1935-03-20

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Ray Leitman Aronoff.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 42, to amend the Gold Export Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	What was the total cost for medical attention for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force, in each of the three maritime provinces, during each of the years 1932, 1933 and 1934?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the medical attendants for the three maritime provinces, and the amount paid each, for each of the years 1932, 1933 and 1934?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Nova Scotia-
Name-Address
Dr. C. S. Cavanagh, Dingwall	
Dr. K. A. MacKenzie, Halifax	
Dr. L. J. LaBlanc, Chetieamp	
Dr. C.' K. Fuller, Yarmouth	
Dr. J. R. McCleave, Digby	
Dr. C. 0. Walsh, Sydney	
Dr. D. S. McCurdy, Truro	
Dr. T. E. Belleveau, Meteghan	
Dr. L. F. Dorion, Little Brook	
Dr. D. A. Macleod, Sydney	
Dr. J. S. Wickwire, Liverpool	
Dr. S. W. Williamson, Yarmouth	
Dr. F. R. Davis, Bridgewater	
Dr. C. W. Stramberg, Trenton	
Dr. John Bell, New Glasgow	
Drs. Creighton & Hewat, Lunenburg.. ..
Dr. J. S. Brean, Mulgrave	
Dr. J. B. Reid, Truro	
Dr. D. W. Archibald, Sydney Mines .. ..
Dr. M. J. Macauley, Sydney	
Dr. A. R. Reid, Windsor	
Dr. J. A. Langille, Pugwash	
' Dr. L. P. Churchill. Shelburne	
Dr. J. S. Murray, River John	
Dr. D. A. Campbell, Bridgewater	
Dr. D. F. MacDonald, Yarmouth	
Dr. E. B. Hall, Bridgetown	
Dr. H. K. MacDonald, Halifax	
Dr. P. A. MacDonald, Halifax	
Dr. D. R. MacRae, Sydney Mines	
Dr. T. R. Ford, Liverpool	
Dr. H. V. Kent, Tfuro	
Dr. J. F. McCauley, Sydney	
Dr. John Rankin, Halifax	
Dr. Digout, St. Peters	
Dr. L. R. Meech, North Sydney	
Dr. W. V. Goodwin, Pugwash	
Dr. M. R. Young, Pictou	
Dr. W. T. McKeough, Sydney Mines.. ..
Dr. J. H. McDonald. Sherbrooke	
Drs. Mathers & Doull, Halifax	
Dr. A. E. Macintosh, Amherst	
Dr. G. W. T. Farish, Yarmouth	
Dr. Russell C. Zinck, Lunenburg	
Dr. R. C. Zinck, Lunenburg	
Dr. W. N. Rehfuss, Bridgewater	
Dr. T. A. Kirkpatrick, Kentville	
Dr. A. A. Shaffner, Halifax	
Dr. A. M. Wilson, Barrington	
Dr. L. 0. Fuller, Shelburne	
Dr. W. P. Mackasie, Halifax	
Dr. J. J. Carroll, Antigonish	
Dr. J. N. McDonald, Sherbrooke	
Dr. J. P. McKenna, Antigonish	
Dr. J. W. Merritt, Halifax	
Dr. W. W. Patton, Point Morien	
Dr. J. S. Munro, North Sydney	
Dr. D. MacMillan, Sheet Harbour	
Dr. A. F. McGregor, New Glasgow	
Dr. W. F. Robbins. New Glasgow	
Dr. R. M. Benvie, Stellarton	
Dr. E. S. Mackenzie, New Glasgow	
Dr. T. T. Monaghan, Sherbrooke	
Dr. J. N. Smith, Guysborough	
Dr. J. W. Sutherland, Amherst	
Dr. T. J. Wallace, Halifax	
Dr. N. MacDonald, Sydney Mines	
Dr. C. H. Morris, Windsor	
Dr. J. W. T. Patton, Truro	
Dr. G. A. Dunn, Pictou	
Dr. H. 0. Homans, Hubbards	
Dr. S. T. Florian. North Ingonish	
Dr. J. R. McLeod, Point Hawkesbury.. ..

1932	1933	1934	Total
		25 00	25 00
40 00	10 00		50 00
3 00			3 00
75 00			75 00
27 00	2'66	67 50	96 50
5 00			5 00
24 00	83 00	107 0O5 00	9 50	14 506 00	6 0055 00	55 005 00	5 005 00	5 0072 00	47'66	119 0016 00	16 009 00	25 00	34 0056 20	56 20140 40	140 4012 00	12 005 00	5 0028 00	ioi"66	189 006 00	34 50	40 5033 00	33 002 00	36" 66	38 0010 50	38 50	48 5515 00	15 00113 45	164 '66	29 25	306 7029 00	19 00	48 005 00	5 005 00	50 "66	130'66	185 005 00	19 25	24 2522 00	5 50	27 5014 00	28 00	42 008 00	8 006 66	9 0018 25	18 2541 50	41 5020 25	20 2540 00	40 00100 00	100 008 00	8 00ii *66	li'oo35 00	35 0047 65	47 6526 15	26 15225 50	34 50	260 004 00	4 005 00	5 0011 00	11 002 00	2 0010 00	10 0083 00	83 0016 00	16 004 85	4 8535 00	35 007 50	7 5048 00	48 0030 00	36" 66	60 0018 00	....	18 0018 00	18 00128 00	128 0010 15	....	10 156 00	6 0015 25	15 252 00	-	2 002i'66*	2i "662 00	2 005 00	5 003 00	3 0021 50	36 66	57 5017 00	17 002 00	2 00
Questions
Name-Address
Dr. A. J. McNeil, Mabou	
Dr. James Proudfoot. Inverness.. Dr. J. J. MacKay, New Glasgow.. Dr. H. F. Sutherland, Guysborougk Dr. T. M. Sieniewicz, Halifax.. .. Dr. T. A. Tupper, Lunenburg. . .. Dr. J. A. Bergeron, Matane, Que.. Dr. Leon Pelletier, Gaspe, Que.. .. Dr. Gerald C. W, Bliss, Amherst.. Dr. J. S. Munro, North Sydney.. . Dr. D. F. MacDonald, Yarmouth.. Dr. Charles Fuller, Yarmouth.. .. Dr. P. A. MacDonald, Halifax.. ..
Dr. T. E. Ford, Liverpool	
Dr. H. M. Eaton, Halifax	
Dr. R. M. Benvie, Stellarton	
Dr. H. K. MacDonald, Halifax.. .
Dr. W. Q. Dickie. Digby	
Dr. F. R. Davis, Bridgewater.. ..
Dr. J. R. McCleave, Digby	
Dr. B. Miller, New Waterford. . ..
Dr. F. J. McLeod, Inverness	
Dr. G. R. Forbes, Kentville	
Dr. W. G. Dawson, Halifax	
Dr. D. A. Haverstock. Halifax. . .
Dr. S. K. Oldfield. Halifax	
Dr. A. W. Faulkner, Halifax	
Dr. A. Robichaud, Tracadie	
Dr. S. W. Spicer, Kentville	
Pathological
Name-Address
Dr. R. P. Smith, Halifax	
New Brunswick-
Dr. E. H. Freeman, Chatham	
Dr. E. F. Woolverton, Woodstock	
Dr. A. R. Landry, Moncton	
Dr. G. A. Mowatt, Campbellton	
Dr. J. R. Lockhart, Edmundston	
Dr. A. F. Vanwart, Fredericton	
Dr. A. L. Gerow, Fredericton	
Dr. W. H. Coffyn, Bathurst	
Dr. G. C. Legere, Buetouche	
Dr. J. A. Guy, Shippegan	
Dr. D, B. McKenzie, Chatham	
Dr. L. H. Price, Moncton	
Dr. E. 0. Thomas, St. Stephen.. .. ['
Dr. R. L. Ellis, Jacquet River	
Dr. D. C. Malcolm, Saint John	
Dr. R. G. Girvan, Moncton	
Dr. J. E. Garnwath, Riverside.. .. !. !
Dr. H. M. Gardiner, Minto	
Sr" 5' Clarke, St. Stephen	
Dr. C. A. Clouthier, St. Leonards.. ..
Dr. B. F. Johnson, Saint John	
Dr. G. C. Vanwart, Fredericton	!
Dr. A. B. McKenzie, Loggieville	
Dr. F. J. Cheesman, St. George.. ..
Dr. M. E. Cummins, Bath. .	"
Dr. R. D. MacNeill, Port Elgin.'.'	"
Dr. J. F. Macaulay, Grand Manan	
Dr. E. Chiasson, Dalhousde	
Dr. G. B. Peat, Saint John	"
Dr. R. Boulay, Kedgewick . . .. " j] "
Dr. C. J. Veniot, Bathurst	
Dr. H. J. Taylor, St. George	 "
Dr. J. A. Leblanc, Shippegan	
Dr. F. R. Connell, Saint John	
Dr. F. E. Burden, Moncton	
Dr. H. R. Dean, Sussex	
Dr. T. E. Kennedy, Sussex	''
Dr. L. E. Rodidoux, Shediac	
Dr. J. A. M. Bell, Newcastle	
Dr. F. C. Simns, Edmundston	
1932	1933	1934	Total
	5 00		5 00
	7 50		7 50
	11 00		11 00
	16 00	31'66	47 00
	25 00		25 00
	6 00		6 00
	5 00		5 00
	3 50		3 50
	2 00		2 00
	59 50	8i 50	141 00
	34 75		34 75
	55 00		55 00
	110 00		110 00
	26 50		26 50
	48 25		48 25
	100'66		100'66
	106 50		106 50
	29 00		29 00
	55 00		55 00
	39 99		39 00
		189'66	189 00
		44 00	44 00
		72 00	72 00
		45 00	45 00
		72 50	72 50
		48 50	48 50
		39 50	39 50
Examinations	39 00	39 001932	1933	1934	Total40 00	40 0015 00	15 0029 00	169'66	ii "66	209 00159 00	372 00	110 50	641 5015 00	60 30	75 30	150 6024 00	3 00	27 00118 00	335 00	87 '66	540 006 00	86 00	27 00	119 0012 85	24 00	29 35	66 2037 00	50 00	8 00	95 006 00	6 007 65	7 6532 00	47'66	79 0012 00	13 00	12 *66	37 00* 2 00	2 0026 00	160'66	126'66	306 0025 00	25 00i6*6o	ii *66	21 0013 00	2 00	15 005 00	4 00	9 0024 00	3 00	27 0024 00	24 0062 00	84*66	146 00100 00	100 0059 45	1535	74 8031 00	28 00	59 002 00	2 0039 60	7666	109 6012 00	12 004 00	4 004 00	8*75	12 751 00	1 003 00	3 0019 50	19 503 00	3 0012 00	12 0012 50	12 5054 00	38 *66	92 0023 00	23 0010 00	68*66	78 0010 00	10 00
Questions


BANK OF CANADA-ASSETS
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	What were the total assets of the Bank of Canada when it opened for business?
2.	What were the various amounts of such assets under headings of: (1) dominion gold; (2) hank gold; (3) securities; (4) Canadian government account; (5) assets of any other nature?
Mr. RHODES;
1 and 2. In so far as the government is in a position to give the information, the answer to the questions will be found in the statement of assets and liabilities of the
(Mr. Guthrie.]
Bank of Canada published in the Canada Gazette on the 16th of March, supplemented by the following:
The amount of gold held as security for dominion notes in circulation, transferred to the bank was $69,455,439.44, valued at $20.67 a fine ounce.


BANK OF CANADA-GOLD FROM CHARTERED BANKS
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	When did the Bank of Canada open for
business?
2.	Howr much gold was taken over from the chartered banks of Canada?

Questions as Orders for Returns
3.	At ivhat valuation?
4.	How much gold was left with the chartered banks?
5.	Can the chartered banks dispose of such gold at present market values?
0.	Who decided how much of the bank gold should be left with the chartered banks?
7. Was an order in council passed with reference to this?
8 On what basis was the amount fixed?
9.	What was the number, if any, of such order in council?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	On March 11, 1935.
2 to 9. Section 28 of the Bank of Canada Act requires that every chartered bank shall transfer to the Bank of Canada all gold coin and bullion owned and held by it in Canada. The transfer is made at the present standard value fixed by the Currency Act. The Bank of Canada Act provides that any profit resulting from the sale of gold transferred to the bank, or resulting from any change in the monetary standard, shall be paid into the consolidated revenue fund. It is provided, however, that if the governor in council is satisfied that the gold at the time of transfer was held against liabilities elsewhere in Canada, the profit shall belong to the chartered bank. The governor in council has not yet taken action under this provision.


BANK OF CANADA-NOTES ISSUED
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	To what total amount have notes been issued by the Bank of Canada?
2.	In what denominations have such notes Seen issued?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	According to the statement of assets and liabilities of the Bank of Canada, as at March 13, 1935-897,805,664.94.
2.	$1, $2, $5, $10, 820, 850, $100, $500 and
81,000.


BANK OF CANADA-SOLICITORS
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Has the Bank of Canada appointed any particular firm as solicitors or legal advisers tor the bank?
2 If so, which firm?
3.	What are the terms and conditions in regard to salary, etc., on which such firm has been engaged?


Mr. RHODES:: 1,	2 and 3. The Government has no information.


MAIL SERVICE-L'lMMACULEE CONCEPTION  ST. ALEXIS, QUE.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Were tenders called for on January 4th last by the Post Office Department for the mail service between LTmmaculee Conception, St. Alexis de Mata,pedia, and St. Alexis station?
2.	If so, were any tenders received, from whom, and at what figure?
3.	Has any contract been awarded?
4.	If not, what is the cause of the delay?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
4.	Matter is still under consideration. (Translation)


ADVERTISING BY RADIO ON SUNDAYS
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the government received a request from the Federation of Catholic Workmen of Canada asking that advertising by radio be prohibited on Sundays in Canada?
2.	If so, has any action been taken to give effect to this request?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The matter was immediately referred to the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission.


FARM MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS
Mr. LAURIN:: What was the farmers' mortgage debt from 1911 to 1921, and in 1931?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Figures showing farmers' mortgage debt from 1911 to 1921 not available.
The total farm mortgage indebtedness in Canada as of June 1, 1931, was estimated at S726,026,500.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What is the total amount paid to the Hon. G. Howard Ferguson, high commissioner in London, from the date of his appointment until now?
2.	During that period, did he spend anything for entertainments?
3.	If so, what is the total of that expenditure?
4.	What was the total cost of the high commissioner's office in London from August 1, 1930, until now?


Mr. CAHAN:: Return tabled herewith.
Questions as Orders for Returns


CANADIAN MINISTER-WASHINGTON
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What was the total amount paid to the Hon. W. D. Herridge, His Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Canadian Minister Plenipotentiary at Washington, from June 1, 1931, until now?
2.	During that period, did he spend anything for entertainments?
3.	If so, what is the total of that expenditure?
4.	What was the total cost of the Canadian legation in Washington from June 1, 1931, until now?
5.	Since his appointment as minister plenipotentiary, did the said Hon. W. D. Herridge leave the Canadian legation at Washington?
6.	If so, how many times and how long each time?
7.	During the same period, did the said Hon. W. D. Herridge spend some time in Ottawa?
8.	If so, how many times and how long each time?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Return tabled herewith.



NATIONAL DEBT

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: What was the national debt of the dominion of Canada: (a) direct; (b) guaranteed, at the end of the fiscal years 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, and at the present time?



BANK OP CANADA-PREMISES

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	What premises are being used by the Bank of Canada: (a) at headquarters; (b) in the various provinces?
2.	Are such premises federal property, or have they been rented?
3.	If the latter, from whom, for what period, and on what terms in each case?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would like this question to stand as an order for return, but I want to make the observation that the return can only be responded to so far as the knowledge is in the possession of the government.



DEPARTMENT OF PENSIONS EMPLOYEES, MONTREAL

Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	What is the number of employees of the Department of Pensions and National Health at Montreal?
2.	What are their names?
3.	At what date was each one appointed?
4.	What are their respective salaries?
5.	Was every one appointed by the civil service commission after competitive examination?
6.	Are they bilingual?
7.	What are the names of those who served during the last war?



RETURNS FROM TAXATION

Mr. POULIOT:: What were, from 1931 to date, the total returns of each of the following changes of the 1931 budget to taxation and tariff:
1.	Sales tax increase to 4 per cent, from 1 per cent;
2.	Postage, one cent more on all letters;
3.	Half cent increase per pound postage on newspapers and periodicals;
4.	Two cent tax stamp on all cheques irrespective of the amount;
5.	Two per cent increase of income tax on corporations;
6.	Special excise tax of one per cent imposed on all goods imported into Canada;
7.	One per cent tax on the net premiums received by insurance companies in Canada;
8.	Fifteen per cent tax on Canadian property owners who have insured their property with British or foreign companies which are not licensed in Canada;
9.	Increased duties on a number of agricultural and fruit products including live hogs, fresh meats, bacon and hams, shell eggs, cheese, hops, hay, seeds, canned fruits, vegetables, and oranges;
10.	Increased duties on automobiles priced at more than $1,200?
What were, from 1931 to date, the total returns of each of the following changes of the 1931 budget to taxation and tariff:
1.	Increases on certain manufactured steel products:
2.	Specific duty of 15 per cent per pound on magazines and periodicals;
3.	Increased duty on wood products, including furniture, veneers, golf clubs, tennis racquets, etc.;
4.	Increases on linen and pure silk fabrics, leather, watches and clocks, tea and other goods;
5.	Imposition of excise duties upon the products of a manufacturer who used the customs tariff rates to increase prices to the consumer;
li.	For the forfeiture of goods imported from a country not a signatory to the treaty of V ersailles ?
What were, from 1932 to date, the total returns of each of the following changes of the 1932 budget to taxation:
1.	Sales tax increase from 4 per cent to 6 per cent;
2.	Increase by 2 per cent of excise tax on all goods imported into Canada;
3.	Reduction of personal income tax exemption for those with dependents, from $3,900 to $2,400 and those without dependents, from $1,500 to $1,200;
4.	Discontinuation of 20 per cent reduction until then allowed from tax payable under established schedule of rates;
5.	Five per cent surcharge on the amount of tax payable, imposed on all taxpayers, personal and corporate, with net incomes in excess of $5,000;
6.	Increase of corporation rate to 11 per cent?

Motions for Papers
What were, from 1932 to date, the total returns of each of the following changes of the 1932 budget to taxation:
1.	The tax of one per cent on premiums received by insurance companies;
2.	The tax of 15 per cent on gross premiums;
3.	The tax increase from 2 cents to 3 cents on cheques, money orders, and on promissory notes, bills of exchange, etc., on amounts up to ? 100 and 6 cents over $100;
4.	The 5 cent tax placed on telegrams, cables and radio messages and long distance telephone calls;
0.	The 10 per cent tax on railway sleeping car berths, with a minimum of 25 cents and 10 cents on chair ear tickets?
(aj What were, from 1933 to 1934, the total returns of the special excise tax of 2 cents per pound on sugar?
(b) What were, from July 1, 1934, to date, the total returns of the special excise tax of one cent per pound on sugar?
What were, from 1933 to date, the total returns of each of the following changes of the 1933 budget to taxation:
1.	A special excise tax of 10 per cent on cosmetics and toilet preparations;
2. Special excise tax of five per cent on automobile tires and tubes;
3. Special excise tax of 2 cents per 100 leaves of cigarette papers;
4.	Special excise tax of 5 cents per 50 tubes of cigarette tubes;
5.	Special excise tax of 25 cents per gallon of unfermented wort;
6.	Special excise tax of 50 cents per pound on malt syrup or powder, extract of malt or other malt products for the brewing of beer?
What were, from 1933 to date, the total returns of each of the following changes of the 1933 budget to taxation:
1.	(a) Increase to 12i per cent on incomes of
corporations; (b) removal of $2,000 exemption; (c)	13J per cent tax on corporations filing
consolidated returns;
2.	Reduction of personal income tax exemption: (a) from $2,400 to $2,000; (b) from $1,200 to $1,000, and (c) in the case of dependent children, from $500 to $400;
3.	The new schedule of rates of taxation on personal incomes, commencing at 3 per cent on the first $1,000 to taxable income?
What were, from 1933 to date, the total returns of each of the following changes of the 1933 budget to taxation:
1.	Five per cent tax on non-residents;
2.	Five per cent tax on interest or dividends cashed at a premium?
What were, from 1933 to date, the total returns of each of the following changes of the 1933 budget:
1.	Removal of 3 cent stamp tax exemption on cheques of $5 or under;
2.	Increase of tax on postal notes from one cent to three cents;
3.	Increase to $2.50 per proof gallon of excise duty on distilled spirits used in the manufacture of proprietary medicine, extracts, essences, perfumed spirits and pharmaceutical preparations;
4.	Excise duty of $1 per proof gallon on sp;rits used in the fortifying of native wines?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. LAFLECHE:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents, in the possession of the Department of National Defence, regarding the relief camp for unemployed at Bishopton, Wolfe county, Quebec, since the opening of said camp to date.


Joseph-François Laflèche: Dropped.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.



JOLIETTE, QTJE.-PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION

Mr. FERLAND:: For a copy of all documents, contracts, tenders, correspondence, paylists, and accounts with respect to certain works done in the city of Joliette pursuant to the Public Works Construction Act, 1934.



BANK OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) if any applications for loans have been made to the Bank of Canada by any of the provinces and, if so, what provinces have made such applications?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I would not
be in a position to answer that question even if such applications had been made, but so far as I am aware there have been no applications.



PACIFIC COAST SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Reid: I should like to direct a complaint to the leader of the government. I introduced a resolution urging that consideration be given to the employment of white Canadian seamen on subsidized ships. That resolution was adapted by this house on January 28; it is now March 20, but so far no action has been taken in regard to it. I would urge upon the leader of the government that something be done to have this matter considered in committee and disposed of.


Right Hon.   S@: May I ask to what page of Hansard my hon. friend refers?


Thomas Reid: I do not know the page, but the motion passed the house on January 28.
Prince Edward Island Potatoes



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND POTATOES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: I should
like to direct a question to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). Owing to the fact that a large portion of the potato crop in the province of Prince Edward Island and the other maritime provinces has not been marketed as yet, requests have been made to the railway authorities for a special rate to enable this crop to be moved in the next two months. I should like to ask the minister if any representations have been made to him and if he would be good enough to use his influence with the railway board to endeavour to have this rate put into effect?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Of course as the hon. gentleman well knows the matter of railway rates is entirely in the hands of the railways and the board of railway commissioners. I shall gladly draw his remarks to the attention of the railways, at any rate, because they would be the first to deal with the matter. I believe I have had some letters in this connection from certain organizations, and that I have already drawn the matter to the attention of the railways. While I am on my feet I might point out to the hon. gentleman that the same request comes from all sections of the country in connection with commodities other than potatoes. Each section that has a surplus, or thinks it has, expects a special rate on that particular product, and I am continually receiving letters of this kind from various sections of the country. All I can do is forward them to the railways for whatever action they may see fit to take.



KINGSTON PENITENTIARY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):: Before the orders of the day are called I want to refer to a statement made yesterday by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). On March 18 I made a statement in the house which is to be found at page 1786 of Hansard to the effect that Inspector Dawson interviewed convict No. 3033 in the lecture room of the administration building at Kingston penitentiary between 11.40 and 2.15 p.m., and that during the interview he used abusive and profane language in regard to myself and said that after he had finished his inspection I would not be

able to lift up my head in the House of Commons again. The information was supplied to me by convict No. 3033, who has served his full time and is now at large, and who is prepared to swear to the statement in any inquiry.
I was not in the house when the Minister of Justice replied yesterday, though I was in the house just a few moments later. Of course I was not in at the correct time, and I am not in the least blaming the Minister of Justice for the fact that I was not here. He said in part:
While the return went lip to April 8, 1934, on April 9 Inspector Dawson had an interview with prisoner 3033 in the penitentiary. I have made a pretty full inquiry in regard to this matter since yesterday, and I find that Inspector Dawson went to the penitentiary to make an inspection and report respecting a certain matter which had been referred' to him. After he had concluded his inspection on April 8, an interview was requested by prisoner 3033 and it is during the course of that interview

I want to refer particularly to the next sentence:
*-I think it is alleged by the hon. member for Southeast Grey that certain aspersions were made against her character as stated by her yesterday.
I repeat what I said previously; I stated that Inspector Dawson used abusive and profane language in regard to myself. Honour lies within; my character is in my own keeping. I am not even concerned about what Inspector Dawson thinks of it, or anyone else for that matter. Then the Minister of Justice went on to say:
I can assure her that there is no foundation for the report. The inspector himself made no report on this interview.
That is interesting. I asked for three copies of the new penitentiary rules and regulations, which I have not received as yet though I understand the superintendent -of penitentiaries wrote a memorandum in that regard last Saturday. Here was an interview that lasted for hours but no report has been made concerning it. I quote again:
When inspectors or superintendents visit a penitentiary, they have a large number of requests for interviews, but they do not make specific reports in regard to them.
However Inspector Dawson has assured me most definitely that during his interview with prisoner 3033 the name of the hon. member for Southeast Grey was never mentioned by him or by the prisoner, there was no comment whatever in regard to her, and I can assure her on the word of honour of the inspector that there is no foundation for the allegation which she has made.

Kingston Penitentiary
May I say frankly that I do not accept the word of honour of Inspector Dawson, I shall tell hon. members why. For many years I have been interested in the reform of our penal institutions-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Very well, I shall make those remarks later.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Why not continue, it is all right. Go ahead.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: -to the end that they would reform prisoners, since 73 per cent of out prison inmates return again to imprisonment. Particularly have I been interested in penal reform that the public might be protected against embittered men who have gained their release and constitute a grave menace to society. With that in mind I visited Kingston penitentiary. I had been making a speech at Queens university on Friday, February IS, and in the late forenoon of February 16, I visited Kingston penitentiary.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not wish .to interrupt the hon. member, and particularly when she is speaking on a matter of privilege. She will, of course, have the very widest ruling in the matter, but after all I should like to know what the question of privilege may be; it has not yet been raised. Would the hon. member kindly .come to the question of privilege.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: It is difficult to state the question without showing why I do not accept the word of Inspector Dawson.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: After all, if that is the point upon which the hon. member has risen, I believe she should so state, and set it out without going into further detail. I am sure the hon. member, in view of the wide experience she has had in parliamentary matters, will realize that she is not entitled to make a speech on .the matter at the present time. I am sure, moreover, that she has no desire to do so. Therefore I would ask her to be good enough kindly to state the question of privilege.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I could not hear the last part of your observations, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I said that I would ask the hon. member to be good enough to state the question of privilege. The hon. member has not the right on an occasion such as this to set forth the reasons why she does not believe so and so. If she wishes to state she
does not, well and good, but she should not give any further amplification. I must ask the hon. member kindly to state the question of privilege, and to confine her remarks to that.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I should think that when the Minister of Justice states that no statement was made regarding me in abusive and profane language, and when I believe such a statement was made, on a matter of privilege I should be permitted to state why I hold that belief.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Then, what is a question of privilege?


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is none so far.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: As yet I do not know what the question of privilege is. After all, a question of privilege is a matter of some concern to all hon. members. So far as my rulings are concerned may I say that they will tend to allow the very widest possible explanation from any member rising to a question of privilege. However there must first be a question of privilege. The hon. member made certain statements in the chamber a few days ago; she must have had good reasons for doing so, and I believe she placed those reasons on Hansard. If she wishes to make any correction in her previous speech or in the remarks made yesterday by the Minister of Justice but in her absence, she is privileged so to do. Otherwise I suggest she should not deal with the matter in a general way.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I do not intend to deal with it in a general way; but if a member of the civil service can go to a penal institution in this country and make statements regarding me which I am attempting to place on Hansard, and which as the minister explained yesterday, on the word of honour of Inspector Dawson were never made, then surely on a question of privilege I have a right to read into Hansard an affidavit by one who says these statements were made. Have I that right?


Ernest Lapointe: Surely.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If that is what the hon.
member is coming to, then I have no objection. I must say however that in her observations up to this time there was no indication of that. Further, it will be understood that the rule is being relaxed somewhat if we accept statements made by people outside the
Kingston Penitentiary

house in regard to a matter of this kind. With all due deference to the hon. member for Southeast Grey may I say the matter is one which might very well be discussed on the vote for penitentiaries appearing in the estimates, or on some allied item. I believe the discussion would more properly come under that heading. However that is only a suggestion, and if the hon. member thinks she is still personally involved, and that either her character, her action in the house or what she has placed on record has come into question, I think any further explanation she might desire to make would be permissible.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: That is what I was
attempting to do when Mr. Speaker prevented me. I do not want any special privileges in this chamber, nor do I ask for any special advantage so far as the interpretation of the rules regarding abuse are concerned. I simply want equality with other hon. members. On my visit to Kingston penitentiary on February 16, 1935 I, in the presence of WTarden Allen saw convict 3242 at the request of his brother, who is a high official in one of the British colonies. His name is prefaced by the appellation of "Honourable" and the initials C-B.E.- or some such initials, are affixed. At his request I asked Warden Allen to allow me to talk in the presence of Warden Allen with convict 3242, -whose case was so exhaustively discussed on the floor of the house last year.


An hon. MEMBER:: She knows all the
convicts.


An hon. MEMBER:: Name.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I will explain later.
When convict 3242 was brought in by Warden Allen he asked me if I knew-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member said
she was going to read some statutory declaration. Again I respectfully submit she should not go into all these details with regard to conversations with one convict or another, or with some other party outside this chamber. If the affidavit bears upon the statement she made the other day I shall rule that it is quite in order.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Very well; I shall leave further discussion until the estimates are considered and at the present time put on Hansard the affidavit to which I have referred, which was made to-day. This affidavit is made by ex-convict 3033. I must say the matter is not by any means dropped, and I am at a loss to understand what a question of privilege is.
TThe Speaker.]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: 
Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must call the hon.
member to order.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: There is only one way in which all these things can be settled, and that is by a wide-open investigation conducted, not by the people accused, but by people who are impartial, and I ask for that.



ST. ALEXIS, QUE., MAIL SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I would ask the Postmaster General kindly to look at question No. 12 on the order paper and then say if he considers that this which I hold in my hand is an answer to that question.


Hon. ARTHUR SAUVE (Postmaster General) :: I answered that the question was
under consideration.


Charles Marcil: Will the
hon. Postmaster General read over again question No. 12 on the order paper of to-day and tell me whether he considers that his answer is sufficient?


Arthur Sauvé: Certainly.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, referring to a matter
that was mentioned in the house the day before yesterday by my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) in regard to an alleged interview with Inspector Zaneth of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which appeared in the Montreal Herald of March 14 last, I beg to say that upon making inquiry I have received the following report from the officer commanding "C" division:
Inspector Zaneth informs me that he was rung up by the Herald reporter who said, "Have you heard that there is going to be a royal commission and that the Hon. Mr. Veniot said that the mounted police destroyed a boat and some food?" Inspector Zaneth replied that he did not know anything about it. The reporter then asked if the mounted police would destroy anything like that in the course of their duty, and Inspector Zaneth replied that no destruction of any goods would take place without the order of the department concerned. That was the whole of the telephone conversation.
1S90

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Rinjret



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 41, respecting relief measures.
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, before this bill is read a second time I wish to say a few words only because this matter has often been discussed in this house and we had a debate upon it on the motion for going into supply a couple of weeks ago. I wish, however, to make my attitude with regard to this bill quite plain.
On the previous occasion I stressed the necessity for federal help in this matter, and in that spirit I may say that I welcome this bill, without going into the details of it. The necessity for federal help in the matter of relief is universally acknowledged, although people differ as to the form it should take. I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of 'Labour to the fact which has perhaps been signified to him already, that in the city of Montreal not very long ago the present mayor took the stand that if federal help was not available he would not attempt to carry on, and he considered it absolutely essential on account of the unemployment situation existing in the city of Montreal that proper help should be available from this government. He also pointed out that he considered that for the last month the help that had been given by the government was not sufficient.
The present bill is similar to previous bills. It authorizes the government to do things but it does not specify exactly what the government is to do. It is carrying out the policy of a blank cheque, which policy has been discussed before. During the time when I was acting in the dual capacity of mayor of Montreal and member of this house I voted against my hon. friends on this side because I considered that the federal government should do its part in meeting the relief situation. As to how the government does its part is perhaps a matter for discussion in the committee stage. I am quite willing to support this bill but I regret that it is another blank cheque. It not only enables the government to do everything it pleases but it enables the government to do less than it should. I would prefer if the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) would indicate what the government intends to do for the municipalities in the different provinces in the way of relief. I have no

doubt that this bill will pass but I think the minister should give an explanation as to how he intends to use the bill for the few months he will be in office.
The question of delays comes up every time the relief situation is discussed. I do not intend to revive that issue to-day as the minister has always been very insistent that his department was not responsible for the delays. The Quebec government takes the same .position as do the Montreal authorities who disclaim the accusation that they are slow in producing their accounts. Inasmuch as the government is expected to pay a certain sum I do not see why it considers it necessary to wait until all accounts are checked before making payments. After all, the provincial governments are solvent as are most of the municipalities. If there should happen to be a delay in checking accounts I think it should be possible to pay a city like Montreal a certain amount on account. I am sometimes reproached for having been at the head of the administration of that city, it being said that I should not discuss these matters. I think it is just the other way around. Whatever public opinion may be as to how the city was administered during the two years I was mayor, I think everyone will admit that I have acquired considerable experience in municipal matters. I say to the minister that it is very embarrassing for the administration of a large city like Montreal to have to wait months before it receives payments from Quebec and Ottawa. The city has lost considerable in interest because of payments which were not received in time. This has added considerably to the burden which the city has to carry.
1 do not wish to speak any longer on this matter as I expressed my opinion during the debate two or three weeks ago on the motion to go into supply. I repeat that I do not like bills of this kind which are not precise in their text and which allow considerable leeway to the government. We seem to be indulging more and more in government by commissions and by orders in council. Practically every bill which has been before the house this session calls for a commission. We are drifting more and more away from the system of parliamentary representation; we are giving to commissions the work which should be done by the representatives of the people. In this instance no commission is contemplated but the government is reserving the right to do what it pleases, to increase or reduce the amounts to be paid for relief to the different provinces.

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Heaps
I consider that the unemployment situation is primarily a federal obligation and I think the government should be in a position to discuss in detail the policy which it intends to follow. I think it is a good policy to construct public works in order to provide employment and the government has had the endorsafion and approbation of this side of the house in its hope that by a new policy of reforms it will create employment for a larger number of people. I contend that public works which are not needed providte only an artificial means of meeting the unemployment situation. The only cure will be through a return to normal conditions, through an expansion of trade and a recurrence of industrial activity. This is such a common sense truth that it is not necessary to stress it. No matter how many public works may be constructed throughout the country there will always 'be a certain number of unemployed in the larger centres. This will be so until there is a return of normal conditions in this and perhaps in other countries. In the meantime the government cannot escape its responsibility. This bill indicates that it is quite willing to meet that responsibility but I repeat that the minister should indicate in a more precise way what the federal government intends to do and to what extent it is ready to meet its obligations.
My remarks are not inspired by any political thoughts. I realize as well as any hon. member and perhaps better than most the extraordinary difficulties connected with this problem. However, if there was a time when the federal government should not shirk its responsibility, it is the present. The situation is very serious as many municipalities have practically given up hope of meeting the expenses which will be incurred in this respect. Even Montreal with its policy of heavy taxation will be able to meet only the immediate deficit in the municipal budget. The city will not be able to carry on if the government comes to its assistance in only a half hearted manner. 'It is not a question of limiting the amount, it is a question of meeting the difficulties as they present themselves. Therefore I will approve of the second reading of this bill in the hope that when we discuss the matter more fully we shall get a very detailed and precise statement from the government as to its intentions.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: With one part of the speech delivered by the previous speaker (Mr. Rinfret) I am heartily in 92582-120
agreement. I think that the present unemployment situation puts too great a burden on our municipal authorities. At the present time many of the municipal bodies are almost breaking under the load which the unemployment situation places upon them. I think that the situation as it exists to-day may be called normal; we may have to wait a long time before we return to conditions as they were seven or eight years ago. The municipalities at one time were expected to take care of indigent cases within their own boundaries and as a result of the unemployment problem having assumed the vast proportions it has, it has become almost impossible for the municipalities to carry the enormous burden. Even when the present opposition was in power I suggested that unemployment had become so acute a problem as to have become more or less a national burden, and that the federal government should undertake the responsibility. For after all the municipalities are not in the least degree responsible for unemployment within their own borders, and if the causes of unemployment are national in their scope then the federal government ought to assume full responsibility for the situation. I believe that the added burden placed on municipalities by the federal government last year was a mistake, and I hope that before the bill is finally adopted in this house we shall have a statement from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) that the government intends to a very large extent to relieve the municipalities and if possible the provincial governments as well of the burden which they are carrying at the present time.
Another aspect of the question is this. I think it is a fact that every member of this house, irrespective of party, dislikes the idea of giving this form of relief to men and women, to those who are dependent on the public authority for relief. I think that parliament ought to get down during this session to something fundamental to deal with the unemployment situation, something more fundamental than the granting of this form of dole, which is the worst form of relief one can possibly think of. In my opinion the conditions in which we find ourselves at the present time are by no means abnormal, because conditions that have been in existence for a period of five years may be regarded as having become normal. We shall probably within the next few years at least be obliged to take care of quite a large number of our people in this country by means of relief, and I should like to see the government of the day, whatever government is in



Unemployment Relief-Mr. Coote
power, take the question seriously into consideration and find for these men and women more useful ways of spending their lives than by waiting for the government to hand them relief. I should like to see our men and women absorbed in some town of useful and productive activity. My main purpose in speaking is to try to obtain from the government some promise, some pledge that they will make it easier for the civic governments to proceed in the giving of relief to those who come within their jurisdiction, because many of our municipalities to-day are on the verge of bankruptcy. If they are forced to go the way the city of Vancouver is going and the way the city of Hull proposes to go in the near future, if they are forced into a condition similar to that which now exists in Montreal, the financial capital of the dominion, whose authorities say that they cannot afford to maintain the unemployed within their borders, and if as I believe the unemployment problem is a federal responsibility, then I submit that the federal government should assume that obligation.


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: I had hoped that as part of the reform program which the government have introduced this session there would be some new methods suggested of dealing with the problem of unemployment. I particularly object to the present method because it places on the municipalities the onus of taking care of the unemployed. Every time I have spoken on the problem during the present term of parliament I have objected to this attitude both of the present government and of the former government. The policies which determine the possibilities of employment for our people are determined by this parliament, by this cabinet, and the municipalities are perfectly helpless in the matter. They are victims of bad policies which are initiated or allowed to develop through action or inaction in this house. Our policies in regard to trade and commerce, tariffs, immigration, railway rates and particularly in regard to the whole question of money and credit-these are the things that determine the chance of the people to get employment; and because of bad policy in connection with all these various matters we have the present condition of unemployment.
There is no good excuse for unemployment in a new country like Canada. The municipalities are helpless to do much in the matter; the provinces are really helpless, and the responsibility rests on this house. It is a national problem that should be dealt with in a national way. If it is the considered
fMr. Heaps.]
opinion of the government that they will not care for it except through unemployment relief or the dole, then the government should provide the dole. I do not believe in taking care of unemployment in that way. As I say, in a new country like Canada, undeveloped and with great national resources, with numbers of workmen the equal of any in the world, there is no excuse for unemployment. We have it because of our own stupidity. But why should this parliament inflict on the municipalities this task of taking care of the unemployed? I notice in this morning's Citizen that the cities, being unable under the present financial system to cope with the problem, have gone so far as to instruct the police to prevent people from moving in. According to the Citizen the mayor of Ottawa has issued to the chief of police the order that if families are not bona fide residents of Ottawa they will be ordered out of the city. I quote that to show the point to which our cities have been driven. After four years of taking care of the unemployed by the present method, the cities are being forced into bankruptcy, and I say that with a full realization of the conditions. There are several cities in Canada-I will not name them

which I think are virtually bankrupt to-day, and certain provinces are almost in the same position. They have had to be helped by the federal government and the reason they are in that position is, as I have stated, that wrong policies have been initiated in this parliament. I should like to see parliament take a determined stand on the matter. Let us say that it is the responsibility of the federal parliament to deal with the problem of unemployment. It would not be quite so bad if by legislation we did not go so far as to prevent the cities from doing one of the few things that they perhaps could do to deal with this question. We make them financially responsible for taking care of the unemployed, but the only sources from which they can get the finances to do it are either the citizens by taxation or the banks by borrowing. We will not allow them to create a little money of their own; section 138 of the Bank Act imposes a fine of $400 on any one except a bank who issues money or substitutes for money. When that act was being passed through this house a year ago some of us discussed this question for an hour or two in an endeavour to have that section deleted. It prevents some of the municipalities from issuing a certain amount of municipal scrip which otherwise I think they could do and so provide in some degree for the unemployed, but by legislation we prevent them from going even that far. So

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Hackett
that the only method at their disposal of taking care of the unemployed is by raising money either through loans from the banks, or taxing their ratepayers, and in many cases the rate of taxation has become so high that it has destroyed the value of the property on which it is levied. Personally I can no longer sit still in this house and see this burden imposed upon the municipalities and the provinces without voicing my protest.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): I shall not attempt to follow the argument of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) or the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) because they both profess economic doctrines which are a complete denial and reversal of accepted doctrine in Canada at the present time. I shall however direct a few remarks to the observations of the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret). He has put forward in a mild and bland way the suggestion that the federal government should contribute large and definite amounts to the maintenance of the unemployed in the cities. I have no quarrel with the method or the manner of his presentation, but is not his suggestion this, that this parliament should pour untold treasure into the laps of the civic adminstrations, there to be spent without let or hindrance and without control of those who are supplying the funds? I venture to suggest that the hon. member for St. James would not care to see the administration of the cities and the spending of the money controlled by the federal authority. He is, I believe-and I have no quarrel with him on this point-a pronounced and avowed believer in provincial rights, and would resent any encroachment by the federal authority whether by control or by direction, upon provincial or municipal policy in the expenditure of money. Many people believe that the administration of some cities, and in particular of the city of Montreal, has not been beyond reproach, and many believe that some of the financial problems that confront Montreal to-day are to some extent due to unskilful administration of the affairs of that city. Therefore it does not seem to me reasonable that the federal treasury should be asked to contribute large amounts to the requirements of Montreal unless it were to have control over the disbursement of those moneys, and I doubt very much whether the hon. member for St. James would be willing to concede that control.
After all, unemployment results from the fact that people cannot find work in the production of goods which may be sold. For a time there was great industrial activity in our cities; it has now subsided, and for the last 92582-1204
four or five or even six years there has been a dropping off in employment. There has been some revival in recent months, but I doubt very much whether any one who looks into the figures carefully can find reason to hope that all the unemployed can again find gainful occupation in the industrial life of this country. It seems to me that loss of equilibrium is fundamental to the troubles that we are now experiencing, and that until a policy is initiated which will put the people who are now dependent upon the dole where they can provide for themselves food and shelter and clothing, we are bound to be afflicted by the ills resulting from unemployment. The hon. member for Macleod did make a reference to the abundant resources of the country, but those resources are not open to development by men who are out of work and are being fed by the municipalities and the provinces aided by the dominion. Until colonization becomes definitely and exclusively the prerogative of the dominion, in which event our constitution would have to be amended accordingly, we must look to those who exercise control over that department of our national life to reestablish this equilibrium. So long as people are permitted to remain in the cities and receive weekly allowances more or less adequate to their requirements, so long will this disequilibrium continue. I believe that a solution could be found by taking back to the land numbers of those who have come into the cities from the rural districts. I have said frequently in the house that I do not advocate sending these people to remote parts of the country, but a few acres in settled districts could be made available at moderate cost to those now unemployed in the cities. I believe that if this housing plan of which we are hearing so much, and which is now occupying the attention of a special committee of the house, were amended to provide small homes in the old and settled districts at low prices, a definite step would be taken towards solving this problem. Paying out money to feed people from day to day, when there is but slight chance of the majority of them becoming again self-sustaining, seems to me to be a policy which does not lead to permanent relief. I therefore again suggest to the minister that the provinces be made to understand that unless they are willing to abandon their prerogative as regards colonization, and unless the cities are willing to make over the administration and control of relief to the federal authorities, permanent assistance from the federal treasury should not be anticipated.
1894	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Lapointe


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I cannot see my way clear to support the second reading of this bill, for reasons which are very few but very definite. This parliament was elected in 1930 on the statement and the assertion that unemployment had 'become a national problem, that it was a problem that had become so wide in its scope that it was a matter for the dominion parliament to deal with and a question for the dominion parliament to solve. (I am opposed to the second reading of this bill because after five years of administration no relief program and no program to solve unemployment as yet has been placed before this parliament and the people of Canada. Indeed a blank cheque, instead of being a program, is a confession of failure, an admission that there is no program. I quite realize that the first year a measure of this kind was proposed in this parliament the government may have had some measure of justification for pleading that they had not had time to deal with suoh an important question as unemployment, but this has been going on for five years. This is the fifth session in which a measure of this kind, a blank cheque, has been presented for the endorsation of parliament, and it comes just at the end of the time fixed by statute for the duration of parliament.
Well, I do not think the government are justified in introducing such a measure this year. We were hoping, as some hon. gentlemen said, that in this reform program there would be a measure to deal with unemployment, but I think everyone will agree that in no bill that has been introduced this session and that has been called a measure of reform has there been anything that could in any way alleviate the serious unemployment which is distressing the country at the present time.
My other reason is also very definite and very simple. The same clauses against which we have always protested, including that clause having to do with peace, order and good government, which gives the government the right to do anything whether or not it is in the statutes, are included in this bill, and I do not think that at this time, after the government have been at the head of affairs for more than the usual term of office, we would 'be justified in giving them this power to do anything, whether it is or is not already in the law. So far as I am concerned I confess that I have not a sufficient degree of confidence in the government to entrust them with that power.


Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, it would be very distasteful .to me to place myself in any position as a result of which it might be represented that in any sense il otpposed the voting of money for the relief of the distressed and unemployed people of Canada, and certainly I do not intend to take any such action. At the moment I rise not to discuss the policies or lack of policies which have resulted in the present condition of unemployment but to refer more particularly to the- question raised by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) and the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), as to the method of relief which should be adopted at this time, especially with regard to the municipalities.
I think it will be admitted even by hon, gentlemen opposite that what has been done already by the government in the way of what is called reform legislation can have no possible bearing on the question of curing unemployment. What has been done-I do not like to use the word-is more or less trivial in the effect it can have on the present situation. It can have no great bearing at all on the question of curing unemployment. The unemployment insurance bill, while laudable in its intention, it must be admitted will not help in the slightest degree the people who are now unemployed.
It has been said that there is some improvement, that there is more employment in the country than there was previously. In some degree that may be true; speaking of my own city I think perhaps there is a little more employment than there was a few months ago, although I believe that in the last few months we have been slipping in that respect, if I may use that term. But the fact remains that to-day in that city- and I do no suppose it stands alone in that respect-we are spending more money for relief than we ever spent before. The reason, I think, is that people who for the last two or three years have lived on their savings, now find themselves without means and under the necessity of applying to the municipality for relief.
As I said at the outset I am not going to discuss the policies of the government, or whether or not they are entirely responsible for the condition in which we find ourselves. I do agree, however, with the hon. member who preceded me, the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), that in the last five years there has not been developed any definite plan for the cure of unemployment or any definite, systematic plan that can be recommended as having been successful in

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Euler
the distribution of relief. I agree with the hon. member for North Winnipeg and the hon. member for Macleod that the care of the unemployed has become more than ever a national duty. Speaking for my own city, and I believe for a good many other municipalities, the burden of relief is becoming heavier than the municipalities can bear, and I think it has become a matter not only of right and duty but almost of absolute necessity for the federal government seriously to consider taking over if not the entire burden of relief at least a very much greater share than they have assumed up to the present.
My hon. friend from Quebec East has objected to the bill on the ground that it again grants a blank cheque. We on this side have always disagreed with that procedure, and I am not retreating from that position. If there were any justification for again giving the government a blank cheque, however, it might lie in the fact that in the mind of ,tthe government to-day there is some intentioin of taking over a greater share of the sums required for the relief of the people in the municipalities, and relieving the municipalities to a greater extent than is being done at the present time. I am quite sure the minister will, and certainly I believe he should in his explanation, tell us a little more about the government's intention concerning the proportion of relief they propose to undertake on behalf of the municipalities. I have risen for this purpose, namely, to say that the government should do something to help the municipalities- and for two reasons. In the first place, as has been said before, the matter of unemployment has become of national importance. The people in these municipalities are not simply citizens of Kitchener, Montreal, Quebec or any other city, but they are citizens of Canada. For that reason I say it becomes the duty of the government of Canada to assist those municipalities. Secondly, I would call attention to the absolute impossibility of some of those municipalities continuing longer the contributions they have made in the past.
If the minister has not already considered the matter I would suggest that he consider seriously having the federal government relieve the municipalities, if not entirely then to a much greater extent than obtains at the present time, of this burden of taking care of the unemployed.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, for several years past possibly at some risk of criticism I have supported the government on their relief measures, even
when they have asked for blank cheques, because I have realized that the- unemployed had to be cared for. The government was functioning in very difficult times, and had its hands very full. However, now that the government has been in power for nearly five years, and after the radio speeches delivered by the Prime Minister I had hoped we would have before us at this session some policy other than that of recommending a blank cheque for this particular purpose. Possibly the minister will have something to say on the matter, and I shall be interested to hear his observations. I would intimate however that at the present time we have no definite plan before us, nor have we any indication that the government has any other way of meeting unemployment than has been followed during the past years.
During the first year the government, in cooperation with the provinces and municipalities, put into effect an extensive public works program. I am sorry that policy was not continued. I suppose it was withdrawn because they felt the debt created would be too great. I submit however we must recognize that if we are financing undertakings really needed for the public welfare, and if we recognize that an asset is always produced to offset a liability we should not hesitate to proceed with puiblic works which are really needed. On the one hand we have the raw material and on the other an over supply of labour.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). His observations always hold great interest for me because I believe he and I take an entirely different view of most matters which come before the house for consideration. He is of the opinion that if the provinces would give up to the federal government their right to colonization, and if the federal government would carry out an extensive program of colonization, placing people who have left the country back on the farms, all would be well. May I remind the hon. member there are very definite reasons why people have left the country to go to the cities. I believe the main reason lies in the fact that on the whole the standard of living is much higher in the city than it is in the country. Furthermore agriculture in Canada to-day is possibly at She lowest ebb it has been for generations. Surely the hon. member could not have noticed the prices which have obtained for some years past for farm products. He must realize that when wheat is selling below cost, when prime steers are selling as low as $12 or $16 per head, when sheep are selling at $1 each,
1896	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Spencer
when dressed carcasses of prime lamb are selling at 82, when butter has sold as low as from six to twelve cents per pound, and wthen eggs have sold as low as four cent to six cents per dozen, it is impossible to exipeot to put people back on the land and keep them there. Especially is that true when we realilze that other prices have not dropped proportionately. Further, if the provinces gave up their rights to colonization surely they would have to give up their rights to the land they control, something which would involve practically the giving up of their provincial rights. Surely we could not expect them to do that.
On other occasions I have drawn attention of hon. members to the fact that while we have unemployment in industry we have an over-employment problem in the country. If farming could be put on a paying basis, when most farms in Canada could quite easily use the help of an extra man, I believe we might take up the slack of unemployment, and would be adopting one of the means of curing at least for the time being the unemployment problem.
I would remind the house that the mechanization of industry and the use of solar energy constitutes one of the reasons why we have unemployment. A few days ago an hon. member stated that in Canada we have 8,000,000 horsepower created by waterpower. That would mean that we have the equivalent of eight man slaves behind every man, woman and child in the dominion. The effect has been that we have been able to produce quickly and in enormous quantities the goods we require. A further effect has been that of transferring work from the shoulders of man to machinery. We must recognize therefore that we cannot solve the problems of the future as we have solved those of the past, by producing more and consuming less.
I suggest there are ways and means of taking up the slack of unemployment. For instance I am told on very good authority that if we took proper care of our forests we could easily employ all the men now idle for some years to come. May I remind the minister that the problem is to a great extent one of purchasing power rather than of unemployment. We have unemployment because we have a glut of goods. In other words, the richer we are in the possession of goods the more unemployment we have, because people are not wanted to produce more goods unless the goods already produced are moving to consumers.
Some weeks ago the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) suggested another way to solve unemployment, namely, the pensioning
r.Mr. Spencer.]
of people who have reached the age of sixty years. We find that people try to continue to work until they are seventy, seventy-three or possibly seventy-five years of age, while on the other hand we are at our wits' end to take care of the younger generation of people between the ages of twenty and thirty years. Surely it would be only common sense to pension off the older people who are working only to have security, and many of whom would be only too glad to accept a small pension for an assurance of security, and thus make room for the younger generation. I believe our problem is to a great extent one of deciding how best to make use of the vast quantities of goods and services which can be produced so easily to-day. As was stated a few days ago the problem is not one of production, but one of distribution. In my opinion there is never sufficient money paid out for the cost of the production of goods to enable those goods to be bought; in other words, there is never sufficient total cash in the country, taking the cash in the pockets of the people, plus all deposits drawable by cheque, to equal the price of the goods offered for sale, and therefore it becomes the duty of the government to monetize the national credit and make up this deficiency. This would enable the people to live on a much higher standard of living. It would begin to move the goods and services of which we have now such a glut, and would create a call for more. It would also call for more people to be employed, and the situation would be entirely changed.
A dole as a dole is wrong, and should be discontinued. If we have public wrork to do, it should be done, as long as we have the raw material and the people who want to do it. I am sorry that the government has not put forward some other proposal this session to meet this very aggravated situation. I believe we have to look at it in a way entirely different from that in which it has been vie-wed in the past. We are not going to solve the problem simply by suggesting that people work harder and produce more but at the same time consume less. That recommendation was perfectly all right prior to the machine age, but is entirely wrong to-day.
lion. MAURICE DUPRE (Solicitor General) : Mr. Speaker, I was surprised a moment ago to hear my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) oppose our legislation on the ground that he thought this government had not the right to do anything of the kind. He was opposed to this legislation for the reasons

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Dupre
that had already been given against this policy of giving the government a blank cheque. But this same member for Quebec East was some time ago in Quebec alongside the premier of the province praising the principles and the unity of the Liberal party, and stating that the Liberal party was fighting just one fight in both the provincial and the federal arena. Has my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) forgotten the legislation which the Liberal government in the province of Quebec is trying to pass in the provincial legislature? I have before me Bill No. 15, which has already been presented to the legislature of Quebec and is now awaiting its second or third reading. It is entitled, the Needy Unemployed Aid Act, 1935. What does the second section of that bill say? It reads as follows:
The lieutenant governor in council- shall have power to do or authorize such acts and things and to make from time to time such orders and regulations as he may deem necessary or advisable with respect to the steps to be taken with a view to remedying unemployment, and-
May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the following words:
and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing terms, he-
That is the lieutenant governor in council.
-may, for the same purposes amend', suspend, repeal or add to any provisions of previous Unemployed Aid Acts or to any other act of the legislature.
In other words, if this bill which I have in my hand goes through the provincial legislature, the lieutenant governor in council will have the right to amend any legislation already passed, to repeal any legislation or to add any provisions of previous unemployed aid acts, or to any of the acts of the legislature of the province of Quebec. I think this is more than a blank cheque.


Ernest Lapointe: If!


Mr. DUPRE:: Does my hon. friend agree
with that measure?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Maurice Dupré: I take it that on this question my hon. friend from Quebec East does not agree with the Liberal government of Quebec.


Ernest Lapointe: Since my hon. friend has asked me a question I suppose I may answer it. The minister who is in charge of this bill, when I talked to him about it, stated that this clause would never be passed.


Maurice Dupré: I do not agree with the hon. member. I will agree that this projected legislation has stirred up public opinion so
much in the province of Quebec that the Liberal government of the province has not dared up to now to go through with it.


Ernest Lapointe: But you are going through with this.


Maurice Dupré: That Bill No. 15, however,
is still on the order paper of the legislature of the province, and all we have is the declaration of the Minister of Public Works for the province, the Hon. Mr. Francoeur, who states at the present time that he does not know what he will do in regard to this legislation, but that he has not bound himself to withdraw the bill.


Ernest Lapointe: What about yours?


Maurice Dupré: That is not all. The second paragraph of section 2 of Bill No. 15 reads as follows:
The lieutenant governor in council may likewise authorize the Minister of Public Works to enter into any agreements or arrangements with the government of the dominion or with any municipal corporation of this province, or with both, having for object the relief of unemployment.
Here may I draw attention to the fact that there is no limitation on the amount. Then section 4 of the bill reads as follows:
If required for the purposes of putting into effect the provisions of this act, the lieutenant governor in council is authorized to acquire, by agreement or expropriation, the necessary immovable properties and every immovable right, charge, lease for occupation or emphyteutic lease, constituted rent or other rights affecting such properties.
Again there is no limitation on the amount. Then I come to section 5 of the same bill, which reads as follows:
The lieutenant governor in council may authorize the provincial treasurer to advance or pay, out of the consolidated revenue fund of the province, on the certificates of the Minister of Public Works, the sums which the province of Quebec may be called upon to expend under the provisions of this act.
Again I say to <my hon. friend from Quebec East that there is no limitation on the amount. But there is something more. The second paragraph of section 5 reads as follows:
The lieutenant governor in council may, if he deem it expedient for the purpose of paying all or part of the sums required or for reimbursing any advances made, also authorize the provincial treasurer to contract a loan or loans, by means of bonds or inscribed stock issued on the credit of the province.
In other words, if I understand this paragraph well, the lieutenant governor in council may, if he deem it expedient, borrow any amount
1898	COMMONS
Unemployment Reliej-Mr. Merrier (St. Henri)
of money. There is no limitation as to the amount and no limitation as to the rate of interest or the term of the loan.
Then I come to section 7, which reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary of any general or special act, every municipal corporation, however incorporated and whatever the law governing it, is authorized:
(a)	To benefit from the carrying out of the provisions of this act;
(b)	To do and order, by resolution of its council, all things necessary for such purposes;
(c)	To contribute towards the expenditure incurred out of its general funds.
And then comes the important part of that section:
(d)	To make by-laws for loans by an issue of bonds or debentures or otherwise, without other preliminary or subsequent formality than the approval of such by-laws by the majority of the members present forming a quorum of its council and by the Quebec Municipal Commission and' the lieutenant governor in council.
The borrowing power granted by this section shall not affect the borrowing power possessed by such municipal corporation and shall be construed as authorizing one or more loans exceeding the limit fixed by the acts governing . such corporation.
If this legislation passes, any municipal corporation will have the right to borrow any amount of money, the only formality necessary being approval by the majority of the quorum of the council of the municipality, by the Quebec municipal commission and by the lieutenant governor in council. It is stated that the borrowing power granted by this section shall not affect the borrowing power already possessed by such municipal corporations.
We have heard one of the authorized voices of the Liberal party raised in opposition to our legislation because of the powers conferred upon the governor in council. I have related to the house the legislation which the Liberal party of Quebec is trying to pass through the legislature at the present session. If this legislation passes it will give the lieutenant governor in council the right to amend, to suspend, to repeal or to add to any legislation already in force and to borrow any amount of money. The right is given to any municipal corporation to borrow any amount of money. In view of this, I think the best thing our Liberal friends from Quebec can do is to remain silent.


Mr. PAUL MEROIER (St. Henri):: 
Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (West Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to devote only a few moments to this bill, because on looking it over I find that there is nothing new in it. It is copied from the bill of last year, which was a copy of the bill of the year before. The new deal which the people of Canada have been looking for ever since the radio speeches to which they were treated dwindles down as we make its acquaintance. The question of the blank cheque has been argued before in this house, and as the government evidently intends to insist upon it I do not suppose there is much object in taking up the time of the house by discussing a copy of an old measure which has proved to be so unpopular throughout the country in recent years. For that reason I do not intend to devote to it any time. In the province from which I come, since this house met last there were five by-elections, and in every one of them one of the great issues stressed on behalf of the government was its unemployment policy, which hon. gentlemen opposite attempted to defend, which this opposition condemned and in particular its blank cheque feature. I need not tell you, Mr. Speaker, nor the minister in charge of this bill, nor the Minister of Railways, nor the Minister of Public Works, all of whom come from Ontario and who took part in these discussions, how unpopular the unemployment policy of this government proved during those by-elections, and particularly the blank cheque feature of that legislation. I do not suppose that if this house were to debate the matter for a month until closure was applied, as was done when the measure was first introduced, it would change the views of this government. They tell us that they have changed and are reformers now, but when we begin to examine their legislation we find that
it is just the old type of Tory legislation, bearing no semblance of reform whatever. For that reason I do not intend to debate it at further length. I think it is just as iniquitous as the members of the opposition claimed it was when it was first introduced. This government, with its majority will likely pass it. This government and its supporters constitute the only tribunal to which I believe it will appeal. Throughout the country, wherever there has been, a chance to vote upon it, the most severe condemnation has been passed on it and I am satisfied this is the only place where it will carry. It will however, carry and for that reason I think we should get along to an examination of some of the reforms which we were promised a couple of months ago. Therefore, though opposed to the bill, I do not intend to take up the time of the house going over straw that has been already threshed two or three times. This legislation has received the most cordial disapproval of electors throughout the dominion whenever they have had a chance to vote on it.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temiscouata): I merely wish to put on record a question which I would ask the minister to reply to. I would refer him to page 2117 of Hansard of April 13. 1934. A question was put then to the leader of the government with regard to the classification of the unemployed. It is a matter of great importance. Yesterday the (Minister of Railways blamed the opposition for not offering any constructive suggestion of policy. Now this is a most timely suggestion, which has been offered again and again to the Minister of Labour, and the only reply which I have received was the reply from the Prime Minister who spoke as follows, as reported1 at page 2118 of Hansard of April 13, 1934:
The government has done everything it reasonably could do, in cooperation with the provinces and otherwise, to classify the unemployed.
This is a suggestion which has come from the opposition, and until the unemployed are classified nothing practical will be done for their relief. I would therefore ask the minister to be good enough to comply with my request to tell the house what has been done in accordance with the statement made by the leader of the government with regard to the classification of the unemployed. What has been done in that regard from 1930 to date?


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: I do not know whether we should continue complaining of the treatment we have been receiving from the government, whose attitude

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Power
has been-be damned if you do and be damned if you don't. Yesterday I complained that the Minister of Railways and others opposite had chastised us because we did not put up any strenuous opposition to the brain trust bill, and now we have our good friend the Solicitor General-and by the way may I be permitted to congratulate him on his birthday-


Maurice Dupré: Thank you so much.


Charles Gavan Power: -blaming us because we support a government wihich apparently has in mind or has proposed to pass legislation similar to that wihich his government is introducing in this house. We are damned if we support Tasohereau in Quebec and I presume we are damned if we oppose this government in this house. There is only one way out of the dilemma and that is for the government to get out of power and then perhaps we might get that absolution to which our good deeds entitle us and be allowed to carry on the government of the country without being worried -by my hon. friends opposite.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) has I think correctly stated the terms of the bill which has been introduced in the Quebec legislature, and may I say that possibly it shows more than anything else the influence of bad example on the public life of this country. But the Solicitor General would seem to blame us for supporting that bill. Speaking for myself alone, though I have high respect and admiration for the Hon. Mr. Taschereau, I would no more support the bill introduced by Mr. Francceur if carried in its present form than I would such a bill introduced by hon. gentlemen opposite.


Maurice Dupré: That is what we wanted to know.


Charles Gavan Power: You know now. I will give the Solicitor General some of the reasons why there was at least ample justification for the introduction of such a bill in the legislature. In the first place he is not unaware that since this government has -been in power, over five years now, it has never had anything even approaching a vestige of a .policy on unemployment. It has kept on repeating that unemployment was primarily a matter for the municipalities, secondly a matter for the provinces and thirdly that grants in aid were to be made by the federal government. But never has it stated definitely what its policy was in the matter. Never -has it said how much or in what manne-r it would give aid to the provinces. The first unemployment
fMr. Power.]
measure was a vote of $20,000,000 whereby the municipalities and provinces were encouraged -to spend thousands of dollars in many instances on useless public works and to bring themselves to the very verge of bankruptcy. The next thing we had was relief, then we went off relief and went on to public works, and then back to relief; and now we have apparently a contbination of relief and public works. No provincial government has been able to say in advance just what policy or program would be followed or would be suggested or would be put before them by this government.
On many occasions, as has been pointed out, this government has threatened to withdraw all manner of assistance, particularly in the way of relief. Provincial statutes, provincial legislation, provincial departments are all interested in the policy which may be laid down by this government. It was absolutely essential that the government of the province of Quebec should be prepared, in case their session finished before the labours of this session are concluded, as it nearly always does, and should have the authority and power and jurisdiction to deal with, let us say, colonization, let us say, public works, let us say, relief. And it was in order to obtain those powers that the bill was introduced. If the Minister of Labour, if the Solicitor General, if any hon. member of this government will definitely say to the government of the province of Quebec what their policy is, the government and legislature of the province of Quebec, now in session, will pass legislation enabling it to cooperate to the fullest extent with this government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Maurice Dupré: If I may ask a question, what about the right conferred on the legislature by the bill to repeal any act already passed, whether it be about unemployment, or any other act of the legislature?


Charles Gavan Power: I am sorry if I am not speaking loud enough for the hon. gentleman. I stated that many departments of the government of the province and presumably many statutes on the statute books of the province of Quebec would be or could be affected by proposed legislation in this house, and in order to cooperate in every way with this government it was necessary to prepare so as to be able to meet the wishes of this government with respect to relief. I simply point out that the government of the province of Quebec has not been remiss in its duty. As long ago as January, if I mistake not, it offered to pay fifty per cent of the cost of

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Power
relief in municipalities-yes, longer ago than that, I think last November. For many days and months no reply came from this government, and finally the offer was absolutely rejected. Only a few days ago the premier of the province of Quebec offered to the federal government to take over the whole cost of relief if the federal government would remit to the province the collection exclusively of the income tax in that province. It is difficult for the province to be prepared to deal with this government when almost invariably action is deferred until the last week of the month of March, just about the time when their powers under former legislation have expired. This year I must congratulate the minister upon the fact that he is five or six days ahead of his schedule but on other occasions the bills were introduced about the 24th, 25th, or 26th of March and we were told, "we must vote this before the last week of March or else people will starve throughout Canada. It is pointed out to me that the session started a *week or so earlier this year. But we had reason to expect, and the government of the province of Quebec had reason to expect, that this year the unemployment bill would be something important; it would not be only a repetition of last year's. That is an additional reason for having prepared for it by giving themselves wide powers of legislation. I will tell you why. On January 2, 1935, we heard the following words:
Therefore, now that the time has come, I am determined to try with all my strength to correct the working of the system in Canada so that present unemployment conditions may be put an end to. When I say I will correct the system I mean, that I will reform it, and when the system is reformed and in full operation again there will be work for all.
Consequently no need of this unemployment and relief legislation.
We then can do away with relief measures. We then can put behind us the danger of the dole.
But what is this except a dole bill? It is nothing else. We were promised that we could put behind us the danger of the dole. Therefore the provinces expect some kind of legislation which will do away with the danger of the dole.


Mr. GRAY:: Who made that speech?


Charles Gavan Power: The speech was made by
the authorized-not then authorized, but the gentleman who has since been confirmed as the authorized spokesman of the government. He goes on:
I am against the dole. It mocks our claim to progress.
This bill that we are asked to pass on, which provides for relief-if it provides for anything at all it certainly provides for the giving of relief,
-mocks our claim to progress. Canada on the dole is like a young and vigorous man in the poorhouse.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Gavan Power: I ask my hon. friend the
Solicitor General, what does he think of that?
The dole is a condemnation, final and complete, of our economic system. If we cannot abolish the dole we should abolish the system.
This is the radio speech made on January 2, 1935.


Ross Wilfred Gray: By whom? Name him.


Charles Gavan Power: I am told by my hon.
friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) that this is a C.C.F. speech. I am not quite sure yet whether the C.C.F. are willing to accept the leadership, though they may accept the principle. It has been pointed out to me that the words are words of the C.C.F. but the music is by someone else.
When this speech was made in January, 1935, the right hon. gentleman who made it must have had something in his mind, he must have had some idea of the manner in which he was going to do away with this dole which is a condemnation of our economic system. And he said so. In a speech delivered in New York on February 16, 1935, the Prime Minister said:
I would find it impossible to conceive and to develop a scheme of recovery and reform unless I first had definitely decided upon the answer to it.
Therefore anyone and everyone in this country who had been listening to the Prime Minister must have been under the impression that he had some new scheme, some new plan to do away with this dole, this thing that makes the people of Canada look like a young and vigorous man in the poorhouse. We could not believe anything else but that there was something new to be brought down. And now we know what it is.
Yesterday during the course of the debate my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) rose in his place and said that the " brain trust " bill, the bill for the economic council, was considered by him to be-one of the most constructive measures any Canadian government has brought forward. Then in dealing with the problems which were to be solved-or rather to be studied, which is worse-by this council, the minister said:

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Power
* " To-day we have such problems as unemploymentand I am laying aside the railways problem for the moment.
His economic council does not know enough about the railways. They can deal with other things, but I do not know how the railway question will be solved.


Robert James Manion: By the hon. member for
North Waterloo (Mr. Euler).


Charles Gavan Power: And perhaps the hon.
member for North Waterloo will find a good many advisers to tell him how to solve it. Then let us see what else the minister said, because this is worth repeating.
Then let me suggest that a group of men such as is proposed in this bill, if they are given a problem such as that

That is, unemployment.
-to consider, if they give their best brains to it as fifteen men of this type will do, may well succeed in bringing forth a settlement of such a vital problem to this country and to the world in general as unemployment.
Our fifteen men, including seven civil servants, are going to settle this problem for the world. This is a super brain trust. It is better than the Nazi brain trust in Germany, better than the Fascist brain trust, better than the Soviet brain trust and far better than the brain trust poor President Roosevelt has had to discard.


Robert James Manion: I rise to a point of order. I do not like to interfere with the hilarity aroused by the speech of the hon. gentleman, but I think he is breaking a rule in quoting in this debate a speech made on another question during the present session.


Charles Gavan Power: Then I will not quote from Hansard, although I am dealing with unemployment and I think possibly on a point of order it might be possible for me to quote what was said by the hon. gentleman during the debate yesterday. His words were so important that they were seared into my brain and I remembered them. My hon. friend said it was quite possible that this economic council, composed of people who will sit down and think-


The DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon.
gentleman certainly cannot quote from a speech made during the present session.


Charles Gavan Power: Then I will not quote
from it; I will stand here away from it. I pay particular attention when my good friend the Minister of Railways speaks; I remember what he said.
fMr. Power.]


Robert James Manion: It will do you good if
you remember enough of it.


Charles Gavan Power: I remember it all. My hon. friend said it was quite possible that this council of fifteen, of whom seven are civil servants, five, chosen by some sort of society and three, other kinds of liars' experts, who will meet twice a year and sit down and think, might solve this problem. The point was that they are to sit down and think as we-and my hon. friend referred to himself and his colleagues-have not been able to do in the last five years. I hope the minister will admit that I have been quoting him fairly; I am told that I have given his remarks almost verbatim. That is something I cannot forget; it is too good. The Prime Minister says we must do away with unemployment; he goes down to New York and says he has all the answers, and now the Minister of Railways says that this country, including the seven civil servants, will be able to think and we will be able to settle this question, as the government would have been able to settle it long ago if they had been able to do the same. I will leave that with my hon. friend. The unemployment question has been hovering over the people of this country for the past five years, and the only solution we have heard is that repeated by the minister to-day.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Hovering
is hardly the word.


Charles Gavan Power: Hovering is hardly the word, unless it has some reference to the bad anigels who, when the good angels came along, were cast into the nethermost depths of hades. The unemployment question and its accompanying problem, that is to say the present government, perhaps would be in the same position as those bad angels whom the name-sake of our race, St. Michael, was able to chase into those nethermost depths of which I spoke.


Edward Joseph Garland: Now St. Patrick is at work.


Charles Gavan Power: No, St. Patrick is not working until next year. I direct the attention of my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) to this situation, and I will make him this challenge without being in any way authorized to do so. If this government will bring down any clear and definite program and policy of reform, including a definite demand on the provinces to deal with colonization and public works, asking them definitely what they are going to do about it, then I will guarantee that not only the

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Gordon
province of Quebec but every province in the dominion will be very grateful and only too glad to cooperate, as we on this side of the house are now and have been in the past on every occasion when such a bill has been brought down. We said to the government then, as we say to them now: Tell us what you want to do with the money. Tell us what you have in mind to deal with this situation. Tell us if you have any plans, any program or any policy. Give us some limit to the amount of money you propose to use. Tell us in what manner you are going to use the powers for which you are asking, and we will vote all the money you want and give you all the powers you require without further discussion.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: It is a matter of some gratification, though from one point of view I hesitate to say so, that hon. members opposite can deal with this problem in such a fine spirit of . levity. It reflects the great deal of serious thought, or lack of such, that has been given by them to this most baffling problem. Speeches have been referred to-many of the speeches made here are thoughts in quotation marks-as to what someone said he could do or thought he could do with respect to unemployment in Canada. Criticisms have been offered, and anyone who is a member of a government oan expect criticism. I invite it, because out of the criticism one frequently becomes better acquainted with the problem in hand and perhaps better able to attack that problem and solve it if it is capable of solution.
The first criticism levelled at the government seems to be that the federal state has not relieved the muncipalities and-or the provinces of the responsibility of taking care of those unable to take care of themselves and of providing employment for those who are ready, willing and able to work. Unemployment is not a new problem, by any means; I presume it existed at the beginning of time and I expect it will continue to the end of time. A condition of unemployment existed in Canada twelve or thirteen years ago, and we know that the government of that day under the leadership of the present right hon. leader of the opposition was called upon to outline a plan to help the unemployed, a plan of contribution from the federal treasury which would conform to the limitations placed upon the federal state. At that time it was made abundantly clear that in order to assist or to make contributions
the federal state must deal with the provinces, and the order in council passed at that time recited in clear terms the respective responsibilities so far as unemployment was concerned. That order in council stated that the responsibility for unemployment was primarily that of the municipalities, that it was next the problem of the provinces and that only in cases of national emergency should the federal state take a hand .towards assisting the provinces and municipalities. That principle was spread on the records of this house not only by the right hon. gentleman opposite but by the then leader of the opposition, .the present Right Honourable Arthur Meighen.
Let me put this question to hon. members: What kind of machinery is available to the federal state for the administration of direct relief when there are unemployed not only in the cities but in every little hamlet throughout the country? What machinery is there in the federal state; to whom must we turn and what body must we rely for the administration of those funds? There is only one machinery, namely the provincial and municipal machinery set up by the various units in our country. It would not be possible for the federal government to administer direct relief without setting up machinery which unquestionably would result in quite unjustifiable administration expenses.
Having that in mind, and having also in mind the fact that relief such as that to which I have been addressing myself is primarily a municipal responsibility would the dominion government as has been suggested by hon. members opposite be justified in taking the taxes of the dominion taxpayers and paying 100 per cent of those moneys over to bodies over which they have no control, and in the disbursement of which they would have no say? I imagine all of us are fairly human, and we realize that annually there are municipal elections throughout the country. Each municipality has its opposing local forces, and if the dominion government undertook to supply unlimited amounts of money, and turned those moneys over to the municipalities or provinces without any control, then I am wondering just in what position the treasury would be. How possibly could this country carry on? I have great sympathy with those municipalities the resources of which, by reason of the times through which we are passing, have been subjected to heavy drains. One of the very best safeguards upon which we can rely however is the fact that municipalities

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Gordon
and provinces must make contributions towards the fund, and while making those contributions they are zealous to see that the money is properly spent and goes for the purposes for which it was intended. There is no question about that.
I am not going to discuss the attitude taken by the late government respecting these matters. I have heard it said, although I have never been curious enough to consult Hansard, that upon one occasion the right hon. leader of the opposition indicated how little he would give to any province which did not conform to his political views.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: You promised us everything and gave us nothing.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Gave nothing,
did you say?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am afraid I do not follow the hon. member. I have not been curious enough to consult Hansard and to read the statements made by the right hon. gentleman. I must say however that I have heard his observations quoted. I think perhaps he made his statements in a spirit of petulance, and I do not hold it against him, as some people do. However he indicated his attitude. I think probably what he meant or what he would have liked to say, upon reflection, was that he would be extremely careful in handing over federal funds to the provinces, lest those provinces might not see eye to eye with him in the disposition of such funds, or the necessity for disbursements.
In order that there may be no doubt about the attitude the present government has followed, may I state that immediately upon taking office we caused conferences to be held at which provincial representatives and premiers of the various provinces attended. Who better than those men would know the peculiar difficulties with which they were confronted? Remember this, that while the policy of relief is to be commended, because in a large measure we are taking care of those unable to take care of themselves, we must not deceive ourselves in the belief that relief has been effected entirely free from politics. Many times I have had occasion to review the matter from that angle. During the last five years conferences have been called by the federal government at which the provincial representatives were given the opportunity to review their respective positions and to determine the extent to which they could carry on alone and, further, the extent to which the federal state would have to come to their assistance. I do not know of any other method

that could have been employed in order to acquaint oneself with the difficulties with which we were engaging ourselves.
Much has been said about the province of Quebec and about the city of Montreal. Let it be understood that in the month of July, I think it was, 1931, when there was an election pending in the province of Quebec, the premier of the province made it clear and plain in public meeting that the province did not want relief, did not need it. There is no question about that, and I am not going to hold that against the premier of the province of Quebec, but there was an immediate change after the election, and the demand was made, and of course relief was given.
Each succeeding year agreements have been entered into with the provinces. It is true that the plans changed from time to time. They were changed on every occasion, changed because the consensus of view of the representatives of the provinces with respect to the best method of dealing with their problems was given effect to. That was clear and plain at each one of those conferences.
References have been made to offers that provinces have made to the dominion. They first offer it to the press1 as a rule. I get it sometimes a week later, and sometimes I never get it at all, but I read about it in the papers. It is true that offers have been made by the province of Quebec that if the dominion will pay fifty per cent of the municipalities' burdens, they will assume the other fifty per cent. Now if such a calamity should happen that after the next election our good friends opposite should be sitting on these treasury benches and this same offer is made, I prophesy that they will not agree to it. They certainly will not.
There are some municipalities in Canada having an extremely difficult time, but let me say that there are many municipalities in Canada which by efficient and careful administration are taking care of this problem and are willing and able to share their part of the burden because, in addition to efficient administration, they know as Canadians that if an unlimited fund of the taxpayers' money is placed in the hands of those who are not immediately in touch with this problem, that is if you remove it and place it in a detached position, as it were, then there is no end to the demand that will be made on the treasury of this country. I have the greatest sympathy for those who want to work and cannot get work, but let me pause for a moment to say this. I have heard it said and repeated in this house that there are a million people unemployed in Canada. That is not true.

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Gordon
That is a misstatement of what the fact is, in so far as there are dependable figures, and figures with respect to this matter are not dependable in any country in the world. 1 have heard it said that all these unemployed in Canada are unemployed through no fault of their own. That is not a correct statement, not correct by any means.


Mr. HOWARD:: Pretty near it.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Someone says, " pretty near it." But let me say this. There is no one in this house who feels more keenly than I do for the position of the man who wants to work, who wants to discharge his responsibilities, and is unable to get work, and there is no one in this house who is more ready to condemn that percentage who are living on the state to-day and who are not trying and do not want to get work; and make no mistake about it, we have those people throughout (the world; that is not common to this ;ountry.
Criticisms have been made that the present government has not solved unemployment, has not spent enough money, for it comes down to that. But what country in the world has done it? Take that great wealthy nation to the south of us, and look at the huge sums, the billions and billions of dollars that they have spent, and what is the position there to-day? They are relatively much worse off than we are in Canada; that is admitted by every competent authority. What about Great Britain to-day, with the huge sums that she has spent? Has she solved unemployment? Of course she has not.
Someone says that this bill represents the total of all that the government has to offer with respect to the future regarding unemployment. That is not correct. Before this session ends other measures will come before this parliament, other measures will be presented for its approval or disapproval looking towards providing work for our citizens. But this bill is absolutely necessary for the very reason that you cannot continue along a course for some four or five years with respect to direct relief, because that is really what this bill is designed to take care of, and then stop suddenly at the end of a month or at a certain stated time. That is the real reason why the government is presenting this bill and asking for the approval of the house.
Criticisms have been made by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) with respect to the attitude of the dominion government regarding the situation in Montreal. I thank the hon. gentleman for the moderation of his observations, and I think that he made his speech to-day in a spirit of helpfulness.
I do not wish to criticize unduly or even criticize at all the municipal administration of that great city. They have tremendous problems. I am sure if the hon. member for St. James cared to make a confession he would say that when he was elected mayor he was not in office long until he almost wished that he had not taken on the responsibility, and I think certainly he would say that he would not care to go back to it to-day. There are tremendous problems there unquestionably. But the difficulty with which I have been confronted with respect to Montreal is that we could not get from the province of Quebec, Montreal's accounts. Can you imagine a big city which could not get its accounts out for submission to us before seventeen months had passed?


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The hon. member for
Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) laughs about that-


Ernest Lapointe: I was laughing at the
" shame."


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I beg your pardon. That
was the difficulty in Montreal. I should like to refer to a dispatch which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of March 20, 1935. I apologize for quoting from a newspaper as I believe this is the first time I have done so and I do not want to break my record. According to this article, this is what was said by the premier of Quebec in the legislature of that province:
It was true, admitted the premier, that there were^ delays in making payments to the municipalities, but such delays were inevitable. There had to be checking of accounts, and this took time.
That is quite true. The article continues:
Ottawa had insisted that Quebec check all municipal accounts, and the provincial auditor had been obliged to do so.
That is quite true. I continue:
Was the provincial government now to write cheques in blank without verifying the accounts submitted by the municipalities?
Certainly not. I continue:
Last year Quebec had paid Montreal three millions, but Ottawa had not done as much.
I hope the premier of Quebec did not make such a statement because I intend to show just what are the facts. I quote from a letter dated July 25, 1934, from Mr. Ivan E. Vallee, deputy minister of public works, to the Department of Labour at Ottawa, as follows:

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Gordon
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 23rd inst. transmitting dominion government finance department cheque for $3,000,000 which it is represented is an accountable advance made by the dominion government on behalf of the city of Montreal unemployment relief expenditures.
Hon. Mr. Francmur wishes it distinctly understood that in accepting this cheque no interest obligation on the part of the province of Quebec is incurred, as we have already advanced to the city of Montreal sixty per cent of our share, and are remitting the balance up to $3,000,000 to-day together with the $3,000,000 received from you.
The hon. member for St. James knows that the accounts of Montreal got behind very badly. I do not blame him for this as I think he fell heir to many difficulties when he took over the mayoralty of the city. But the fact is that the accounts got behind so badly that representations were made to the government by both the city and the province. After consultation with my colleagues, I agreed to make an advance to the province in order that the financial position of the city might be eased. I want to make this statement because I still believe that Mr. Tasche-reau may have been misquoted.
Other measures are under consideration by the government at the present time but what they will contain I cannot disclose to the house. This bill is designed only to preserve the continuity of the agreements until they come to an end. I trust they will come to an end as I hope shortly to convene another meeting of the premiers of the provinces when an effort will be made to understand their present difficulties.
I should like to point out one difficulty which arises when you endeavour to correct unemployment by the erection of public buildings. If the dominion government decides to erect a public building to cost a quarter of a million dollars in a county town, a certain situation arises immediately. The plans and specifications are drawn up and are referred to in the local press. The building is started and for the first week or two the local situation is relieved. However, the news soon spreads all over the county that labourers are being paid from thirty-five to forty cents per hour, whatever the wage may be. Practically every labourer who is receiving less quits his job and. comes to town. I have watched this situation for the last three or four years and this is what always happens. I do not know how it can be corrected but it is something which must be considered.
The observations I have made are designed to show the position of the dominion with respect lo the agreements at present in force

and what I believe to be the necessity for continuation of help to the provinces, in whole or in part, in order to take care of direct relief.


John Campbell Elliott: The minister stated a
moment ago that within a month this form of relief could be cut off. Does he mean to imply that that position will be possible because of other measures which may be brought down to deal with the situation?
Mr. 'GORDON:	I do not think the hon.
member heard me correctly as I do not believe this form of relief can be abandoned. It may be possible to adjust it in the light of other measures which may be brought down in this house or in the legislatures, but I do not think direct relief could be abandoned entirely within such a short period.
Perhaps it would not be out of place to call attention to the improvement which has taken place in employment in Canada. I think the figures which I shall quote can be relied upon. The unemployment as reported by trade unions as of December, 1932, and January, 1933-that was the peak of unemployment-showed 25-5 per cent of the members of trade unions out of employment. In December, 1933, that had fallen to 21 per cent, and in October, 1934, it had fallen to 16-2 per cent. You can see therefore that there is an improvement with respect to labour as reported by the trade unions.
The bureau of statistics figures are I think very interesting. If we take the low point of the depression, April 1, 1933, based on the 1926 index figure of 100, we find that the low point was 76, and turning to April 1, 1934, we find that it had advanced to 91-3; and if we move to July 1, 1934, we find that it had gone to 101. On November 1, 1934, it had gone down to 100-2, and then there was a recession in January, as usually happens, to 94-4.
Let us take a glance at the figures with respect to employment by industries, because I think it is proper that attention should be called to these matters. There is at times a tendency to be so gloomy and to so spread the gloom on if it suits the occasion, that it is refreshing to take a look at the facts as they are. I would not suggest for a moment that anyone in this chamber would deliberately paint the gloomiest picture for political purposes; that is something that is unthinkable. But there are of course some people in every country who are prone to do things like that. I have very great difficulty in being good humoured when I hear them- and it is difficult indeed to disturb my good

Unemployment Reliej-Mr. Gordon
humour. But as regards those who in the face of apparent facts continue to foul their own nest, I have very little patience. There are some vocations that provide but few moments of pleasure, but with respect to that crowd, I may tell you that if I were a hangman I would enter into service for a few moments with a great deal of enjoyment.
Let us see what the figures are with respect to industry generally. Industry generally is broken up in this statement. Showing the percentage of those employed in the following industries to the number employed by all industries, as of December 1, 1935, to be as follows: manufacturing, 49-3 per cent; logging, 6-0; mining, 6-0; communications, 2-3; transportation, 10-2; construction, 13; services, 2-6, and trade, 10-6. Taking 1926 as the index figure, we find with respect to manufacturing that on April 1, 1933, the low point, the figure had dropped to 76 per cent. In Logging it had dropped to 35-6 per cent; in mining, 91-4 per cent; in communications, 84-5; in transportation, 74-2; in construction, 54-7; in services, 102-5, and in trade, 107-6. Then we move to November 1, 1934, and we find that the index of employment in manufacturing had gone up to 92-8; in logging to 171-9. You will note that this is after the
British empire trade agreements came into force. We find that in mining it had gone up to 121-2, and that also is largely accounted for by reason of Great Britain having taken over Canada's base metals; for theretofore they had been sold in the United States, before an impossible barrier was placed against our copper, lead and zinc in June, 1930.


Robert James Manion: Before the election.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes. We find that on
November 1, 1934, the index of unemployment in communications had gone down to 80-7; and it had risen in transportation to 83-9; in construction to 111; in services to 114-9, and in trade to 121-3. So that the percentages of increase, as between the low of April 1, 1933, and November 1, 1934, are disclosed as follows:	Manufacturing, 22-1
per cent; logging, 382-87 per cent; mining, 32-7 per cent; communications, 4-5 per cent; transportation, 13 per cent; construction, 102-9 per cent; services, 11-1 per cent; trade, 12-7 per cent. In other words there was a general average improvement from the low of April 1, 1933, to November 1, 1934, of 31-38 per cent. For the clearer understanding of the above figures, I would ask that the statement from which I have quoted appear in Hansard.
Industry-[DOT]
Manufacturing..
Logging	
Mining	
Communications Transportation. Construction. .
Services	
Trade	
All	
EMPLOYMENT FIGURES BY INDUSTRIES (Index figures are based on 1926 = 100)
Percentage of employed by all	Index	Index	Percentage of increase Nov., 1934,industries	figure	figure	overDec. 1, 1934	April 1, 1933	Nov. 1, 1934	April, 1933. 49.3	76.0	92.8	22.1. 6.0	35.6	171.9	382.87. 6.0	91.4	121.2	32.7. 2.3	84.5	80.7	4.5. 10.2	74.2	83.9	13. 13.0	54.7	111.0	102.9. 2.6	102.5	114.9	11.1. 10.6	107.6	121.3	12.'. 100.0	76.0	100.2	31.38
I would ask that you call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 21, 1935