinces, and up to the point where this injunction was brought, coming as it did like a bolt from the blue, we had no idea that the intention of British Columbia was to challenge the act in this arbitrary manner. It has been suggested that our action is high-handed. Well then, the government of British Columbia must assume the entire responsibility. All we do is to say, "If you are going to challenge the act we will not force it on you; we withdraw it from the province and allow it to operate in the other eight provinces."


Ross Wilfred Gray: Why not defend the act?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is a question of
opinion. My hon. friend, inadvertently I am sure, made two mistakes. He said that the officers of the Department of Justice had said they had no doubt that the act was constitutional.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I was quoting what the hon.
member had said.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Just a moment until I
finish my sentence please. He said that the Department of Justice had said they had no doubt as to its constitutionality. As a matter of fact, what the department did was to
give an opinion. They said that in their opinion the act was within the competence of parliament, in other words, that it was intra vires.


Ross Wilfred Gray: That is all I said.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Now the second statement, as regards doubt, arose in connection with the statement I made on the introduction of the bill, namely, that while there was this opinion of the Department of Justice, what the courts might say might be entirely different, and that it would be unwise to imperil the act by action on the part of the province of British Columbia when it was accepted in the other eight provinces.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
minister said he never heard a suggestion with regard to adjustment. Was not the government in receipt of a telegram from a gentleman acting in a legal capacity for the province of British Columbia to the effect that he and the attorney general of British Columbia had forwarded to the government a suggested adjustment? May I read the following telegram to the Minister of Finance. The federal government's legal adviser in Victoria and the attorney general-
-had made a tentative arrangement concerning the operation of the act in this province prior to announcement in house by Hon. Mr. Bennett subject to confirmation by this and federal governments. Arrangement suggested was that first board of review would not interfere with provincial right to levy and collect taxation. Second, we would have official of this government delegated to act as liaison officer with board in respect to adjustment of crown contracts, board agreeing to accept reasonable suggestion of our official as to necessity for compromise or not.
I suggest that that tentative agreement between the attorney general of British Columbia and the gentleman who was acting in a legal capacity either for the board in British Columbia or for this government was telegraphed to this government before the bill was introduced, and when the Minister of Finance gets up and says that there was no attempt at amicable adjustment, I submit that the facts as I have stated them are contrary to his assertion. I do think that if that offer was madte by the attorney general, collaborating with the minister's own representatives in British Columbia, the government should have given it the fullest consideration before introducing in this house a bill such as the one we have before us.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The committee will bear
with me when I say that for a period of days I was confined to my house-
Farmers' Creditors Act


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
not blaming you.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: -and for that reason I was not familiar with the day to day letters and telegrams which passed. But as at present advised, I know that the chief official receiver, Mr. Davidson, had frequent conferences with the attorney general of British Columbia and also with the Minister of Lands and Municipal Affairs, Mr. Wells Gray, so that there was no question of lack of complete cooperation so far as the officials of the department, in relation to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, were concerned. There may be some correspondence of which I have no knowledge, but so far as I am personally concerned I may say that the action of British Columbia came like a bolt from the blue. There was no intimation of which I am aware at the moment on the part of the province that it intended to resist the act up to that point.
Mr. MaoINNIS:	I am not going to try
to apportion the blame between British Columbia and the government here; possibly there is some blame on both sides. But whoever is to blame, there is no doubt that if this legislation passes, certain farmers in British Columbia for whose benefit the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act was passed will suffer. They will feel the effect of this action. I am going to suggest to the Minister of Finance that in order to give the government of British Columbia some time to consider the matter, an amendment might be made to this measure that it would not come into effect until a certain date. That need not be far distant, and this would give the provincial government an opportunity to approach the federal government and would show that the federal government was quite ready to be approached. Would the Minister of Finance take that suggestion into consideration?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope the hon. member
for Vancouver South will realize that we cannot accept any sugegstion as to blame in this matter. We have taken precisely the same course in trying to cooperate with British Columbia as we have with regard to the other eight provinces, and no question has been raised by them. I may point out to him that although the act was proclaimed in British Columbia on November 1 last and was in operation there, it was only in May of this year that this action on the part of British Columbia was taken. I have said before that we brought in this bill with

reluctance and regret. If the British Columbia government want to take action, why, we shall not proceed with this bill but if they persist in the course they are pursuing, we have no alternative, and inasmuch as the chances are that this bill would not pass the Senate for a day or so, I may say to my hon. friend that if there is any indication of a change of attitude on the part of British Columbia showing that they are prepared to cooperate with us, I should be very happy, when the bill reaches the Senate, to have them insert in it an amendment to have the act come into force only on proclamation. I think that will meet with my hon. friend's views.


Mr. JACOBS:: I am glad to have this statement from the Minister of Finance that there is still a possibility at the eleventh hour of having this legislation postponed. I was a member of the house who had something to do with the introduction of the Bankruptcy Act in 1919-and my hon. friend will remember that it was introduced by a private member, myself, in that year; it was afterwards adopted by the government and put through I think in 1920, when the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) was Solicitor General and had the bill in charge-I do not like to see the legislation begun at that time truncated as it would appear to be by the proposed measure. We have in Canada nine provinces with the act applying generally to them all. I do not understand why through a piece of pique, this action should be taken. Of course my hon. friend shakes his head but the fact remains that while British Columbia may have gone about this matter in an undiplomatic way it is proposed to remove from that province the benefit of this legislation. There is no doubt there is benefit attached to it, otherwise it would never have gone through and the Minister of Finance would not have received all those encomiums which he said he had received.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I did not receive any.


Samuel William Jacobs: Well, the department received them.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, the legislation.


Samuel William Jacobs: Well, that is an abstract thing, to receive encomiums. The Minister of Finance I think with all modesty claims that encomiums were received and that he was the minister at the head of the encomium department. It does seem to me-and I should be the last person to mention this- that a little Christian charity should be shown by the department, and it is too bad

Farmers' Creditors Act
that I should be the person to rise in my place and tell the minister what is and what is not Christian charity. There is no doubt that the department at Ottawa, when they ascertained that British Columbia questioned the right of Ottawa to institute this legislation so far as it concerned the province particularly, that is the province as against its own individual citizens, did feel a certain amount of pique. I think I would feel a little pique myself, but to hurry through legislation in the dying days of the session, to make the provincial authorities realize the enormity of their offence, is not quite in keeping with the character of the Minister of Finance. I have known him for many years; he is a pleasant gentleman and he looks at all angles of a question before he takes action. But from the statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), it would appear that there is a certain amount of bad blood between the dominion Department of Justice and the Department of the Attorney General of British Columbia. It seems foolish that these two sober departments should act in such a childish way.
The proposition was put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver South claiming indirectly that the British Columbia authorities acted rather hastily. This is a way they have of acting out west. We act more soberly in the east. With this hint before parliament and before the Minister of Finance, I should say that the government would be well advised in going a little more slowly. This is perhaps the last time the present government will appear in the role of being able to pass legislation, and I suggest they ought to go out mildly and calmly, showing that after all there was no feeling against any province in regard to such legislation. I feel I ought not to inject myself into this debate because it would appear to be a private fight between British Columbia and the dominion government; but inasmuch as this legislation applies to the whole of Canada, I think the government ought to treat British Columbia as a sort of wayward child and give it an opportunity to come together with the Department of Justice in order to see if this matter cannot be adjusted, because after all we should show to the whole of Canada that while we are acting firmly at the same time we are actuated by a judicial and kindly spirit. That can be brought about if the suggestion that has been made by the hon. member for Vancouver South, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and myself is adopted. This is not a case where harsh measures ought to be resorted to. Such 92582-254
legislation will not be looked upon with favour by the other provinces, because indirectly every person in Canada is interested in it. It may just happen that people in Montreal or Quebec or Halifax will find that the passing of this bill removing from British Columbia the privileges under the act, will affect them. We cannot tell how it is going to affect, people outside, and for the good of the whole country I would urge and implore, if I may use that word, my hon. friend, who as I said before has always acted most judiciously, to let the legislation be held up for a little while to see if we cannot get into touch with the officials of British Columbia, adjust the matter and thus put an end to a tempest in a teapot.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hasten to assure my hon. friend and the committee that when I spoke of the encomiums with which this legislation had been received I had reference to the passage of the bill in the house last year. Under those circumstances it can by no means be suggested as casting even any reflected glory upon myself.


Samuel William Jacobs: You deserve it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend has suggested, as he always does, that there should be some Christian charity shown in this matter.


Samuel William Jacobs: Yes: "where there are no men be thou a man."


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I might suggest-and I do this in no spirit of pique, or because of any quarrel or bad blood between the federal government and the province of British Columbia -that they might show some Christian charity to the distressed farmers in their province.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are doing it.	.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is, be prepared to make a contribution the same as companies and individuals are doing. If they were prepared to exercise this Christian charity, this bill would never have been necessary. My hon. friends have said that if this bill is put through it will not be viewed very kindly in the other provinces. But I put this to him: what would the other provinces say if we permitted one province to withdraw itself from the provisions of an act? A man in the province of Quebec could have a settlement calling for a contribution from that province, but in British Columbia the provincial government says: No, we will make no contribution. I say if this bill were not passed and that condition did obtain, the other provinces would have every right to complain. So that the position

Farmers' Creditors Act

is just the reverse of that suggested. I assure my hon. friend and the committee that this bill was not introduced through pique or because of bad blood, but because we had to cope with a situation which was the creation of the government of British Columbia. I speak for the government when I say that we should be delighted if the circumstances were altered so that we should not need to proceed with this bill. The best evidence of that is the reply I gave to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis) when. I said that if there was any intimation of a changed attitude on the part of the government of British Columbia I should be very happy to suggest to the Senate that an amendment be added making the bill operative only on proclamation, and of course the bill would1 never be proclaimed unless the circumstances were such as to call for it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I again object to some of the remarks of the Minister of Finance. In the first place this bill is an admission by the government that they are afraid or choose not to defend their own legislation. Whatever the decision may be in British Columbia, it is an open intimation to the Dominion of Canada that this government is not prepared to defend its own legislation in court. Then the minister says that they are still prepared to cooperate. I read a telegram which proves conclusively that an offer of conciliation and cooperation came to this government before this bill was introduced. Repudiating that offer of conciliation and cooperation, and bringing this bill into the house, is going to destroy the act not only in British Columbia but in my opinion all over the dominion.


Mr. BARBER:: I regret very much that
it has been necessary to take action to withdraw this legislation from the province of British Columbia. I have received during the last few months many letters from farmers in that province who have been successful in making compromises and putting themselves in a position to go back on the land and make good. The last speaker referred to a telegram. I wish to quote part of a telegram which the premier of British Columbia, I believe, forwarded a few days ago to the Prime Minister:
I think the dominion government is taking a very imprudent course and say now that if the dominion government will confine the operation of the act in British Columbia as between persons and not undertake to interfere with provincial contracts and provincial rights to levy and collect our own taxation there will be no opposition from this government.

That is the condition that they want to provide in this legislation. But as the minister pointed out, if that concession is given to the province of British Columbia it would necessarily have to be given to every province throughout Canada.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Why not? That is a
reasonable position.


Harry James Barber: 
William Daum Euler: I hesitate to interpose in this debate, as I admit that I know very little about the operations of this act, but I rise to ask the minister a question and possibly to make a suggestion. I take it that if this bill passes the province of British Columbia, with its distressed farmers, will be placed entirely outside the operation of the act and the benefits which may be obtained under it. Is there not a possibility that the action which has been taken by British Columbia might fail? If that action fails, would not the federal government be able to apply the act in that province? If that is the case, if we pass this bill now and later British Columbia fails in its action, by this step the government will make it impossible for the distressed farmers of that province to obtain any assistance. I am wondering whether it would not be wiser to postpone passing this bill until we know the decision of the court in the action that has been taken by the province of British Columbia.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is quite true that if the court gave a decision holding that the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act was intra vires of this parliament, it would be binding upon the province of British Columbia and the act would be applicable there. What we point out, however, is that while the opinion of the Department of Justice is that the act is intra vires, it is quite possible that a court may take another point of view. I do not profess to be capable of expressing an opinion worth anything on that point; I would defer to the legal talent in the committee in that respect, but we could not afford to imperil the operation of this act throughout Canada by reason of an action that has been taken in one province. It must be borne in mind that practically only one per cent of the settlements made in Canada have been made in the province of British Columbia. In other words, if the same proportion were borne out, we would allow one person to determine the legality of an action bearing upon ninety-nine others.


William Daum Euler: If the Supreme Court of British Columbia should declare against the federal government, would that affect the other provinces?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am advised that it would not.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not in a legal sense, but this bill means that the Minister of Justice is extending an invitation to the courts of British Columbia to hold unconstitutional the bill we passed last year, because he is not defending the action.


Samuel William Jacobs: What will happen if tomorrow another province raises the same question? Will another punitive bill be introduced? Either the law is good or it is not good. My hon. friend says we cannot imperil the operation of this act in the other provinces. For the life of me I cannot see how the hon. gentleman can prevent similar action with regard to every other province in Canada under the jurisdiction of this act if the same situation should arise.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the obvious answer to the point raised by my hon. friend from Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) is this: The other eight provinces have accepted the act; they have cooperated cordially and have made no objection to the jurisdiction of the act. They have accepted settlements of boards of review which have had the effect of reducing payments coming to provincial governments and provincial boards, so that question cannot arise.


Samuel William Jacobs: My hon. friend must know that it is given to any private individual in a province to attack the legality of any act.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I assumed that my hon. friend was speaking of the action of a provincial government. I might say also that no private individual has attacked the act in any province, so far as I am aware.


William Daum Euler: Would the government not
find itself in a most awkward position far as the farmers of British Columbia are concerned if that province should fail in its action against the government in the case to be decided to-morrow? If it fails the province is placed outside the pale; the benefits of the act can no longer be applied to British Columbia.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the hon. member
will not accuse me of discourtesy when I say to him that this government cannot assume the responsibility. The action of the province of British Columbia, through its government, is the cause of this legislation.


William Daum Euler: This government owes a
duty to British Columbia outside of the government of that province.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We should: be derelict in
our duty if because of the act of the province of British Columbia this federal act should be declared ultra vires and its benefits denied to Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It probably will be declared ultra vires, because it

Credit and Finance*-Mr. Speakman
is not being defended1 and we are therefore expressing no confidence in the legislation which we passed last year.
Section agreed to on division.
Bill reported.



MORTGAGE CREDITS FOR FISHERMEN

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Acting Minister of Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 120, for the purpose of establishing in Canada a system of long term mortgage credit for fishermen.
Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I	rise	to a	point of	order. I wouldpoint out	that	the	bill was	brought beforeus only three-quarters of an hour ago, and that it affects the province of British Columbia. For	the	last	hour we	have been engaged in	the	discussion of	a bill vitally
affecting that province. Four hon. members from British Columbia have spoken to it, and necessarily our attention was concentrated on the bill then under discussion. This is a complicated bill of seventeen sections, and I submit it is not fair to ask for second reading until we have had an opportunity to consider it. I suggest that it be allowed to stand until to-morrow.


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF:: Mr. Speaker, I
join the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) in asking the minister to be good enough to allow the bill to stand over until to-morrow. To-day I endeavoured to obtain a copy of the bill. I sent to the distribution office at ten o'clock this morning; I went down myself at eleven o'clock, and I sent down again at twelve o'clock, one o'clock, two o'clock and at a quarter to three. Still I could not get a copy of it. Only half an hour ago were the bills made available and placed on the table. I respectfully submit that the bill should stand until to-morrow.


Grote Stirling: Under the circumstances I believe it would be preferable to allow the bill to stand over.
Motion stands.



CREDIT AND FINANCE-AMENDMENT OF MR. SPEAKMAN TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, may I take advantage of this opportunity, perhaps the last during the lifetime of this parliament, to present to the house for its consideration and I hope action, what I conceive to be a problem of first magnitude. While it is not of recent origin, it is a fundamental problem and of increasing urgency. To-day in Canada and throughout the world there is a growing realization of the fact that the whole is greater than the part, or, in other words, using it in its present application, that the state or society as a whole is greater and of more importance than any individual or group of individuals within the state and forming part of that society. This conviction has been expressing itself in past years in Canada, as elsewhere, in legislation designed to bring about an increasing degree of control and regulation by the state of individuals and groups of individuals, whenever the activity of such individuals is apparently detrimental to the public weal.


Mr. YOUNG:: You mean the regulation of the whole by the part?


Alfred Speakman: At the present time I am not referring to any special legislation, but rather to the tendency which has manifested itself in Canada and throughout the world. As to the adequacy of the expression I shall not speak at this time. To my mind this process is inevitable in view of modern conditions. There are certain principles, the first of which being accepted the second or third must inevitably follow in logical sequence. In this country, I believe with the common consent of all classes of society and supported by all bodies of opinion in this chamber, the state has undertaken the obligation of providing relief for its unemployed; in other words, the state-and I speak of it in all its branches, federal, provincial and municipal-has undertaken to provide purchasing power for those unable to earn it for themselves through the ordinary processes of industry and business. After all, is not unemployment the human wastage or human loss in industry and business, using those terms in their widest and most general sense? And is not that loss influenced at least in a measure by the general policies followed by industry and business? I think there is no hon. member of the house who, if called upon to underwrite the losses of any business, would not insist upon at least a degree of effective voice in the policies of that business which policies might materially increase or decrease, or indeed wholly obviate, the possible loss. I believe this principle applies to the state in exactly the same way as it applies to the individual man or woman going into business or underwriting a loss. The state has agreed to

Credit and Finance-Mr. Speakman
underwrite this human loss, and I believe it follows in inevitable sequence that the state in growing measure, so long at least as the condition continues must have a controlling or regulating voice in the policies of business and industry. As I have said, the first of these principles has been accepted with practical unanimity and is supported by what I shall describe as the three bodies of public opinion represented in this chamber. The second step has long been advocated by the group in this corner, is now accepted in principle at least by the government in power, and in some degree, though perhaps reluctantly, by the official opposition, as is quite obvious from the support given various measures. But there is in my opinion a third step which, the first two being taken, must follow as inevitably and logically as the second. It is extremely doubtful whether those two obligations can be undertaken and these policies discharged within the confines of what we term to-day our financial system. In other words, the increased obligations on the part of the state consequent upon relief policies, the limitations placed upon business and industry in connection with the setting up of minimum rates of pay, the shortening of hours, the reduction of profits, the putting into force of more humane conditions, must inevitably lead to an increased cost of doing business. It is doubtful whether the state can continue to make these expenditures, whether business and industry can continue to function under these limitations within the narrow confines of what is somewhat ironically termed sound finance and sound money.
Another question naturally arises. What I think is accepted as one of the greatest difficulties encountered by the federal state in dealing with this matter is the question of jurisdiction and constitutional authority in bringing about that control and in passing the necessary regulations. This house has laboured earnestly with this problem. The committee which was appointed went into the matter very deeply but it was confronted with the obstacle of constitutional limitation of power. What was apparently overlooked was what is under modern conditions the most effective form of control and what is under our constitution the unchallenged right of this parliament-the power to deal with such a situation by means of the control which the state may exercise over finance. I shall not deal further with this question, as it is my purpose to be brief; but I think that is something which is recognized by all hon, members as being effective, both constitutionally and practically.

We come now to another point, the dead weight of interest bearing debt, both private and public, which rests upon the country and upon the people. I shall not dwell too long upon this somewhat unpleasant subject, as it has been discussed in detail on former occasions and probably will be discussed on subsequent occasions. Suffice it to say that there is no man in public life within my knowledge wdio has ventured to suggest any manner by which this debt might be discharged or its steady increase checked within the narrow limits of what is called sound finance. No individual, no corporation, no state, can continue indefinitely on a policy of increased borrowings without repayment or prospect of repayment without facing inevitable bankruptcy. This government has recognized that difficulty and endeavoured to meet or alleviate the situation. An effort, successful in a measure, has been made to reduce the carrying costs of debt, particularly of public debt, through refunding at lower rates, through legislative enactments to provide for lower carrying charges, and other means. The government has endeavoured to meet the problem by making legislative provision for the partial repudiation of various forms of obligations, as is evidenced by our Bankruptcy Act and the other acts which provide for the voluntary or compulsory composition of debts. I am not criticizing that form of legislation; I have supported it in the past and shall continue to support it in the future. I consider it a necessary palliative measure under present circumstances, but I do not think any hon. member will suggest that a policy of repudiation or partial repudiation is sound in principle or will realize its full intent in the end. That is not a sound way to deal with the situation. Many in this country now believe that the time has come when we should stop giving our whole attention to the treatment of symptoms and attempt the eradication of underlying causes. I shall not make further reference to the question of debt, as it has been discussed in this house on many occasions. So long as the system itself is founded upon and is inseparable from the use of interest 'bearing credit and the constant increase in interest bearing debt there is no method of repudiation or partial repudiation, no method of decreasing the carrying costs which will strike at the root of the trouble and remove the cause. So long as that policy continues I give it as my opinion that that will be the effect. This is not merely an opinion of yesterday; it is an opinion which I have reluctantly formed over the course of years. I think it* is unnecessary for me to say to this house that I am not inherently a radical.

Credit and Finance*-Mr. Speakman
I have not the type of mind that jumps to something new simply because it is new. I follow ia thing, rightly or wrongly, if in my opinion and according to my concept of logic I am driven to that conclusion by the consideration which I give the matter. I am not saying that my -logic will be inviolable or that my conclusions will be right, but I urge them only after some process of thought Every reform is inseparable from an emotion almost religious in its fervour, and while it is true that ia few great reforms have been accomplished without that stimulus, it is also true that in dealing with business and economic matters no permanent success has been achieved unless in addition to that emotional stimulus there has been a background and foundation of practical common sense.
I do not believe that this condition can be permanently cured so long as the financial credit of the country and the provision of purchasing power is looked upon as a profit making industry, to be held or withheld by groups of individuals for their own private gain, particularly when this essential of modern life is falling more and more under monopolistic control.
There is a third phase which is known to every hon. member and which must appeal alike to his reason and his humanity I refer to the condition which has been referred to so often in the terms of the hackneyed phrase, poverty iD the midst of plenty. A tremendous disparity exists to-day between our capacity to produce real wealth and the extent to which we have -been able to make effective use of that capacity. I doubt if there is an hon. member in this house, a thinking man in Canada, who has not been bending his mind and thoughts in the direction of how this -can be accomplished; how we may bring about a condition that would make available for actual human use within this country, to the average man and woman, that real wealth which we can produce in such abundance. That is the problem. I suggest that there is no country in the world in which a higher standard of living could or should be secured to the individual than in Canada. Canada has often been referred to as one of the last great undeveloped areas, and I am certain of this, that there is no country in the world which in proportion to the scanty population which this country is called upon to support has a greater fund of natural wealth and resource for that population to draw upon. Not only that, but, again a truism, we have within the country in our mines and rivers an actual and potential power which will assist us in making available this natural wealth. I suppose there are countries richer than our own; the United States
possibly is richer in the extent and variety of its resources. But it is called upon to support over ten times our population, and when we make a comparison with Great Britain or the countries of Europe it becomes absolutely ludicrous. Let me say again that there is no country in the world better fitted by nature, by natural resources within its boundaries, by its available power, to provide a high standard of living for all its citizens than is Canada. And it is a reason why we should bend our energies towards making that wealth available. I am reminded of a cartoon I once saw, of a man crouching on a storehouse of treasure, starving and shivering and calling on providence to satisfy his needs by some miraculous process.
May I go a little further. We have here then all these resources, and a population which is scanty, it is true, but I may safely say second to none in the world in its intelligence, industry and desire to work and produce that which it requires. There is no population in the world that is less desirous or less willing to live upon doles and relief and charity than the Canadian population, take it as a whole from one end of Canada to the other. Frenchspeaking and English-speaking people, and people from other countries who came here impelled by a desire, by the labour of their own hands and the application of their own intelligence and industry, not only to make a home but to secure a decent standard of living by their own energy and exertion-these are the people of Canada, and they are still anxious to carry out that intention.
Having all these qualities and factors in this country, there -must be, I say, some fundamental -cause, there must be some fundamental weakness in a system which permits conditions such as -we find them in Canada at the present time. There is another point in connection with that very question. We speak of the power available; we speak of the mechanical appliances at our disposal; and we are beginning to realize more and more that those very mechanical appliances which will make possible so high a standard of living are today, and under present conditions, not increasing but reducing that standard and making it increasingly difficult for men and women not only to find employment but actually to maintain themselves in decency and comfort.
The world we are entering upon, the world we are living in, is a world in which inevitably, more and more, the human element, human energy, will become a constantly diminishing factor in the production of real wealth. And that means that the opportunity for human earnings in the now accepted sense will become a smaller and smaller ratio to the mass
4010	COMMONS
Credit and Finance-Mr. Speakman
and value of the wealth produced; and we cannot blind our eyes, we cannot close our understanding to that problem -which is known to-day as technological unemployment. I am not one of those who believe that, all things being well, work could not be found even under modem conditions. I have only to take a glance at the homes throughout Canada, I have only to look at conditions as I find them, to be assured that if the people of Canada had the money with which to pay for modern improvements and comforts and decency in the remodelling and rebuilding of houses, not by tens of thousands but by hundreds of thousands, and to provide themselves with all those things which they now desire, which we could supply and which they wish to enjoy, so far as production is concerned, we could find work for men even in this mechanized age. We could find work for every ablebodied man in the country and find it for years to come. But whenever it is suggested, whenever a plan is put forward by individuals, groups or governments that this wealth should be made available to the people, we are confronted with the one question- Where will you find the money? And we find ourselves balked and frustrated by a financial system which, however inadequate in its inception, is no longer adequate to meet modem conditions or requirements.
May I in conclusion offer one more thought. There are two ways, as far as I can see, by which goods may be distributed and consumed. There may be others but there are only two that I see as the two obvious methods. One is what is known as the strictly communistic method, that is, where the state itself owns all property, where the state itself owns all production and where every citizen in the state may draw on that store, without money or price, according to his needs or desires. That is one method. Now notice, I am not advocating either method; I am laying down alternatives. The other method is by the provision of sufficient purchasing power in the hands of those who desire to use the goods that are produced, to enable them to buy and pay for and enjoy those goods. I might suggest this-and I am suggesting it for the consideration of those to whom the terms socialism, communism and so on, are a bugbear in the night and a nightmare to frighten them in their dreams. Let me suggest to such people that if they want to avoid that alternative there is only one thing for them to do, and that is to make it possible for the people to secure the necessary purchasing power which will enable them to supply their needs; because I doubt whether we

can long continue in this country or in the world with conditions as we find them, and as they will be in increasing measure, where the majority of the people are debarred throughout their lives from security, potential security in the obtaining of those things which are accumulating before their very eyes and which they require and demand.
We cannot sit down and watch that drift, and so I suggest that the very best way of avoiding an overturn of all those things we hold dear on both sides, all those democratic principles which have been so strongly and eloquently advocated, all those constitutional prerogatives which are dwelt on so frequently -the only way to avoid the submergence of all these things is to deal with the question from another angle and make it possible for the people to live on a high standard of comfort without going to the other extreme.
There is one other thought, and with that I will conclude. This factor at least should be considered in dealing with this subject. Philosophically speaking, apart from natural resources, this is the factor in production which counts-human energy, human intelligence, human foresight, human industry applied to the use of natural resources. All of these others, the machinery developed, power and all the various factors we use are in effect a combination of these two agencies -natural resources and human energy in one form or another. I think it is taken for granted that those now engaged in industry should share in production. And wdien I speak of industry I mean industry in all its manifold forms. I have found that the agriculturist is at least industrious and competent enough to be termed an industrialist in that sense. Those engaged in industry and production in all forms, those who give their energy, their industry and intelligence to development and production, are entitled to a share of the division of its proceeds, and I am including, of course, those who supply capital for development. For after all capital is the crystallization, to some degree at any rate, of human energy and natural resources combined.
But there is another factor which is not always given consideration. I think it will be conceded that the contribution made by the present generation is not the only human factor which is introduced into this question. None of these various improvements would be possible to-day, none of that wonderful machinery, that marvellous utilization of power which we witness would now be available had it depended solely upon the inventive genius, intelligence and industry of those now living

Credit and Finance-Mr. Speakman
and enjoying their benefits. There is what is termed the cumulative heritage. The term has been misused many times, but it simply means that for the last hundred years back, and far beyond that, men have been working and striving and inventing and solving one problem after another; and upon the foundation of that intelligence, that skill and that inventive genius, gradually step by step, not at one fell stroke, there has been erected the structure which we now see. And behind that, beneath it and making it possible, rests the labour of all those who have gone before us, generation after generation. There is not a man living to-day, there is not a group or aggregation of individuals living to-day who can claim a monopolistic right to that heritage as being its sole beneficiaries. The beneficiaries of that heritage, as of our heritage of constitutional freedom and our democratic institutions, is and must be society as a whole, because society as a whole, generation after generation, has made that contribution and laid that foundation. And that means, if rightly interpreted, that not only are those now engaged in industry entitled to some share of the social heritage but that all society is entitled in virtue of the fact that they are beneficiaries and legatees.
I am merely suggesting that in dealing with this financial question, in dealing with the manner in which currency should1 be issued and credit used, we might well ask whether that should not be a factor to be considered, whether what is termed monetization, that is making in actual concrete monetary form the basis of our wealth, should not be considered and whether the people who are the legatees of that heritage should not be given some share of that monetized value. I shall not go into that argument; I shall bring that forward presently in an amendment which I propose to move.
Because this is neither the time nor the place, nor am I competent to go into the technique of how these things should be done, I am merely going to offer a suggestion to the house for its consideration. Whenever anyone in this house or outside suggests that some new principle of finance should be adopted, the cry at once comes: How are you going to effect that in a practical, technical way; give us the details1; give us the method. That is impossible. I might return the challenge by asking this: Is there any man in this house or in this country today-and if there is, I have never met and never heard of him-who can tell us how our system is functioning to-day or how we are going to come out under our present system? Is there anyone who can tell us
how we are going to pay our debts, distribute our goods, under this system? Surely we have a right to challenge them as regards the practical application of a system they adhere to just as they have a right to challenge us as to the details of a principle we suggest. I have advocated this principle in different parts of Canada and I believe it is sound. I believe the greatest obstacle to financial reform is the multitude of schools of finance which have arisen, the quarrelling, the warfare which exists between one and another, the fact that this school and the other school, the Gerry McGeers, the Douglas-ites, the Aberhartites, and other "ites" too numerous to mention are quarrelling one with another as the best means to bring financial reform into effect. They are always quarrelling with each other and hating each other worse than they hate their common enemy, each one more anxious to effect the downfall of the other than to bring about a remedy. I am going to make this suggestion. When the average man buys a piece of machinery, let us say a motor car because we are all familiar with that, I venture to say that there is not one man in a hundred thousand who thoroughly understands all the technical science which lies behind the manufacture and functioning of that car. It is not necessary that he should. He asks two questions. I am not speaking now of the ladies because they will also take into account the beauty, grace and so forth. But two questions are asked:	Will it perform
the functions for which it is required and will it stand up under those operations? I have suggested elsewhere and I suggest to the house that all of those who believe that in finance lies at least the crux of our situation should forget all this quarrelling over details which they are not competent either to understand or to solve, and simply ask the same questions, make the same demands as are made upon manufacturers of machinery, upon this parliament wdiich under our constitution is given the obligation and responsibility of providing purchasing power and medium of exchange. We may delegate those functions to the banks; we may pass them over to individuals or corporations, but in doing so we cannot divest ourselves either of the function or of the responsibility. I am merely suggesting then that they should make that effective demand upon parliament: Give us a system which will enable us to pay our debts, to buy goods, to carry on the operations which a financial system is supposed to facilitate as regards all the interchange and consumption of the wealth which we can produce.

Credit and Finance-Mr. Speakman
I will admit at once that parliament is not competent to say just how that will be done, but parliament can do as every manufacturer must do, summon the few technicians in that particular science in the world to-day and set before them that problem with a plainly defined objective. The people then could judge this parliament as they judge any manufacturer, by the way in which the system which is provided for them functions. That is the only way in which they can judge, and, may I say, the only sane manner of judging any system. Does it function? Does it deliver the goods? I am suggesting that this line of thought should be followed. As I say, I have no intention of going into the details of how this should be done; I am not competent to set them before the house, and I am not insulting parliament when I say that it is not competent to understand them as I am not competent to explain them. Members of parliament have listened to technicians and have gone away holding their heads because they were unable to understand the multitude of complexities; so I am not going to discuss the details even were I competent to do so.
In order to crystallize the thought which I have in mind, I propose to move an amendment upon going into supply. I regret that under the rules of the house I am obliged to move it in this way knowing under the usual procedure it must be considered as a vote of want of confidence. But the conditions, the circumstances, the time made it impossible for me to find another opportunity. So I should like to move it as a substantive motion. When I could have moved it as a private member I waited until I saw whether parliament itself through the program before us was taking any step towards meeting this objective, towards solving this problem. It has not done it. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by Mr. Irvine:
That all the words after "that" in the motion be stricken out, and the following be added as a substitute therefor:
Whereas: The rapid growth of public and private debt, which must inevitably continue under our present financial system if public services are to be maintained and extended and production carried on, together with the increasing disparity between the real wealth of this country and the purchasing power which would make this wealth available for common use, render it imperative that a reorganization of our financial system should be undertaken as the logical first step in any reconstruction program; and
Whereas: No measure or policy has been as yet enacted or proposed by either major party in this house by way of dealing in an effective manner with the foregoing situation; and

Whereas: The issue and control of finance in all its phases is the constitutional prerogative of federal authority, and the provision of a satisfactory system of finance is the undoubted responsibility of the dominion parliament;
Therefore be it resolved: That this parliament resume its direct control over the public credit of Canada with a view to:

Reorganizing the financial system of this country on the basis of our ability to produce and deliver goods and services: financing all public works and construction at cost, repayment to be made at the rate of the annual deterioration of the asset so created; and
Instituting such system of management and control as will best maintain an equitable level of purchasing power and prices, thus avoiding the alternate evils of inflation and deflation.
And further be it resolved: That this parliament recognize the right of every citizen to a share in that accumulated social heritage by means of which modern production has become so efficient, and is of the opinion that the social credit 'based upon this heritage should be drawn upon to the extent necessary and advisable in the increase and maintenance of the standards of living in this country, and that this may be done through the payment of annual dividends to:
All Canadians who are sixty years of age or over; those who are physically or mentally incapacitated: and those who would be entitled thereto under the terms of an effective system of national insurance against unemployment or crop failure, or a national system of mothers' and orphans' allowance, or of widows' pension.
Amendment negatived.



B.C. RELIEF CAMPS

Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, there is a matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the house, a matter which I and some of us in this corner have attempted to bring to the attention of the house for some time. I refer to the men from the unemployment relief camps in British Columbia and the position in which they now find themselves.
On May 22, we tried to get an adjournment
of the house in order to discuss this matter, which we considered of very serious importance to the people of the country. We were denied the opportunity at that time. And again on June 13 we tried without success to discuss it. Since that time certain developments have taken place, and there is every possibility that further serious developments will take place in the very near future. Therefore I think this house should have some understanding of the conditions with which these men from the camps are confronted. In order to give that understanding I am going to give a very brief history of the camps.
The statement has been made in this house on numerous occasions that these camps are

B.C. Relief Camps-Mr. Maclnnis
merely a temporary expedient to take care of a passing condition. But let us not overlook this fact that some of the men in those camps have been there for almost four years. The camps were opened, as far as the province of British Columbia is concerned, in September, 1931. They continued for some time under the provincial government, and then in 1932 were put under a commission appointed by the federal government but nominated by the government of British Columbia. In June, 1933, the camps were put under the Department of National Defence and have so remained ever since. While we glibly say that this is a temporary situation, there is no one in this house or in this country who can tell these men when, if ever, they can leave those camps. That is what I would like hon. members of this house to understand, and I should like to put this question to them: If it were your son in the camp or on the march to Ottawa now, what attitude would you take in the circumstances? Before I am finished I hope to show that the men in these camps are just as good as the sons of members of thi9 house.
For some time there was no great dissatisfaction or trouble in the camps. That is quite understandable, because I suppose at that time the men themselves felt that they were there only temporarily, that in a few months things would brighten up again, that business would resume its normal activity and that then they would have an opportunity once more of taking part in the business life of the country. They had every reason to feel that way. Were not all the business men of the country telling us that soon we would be back to normal? Almost every evening when you picked up your daily paper you saw an interview with some authority who said that business was improving. Time and time again even the Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada told us that we were on the up grade and that soon we would be out of our difficulties. But as time went on the men remained in the camps; they saw no break in the economic depression and they began to get restless. In December of last year many of the men left the camps in British Columbia and went to the city of Vancouver. I mentioned this in the house previously; I mention it again now just in passing. Representatives of every political party took a share in trying to settle the difficulty at that time, and the men went back to the camps on the understanding given by the provincial government that there would be an investigation into the conditions complained of. No investigation was held. We then took up the
matter here in the house on going into supply and after some agitation, but not before the men had determined to leave the camps again, a royal commission was appointed to look into camp conditions. The last strike in the British Columbia camps took place on April 4, and if I remember correctly the commission was appointed on March 30.
Some little time ago the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Stirling) read from the report and made certain comments on it, but I do not believe he touched the important points of the report. I refer to the psychological factors in connection with camp conditions. The minister told us what the commission found and the submissions made by the commission in regard thereto. May I just say that while personally I was not dissatisfied with the commission or with its report, and while I believe the gentlemen who were appointed were quite competent to carry out the work assigned to them, I should like to point out to the government that in the appointment of this commission they did the same thing they have done in connection with every commission they have appointed since coming into office. There was no labour man or any one remotely connected with labour on that commission although the men in the camps belong primarily to the working class.
With regard to the conditions complained of, the commissioners mentioned the food, the water supply, sanitary conditions and so on. In the main they found these fairly satisfactory, though they did recommend certain improvements. In my opinion, however, one of the most important paragraphs in the report is headed "Mental Attitude." It reads:
Apart from any alleged causes of physical discomfort, poor food or living conditions, a clearly defined and openly expressed mental attitude in respect to the camps on the part of the men has developed during the years of their maintenance, and is the outstanding cause of unrest and dissatisfaction.
I should like hon. members of the house to take note of that; this mental attitude is the outstanding cause of unrest and dissatisfaction. W'hat gives rise to this mental attitude? The commissioners stated that the absence of a wage was of first importance. That is the heading of the next paragraph, in which they say:
Camp life, generally speaking, is not a normal condition under which men desire to live. Men are attracted to mining, logging and construction camps because of a wage paid for labour. It was pointed out by the men that usually there is some goal at the end of a period of employment, and men put up with the discomforts and lack of social

B.C. Relief Camps-Mr. Maclnnis
contacts associated' with camp life because, in due course, there will be a substantial pay cheque, and a way open to some other form of living. It was contended that in the case of relief camps the absence of a wage rendered a future opportunity of leaving the camps with any considerable amount of money impossible, and that, as the months passed by, the men drifted into either an attitude of hopeles indifference or of studied rebellion.
That is the situation with which we are confronted at this time; the men have no other alternative than to fall into one of those two categories; they must either give up hope of ever getting out of camp and improving their position or become rebellious against the conditions which keep them there and against the government which seemingly will not make a move to improve conditions. I could quote a great deal more from the report along the same line, which the Minister of National Defence did not quote, but I do not desire to take up the time of the house to any very great extent. Here is another point, however, to which I should like to direct attention. The heading of the paragraph is "Young Men." The commissioners say:
A considerable percentage of the men are young, many of them under twenty-one years of age.
How would members of this house like to have their sons of twenty-one years of age or less penned up in these camps under these conditions?
Their education has been interrupted, their training in various mechanical trades has been terminated, or their progress in office or mercantile work has ceased. In many cases these youths have left comfortable homes, or homes now on city or government relief in order that the burden at home might be lightened. Under ordinary circumstances many of these young men would not go at any time to these camps.
Note these words:
They naturally grow rebellious over the apparent hopelessness of their position, and the loss of years in which they might be fitting themselves for higher positions in life.
The next paragraph is headed "Forgotten Men." It says:
A growing conviction seems to have entered the minds of most of the men that they are a forgotten group. The isolation of many of the camps renders it impossible for men to keep in touch personally with former employment or with new work opening up.
It is true that the provincial labour bureau does seek to bring men in camps to the attention of employers, and that the department will furnish transportation to men going to bona fide positions, yet the employment of men from the relief camps is so rare that a fixed idea prevails among the men that they are deemed unsuitable for employment, and shunned by those seeking workmen.

And again, under the heading, "Isolation of
camps":
The projects on which work is being carried on, and in the vicinity of which camps are located, are, in many instances, in Very isolated places. Some camps are located where mountains rise on all sides, and there is not even sufficient level ground for any form of sports. Owing to the lack of transportation is it impossible for the men to reach any nearby community, or to participate in any form of social or community life. The absence of all social contacts and the lack of any change of environment cannot fail to produce a sense of isolation and loneliness, with a consequent depressing mental attitude.
This, gentlemen, is a state of affairs to which every hon. member should give the greatest thought. Is it any wonder that the men have left the camps? Is it any wonder that they do not w'ant to go back? Is there any man here who, under such circumstances, would want to go back to the camps? Despite that fact, when they come here to the seat of government, at the invitation of the government, to discuss their grievances their representatives are insulted. If we want a reasonable settlement of this matter surely that is not the way in which we ought to treat it. If we realize the gravity of the situation we ought to try to meet the men with a certain degree of sympathy, in any case.
There is one other quotation which I should like to make. I ask hon. members to pay attention to this, and to bear in mind that this is the report of a royal commission headed by a gentleman who was chief justice of the province of British Columbia:
The chief ground for discontent and unrest was the absence of an adequate wage for workers in the camps. We remark on this point, that it should be remembered the policy of paying wages was not contemplated when the camps were organized.
The grave fear that morale and' incentive gradually disappear with the continuance of these camps.
The difficulty of men in relief camps, owing to isolation, keeping in touch with the labour market with a view to possible employment.
I should like to draw to your attention-


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, June 27, 1935