1935-01-29

Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River) moved:: That the motion which stood in my name on the order paper on Friday the 24th instant and which was superseded by the adjournment of the house be restored on the order paper for consideration at the next sitting of the house next after orders to which a special precedence has been assigned by the standing orders of the house.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Explain.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Last Friday night the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Stanley) was speaking to the motion at six o'clock when instead of the debate being adjourned the house was adjourned, and the motion therefore automatically dropped. I understand that there are several hon. members who wish to speak to the motion. I know one mem-
Montreal Postal Terminal

ber was ready to move the adjournment of the debate but thought the hon. member for East Calgary was going to move it. I therefore ask that it be restored to the order paper.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at its next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That, it is expedient to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act to facilitate and increase the extension of credit to farmers, to authorize the Minister of Finance to purchase additional bonds issued by the board and guaranteed by the government, and to amend' the provisions relating to the constitution of the board, the purchase of capital stock, the rate of interest, the amount of outstanding bonds, and supplementary advances.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the orders in council which have been published in the Canada Gazette between the 1st day of January, 1934, and the 31st day of December, 1934, in accordance with the provisions of section 75 of the Dominion Lands Act, chapter 113, R.S. 1927, and which were laid on the table on the 18th day of January, 1935, be approved.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: I should like to address two questions to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion), or possibly to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). In view of the fact that the chairmanship of the board of railway commissioners has been vacant, can the government give any information to the house as to when we may expect the appointment of a chairman to be made? If I may put my second question now, though perhaps the minister is not prepared

to give an answer to-day, I should like to ask if any applications have been made by either of the two railways for arbitral boards under the legislation passed two sessions ago and, if so, if consideration is being delayed by reason of the fact that the board has no chairman.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: In regard to the first
question I shall take this as a notice and give the answer to-morrow. In regard to the second question, so far as I know no official indication has been given by either railway of a desire for an arbitral tribunal.



POSTAL TERMINAL IN MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) whether it is the intention of the government to go on immediately with the work in connection with the postal terminal in Montreal or whether the government will content itself with the excavation work?


Hon. ARTHUR SAUVE (Postmaster General) (Translation):: If my memory serves me right, last year, in a similar case, I had to request the hon. member for St. James to direct his question to the Minister of Public Works.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Then I will put my question to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart). I did not know there was friction in the cabinet to that extent.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that that observation be withdrawn.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I will put my question to the Minister of Public Works.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I ask that that remark be withdrawn.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Here is the situation. I put a question to the Postmaster General and the hon. gentleman tells me that I can get the information from the Minister of Public Works. Now I put my question to the Minister of Public Works.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that is not what was done or what was said, and I suggest that the hon. gentleman withdraw that statement. The statement made by the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) was that the information would be supplied by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart), and the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) then alleged that there was friction between the two departments. Such an allegation is unwarranted.

Reform Measures-Mr. Pouliot


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have no objection to withdrawing the statement. I will ask the Minister of Public Works if it is the intention of the government to go on with the work in connection with the postal terminal in Montreal or whether the work has been only halted.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The question is one which in the first instance I think might have been directed to the department which has control of the work rather than to the Post Office Department, which really has nothing to do with the construction of the building. The work has not been abandoned; it will be proceeded with in due course.



SUPPLY-REFORM MEASURES AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE FOR COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, January 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Guthrie that the house resolve itself into committee of supply, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King.
Mr. GEORGE W. McPHEE (Yorkton): Mr. Speaker, at eleven o'clock last evening I was discussing the amendment moved by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), but in view of the definite declaration made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), who was leading the house last evening, that the resolution standing in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in regard to unemployment insurance would foe proceeded with to-day, and in order to expedite consideration of that resolution. I have no further observations to make at this time.
Mr. JEAN -FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker I should like to dictate to the Hansard reporter a short prefatory note to the so-called social legislation of this government. I am in a privileged position, because I did not listen to the recent speeches delivered over the radio by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), nor have I read them. What I should like to say, however, is that the Prime Minister's political adviser now, Mr. Herridge, the Canadian minister in Washington, is the same gentleman who was his political adviser during the 1930 campaign, when all the humbug promises were made to the Canadian people. This is why I am most doubtful as to the success of this legislation.
I will say more, sir; although my speech will be very short, may I recall some facts to hon. members of the house. Before the
special session of 1930 was called a board was created by this government to study the causes of unemployment. There were some eminent gentlemen on that board, but they sat for only a short time before presenting their recommendations to the government. I remember that one member was Mr. J. H. Fortier. Later we came here for the special session, when we were told that $20,000,000 would cure unemployment. That amount was voted. Was the amount expended that had been put in the estimates by the previous government? It was not. Even that amount of $20,000,000 was not spent by this government. We were told also that if the tariffs were raised it would solve the unemployment problem. Were there many unemployed at that time? No, there were not; there were only a few poor people. One of my hon. friends from the province of Quebec told me that on the Indian reservation in his constituency there were 4,500 people who were always unemployed; they never did work, therefore they were then counted among the unemployed at that time.
Then what happened? After we were told in 1930 that by increasing the tariff we would reduce unemployment the Prime Minister told us that he had obtained the solemn promise of the manufacturers that if given an increase in the tariff they would employ more men at better wages, but later we saw the downfall of all hopes, both inside and outside of this house. Then the Prime Minister went over to the imperial conference with one or two of his colleagues, and what did he do? He wanted a tariff wall raised by England against her ordinary trade with other nations, but he failed, and it was then that Mr. Thomas used the expression "humbug." Then, after that pilgrimage to London which proved a complete failure, the Prime Minister came back here and found that the N.R.A. was the only remedy that would solve the problems which he had created in Canada through his tariffs, in order to please those vultures whom we saw in such large numbers in the corridors of this parliament during the special session of 1930, those profiteers who made so much money at the expense of the Canadian people during the war.
The tariff was raised again and again. I remember that my right hon. leader asked the Prime Minister on how many items the tariff had been raised during the session of 1931, and if my memory serves me aright the right hon. leader of the opposition suggested that it had been raised on two-thirds of the items. If I remember correctly the Prime Minister said it had been raised on one-half
266	COMMONS
Reform Measures-Mr. Pouliot
the items, or a little more than one-half. What was the result? Each month our trade has decreased so much that now the government is afraid to make a comparison with the figures of the fast year the Mackenzie King government was in power. Their point of comparison is the year 1932, not because there was an imperial conference in that year but because at that time our trade had reached rock bottom. Why? On account of that silly increase in tariff. That is what happened in 1932, after the increase of tariffs in the special session of 1930 and the regular session of 1931.
Sir, I can speak about it, because when your predecessor was in the chair I was sitting at the other end of this chamber, and when he asked if the tariff increases were approved I said "On division." That fact was noted by the correspondent for Le Devoir and the correspondents for other papers. Therefore as I objected to it at the time I now have the right to censure the increases in tariff made since this government has been in power. Not only that: What did this government do? They passed legislation so that tariffs could be increased by order in council, a most absurd procedure, because when a man buys goods from another country he is not sure he will pay the same price when the goods reach Canada. It proved that the N.R.A. suggested and established by this government, which treated walls around the country, was a complete failure. It was just as much a failure, so far as Canada is concerned, as the London tonference of 1930.
It was a complete and utter failure, but this government looked ahead to the imperial conference of 1932 when the representatives were gathered in Canada in order to discuss an economic policy. It is all right for the dominions to meet in London so as to have the same constitutional rights, but when it comes to a business proposition it is most absurd for five or ten parties to meet together in order to have a better chance at business. We know, sir, that a man can make a good business deal only by discussing with the other party. The purchaser and the seller must get together, and this is how agreements have been made in the past. The government renounced the Dunning agreements, abolished them and changed them so as to give place for a silly tariff policy. Then they brought Mr. Baldwin and other gentlemen from other parts of the empire to this very room, thinking that by that procedure the future of Canada would be saved.
Sir, 1932 proved the same as 1931 and 1930. Why? Because there was no preparation of the government's policy. It is a well known fact that Mr. Baldwin was ready to go with-

out signing a piece of paper, without agreeing to any agreements or treaties. However his departure was delayed for one day. When the tables at the Chateau Laurier were groaning with food there were upstairs some English experts who knew their business. They were very intelligent, very clever and well trained and experienced British officials who had their proposals ready. They wanted this government to subscribe to those documents. Finally because this government wanted the scrap of paper with the signatures of English and other British representatives upon it they accepted everything submitted to them. It is especially to be noted that they accepted the creation of a tariff board before which England could lodge its complaints, but we had not the same privilege in England. Those agreements bound Canada hand and foot, but England was free to trade with any other country.
After the agreements of 1932 were signed we heard this government saying throughout the country that the future of Canada would be brilliant, and that Canada had nothing to fear. They said that the agreements had saved the life of our country and that this government was doing so well. That, again, was a failure. So much is that the fact that I remember the Minister of Railways, who knew that, saying in the following session, " Let us wait until the world conference next year. Everything will be settled there, and we will have our trade with all the nations of the world." When on October 12, 1932, the Prime Minister explained the agreement which had been signed by this government he mentioned production, and only production. He referred to the production of eggs, the production of potatoes, the production of bacon, the production of hogs, the production of ham, the products of the mines, the production of everything-but he did not say a word about distribution. Why? Probably he did not because Mr. Ferguson was here at the time, and Mr. Ferguson spoke to him about honey.
Sir, let us look forward to 1933 when the world conference was held. We know that the conference in 1930 had been a failure, the high tariffs of 1930 and 1931 had proved failures, the conference of 1932 was an utter failure., and then we saw the members of the government going to the world conference. In the midst of the proceedings of that conference we heard that the Prime Minister of Canada had saved it. But he was such a good doctor that only a few days later the conference died of its own weakness. What did my good friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) say when he came back? He

Reform Measures-Mr. Pouliot
said it had been a delightful conference, and that he had made many acquaintances among the representatives of the sixty-three nations who met on that momentous occasion. The world conference meant more. It meant trade with other nations. Canada could not enter into trade with those nations because she was bound by the agreements of 1932. She was gagged and could do nothing because of the Ottawa agreements.
Let us now come to last year. No one need say a word about the world conference, because so far as Canada was concerned nothing was done there. It was another failure. We hear this government boasting about the great benefits derived from the conference of 1932, the Ottawa agreements. Apparently the lion, member for Rosetown (Mr. Loueks) is satisfied with them. Does he know that in the years following that conference our trade with Creat Britain and with other British countries was much less than in the last year the Mackenzie King government held office. Does he know that? I am sure when he entered this house in 1930 he wanted an improvement in trade. I give him the benefit of the doubt and will say that I am sure he was sincere at that time. He repeated, after his leader, that conditions were bad in Canada at that time.
['There is no disposition\non the part of the government to force the matter through committee of the whole house in view of the objection taken. The circumstance that the estimates had not been translated and printed in French was entirely unknown to myself until inquiry was made. But inasmuch as objection has been taken, notwithstanding the fact that the estimates are being printed, are in type and will be available for distribution to-morrow, and that every hon. gentleman opposite, irrespective of what his mother tongue may be, is quite familiar with the subject matter of the resolution before the house at the moment and with the estimates themselves, I accede with pleasure to the suggestion and therefore move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.\nProgress reported.']
Mr. LOUCKS:: We lost our wheat market in 1929, don't forget that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. POULIOT:: Let me continue. In 1930 did the hon. member not say to the people that conditions were bad in this country? If he did not he was not a faithful follower of his leader who made that statement in every parish, every town and every city of Canada. If they thought conditions were bad in 1930 how is it they think they are so good now when, in fact, they are much worse. Not only that but I would remind the hon. member for Rosetown that statements were made by Tory and U.F.A. speakers advising the wheat growers not to sell their wheat because they would receive much more if they waited and left it in thie pool. He knows it, and he will not deny it. Let me say to my hon. friend from South Essex (Mr. Gott) that I am not talking about onions; I am talking about wheat. I say that the state of the wheat market in 1929 was due to the pool of which my hon. friend from Rosetown was a member.


Mr. GOTT:: Where did you get the information?


Jean-François Pouliot: 
Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. gentleman is out of order in using that word.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I say, in this chamber which is very much alive. What information has the government about farm loans, for instance? The information on that subject is incomplete. I got a little bit of information myself from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics last year about it. I was most interested in the matter, but in a letter signed by the director of that bureau he said: "We cannot certify these figures." And how did they get these figures?? At the time of the census they were asking the farmers what the amount of their debt was. Do you think for a moment that the farmer is going to tell his neighbours or someone in the community the exact amount of his debt? It is absurd. The only way to get at the exact amount of farm mortgages would be to have a careful inspection made in every registry office, with a report based upon that inspection, forwarded to this government through the provincial government. I have frequently asked this government to discuss that matter in the provincial conferences, but I am sure that nothing has ever been done because that information is yet to come. Well, sir, it is all right to be in the clouds, and the Prime Minister is in the clouds. In Halifax, when addressing a gathering of ladies there he said, "My only wish is for eternal salvation." He is in the clouds; he is nearer heaven; but those clouds prevent him from seeing what is going on on earth. He should come to practical facts. Very often, sir, I have asked the hon. gentlemen who surround the Prime Minister to guard against intruders, to prevent all those who are seeking favours from coming into contact with the Prime Minister, all those fellows who are undesirable, so as to give the Prime Minister time to think. Was it done? I am sorry for the Prime Minister and for this country,

Reform Measures-Mr. Pouliot
because his time has been wasted in answering callers who were more importunate than useful from the standpoint of the public good.
And now I have something else to say. One reason why I am most fearful about this legislation is on account of a report which has been made of the speech which was delivered by the right hon. gentleman on Saturday of last week in Montreal. I have here the Montreal Gazette in which it is stated:
The Prime Minister suggested that his talks with Soviet foreign minister Litvinoff at Geneva, and his study of the views of Sir Stafford' Cripps and John Strachey, British radicals, had influenced him to a great extent, while he also pointed out the lessons that could be learned from the French and Russian revolutions.
He is sovie.tizing Canada now, after the failure of the London conference of 1930, the failure of the increase of tariff idea.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: There are some Cossacks there. After the utter failure of the London conference of 1930, the utter failure of the increase in tariffs in 1931, the utter failure of the Ottawa agreements, the utter failure of the world conference and of every policy which has been submitted to us. by the government, this is what we find, as reported in that paper.
Well, sir, I am sorry for this government. They have been talking so much about the alliance that exists between Liberals and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. Do they not now feel ashamed of themselves? Take the speeches which have been delivered in the province of Quebec by the Quebec ministers; are they not ashamed of themselves for being so much congratulated upon their policies by the leaders of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation? It is the vengeance of the Liberal party. We heard our friend the Solicitor General, we heard the Postmaster General, and we heard the Minister of Marine, in the province of Quebec, saying, "Look at the Liberals. The Liberal party does not exist any longer. We have the C.C.F. and the Tory party, those two great parties which enjoy the confidence of the people of Canada." Well, sir, who won the last by-elections throughout Canada, in each province of the dominion? Who won the provincial elections in Ontario, in Nova Scotia and in the west, in Saskatchewan and British Columbia? Who will win every election? Those who will say, "We are strongly opposed to the federal government which is now in power. We must defeat them." This was
said by my noble, generous and capable friend, Mr. Hepburn, in the last provincial election.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: I hear hon. gentlemen laughing, but Mr. Hepburn has been pronounced a great son of the province of Ontario, one whom every father and mother would like to have as a son. I see the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott). Does he not know that the four Hepburn candidates in Essex county, with whom I was standing on the platform in Windsor last year, and the other Hepburn candidates as well were elected? The people of Ontario have seen the light. They knew that this man was true to his principles, that he was a true disciple of Mackenzie King; and when he was in this house he was not afraid, any more than I am myself, to speak the language of truth, which is really the language of friendship, to the Prime Minister and his colleagues. That man was earnest; he was sincere; he was true to his convictions and fulfilled his promises-a thing this government has never done. It was because of his sincerity that he had such a wonderful victory in Ontario, and I say to hon. gentlemen to your right, Mr. Speaker, that they should be proud to see a young man of thirty-eight, if not enjoying their own confidence, at any rate enjoying the confidence of the great majority of the people of his native province, so much so that even in the province of Quebec he is just as popular as he is in any other province of confederation.
I have something very nice to read to this house. It is an excerpt from a speech which was delivered by the then leader of the opposition on June 25, 1930, at Cobourg, Ontario:
"Anybody could devise a policy for to-day," the opposition leader declared, "to catch votes, but it is our duty, the duty of statesmen-
This is most humble, most modest.
-to see beyond the horizon."
Is it not delightful, Mr. Speaker? Now, coming to social insurance, it will have to be paid for, and though I cannot quote the exact page of Hansard, I remember distinctly hearing the Prime Minister state in this house that he would accept nothing but a contributory system. Well, how many people do we meet in Ottawa who have not 10 cents with which to buy a sandwich, and how can they pay towards a contributory system of insurance? If this insurance is to solve unemployment, where will the funds come from? Is it true
270	COMMONS
Reform, Measxvres-Mr. Pouliot
that incomes will be severely taxed above $5,000, to the exent of one-third? People have not the money with which to pay-much less than in 1930. Last year in the Gazette of February 9, 1934, I read a report of a speech delivered by the Prime Minister in the Mount Royal hotel, in Montreal, on Realties-not realty. What did he say? The heading is:
Credit of Canada has reached limit premier declares.
People must face fact, Bennett says, and work for future.
Always for the future. He is ashamed of his past; I mean as Prime Minister, otherwise he is a very nice gentleman.
Default impossible.
Dominion must retain place among nations, Canadian club is told-railway problem discussed.
Here I have something delightful. He spoke about the debt of Canada approximating $3,000,000,000. He said:
This was the sum on which Canada had directly to pay interest. Then there were the sums of money which the dominion had guaranteed.
This is in a Tory paper which had found the policy of the government so bad that it had to repudiate it this year.
"That mere statement," the Premier continued, "is enough to make men thoughtful. Put yourself in my place and wonder where the money is coming from to pay the interest. That is the problem we have to think of. And all the theories in the world, my friends-
He did not then say " men and women."
[DOT]-will not solve the problem. It is an actuality, a reality."
All the theories about that so-called reform legislation which is not ready and which, when ready, it is impossible to digest, are not a reality. We have to face a reality. A tremendous debt is bearing down upon the Canadian people and it has to be met. It is hard to meet it because the government has closed this country to the markets of the world. Now it comes with views as to the future just the same as we have already had in the past. Do hon. members remember that when Our Lord had fasted for forty days He was brought to a high mountain and the devil said to him; Kneel before me and all these prosperous cities, all these fertile plains that you see will be yours.	The
answer of Our Lord to Satan was: "Vade Retro Satanas."	" Get thee behind me,
Satan." This is the answer that this government will get from the Canadian people at the next election.


['I hear hon. gentlemen laughing, but Mr. Hepburn has been pronounced a great son of the province of Ontario, one whom every father and mother would like to have as a son. I see the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott). Does he not know that the four Hepburn candidates in Essex county, with whom I was standing on the platform in Windsor last year, and the other Hepburn candidates as well were elected? The people of Ontario have seen the light. They knew that this man was true to his principles, that he was a true disciple of Mackenzie King; and when he was in this house he was not afraid, any more than I am myself, to speak the language of truth, which is really the language of friendship, to the Prime Minister and his colleagues. That man was earnest; he was sincere; he was true to his convictions and fulfilled his promises-a thing this government has never done. It was because of his sincerity that he had such a wonderful victory in Ontario, and I say to hon. gentlemen to your right, Mr. Speaker, that they should be proud to see a young man of thirty-eight, if not enjoying their own confidence, at any rate enjoying the confidence of the great majority of the people of his native province, so much so that even in the province of Quebec he is just as popular as he is in any other province of confederation.\nI have something very nice to read to this house. It is an excerpt from a speech which was delivered by the then leader of the opposition on June 25, 1930, at Cobourg, Ontario:\n"Anybody could devise a policy for to-day," the opposition leader declared, "to catch votes, but it is our duty, the duty of statesmen-\nThis is most humble, most modest.\n-to see beyond the horizon."\nIs it not delightful, Mr. Speaker? Now, coming to social insurance, it will have to be paid for, and though I cannot quote the exact page of Hansard, I remember distinctly hearing the Prime Minister state in this house that he would accept nothing but a contributory system. Well, how many people do we meet in Ottawa who have not 10 cents with which to buy a sandwich, and how can they pay towards a contributory system of insurance? If this insurance is to solve unemployment, where will the funds come from? Is it true\n270\tCOMMONS\nReform, Measxvres-Mr. Pouliot\nthat incomes will be severely taxed above $5,000, to the exent of one-third? People have not the money with which to pay-much less than in 1930. Last year in the Gazette of February 9, 1934, I read a report of a speech delivered by the Prime Minister in the Mount Royal hotel, in Montreal, on Realties-not realty. What did he say? The heading is:\nCredit of Canada has reached limit premier declares.\nPeople must face fact, Bennett says, and work for future.\nAlways for the future. He is ashamed of his past; I mean as Prime Minister, otherwise he is a very nice gentleman.\nDefault impossible.\nDominion must retain place among nations, Canadian club is told-railway problem discussed.\nHere I have something delightful. He spoke about the debt of Canada approximating $3,000,000,000. He said:\nThis was the sum on which Canada had directly to pay interest. Then there were the sums of money which the dominion had guaranteed.\nThis is in a Tory paper which had found the policy of the government so bad that it had to repudiate it this year.\n"That mere statement," the Premier continued, "is enough to make men thoughtful. Put yourself in my place and wonder where the money is coming from to pay the interest. That is the problem we have to think of. And all the theories in the world, my friends-\nHe did not then say " men and women."\n[DOT]-will not solve the problem. It is an actuality, a reality."\nAll the theories about that so-called reform legislation which is not ready and which, when ready, it is impossible to digest, are not a reality. We have to face a reality. A tremendous debt is bearing down upon the Canadian people and it has to be met. It is hard to meet it because the government has closed this country to the markets of the world. Now it comes with views as to the future just the same as we have already had in the past. Do hon. members remember that when Our Lord had fasted for forty days He was brought to a high mountain and the devil said to him; Kneel before me and all these prosperous cities, all these fertile plains that you see will be yours.\tThe\nanswer of Our Lord to Satan was: "Vade Retro Satanas."\t" Get thee behind me,\nSatan." This is the answer that this government will get from the Canadian people at the next election.']
Mr. OOTNAM:: I was paired with the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Hurtubise). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: I was paired with the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Goulet). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MALONEY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. COWAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Usley). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauharnois Mr. Raymond). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. CHARTERS:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. Blair). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BUTCHER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Burns). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
Mr. GEfuSHAW: I was paired with the hon. member for London (Mr. White). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. VENIOT:: I was paired with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. POWER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGi'b-bon). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


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


Mr. MBRCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto South (Mr. Geary). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BEAUBIBN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Baribeau). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was paired with the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Smoke). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
Supply-Justice


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


Mr. MICHAUD:: I was paired with the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Ganong). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Bell). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. DESROCHERS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Robinson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Salaries, $198,798; contingencies, including the solicitor general's office, $45,000.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: Explain.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: The committee will note that although there is a reduction of some $12,000 in this vote, the reduction is more apparent than real. The reason for the change is that salaries of the penitentiaries staff, including the superintendent and three inspectors, are now removed from the civil government vote and put in the penitentiaries vote. The reason for that is that they are no longer under the Civil Service Act. There is this reduction of $12,000 shown in the vote, but there is really an increase of $1,900 in the whole staff.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: What
does the increase of $5,000 in contingencies, including the Solicitor General's office, represent?


Hugh Guthrie: The contingencies are in regard to increased legal expenses.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In connection with what, particularly?


Hugh Guthrie: In connection with litigated matters in the department.


Mr. DUFF:: Is this amount made up with the ten per cent reduction or is it the full amount?


Hugh Guthrie: With the reduction.


William Duff: Will the minister be good
enough to explain why, in view of the state-

ment made by the Minister of Finance, the estimates are made up with the reduction of * ten per cent?


Hugh Guthrie: There is a bill to be
introduced to restore five per cent of the reduction, as announced by the Minister of Finance.


William Duff: Why were not the estimates
made up on that basis?


Hugh Guthrie: Because the bill has not
been passed yet.


William Duff: Surely when the estimates
were made up the government must have known their intention with regard to the reduction, and the estimates should be made up on the basis of what the government is going to do in regard to salaries.


Mr. RHODES:: If I may say a word, Mr. Chairman, in the statement I made on the introduction of the estimates I endeavoured to make it clear that the estimates were set up on this basis in order that they might be brought down in the house at an early date. Their preparation did not involve an immediate decision, which had to be made in the light of the revenue, as to how much if any of the salary deduction could be restored. That is why the announcement was made in the form in which it was, and that is why the estimates were set up on this basis. Otherwise there would have been a delay in bringing them down.


William Duff: I understand that, but it
seems to me that the government should have been in a position, when these estimates were being made up, to decide as to what was to be their policy in regard to the salaries of the civil servants. It seems to me they should have known what their policy was to be. I understand that it will be necessary to introduce a bill, in view of the bill passed last year, but with regard to these estimates it seems to me that the amount should be in accordance with the terms of the bill which the Minister of Finance says will be introduced.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I see there is one senior advisory counsel with a salary of $6,300, and three at $5,940. Would the minister say who they are?


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot place them
according to seniority. Mr. Bill is the senior.


Ernest Lapointe: Is he the one receiving $6,300?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, and I am sorry to say that his health has been very indifferent

Supply-Justice
for some time, and for that reason I have been deprived of his services for a great part of the past year. Next in seniority would be Mr. Plaxton, then Mr. Gallagher, then Mr. Fontaine and then Mr. Gibault.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think so


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Miall comes in ahead of the last two named.


Ernest Lapointe: I see there is one more than last year.


Hugh Guthrie: That one has been taken over from the railway department We found that we were very short handed due to sickness; not only Mr. Bill but Mr. MacNeill has been on leave of absence for a considerable time through ill health, so we transferred Mr. Anderson, who was the legal counsel in the Department of Railways and Canals, to the Department of Justice.


Ernest Lapointe: Would the Solicitor
General tell me who is his private secretary?


Mr. DUPRE:: I have had no private
secretary since the first of September last.


Ernest Lapointe: Is it intended to appoint one? I see there is an appropriation here.


Maurice Dupré: ' I have several applications before me but no decision has been arrived at as yet.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have an English copy
of the estimates, but apparently there is no French copy. Last year when we were discussing the railway bill I remember that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals agreed to postpone the debate due to the fact that there were no French copies of the bill. I submit that we should wait and not continue the discussion of the estimates until we have a French copy.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith, Cumberland) :: Shall the item carry ?


Jean-François Pouliot: I should like an answer
from the government.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will have an immediate
inquiry made. If there are no French copies available it is a matter of accident, certainly not of design. I am rather surprised that they are not available in,French at the moment.


Jean-François Pouliot: I very distinctly remember that last year the Minister of Railways agreed to postpone the discussion on the railway bill, at the request of my hon. friend from Lot-biniere (Mr. Yerville), because the bill was not printed in French. I do not see why the Minister of Finance should not be just as fair 92582-18
towards the French speaking members of this house as his colleague was last year. We were told over the radio by the Solicitor General that every publication, including Hansard and all others, would appear at the same time in French and English. Here is a most important matter, supply, and we have no French translation, so I do not see why the Minister of Finance should insist on going on. We were told that with the organization of the bureau for translations everything would be fine and all publications would come out simultaneously in both French and English, as from a slot machine. Now we have to wait for the translation of the estimates.
As a French speaking member I insist that we follow the precedent established last year by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals. What he did was well done, and I hope the Minister of Finance will follow the same line. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is here; the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre), the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve), the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau), the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) and the right hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley), all ministers from the province of Quebec, are here also, and I appeal to them, as representing French speaking people, to tell the Minister of Finance that this discussion should be postponed until the French version of the estimates is tabled. I ask you, sir, to give a ruling on the matter and to decide whether or not we should continue the discussion of supply when we have not the French translation of the estimates.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: As one who took a very active part in connection with the translation bill last year I think it only fair that I should say a word about the lack of the French translation. Repeatedly the Secretary of State and the French ministers made the boast that the amalgamation of the translation bureaux was a step in the right direction and that all documents and reports would be published concurrently in the French and English languages. One of the most vital duties we are called upon to perform in this house is the voting of supply; one of the most important documents to be submitted is the estimates, yet at the very first opportunity we find that the estimates are not available in both languages.
This is a most serious and anomalous situation. We have the remarkable situation that after the promises of the Secretary of State and of the other ministers from Quebec, supported by the French speaking members from that province who sit on the government benches, that this step -would put the French language on a par with the English language.

Supply-Justice

yet at the very first opportunity, and in connection with the most important document to be presented to the house, we are furnished with the English version only. What I stated at the time the bill was under discussion has come true. This bill was a farce. It has achieved only one thing, namely, it has necessitated the translators working unearthly and unholy hours under conditions absolutely foreign heretofore. The results are just what we predicted, namely that the change would lead to confusion. I am not prepared to take my seat without expressing the strongest possible protest. I do not speak with hostility. But I have said what I had to say more particularly in view of the promises made last year by the Secretary of State and lately of the declarations made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) in Montreal that concurrently all documents would be published, translated and deposited on the table of the house.
I believe we should be told why we have not received the estimates printed in French. I have had my English copy of the estimates for five or six days, and I have awaited this opportunity to make these observations. We now have tangible proof of the accuracy of our statement of last year to the effect that the change in translating services would amount to a huge farce. I am protesting as strongly as is within my power against the lack of expedition in publishing the French version.


Mr. CAHAN:: The criticisms levelled at the bureau for translations are not well taken. For the first time I think in the history of this parliament, at least for many years, the departmental reports for the past year were laid upon the table of the bouse printed in the French language in the first days of the session. Provision is being made for the very early translation of Hansard reports from English into French. Of course, the official report of Hansard is reported in English and French, but we have made special efforts towards publishing the French translation of the official report on the same day as the official report appears, only a few hours later.
Concerning the translation of the estimates may I say that the bureau proceeded with the translation as soon as the copy was received by the department. I do not know why there was a delay, or even if there was a delay in sending the estimates from the Department of Finance to the translations bureau. However the document has been translated and is now in print. The official proofs of the print were sent to-day from the translations bureau to the Department of Public Printing and

Stationery. The printing has not yet been completed although the composition is complete. The French translation will certainly be ready to-morrow.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am prepared to accept the minister's explanation, but it just goes to show that I was right. I did not level my criticism against the staff of translators, as the minister must know. I must say however that the minister is and has in the past been ever prone to accept responsibility for anything done in his department. He has shouldered the responsibility. I am not levelling these criticisms at -the translators, but I have levelled them at the administration and particularly at those members who are responsible for the administration of the law in question. Last year Hansard was published just as it is published to-day. We had Hansard early in the morning, and we still have Hansard early in the morning. Previously however the translators did not have to work the unholy hours they now rmist work. They did not have to begin work at eleven o'clock at night and wait until one o'clock in the morning before they could get copy. At that time they did not have to wait until daylight before they could go home, as they do now. These people are working under conditions which may require the application of legislation concerning working hours. Probably we will have to ask that such legislation may be adapted to translators and other civil servants, if the administration is going to continue to administer affairs as it is now doing.
That is the reason I direct my criticism against the administration. Last year we had no trouble, and in the years past we had no trouble. There was no difficulty until the Secretary of State, moved by some motive, turned the whole department into chaos, and turned the whole thing into turmoil by trying to put in a new system, a sort of reform and something new. Now we find that after all these changes conditions are much worse than they were before.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As Secretary of State I take full responsibility for the administration of my department. So far_ as the Department of Public Printing and Stationery is concerned may I say that I do not think it has been more efficiently or more economically administered in recent years. The hon. member has said that the French translation of English Hansard was satisfactory to every one last year. I say it satisfied a few people who

Supply-Justice
were willing to receive and accept the French translation four or five days after the official record in English and French was published. Now an effort is being made to bring out the French copy on the same day. If hon. gentlemen persist in staying up a large part of the night reviewing their proofs of English copy it is true that I shall have to keep the translators later to perform their work of translating, in order that the translation in French may be printed, completed and distributed at an early hour next day.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Without any extra pay.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What extra pay?


Joseph Georges Bouchard: For the translators working every night.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Yes, for the translators working at night.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: So long as this parliament
sits until eleven o'clock at night it will be necessary for those people to work at night who prepare Hansard for the next day.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Then the minister admits there is no improvement?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, there is this improvement, that every public document, which has been delivered to t'be bureau for translations, has been translated more rapidly and with an efficiency equal to that which prevailed in any year of the past four years.
Mr. ST-PERE:	What about the price
spreads report?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have nothing to do with
the French translation of the price spreads commission evidence.
Mr. ST-PERE:	Who has anything to do
with it?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The commission itself. The
commission must decide as to how rapidly that is to be done. It was more important that I should attend to the expeditious translation of those matters committed to the charge of my department, namely that the translation and printing of the reports for each and every department should be ready at the beginning of the session. That has been accomplished.
I notice that the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot), speaking with regard to some others matters, made a statement in his place yesterday about the French translation. I wish to say that the matters of which he complained were never translated by the bureau for translations, were never sent to the bureau for translations to be translated, and further that no translator of 925S2-18J
the bureau for translations has been dismissed because of inefficiency since the bureau was created.


Jean-François Pouliot: But the hon. gentleman will surely not say that the remarks I made yesterday were unfounded, that they had no basis?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No. I said they had no basis so far as the bureau for translations was concerned.


Jean-François Pouliot: I cannot leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. When I gave a question to the assistant clerk of the house as I had done for years past, and the translation, and not only the translation but the question itself as transcribed, and published in the order paper, were wrong, naturally I complained about it. I did not complain about the bureau for translations; I mentioned only one translator. So my hon. friend the Secretary of State is wrong in both instances. He has only to look at the first page of yesterday's Hansard to see what I said. I did not mention the bureau, but one translator. So why should we discuss it further?
What we are discussing is the fact that the estimates are not tabled in French. Whether the French translation is at the bureau or in the Belgian Congo I do not care. The fact is we have not got it in this House of Commons, and as we have not got it here at this very moment, I do not see how the Prime Minister and his colleagues can ask us to consider these estimates. The Prime Minister's colleague who sits to his left, the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) is no longer in the chamber. He should be here when we are discussing this important matter. Nor do I see the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau). He was here at the beginning but he is not here now. He takes no interest in his French-speaking electors, just like the hon. member for Argenteuil who is the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister. The hon. Minister of Marine is a very important gentleman in Montreal. He is the leader of the bar in his province, a former Batonnier general du Barreau. He knows the importance of these matters not only to the Frenchspeaking citizens but to all those who want fair play in this community of ours stretching from ocean to ocean which is called Canada. I am not speaking on behalf only of the French-speaking people of this country but on behalf of all those who want the traditions of this country to be respected. I know very well that the government cannot say anything in reply. The Secretary of State says: Well, the translation is there. But how do we
Supply-Justice

know it is there? It may have been told to him, but he did not verify it himself. He takes the word of those who told him. I have no doubt that he is speaking in perfect good faith when he says that, but who can tell us that he has been rightly informed? That is the point. But there is more than that, Mr. Chairman. By the British North America Act all the official papers of this house shall be in both languages. One of them is missing, the French version of the estimates. There is talk about amending the British North America Act. Is it for the purpose of striking out that provision in the British North America Act which makes both languages official? Is that the purpose of the government? . Is that the start in this matter? I ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) who has French-speaking people in his constituency, I ask the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre), I ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve)-I ask all of them is the fact that the French version of the estimates is missing a prognostication of what is coming, namely, to strike out that provision in the British North America Act that both languages shall remain official in this country? I speak on behalf not only of the French-speaking people in this country but of all those who want the traditions of this country to be respected, all those who sincerely desire that we abide by the constitution of this country. I say, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot proceed until we have the French version of the estimates.
May I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I regret very much that the right hon. leader ..of the government in the Senate, the Right Hon. Senator Meighen, does not sit in this house, because I would look at him with pleasure. Shall I tell you why, Mr. Chairman? It is because he is the only member of this government-mark you, the only member of this government-who ever said "Ready, Aye ready,"


Maurice Dupré: Mr. Chairman, I would like to answer immediately in a few remarks, and I will ask the house to consider the actual situation. This is the first session since confederation, since 1867, that we have had so many departmental reports tabled in the house in both languages on the same day. It is the first time also that we have had Hansard in both languages ready and delivered on the same day.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: They are not ready.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: No.


Maurice Dupré: They are.
TMr. Pou'iot.J


Eugène Fiset: No, we have not got them yet.


Maurice Dupré: I do not know what has happened to my hon. friend's, but I have received both copies on the same day.


Eugène Fiset: Then you are
privileged.


Lucien Dubois: Translators are obliged to work all night.


Maurice Dupré: I will admit that sometimes instead of receiving the English and French versions at the same hour, the French copy has been delivered two or three or four hours after the English copy, but that was due to the fact that, in some instances, corrections had to be made in the original text by the speakers; and I know as a fact that one morning we could not get those corrections before six o'clock. The translators had to wait until six o'clock the following morning before they could commence the translation of the English into the French text. But barring those circumstances we may say that the two texts of Hansards, the English text and the French text, can be delivered on the same day and practically at the same time, and I repeat this is the first time that it has been done since confederation.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: It is not done.


Maurice Dupré: And we do not receive from our friends opposite a word of praise, or appreciation. We are very far from the days of last year when, on the translation bill that was so ably presented by the hon. Secretary of State, we were accused of being traitors to our race and doing things that were injuring the rights of the French language. But this is our vindication. We do not want congratulations; we are not looking for them, but we are doing this year what our friends opposite never did during the nine years that they were in power. When they are in power they are very silent on the rights of the French language in Canada; but that subject is a specialty with them when they are sitting on the opposition benches.
This is only an experiment, Mr. Chairman. We are trying to do what we think is the right thing. Up to now, we have met with some difficulties, but we hope to improve on the work we have already done. Not only is the government full of good will but the translators are also, and in passing I think I should pay a tribute to the translators who for the last eight or ten days have been working all night, some of them going to bed

Unemployment Insurance
only at eight and even ten o'clock in the morning. We appreciate what they have done, and I want to say so publicly. At all events, as far as the estimates are concerned, as the Secretary of State has said the French part will be tabled very soon, maybe to-morrow, and we are doing everything we can to meet all difficulties and to see that the departmental reports and Hansard are produced on the same day in both the French and English texts.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: We have evidently entered upon a very contentious subject, and a debate of this kind may be carried on indefinitely. Those of us in this corner a short time ago voted against the amendment, which professed to be in favour of getting down to the social legislation at the earliest possible moment. The only reason that we voted against that amendment was that it seemed to be part of certain blocking tactics with which we do not agree and against which we want to protest. Now it appears that the same blocking tactics will be used in connection with the estimates. I would say to the government however that the avowed purpose of their bringing down the supply bill has been accomplished. The estimate before us can be discussed on another occasion. The government definitely promised yesterday that the important social legislation relating to unemployment would be brought down to-day, and I would respectfully suggest to hon. gentlemen opposite, who have control of the business of the house, that they ask that this committee rise and report progress and thus enable us to get down to the regular schedule of business for to-day.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is no disposition
on the part of the government to force the matter through committee of the whole house in view of the objection taken. The circumstance that the estimates had not been translated and printed in French was entirely unknown to myself until inquiry was made. But inasmuch as objection has been taken, notwithstanding the fact that the estimates are being printed, are in type and will be available for distribution to-morrow, and that every hon. gentleman opposite, irrespective of what his mother tongue may be, is quite familiar with the subject matter of the resolution before the house at the moment and with the estimates themselves, I accede with pleasure to the suggestion and therefore move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



PRIVILEGE-MR. POULIOT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	I rise to a question of privilege.
In the Ottawa Journal of to-day, the five o'clock edition, there appears this heading:
Pouliot delays division in House of Commons.
If the division was delayed, may I point out that I did not delay the so-called social legislation, because we have none before us, and moreover supply was not ready then,


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a bill to establish an employment and social insurance commission; to provide for a national employment service; for insurance against unemployment; for aid to unemployed persons, and for other forms of social insurance and security, and for purposes related thereto; and to provide for such contributions as may be necessary to carry into effect the proposed legislation.
He said:	I do not know, Mr. Speaker,
whether it would best suit the convenience of hon. gentlemen to consider at the moment the matters that are referred to in the resolution while you are still in the chair, and when questions cannot be asked and answered, or whether it is advisable that you should now leave the chair and the committee be formed at once, so that discussion upon the resolution can take place and I can make a statement and answer questions put to me. I am entirely in the hands of the house.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I think it would expedite matters if Your Honour were to leave the chair and we got into committee immediately.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not intend to enter into a discussion at any length with respect to the general subject of unemployment insurance; I will do that when the opportunity is afforded under the rules for the introduction of a bill founded on the resolution. The resolution contemplates a bill being submitted to the chamber dealing with the matters that are mentioned in the resolution itself. Sometimes the custom has been followed of discussing upon the resolution the details of a measure founded thereupon. Such I believe is unsound practice.
Unemployment Insurance

First of all, the resolution seeks the introduction of a bill to establish an employment and social insurance commission. It is proposed that an unemployment insurance measure shall be introduced, founded upon this resolution, and before I go further I should like to point out that on April 29, 1931, in this chamber, I made this statement:
I propose, if we are spared as a government and as individuals, that the information we will have before our term of office is ended shall be crystallized into the form of legislative proposals to be submitted to this house. I have never had any illusions as to what is involved; I have none now. I have never had any desire other than that the legislation placed upon the statute book, whether by this government or by some other, shall be legislation based upon knowledge, and not upon mere guesswork.
The next year I made the same observation. I endeavoured to explain on that occasion that any unemployment measure, called an insurance measure, must necessarily imply some understanding of the risk that is incurred by the insurers. That seemed to me to be elementary. The difficulty had been that the census returns, although the report had been made, had not been analyzed for the purpose of ascertaining just what they disclosed with respect to unemployment. I mentioned the other day just what the returns did show as to the numbers of unemployed! on the first of June. Now I will not do more than recall what I said in 1931 as to the factors that must be considered and the elements that enter into the preparation of an unemployment insurance measure.
This bill contemplates administration by a commission and an effort will be made by the measure to see that it is freed as far as may be from political control. One of the difficulties in all countries where legislation dealing with unemployment insurance has been introduced has been that the political element has entered into discussions and in a large sense, in more than one country, has frustrated the values attaching to such legislation. It will be observed further that the legislation which will be introduced on this bill, which introduction I shall move when this resolution has been adopted, contemplates the creation of a commission for the purpose of dealing with this matter.
Then the resolution says:
To provide for a national employment .service.
I shall not now follow in detail the various laws that were passed in Great Britain to deal with unemployment insurance beginning in 1911; nor shall I deal with the reports made by commissions that from time to time have considered the matter and determined
fMr. Bennett.]
whether there should be an extension of benefits, an increase in premiums; nor shall I at the moment consider those who are eligible because a resolution does not contemplate that discussion being had before the measure itself is introduced. But I shall say this, that in Great Britain the very foundation of the effort was found in the national employment service. That is, the labour offices, or as we call them in Canada, the employment offices, may transfer labour from one point to another, and provided there is unemployment at one point and requirements at another the labour may be transferred from the point where there is a surplus to the point where it may be utilized. In this country as is known, consequent upon the treaty of peace and the conferences that were held, the setting up of the international labour office, we did provide for the institution in Canada of employment offices. The dominion became a party to those offices being established and in a large sense provides for their maintenance. Those offices have an important part to play in the legislation which will be submitted to the house, an important part to play for the pin-pose of providing information to the commission constantly as to where there is a surplus of labour, for instance, in a single province where there is a surplus at one point and requirements at another, and the principles that were adopted in Great Britain have been the principles largely followed so far as possible having regard to our area in this country.
Then it will be observed that we are providing for insurance against unemployment. Insurance in essence is an indemnity. Obviously it will be impossible to provide for insurance that will be a complete indemnity with respect to unemployment. There must be first of all the determination of the probable numbers that will be affected. We have taken terms of years; the statistical department has determined what the average would be and from that we have endeavoured to select just what would be the likely number of unemployed in any one year having regard to the average numbers employed during the period to which I have referred, namely, ten or eleven years. Upon that of course, must be determined the premium that should be paid. That is an actuarial computation depending naturally upon the benefits that are to be conferred when the insurance becomes a claim. As regards the part of the resolution providing for unemployment insurance, I shall not go into detail now more than to say that the premium shall be paid by the employer, the worker

Unemployment Insurance
and the state, the state's contribution being the cost largely of administration, and when the bill is introduced I shall give the history of other countries in that regard. That, however, is how the premium is to be paid. The amount of premium of course will vary with the ages of the insured; it will vary also with the averages of unemployment and employment as shown from the figures which we have obtained from the statistical department and upon which the actuaries have exercised their talents.
That being determined, the next question is a very simple one: What benefits are to be secured from the premium thus paid? Obviously the benefits as in most insurance of that kind issued by private enterprises and companies, are limited as to the period of time during which they will be paid. Sometimes health insurance provides for benefits for thirteen weeks, sometimes for twenty-six weeks, sometimes for a longer period depending upon the amount of premium paid and what the actuarial figures indicate as to the character and nature of the risk. In this instance I shall indicate to the house when I introduce the bill the history of other countries in that regard. At this time for purposes of the resolution it is only necessary to point out that we contemplate the maintenance of those features which differentiate insurance from any other form of contract. There is the payment of a premium by the workman, his employer and the state; those three together are responsible for the premium which is received by the commissioners and which is administered in the way of benefits depending on claims being made by those who come within the terms of the statutory requirements, namely finding themselves unemployed under the conditions that are mentioned in the bill. That of course is a matter to be determined with great care. Whether the period shall be thirteen weeks or fourteen weeks, what number of claims may be made by a workman within a given period of time, what must be his necessary contribution as a minimum before he can make a claim, how his contributions shall accumulate during a given time-all these matters have been considered in all the European countries and we have obtained the benefit of their experience. When I introduce the bill I shall make known to the house what that experience shows so that it may be available on Hansard for hon. members.
After having provided for benefits of that kind, the resolution states:
For aid' to unemployed persons, and for other forms of social insurance and security.
We merely provide for the amplification of that in cases where for exceptional reasons a workman has preferred no claim for a long period of time, say five, six, or seven years, where he has worked continuously, he might then secure larger benefits than he would otherwise be entitled to on the strict construction of his statutory policy or right to claim. That is a very simple matter depending of course upon whether he has been able to maintain his work from day to day and from month to month for a long period of time.
The next point deals with the problem of the payment of the necessary premiums, that is such contributions as may be necessary to carry into effect the proposed legislation. I do not of course consider that on a resolution I am within the rules of the house in endeavouring to discuss what have been described as constitutional questions, but I think I may anticipate what I propose to say on the introduction of the bill by pointing out to the house that I have no doubt whatever as to the constitutionality of the bill which will be submitted to parliament. I have no doubt at all that it is within our legislative powers. Whatever doubts may have arisen in times past-and I confess that I was one of those who had grave doubts as to our constitutional powers with respect to a matter of this kind-I think it is fair to say that there are two reasons why those doubts in my mind have been entirely dissipated, and I trust they are reasons which will be sufficiently strong to commend themselves to the sympathetic consideration and I think approval of every member of this chamber.
In the first place it will be recalled that we entered into a treaty of peace as part of the British empire. It will be recalled that in 1919 Canada executed the peace treaty as a part of the British empire. This parliament ratified that treaty by the Treaties of Peace Act of 1919, and not only in the covenant of the League of Nations but also in one of the articles of the treaty itself express provision is made for matters dealing with questions of labour. It will also be recalled that pursuant to the powers thereby conferred there was called together a great labour conference which met at Washington the very same year when the late Senator Robertson was Minister of Labour, Mr. Rowell, then President of the Council, was Acting Minister of External Affairs, and the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition was one of the advisers who attended as a former minister of labour. That conference determined that certain acts
Unemployment Insurance

were advisable and that a certain course of conduct should be pursued with respect to labour. I will do no more at present than say that conventions have from that time been drawn up, the various nations of the world have indicated their approval of them, and Canada, although approving of them, has availed herself of that provision of the peace treaty which said with respect to federal communities that if they did not desire to deal with these matters they might instead recommend them to the provinces. Recommendations have from time to time been made by the government of the day to the provinces. But I know of no reason why parliament should not exercise its' power under section 132 of the British North America Act and deal as a part of the British empire with the obligations which we accepted and which are created under the peace treaty and by subsequent conferences. Many ratifications have taken place by this parliament of conventions arrived at, and ratifications will be sought with respect to other matters that have to do with social problems and social legislation.
There is another reason which is wider still than that in the narrow constitutional sense. Since we first began to consider these matters there has been, as has been pointed out, a widening conception of the power of the federal authority with respect to many matters. In the aviation case, for instance, it was held that the federal power had exclusive jurisdiction to deal with matters pertaining to the use of the air. In the radio case a similar decision was reached. Therefore we have in the terms of the judgment of the court of last resort a statement in both cases of a widening sense of the power of the central authority, and when those two are coupled with the additional powers that have to do with interprovincial and international trade, peace, order and good government, and the power of taxation for the purpose of making contributions to such a fund, the law officers of the crown have no doubt, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) is clear, that in the light of the decisions as we now have them the legislation in the terms in which it will be offered to this house is within the competence of this parliament.
I do not think I shall make any more detailed statement on this resolution. I realize that on the introduction of the bill founded upon it I shall be expected to make a more elaborate statement as to the conditions in other countries, as to the history of such legislation, especially, in Great Britain, whose fMr. Bennett.]
act we have largely copied, and the effort that has been made, shall I say, to adapt the legislation of Great Britain to the conditions of this country.


Ernest Lapointe: May I ask my right hon. friend if on the question of jurisdiction he has secured the views of any of the provincial governments?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be recalled that in 1932, I think it was, I discussed this matter at a meeting of the provincial premiers. There were differences of view as to the respective jurisdictions of the federal power and the provincial legislatures. I have not discussed it with them formally since that occasion, nor have I had any occasion to do so informally except possibly with one or two of them. Therefore the correct answer to that question would be, no, not since the last conference in which the matter -was discussed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister has said that this legislation is to be administered by a commission, and that the reason for that was to prevent anything in the nature of political interference. May I ask the Prime Minister if that means that this commission will have such authority in the matter that the authority of and control by this parliament over the subject matter of the legislation will thereby be alienated, to a certain extent at all events?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think I should answer that question in the negative. The right hon. gentleman is aware that the railway commission administers the Railway Act in the very broadest sense, but it does not thereby displace the jurisdiction of this parliament. The commission that is called into being will be a commission representative of the workers and the employers, with one other member, for the purpose of administering the statute. Of course at all times it will be subject to the statutory powers conferred upon it by parliament and to the dominant authority of parliament to deal with every creature it creates, and to amend any legislation it may enact.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the Prime Minister inform the house within what time he expects it will be possible to have benefits paid under the scheme of insurance?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statute itself will deal with that phase. Generally the act contemplates adopting the principles followed in England, which will be made known when the bill itself is introduced.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the Prime Minister say whether that will be within the
2S1
Unemployment Insurance
next year, or two years, or three years, or within what period of time he expects benefits with respect to the various insurances will become available to contributors?


Richard Bedford Bennett: To answer that question at the moment would involve dealing with a mass of detail. It will depend upon the number of payments made by an assured within a given period of time. If for instance an assured should make the required number of payments, as provided in the English act, within a year, his right to claim would arise immediately thereafter. The whole theory upon which such legislation is based in other countries-in Great Britain, for instance, whose legislation we have followed, is that within a given time the worker makes a given number of contributions and thereby obtains the right to make a claim. His premium earns him the right to make a claim if he is validly unemployed. If he is not unemployed he is laying up for himself treasure in the future with regard to what may be called supplementary benefits that accrue under the statute.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can my right hon. friend give the house an estimate as to what he expects will be the probable cost of this insurance scheme, and the contribution of the state in reference thereto?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I propose to deal with that matter in detail. There is a large mass of figures. It would of course depend entirely on the number of workmen that may come within it. Assuming that there is one and a half million, and payments, say for the sake of argument, are at the rate of twenty cents a -week, you would have the sum of $300,000 contributed by the state, which in fifty-two weeks would amount to 115,000,000. It depends upon the facts, upon the conditions arising within the terms and provisions of the bill. I quite appreciate what the right hon. gentleman and others said yesterday, that ample time must be given to read the bill in all its particulars from the time it is printed and given second reading. I could not answer the question in that form without referring to a vast amount of material, which will be available to the house. I propose to offer the reports of actuaries as to, shall I say, the actuarial soundness of the proposals that will be submitted in the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister will recall that in speaking on the address I pointed out that one of the provisions of the Supreme Court Act gave the government the opportunity of submitting any proposed measure to the court for an opinion
on the question of jurisdiction. Has the Prime Minister thought of submitting any questions to the supreme court in that regard?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I indicated in the discussion on the address that I thought it undesirable to discuss in detail any particular legislation or the attitude of the government towards it. The government is satisfied that the legislation is within its competence, it sees no necessity for submitting it to the Supreme Court of Canada either antecedent to or subsequent to its enactment.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course the governments that enacted the Lemieux act, the Board of Commerce Act and the various insurance acts were satisfied that those acts were within the competence of this parliament. But unfortunately their validity was challenged by the provinces, and victoriously Does not the right hon. gentleman think that it would be better to try to come to an agreement and understanding on the matter prior to enactment than to take the chance of having the act declared unconstitutional by the court?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can quite appreciate the point made by the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). The fact is that the Lemieux act was generally regarded by lawyers who were fairly well informed as being unsound constitutionally in view not of decisions of the moment but, I think, a decision subsequent to the date of its enactment in which, under the late Lord Haldane, there had been placed upon provincial powers an interpretation somewhat widening them from the conception which obtained at the time the Lemieux act was passed. With respect to the insurance acts it will foe recalled that, commencing with the Citizens' Insurance Company and Parsons, the privy council decided that statutory conditions could be imposed by provincial legislatures upon policies issued by companies licensed by the federal power. From that decision there followed a long train of decisions terminating in the insurance reference and the various cases that arose subsequent to that by reason of legislation enacted by this parliament as well as by the provinces.
Probably it is within the hon. gentleman's memory that the Lemieux act was not attacked until some twenty years after it had been enacted, if my memory serves me aright, while in the Board of Commerce case the attack was immediate and successful. It was not, I think, until the case brought by Snyder had been dealt with that the Lemieux act was finally dealt with.
Unemployment Insurance

We have not the slightest doubt at the moment, and unless the hon. gentleman is able to throw some doubt on it that we have not at the present time we can see no escape from our having jurisdinction, for the simple and obvious reason that section 132 of the British North America Act provides:
The parliament and government of Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada or of any province thereof, as part of the British empire, towards foreign countries arising under treaties between the empire and such foreign countries.
Those words were considered in the aviation and radio cases, and the construction placed upon them is now a matter of record. Therefore, having regard to what has taken place under the peace treaty and having regard to the position taken by this parliament, I do not think there is any doubt as to our position.
As to the second question, with regard to the desirability of discussing the matter with the provinces, when we did discuss this matter the attitude taken by some of the provinces was one of great relief to think that the dominion would undertake a national obligation of this character. Some provinces, however, took the view that this was an interference with their exclusive powers. They said, "We do not desire to discuss the question of the merits of the legislation, for the jurisdiction is either exclusive to us or it is exclusive to the federal power," or in other words to parliament. The question of the obligation under the treaty section so far as I know has not been doubted by any province in the confederation, and if it is not necessary to amend the constitution to effectuate the purpose we have in mind I do not think any good purpose is to be served by doing so. It will be recalled that when this government came into office neither the aviation nor the radio case had been decided. I think perhaps hon. members will remember the observation of a great jurist that the expansion of law by judicial interpretation, even when applied to a modern statute, is that modern conditions may be met even though the statute is of long standing or great age, and the privy council has seen fit to put upon our constitution a somewhat wider interpretation, when dealing with aviation and radio. I think the hon. gentleman will particularly recall the radio case-


Ernest Lapointe: And that is the way in which women became persons.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is another case, and I thank my hon. friend for reminding me of it, although truthfully I never had any doubt

about it myself; I never doubted that the decision would be as it was. The Minister of Justice, together with his entire staff and the law officers of the crown, have given the matter much attention and they are clear that at the moment, unless there is some curtailment of federal power by decisions that may arise hereafter, which I think is not likely, this legislation is within our competence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister has stated that this is to be a contributory scheme, with contributions by the federal authorities, the provinces and the employees.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not by the provinces;
by the employers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are the contributions under this act to be voluntary or compulsory?


Richard Bedford Bennett: These, of course, are
compulsory.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Are any
classes of the community specifically excluded from the provisions of the legislation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I might say to
the right hon. gentleman that this was one of the matters I proposed to deal with on the introduction of the bill. He, as an old countryman, will recall that under the report of one of the commissions both the banking and insurance fraternities entirely exclude themselves from the operations of the act. The same principle runs through this proposed legislation.


Paul Mercier: I understand that there is no contribution by the provincial authority or government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is none confemplated by the bill.


Mr. HEAPS:: I should like to ask if, included in the unemployment insurance act, there will be also measures dealing with sickness' and invalidity insurance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not dealt with
in the way of conferring benefits; that is dealt with in a very limited sense, in the view that matters both of relief and of health necessarily must be within the provincial rather than the federal jurisdiction.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Then do I understand that
these are not to form part of the legislation dealing with unemployment insurance?

Unemployment Insurance


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are dealt with in
part, but as I say not in the sense of conferring benefits under it for the premiums paid, except in so far as .they may constitute the basis of unemployment, if that is what the hon. gentleman means.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No, I have in mind the
British act, under which benefits are paid to those who are sick or who suffer from invalidity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where unemployment
follows as the result of the conditions mentioned in the statute, without going into them in detail, the benefits are payable, of course, but there is no system of what you call health insurance such as you have in private enterprise; there is no method by wdiich policies may be secured such as may be had for accident and ill health. That is distinguished from unemployment. The basis of the premium, and the basis of the scheme, is unemployment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
Prime Minister knows that under the British act the same statute contains provisions dealing with national health insurance.


Mr. JEAN:: Would that be compulsory
insurance?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is there any provision in this bill for the men now unemployed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not in so far as it is
relief.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is there any supplemental measure in connection with the bill by which those now unemployed will be cared for?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not under this bill.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then it seems to
me quite obvious that this measure will be of very limited application.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is a hope.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, the point is
that if the bill is based on the earnings of the workmen, and if only upon those earnings he can base any claim upon the fund, I think it is obvious that there is no provision whatever for the half million people who are now unemployed, involving over a million individuals now in receipt of relief. There would seem to be no provision whatever for this great class of people, including those who are now in receipt of relief in their own homes,
those who are housed in the various refuges in the cities and those who are in relief camps of various kinds. I think it ought to be made Very clear that there is nothing whatever in this bill to provide for the outstanding evils of the depression, which we now face. Further than that, when the Prime Minister speaks of the claims as being based on actuarial experience his observations would mean that for only a few' weeks after a man became unemployed could he draw any unemployed benefits. That may be all very w'ell in normal times, but under the circumstances prevailing to-day it would mean that after a very few weeks indeed a man would be no better off than he was before. His claim would be exhausted.
I understand that contributions are to be obligatory. Undoubtedly that will mean that those who are receiving very low wages-and the price spreads commission has revealed that a great many of our people are in that position-will have their present low wages still further reduced, which will work an extreme hardship upon them and means privation to their wives and children. They are not now receiving a living wage, and the contribution here involved would mean a still further diminution of the small amount they are now receiving. That I believe must be a very serious consideration.
I understand any commission set up is to be so constituted that employers and employees will be represented thereon. We are informed, however, that it will be removed from political control. That may be all very well in the case of railways, where only money is concerned, but I believe it is a more serious consideration when we are dealing with human beings. For instance we are told that administration of the new plan will to a large extent rest upon unemployment offices, and that it may be possible to shift people from one particular point to another. Does that mean that a commission quite removed from political control will have power to shift people from northern Ontario down to Quebec or from Manitoba out to Vancouver, and to insist that those people move whether they like it or not? That to my mind is an important question for consideration.
The Prime Minister has referred to the experience of European countries. The experience of European countries during the depression has been that unemployment schemes have failed to function. That is true in England, where supplementary to the regular unemployment insurance scheme they
Unemployment Insurance

have had to adopt relief measures commonly known as the dole. I had hoped that in the proposed bill we would find some supplementary provisions which would at least bring us in line with the provision in Great Britain. Apparently, however, there is to be nothing of that kind. The unemployment insurance scheme was originated in Germany some years ago and was carried on in that country very systematically. We recall, however, that as soon as the full force of the depression struck Germany the scheme broke down, simply because, based as it was on the earnings and contributions of the workers, the amounts paid were reduced as also the time during which benefits were paid. The scheme failed to provide for their needs in an emergency.
I welcome the strong stand taken by the government that constitutionally they have the right to do something in this matter. Some of us have pleaded for that for a long time. We have said that if Canada had the right to enter into a treaty she had the right to carry out its terms. I am very glad the government has taken that position, and I hope they will see the matter through. However, when we come to meeting the pressing unemployment situation we are facing to-day I think we must confess that the Prime Minister's statement is most unsatisfactory and most disappointing. It makes no provision for meeting the claims and needs of a vast number of our fellow citizens who for some ten years past have been suffering.


Mr. GRAY:: What would the hon. member suggest as the proper way to draft the legislation?


James Shaver Woodsworth: As I have said I
agree with the legislation as far as it goes, but I submit that it helps only a very limited number of people.


Ross Wilfred Gray: How is the hon. member going to help those people?


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is not a
matter to be discussed here. I can quite readily go into it, and shall take an early opportunity to do so. All I want to do on this occasion is to make some general observations and not to go into the matter in great detail. We have not yet the measure before us, but I do think that on the statement made by the Prime Minister it is proper immediately to recognize that, however admirable some provisions in the plan may be, it does not meet the needs of the great mass of the unemployed, and that a

considerable time will be required to build up a reserve sufficient to be of much service even to those now at work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I greatly regret that the hon. member has seen fit to confuse relief and unemployment insurance. There could be no such thing as a provision for voluntary relief or relief being given to those who are not insured. No actuary would talk about a program for insurance if he had no data upon which to formulate his figures or calculations. Relief is one thing; insurance is another. Unemployment insurance contemplates just what it says, namely the payment of benefits dependent as to their amount upon the extent of the premium payments made by the worker, the employer and the state.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That was not the experience in Great Britain when they attempted to extend their unemployment scheme.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In England you have a unitary system of government. That has been said so often that I repeat it simply because the hon. member is well aware of it. I fear this parliament has no jurisdiction over direct relief in that sense, nor has the treaty anything to do with it, nor have the other provisions of the British North America Act anything to do with it. We are now dealing with a national matter in which we provide that if a worker pays three and a half cents a day, if a like sum is paid by the employer and the state makes a contribution necessary to administer the system-amounting we will say to something slightly less than the amount I have stated or possibly slightly more-the worker secures the benefits because of payments made. The actuarial computations are made upon that basis.
Relief is an entirely different matter, and depends on entirely different circumstances. It cannot be the subject matter of actuarial computations. There is not the scientific data upon which to predicate any degree of assistance. As a result of discussions and conferences between those who have the primary responsibility and this government-or this parliament, I should say-contributions in aid are made to meet extraordinary circumstances under which those people are living.
There is a fact that the hon. member constantly disregards, although I do not think he does it purposely. There never has been a time in Canada when due to seasonal unemployment there has not been a very large number of unemployed. Estimates vary, but an estimate was made in 1930 at the time my right hon. friend held office as to what would

Unemployment Insurance
be involved under normal conditions. It was learned that there were never less than 150,000 unemployed scattered over the country, after it had reached a population exceeding 10,000,000. There are estimates greatly in excess of that.
In days gone by, before the depression, a workman could accummulate during the summer money sufficient to care for his family during the winter. Some worked only in the winter-or to put it the other way round, worked only in the summer so as to care for their families in the winter. But those reserves have entirely disappeared and been dissipated because there has been no work to enable those workers to accumulate a fresh reserve to deal with the period of unemployment brought about because of the fact that they were seasonal employees. That is the situation that has brought about relief in this country, until that slack can be taken up and employment provided for those who have been seasonally employed, to enable them to provide the reserve to care for themselves and their families as heretofore. It is a problem *which the local community, the city, town, municipality and province are dealing with, with the aid and assistance of grants which have been made to all the provinces in, say, some reasonable proportion to their necessities.
But on the next point, as to the condition of the unemployed, that is a matter which we have discussed every year with the provinces. *Only a few months ago we discussed it with them, and they may or may not desire to discuss it with us again. Presumably they will desire to do so, in which event parliament will be asked to consider what it conceives to be the best way to deal with it, having regard to the suggestions which the provinces make.
I should like once more to remind the house of the fact that in every instance the manner adopted to deal with the unemployment problem in the several provinces was arrived at by representatives of the provinces in consultation with dominion authorities. There was this limitation, that there were differences as to the extent to which they should secure assistance. Some thought that they should receive a larger sum per month than the sum received, but in every instance the method, using that word in the broad sense, was a method which was approved after a conference between the provinces and the dominion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the Prime
Minister suggest that it is beyond the powers of the dominion government to meet a national emergency such as unemployment?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not any doubt
that with the change, the diminution of unemployment, that has taken place during the last fifteen or eighteen months, it would be very difficult, if you follow the language of Lord Haldane's judgment, to assert jurisdiction on behalf of the dominion.


Mr. NEILL:: I wonder if the Prime Minister would explain this point to enlighten my ignorance. I understood him to quote section 132 of the British North America Act as giving this parliament the dominant power to disregard or ignore the claims of jurisdiction put forward by the provinces in dealing with this matter, but when he read that section it seemed to me that it referred entirely to giving the Dominion of Canada dominance in the matter of carrying out obligations in relation to foreign countries only, and did not deal with domestic relations inside Canada as between the dominion and the provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The section in question
mentioned specifically the province, and the interpretation placed upon the section by the privy council was the foundation of my observations. I would suggest to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that it is impossible to deal with the questions he raises adequately until he has seen the bill, and this is not the time at which to read sections. There is not a section before the house until such time as an opportunity has been given to introduce the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister has referred to conferences with the provinces and said, if I understood him aright, that whatever was done was done as a result of agreement between the dominion and the provinces. May I ask him, if at one of the conferences, I think two years ago, he did not ask the provinces which of their powers and services they were prepared to surrender? Did he get any answers to that question, and if so, what were the answers?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman is quite correct. The answer that I gave to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was an answer with respect to relief, which was the subject matter of discussion and agreement. But as to the question of the surrender of powers with respect to social services and whether the provinces desired to surrender their powers to the dominion, different views were expressed by different provinces. Some of the provinces, without naming them, were rather anxious that that should be done; others were not, and the question as to the terms and conditions that
Unemployment Insurance

some of them might think desirable was vaguely discussed, but no conclusions were arrived at. It was not in any sense upon those discussions that this measure was framed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There was r.o agreement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh no.


Charles Gavan Power: May I ask the Prime Minister what is intended by the words " to provide for a national employment service."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was the hon. gentleman
in the house when I opened my observations?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I pointed out that that was an amplification only of an existing statute that deals with unemployment services, and that it came within the declarations made at the first conference of the International Labour Office after the treaty of peace.


Charles Gavan Power: I take it, then, that it is intended to extend the labour employment offices that we have.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To utilize them for the purposes of this measure and to extend the scope of their activities.


Charles Gavan Power: May I ask what is intended by the words "for aid to unemployed persons?"


Richard Bedford Bennett: I endeavoured briefly to explain that in this sense: After a man has accumulated a substantial reserve by reason of having made contributions, and has not made a claim for benefits, he might be unemployed for a period that was the maximum provided by the statute; and having regard to the fact that he had not made a claim against the fund there is a provision that would enable him to receive benefits as an unemployed person because of the fact that he did not make a claim against the fund commensurate with the premiums that he had paid.


Charles Gavan Power: Then in reality it would not be insurance that he was receiving.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is to make that clear.


Charles Gavan Power: But a species of bonus?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. In life and accident companies, as the hon. gentleman is doubtless aware, if you have an accident policy and you have not made any claim against it, as no doubt my hon. friend has not done, every year there is added to the amount of the policy probably ten per cent. In this instance, in order to make it conform to the 
general principles that govern matters of this kind, there has been an attempt to make it plain that there is a clear distinction between the payment of an insurance which resulted from the payment of premiums, and the payment of moneys which have not been exhausted in the payment of benefits that a man has not claimed because of his continuous employment.


Charles Gavan Power: The Prime Minister also says in his resolution: "to provide for other forms of social insurance and security." I take it that the other forms of security are health insurance. But did I understand the Prime Minister to say that we are not going into the health insurance business?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not in that sense.


Charles Gavan Power: Then what is meant by the words "other forms of security?"


Richard Bedford Bennett: That arises out of the accumulation of funds which have not been utilized-again it is the same thing-for the purpose of payment of claims that might be made for benefits under the fund. The details set forth in the bill seem to me to warrant the use of those words, "other forms of security." It is really another form of security which is not strictly insurance, and it is brought about by reason of the man's own persistence and sound health, his strength and powers of endurance which have freed the fund from claims.


Charles Gavan Power: It is all part of the unemployment insurance?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


Charles Gavan Power: It has nothing to do with
any other species of insurance?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not in that sense.


William Daum Euler: The Prime Minister has made it quite clear that this is an insurance scheme and has nothing to do with relief. The man who does not contribute by way of premiums cannot receive any benefits; I think that is quite clear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Daum Euler: That is, those who are not employed now or in the future and do not pay premiums will not receive any benefits whatsoever. My colleague behind me says that it is compulsory, that the man must pay; but I say to him that a man who is not employed and has no money cannot be made to pay.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.

Unemployment Insurance


William Daum Euler: I was going to make a reference to the statement that the scheme is both compulsory and contributory. I was going to ask, although possibly this should be asked later on after the bill is introduced, just what method will be employed for enforcing the contributions. Will the contributions be taken direct from the workman, the man who is insured, or will the payments be exacted from his employer? It occurs to me that if you want to be sure that you get contributions you will probably have to take them from the employer. This question might arise: A man might be making his contributions through his employer over a period of time and then become unemployed, and yet he might still be able to make contributions to continue his insurance. Perhaps the Prime Minister might enlarge on that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can answer one part
of the question at once without going into details. Contributions will be made in the first instance by the employer, as the hon. gentleman has well contemplated, and the methods of attaching stamps to cards, and books, and matters of that kind will be dealt with in the act in detail. The general principle however is as he has mentioned.


William Daum Euler: Is there any provision whereby, if he is unemployed, his contributions may be collected?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If he is unemployed he makes a claim against the fund.


William Daum Euler: But he might still want to
contribute to increase the reserve.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is contemplated that
within a certain number of days he shall make his claim against the fund.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the shortest period before benefits are payable?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That depends on three
things: first, the number of contributions; secondly, the period of time within which they are made; and thirdly, the number of days of unemployment that will enable him to make the claim. I think we have adopted a compromise of nine days, but I will verify that in the bill.


Abraham Albert Heaps: From the remarks made by
the Prime Minister it is obvious that this bill does not begin to touch the fringe of the unemployment situation; in other words, it is a bill that does not deal with unemployment but with those who are employed. It makes provision for those who are employed
at the present time but who on some future occasion may be unemployed and who will therefore receive benefits to which they have subscribed. To what extent that will ultimately ameliorate the unemployment situation it is probably difficult to state at the present time, but one thing ought to be made clear to the house and the country, and particularly to the people who are mostly affected by a measure of this sort; whilst we are engaged in what is termed a reform parliament, to grapple with social problems of an immediate nature, this bill will not, either at this session or at any future session, touch the great problem of unemployment. That must be borne in mind. The impression has gone abroad, to a very large extent from statements made by hon. gentlemen opposite, by the Prime Minister and those closely associated with him-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Point out any such statement.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will read a quotation from Hansard yesterday to show the impression that may be-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not good enough. Point out from me; I was not here yesterday.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I said those associated with the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
mentioned the Prime Minister.


Abraham Albert Heaps: When other responsible
ministers of the crown make statements to the house they have at least some effect so far as the people of the dominion are concerned, and this legislation has been looked upon as one of the most important items if not the most important item of the government program to be brought forward in the current session. If that is so, I presume that this legislation is intended, or at any rate the impression has gone abroad that it is intended in some way to deal with the problem of unemployment, which I regard as one of the most important problems which parliament has to face. And yet the bill does not touch the fringe of the unemployment situation.
It is quite true, as pointed out by the Prime Minister, that the number of those who are out of work at the present time has considerably diminished in comparison with the number who were out of work a couple of years ago. I remember that in 1932 when I used the figure of 750,000 persons out of work it was scoffed at by members on the government side of the house; they said that we were exaggerating the number out of work.

Unemployment Insurance
Now the Prime Minister tells parliament that the figure has dwindled from 750,000 to approximately 400,000. It might show a tremendous drop, but I have been trying in my own way to ascertain the extent of unemployment in the country, and taking the present period and a year ago I find that the number of people on relief, which is a fairly good criterion of those out of work, has diminished in the large industrial areas approximately ten per cent. In one of the largest cities of Canada I took the matter up with one of the aldermen closely associated with unemployment and he told me that the reason there has been a drop in relief is that those not deserving of relief have been cut off. Having made calculations to-day on the basis of government figures, I come to the conclusion that there must be now approximately 600,000 who are out of work. It is quite true that figures can be both construed and misconstrued, but I venture to assert, in view of relief figures which are so obvious to all of us, that the drop has not been from 750,000 to 400,000, but that there are to-day approximately 600,000 people out of work for whom this employment insurance bill offers not one ray of hope.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has my hon friend made an estimate of the number of persons employed on state funds-those whc have been given employment by the state or through state aid?


Abraham Albert Heaps: No, I have not, but according to the bureau of statistics, on September 1, 1929, there were 1,093,735 persons employed. Coming to the low period of employment in 1932 I find that the index number had dropped from 126-8 in 1929 to 86; and in that year, 1932, the number of persons employed was 789,321, and that had increased by September 1, 1934, to 922,339. There had been therefore, approximately, an increase in those two years of 133,018 persons employed. If we had then in 1932 approximately three-quarters of a million people out of work and there are to-day 133,018 additional employed, then the number of unemployed must be a little over
600,000.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.


Abraham Albert Heaps: When the committee rose at six o'clock I was making a few remarks on (Mr. Heaps.]
this question. I dealt with the unemployed in relation to this bill. For a number of years past the organizations of unemployed of this country have been petitioning I presume members of parliament and the government with a view to the establishment of a comprehensive unemployment insurance scheme whereby those who are out of work might be able to receive some benefits from it. Unfortunately the resolution now before us which foreshadows the proposals of the government deals with legislation from which I am afraid the unemployed themselves have very little hope of benefiting.
I can well realize that within the confines of the capitalistic structure it will be next to impossible to create an unemployment insurance scheme that will be actuarially sound and at the same time take within its compass the vast numbers of men and women at present out of work. In other words, if we are to have any unemployment insurance scheme based on an actuarial computation, one that can support itself, it is bound to have a very restricted number of unemployed within its orbit. If I remember correctly-and I stand subject to correction because I am speaking now from memory-when the unemployment insurance scheme was first introduced in Great Britain, as was pointed out this afternoon by the Prime Minister, the average number of unemployed computed for was round about five per cent. Since then, as a result of the ingenuity of man and the introduction of modern machinery into the modes of production, unemployment has naturally tended to increase to a very large extent, making it more difficult to have any unemployment insurance scheme which will give all those who are unemployed and cannot be employed in industry the benefits of such a measure. Consequently in Great Britain after the war, probably when large numbers were out of work, their scheme became actuarially unsound and vast sums of money had to be transferred from the national exchequer to the unemployment insurance fund to keep it solvent. I do not know if even at this date these sums have been returned from the unemployment insurance fund to the imperial exchequer. So to-day when we are attempting to deal with this scheme of unemployment insurance, if it is going to be sound actuarially as is apparently the intention in the bill to be founded on the resolution, it cannot take into consideration the vast numbers of people who are at present unfortunately out of work.

Unemployment Insurance
I would like to refer for a moment or two to the impression that has been left in this country by the speeches made by the Prime Minister during the past few weeks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would point out that no reference was made to unemployment insurance except in reference to this measure.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have not associated any statement of the Prime Minister with the scheme of unemployment insurance alone but I have taken his statement as referring to present general social problems.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that an unemployment insurance measure would be introduced in this house at the present session.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I quite get the distinction the Prime Minister is making at the present time and probably he is quite correct in the strict interpretation of what he says. I am taking his general statement as distinct from the specific, because it is very hard to tell the vast masses of the people that what the Prime Minister had in mind was something different from what is happening here this evening. To give just a few items of what he recently said, I would quote the following:
The old order has gone and will not return.
When we get such a statement from the Prime Minister-and I quote him for that purpose-I do not disagree with him; all I want is performance equivalent to the promise, and I urge that on the Prime Minister and those associated with him and, indeed, upon all members in all parts of the house. He went on further to say:
I am for reform and this means government control and regulation.
If I wanted to take the time to look up the exact terms he used during the course of those addresses to the people of this country I could find dozens of expressions similar to this where he left upon the minds of the Canadian people a distinct impression that this government was going to undertake some heroic measures of reform so that the whole of the capitalistic system could be made to function in such a way as to lessen the evils from which the people are suffering at the present time. I do not think I am stating the case unfairly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member is. It is a wholly erroneous statement.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will take the statement of the Minister of Justice yesterday in the house where he is reported on page 253 of Hansard as saying:
The house undertook the transaction of business one week ago to-day, and to allay any fears on the part of the leader of the opposition I think I can state to him that perhaps the most important, or one of the most important, of the reform measures which has been announced in the speech from the throne will be under discussion in this chamber to-morrow.
I think that is fairly definite.


Hugh Guthrie: That is right.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It no doubt relates to the measure we are now discussing; that is, the question of unemployment insurance is the most important, or one of the most important of the reform measures which the government have to present to this house at this session of parliament. If that be the case, then this is to be one of the measures the government intends to bring to the attention of parliament in order to deal with the pressing problems that now confront us. I claim that in so far as it is going to affect the vast numbers of men and women who are at present out of work it will have very little effect upon their status. I am anxious to see the government implement not exactly the promise but the impression that was created upon the minds of the people of this country by the speeches made by the Prime Minister.
For a number of years I have advocated in this house a scheme of unemployment insurance, and when the Prime Minister pointed out this afternoon that in 1931 a resolution on this subject was introduced in this house, it was my resolution and at that time the Prime Minister gave a pledge that during the lifetime of this parliament he would introduce legislation dealing with unemployment insurance. It is apparent that any scheme of unemployment insurance at this time does not deal fundamentally with unemployment, and I am extremely anxious that the government should undertake at this session of parliament such reform measures as will have a lasting effect upon the economic life of this country. As far as this measure is concerned all it will have the effect of doing is to create some scheme of social insurance whereby the employer, the employee and the state will all contribute to a scheme, and when people are entitled to benefits on an actuarial basis they will receive in the form of benefits about the same amount of money they now receive when they are on direct relief or the dole. I prefer this unemployment insurance scheme to the granting of direct relief, the dole as commonly called, but I point out as strongly as I can that the bill as outlined this afternoon fails to deal fundamentally with the

Unemployment Insurance

unemployment situation, and I am anxiously looking forward to the other legislation which the government have in contemplation on the question of hours of work, minimum pay and so on, which I regard as far more important legislation than that introduced this afternoon.


Mr. BROWN:: I should like to discuss this question from a slightly different angle from that followed thus far. The Prime Minister has introduced this as part of his social legislation, and it has been received with acclaim in many part of the country. However I cannot but think that many people have given little consideration to the measure and to its possible effects upon various classes of the community. It has already been pointed out that so far as meeting immediate needs is concerned this measure is utterly inadequate. That is, it cannot be considered as emergency legislation. Legislation of this kind would better be introduced in times of prosperity than in times of depression. It is in the seven fat years that we have to lay up for the seven lean years. Where the blame lies for not having done this sooner I shall not discuss at the moment.
The Prime Minister has said that this legislation is based upon the English act. I think it can be asserted without fear of contradiction that to establish an unemployment insurance act in England was much simpler than to do so in Canada. In England to a much greater extent than in Canada men are tied to a particular occupation and a particular section of the country. It is true that in Canada we have a few industries to which this measure would be of easy application, for example the railroads. When men enter railway service it is generally with the expectation of making it their life work. The same might be true of large industrial institutions, and perhaps of large mercantile institutions. But there is a great mass of smaller businesses to which it seems to me it will be impossible for legislation of this kind to apply. Then to a much greater extent than in England our population is transient; men are in Halifax to-day and in Vancouver tomorrow.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Well, not quite so soon.


Albert Joseph Brown: An aeroplane would do it; but let us say some intermediate point. The point is that men are not tied to a particular occupation or to a particular locality. With regard to this large number of transients it seems to me that there will be great difficulty in giving them any practical benefit from this scheme.

Whatever I say in criticism of this legislation, I do not wish to seem to be lacking in sympathy for people who through no fault of their own are unemployed. A large number of people who under normal conditions would be earning good wages have through no fault of theirs been forced to accept relief. We must of necessity have pity for people in that position. Then we cannot but think of the tragic position in which the rising generation find themselves, young men and young women growing up having never learned to work, through lack of opportunity. The effect is indeed deplorable.
While I do not wish to seem to offer opposition to the principle of this proposed legislation, yet I think it is necessary for us to consider the matter from some aspects that have not hitherto been considered. The effects of the bill will reach far beyond the people immediately affected, and it is to some of these possible effects that I wish to draw attention. The intention of course is to provide against temporary unemployment. It seems to me it will affect people according to how they are constituted. Legislation of this kind is likely to be a savour of life unto life and of death unto death. There are large numbers of people to-day on relief who feel humiliated by accepting that relief, who feel that it is beneath their dignity, although they are forced to accept it. There was a tragic illustration of this in Winnipeg a short time ago where it was reported that a woman, having been taunted with being on relief, killed her two children and committed suicide. I am happy to believe that there are large numbers of people who, given temporary relief as provided by this bill, would under normal conditions make good and suffer no deterioration from receiving the benefits provided. On the other hand we are compelled to admit that there is another class, and I regret to say that the number is increasing, who are beginning to say that society owes them a living and are determined to get it whether they render any service or not. True, in these times we cannot apply rigidly the principle that if a man will not work neither shall he eat, though that is a very good maxim in normal times. But I regret to say that the number of those who are willing to live upon the community is increasing; we have abundant evidence of it. A very striking article appeared in a recent issue of the Atlantic Monthly, by Newton Baker, entitled The Decay of Self-Reliance. He gave many illustrations of the effect the present depression is having upon people, such as that of a man and his wife who said they were going to the Chicago fair and then going on relief. He

Unemployment Insurance
stated, and it is undoubtedly true, that one of the effects of the English legislation had been to cause men to debate with themselves whether it was better to take the wages offered them or to accept the dole. I am afraid this legislation will to a very large extent increase the number of people who take that attitude towards life.
I realize the difficult circumstances in which we are placed; I realize that the times through which we are passing call for measures we would not think of adopting in normal times, although as I have said a measure of this kind would be better brought forward when conditions were normal rather than in a time of depression. But this legislation is going to have another effect on another class of people; I refer to the taxpayers, wherever they are. The employer who is to contribute to this fund will add the amount of his contribution to the price of his goods, whatever they may be. To a large extent unionized labour may be able to shift the burden also, but the class of people whom I represent, the great agricultural community, never can shift the burden on to anyone. They have to bear it. The effect of this legislation and of all legislation of this nature will be simply to increase the burden placed upon the farmer. He will have to pay a higher price for the things he must buy and there is nothing in this legislation providing that he will get a higher price for the things he has to sell.
It has been stated in the press, though as yet we have not heard it from the Prime Minister, that this legislation is not to apply immediately to agriculture, lumbering or fishing. I presume we will have to wait until we see the bill to find whether or not that is true. If this is to apply to the farmer as an employer then he is up against a double handicap. Not only that, but he is going to be handicapped in the labour market. To a very large extent the relief measures that have been adopted already have handicapped the farmer in that market. One of the effects of the establishment of relief camps has been to make it almost impossible for the farmer to get the help that he needs in order to carry on his work. The supply of farm labour is continually decreasing and becoming less and less efficient.
As I have said, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to offer opposition to the legislation now proposed, but I do want the house and the country to appreciate some of these effects which perhaps are not apparent to a great many people. I do not wish to discuss the 92582-19$
constitutional aspects of the question; I will leave that to the lawyers, but I think perhaps some of us who are not lawyers but who are in close touch with the actual facts and who know our own business can appreciate some of the practical difficulties involved in putting such a scheme into operation. I hope those practical difficulties may not be as great as they appear to me at the moment, but I want to tell the government that legislation of this kind will not be accepted as a substitute for the removal of trade restrictions and the doing of everything possible to facilitate world trade. At the very best, legislation of this kind is called for only because conditions are not what they ought to be, and it can only touch the fringe of the great problems confronting us. The real problems are the removal of trade barriers and, as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) would) say, the question of finance. Tor my part I am inclined to agree with Cordell Hull, who said the other day that even if exchange were stabilized it would not remain stabilized for one hundred and twenty days unless trade restrictions were removed. At the moment, however, I will not discuss which of those two problems is the more important.
I should like to emphasize once more that the people whom I represent, and the great majority of the people on the prairies, cannot accept legislation of this kind as a substitute foi other legislation which we deem necessary in order to bring about the measures of relief that we feel the occasion demands.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would the hon. gentleman
permit a question? Did not the Manitoba government, which represents the farmers of Manitoba, go on record as being in favour of legislation of this nature?


Albert Joseph Brown: Perhaps they did; I am
not saying they did not.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Then does the hon. member say that he represents the farmers of Manitoba and that the farmer government of that province does not?


Albert Joseph Brown: I am not saying that the
farmers of Manitoba are opposed to this legislation, but it has nothing to offer them directly, and if we accept it it is because we recognize the serious conditions through which the world is passing at the moment. All I say is that we cannot accept it as a substitute for measures which must be brought about if trade is to be freed and prosperity thus restored.
Unemployment Insurance


Mr. REID:: I believe that the time has come, in the setting up of boards and commissions, when some restrictions should be imposed in order to keep these boards from becoming too expensive. From the Prime Minister's remarks I take it that our act is founded on the unemployment insurance act of Great Britain, and I believe that in that act the overhead expenditure must not exceed six or six and a half per cent. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if there is any provision in this measure to keep down administrative costs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not the proper time to discuss the details of the sections of the bill, but an effort is being made to limit the expenditure to the lowest possible amount, and to maintain the integrity of the fund by such safeguards as our experience leads us to believe are necessary in this country, as distinguished from other countries.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I do not think anyone in this country feels that this is going to be the solution to all the problems cf Canada. I believe that is a fair observation. If I understood him correctly the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) said that this policy will broaden the basis of taxation in the whole country; at least that was his implication, and he suggested that the farmers would have to bear the burden. I think it is only fair to say that for the last four or five years it has been the other way round. I am not quarrelling with that policy at all; I believe it is a fundamental duty of the state to come to the rescue of those people who, because of circumstances over which they have no control, find themselves under the necessity of having to ask for assistance from the government. If I might give an example I would refer to the drought areas of western Canada. I think it is fair to say that the money for the relief of those areas came out of the general taxation of this country, and I have nothing to say against that.


Mr. VALLANCE:: It has to be paid back.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member for Lisgar said that this measure would do something to keep the agricultural industry from getting cheap labour. That was the inference; why not be frank about it? I must absolutely disagree on that point. The hon. gentleman further suggested that the implementation of a policy of this description would cause people to be lazy. If the hon. member would read the evidence given before all the commissions appointed by British governments, whether Labour or Conservative, he would

find that it has been explicitly pointed out that the amount of malingering under the legislation there has been of no account whatever.
I am not going to speak at any length, because we are merely discussing the principle of the bill. I do not think this measure is intended to be a solution of our whole unemployment problem. To reach that solution we will have to find an entirely different approach, and in my personal opinion we will have to adopt entirely different legislation. There are two distinct problems. This bill is to deal with the question of unemployment and the payment of men out of work, through an insurance system. There will have to be different proposals. Of course the legislation is based on the English contributory system. I think we should point out further that under the proposed scheme the worker will receive sixty cents for his thirty cents. When the system in Great Britain was inaugurated twenty-one years ago it covered only seven trades involving little more than 2,000,000 employees.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Less than that.


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall not enter into an argument about the figures; I think I am approximately correct. But to-day, after twenty-one years of experience and after twenty-eight major operations on the legislation, over 13,000,000 employees are operating under the English legislation. In the last three or four months they have reduced the age of insured persons from sixteen years to fourteen years, because the board school age in Great Britain is up to fourteen years. Within the last three months they have included agricultural workers within the range of this legislation. With these faots in mind we can see how there has been evolutionary development of this form of legislation. As time has gone on they have, as a result of their practical experience, broadened the range of those who may come under the legislation. I know it would be far better for me to spread all over the map, but it is my candid opinion that if we want to maintain this sort of legislation and if we wish to launch it soundly we must have a sound beginning and then broaden our operations as experience dictates.
I derive the greatest enjoyment from a contemplation of the fundamentals underlying the resolution before us, because it involves a redistribution of income. We will get a great deal more of that before we are through with the policies the Prime Minister has launched. He may not go as far as he

Unemployment Insurance
had expected to go, but the next government will have to act, whether they like it or not. Present conditions are a direct challenge to our democratic institutions, no matter whether we have a Conservative government, a Liberal government or a government composed of members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. We cannot overestimate or overlook the lessons taught by Europe in the last ten years. The will to live is the strongest instinct in a human being and one which is inevitably expressed in the nation. This is the direction in which mankind is moving; it may be the wrong direction, but undoubtedly that is the way it is going. The other fellow has fallen down on the job and mankind is trying this new tack.
I am not going to be critical, because I believe there is plenty of time for that when the bill is introduced and we are fully aware of what it contains. I believe at the present time we should act as though we were considering the measure from the standpoint of the benefits it may confer upon the Canadian people. I am well aware of the fact that relief measures must be distinct from unemployment insurance. I would remind the government however that it must not make the mistake of making insurance payments lower than the amount a man could get on relief. If that were done the legislation would fall to the ground. I should like to see the government include in the proposed scheme as many classes of working people as possible.
We have heard about the experience of other countries who have pioneered in this type of legislation and we would find it comparatively easy to profit from their experience. The hon. member for North Winnipeg spoke about labour exchanges. I understand they are used in Great Britain and are recommended in the country to the south of us. I should like to observe however that up to the present the only place where planning has been successful, so far as its effect upon human beings is concerned, has been in the prisons, the army, or the navy, where the same kind of clothes are worn by all.
Our approach to this problem must be in conformity with the desire of our people to come along with us. When this legislation is in operation I have no doubt the individualistic characteristics of the Canadian people will show themselves. I shall not say more at this time because I am discussing only the principle of the legislation, and shall reserve my criticisms of the bill until after its introduction.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Mr. Chairman, there are two reasons why I should like not to be critical in anything I say with regard to this resolution. My first reason is that for many years I have been in favour of a measure of this kind, not because I felt it was a solution for the failure of capitalism but because in some way it could take care of the casualties of capitalism. The second reason why I should like to approach it without criticism is the very forceful way in which my friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) opposed the measure.


Albert Joseph Brown: I did not oppose the
measure.


Angus MacInnis: I can judge only from
what a man states as to whether he is opposing or favouring a measure.


Albert Joseph Brown: I want that corrected. I
did not oppose the measure.


Angus MacInnis: I will take the hon. gentleman's explanation, but I shall judge from his remarks. However, I am not satisfied at all with the measure proposed in the resolution. I am wondering why in the world so much fuss was made about it in the radio speeches. I am satisfied the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) was quite correct when he stated the people of Canada had been led to believe that something more far-reaching than the present resolution would be brought down.


Albert Joseph Brown: Do I understand the hon,
member is opposing this measure?


Angus MacInnis: The Prime Minister is
reported in the Vancouver Daily Province as follows:
My friends, I have declared for reform. Now that the time for action has come delay is hazardous.
Then he went on to state the extent of the reforms. We have before us to-night a resolution involving measures which were passed years ago in other countries, some of them the most reactionary countries in the world. Let me give to the house some of the dates upon which unemployment insurance legislation was placed upon the statute books of other countries. The legislation was passed in Great Britain in 1911; in Italy in 1919; in Austria in 1920; in the Irish Free State in 1920.


Charles Gavan Power: That is not a reactionary
country.


Angus MacInnis: I did not say all the
countries I would mention are reactionary countries; I said some of them were. To continue:	The legislation was passed in
Unemployment Insurance

Russia in 1922; in Queensland, Australia, in 1922; in Poland in 1924; in Belgium in 1925; in Germany in 1927. In all these countries there was compulsory national unemployment insurance. Other countries had voluntary [DOT] schemes, such as France, in 1905; the Netherlands, in 1916; Finland, in 1917; Spain, in -1919; and so on.


Vincent Dupuis: If the hon. member will allow me a question, has he statistics to show the results of the application of this legislation in the countries he mentions, and the cost of it?


Angus MacInnis: No, I have not those statistics. All I can say is that what gave this legislation birth in all these countries still exists as a problem to be solved. Furthermore, whatever the cost has been it is the working class who pay it, because no one else could pay it.


Vincent Dupuis: Has there been less unemployment because of such legislation?


Angus MacInnis: No, there has not, and it is not a solution for unemployment. It cannot be put forward as a solution for unemployment.


Vincent Dupuis: What is it for?


Angus MacInnis: It is to take care of those who are unemployed when they are unemployed. My hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) says: "To elect the government." Everyone has a right to his opinion. But we do know this, that once the law goes on the statute books in any country it is never repealed.
The Prime Minister took exception to the *statement of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) that nothing the Prime Minister had said1 would lead the public to believe that those who are unemployed to-day would not be included in the bill. I have before me the Vancouver Daily Province of January 5 giving a report of the Prime Minister's radio talk of January 4, and I find under the heading, Insurance to Replace Relief, the following report of the Prime Minister's remarks :
Now that we have achieved some measure of control over economic conditions and can cooperate without fear of imminent disaster, we are going to do away as quickly as possible with emei'gency relief measures and put in a permanent system of sound and scientific insurance against unemployment.
I claim that that is a definite statement that the purpose of the unemployment legislation to be brought before this parliament

was to substitute insurance for the relief measures that are in effect to-day. It means either that or nothing at all. I am quite satisfied that the Prime Minister's statement was very direct and very emphatic, but this resolution and the bill to be founded upon it does not touch that situation at all. The unemployment problem and the relief problem in this country are one. People are on relief because they are unemployed; and to make provision for those who are employed to-day against some period in the future when they may be unemployed is not touching today's unemployment problem.
Again, assuming that conditions are improving and that as we go on with these other reforms and when we get the Liberal government in power, things will boom once more, there will be no need for this unemployment insurance; but in the meantime those who are unemployed to-day are suffering, and there is nothing in this legislation that is going to be of any benefit to them.
That is the reason, Mr. Chairman, why I criticize this measure, although I am in favour of the principle of unemployment insurance, not because it is a solution for unemployment, but because so long as we have the capitalist sj'stem we shall have unemployment, for it is just as much a part of capitalism as profits. Every time profits are made, unemployment is created as well, so long as we maintain the capitalist system we should inaugurate and carry out measures to take care of the victims of that system, and a comprehensive system of unemployment insurance will do it, I believe, under the circumstances, better than any other way that we know of at the present time.


Mr. IRVINE:: Mr. Chairman, the resolution that is before the Chair is, I take it, the first step in the inauguration of the government's new proposals for reform. May I first of all congratulate the government on what it has proposed to do? I shall, of course, reserve the right to criticize both the principle and the details of such legislation as may be brought down, but at this stage I think congratulations are due the government upon at least having turned its face in a new direction. I think that that is the most significant thing to be observed, not only in respect to this particular proposal, but in respect to the entire legislative program as outlined by the Prime Minister in his radio addresses.
It is strange that some people seem to be sorry that the government has turned its face from destruction and towards something sensible, but I have no criticism whatever in

Unemployment Insurance
that regard. The fact that the government has turned its face, or that the government have turned their faces-I am never sure whether we should speak of the government as an individual or collectively, but whatever may be the correct term, the government has turned its face in a new direction. That indicates first that the old methods that have been practised by governments in Canada and other governments in the world to meet the growing crises of the collapsing social order have been abandoned, at all events by this government, and have been abandoned because they proved to be inadequate. In the second place it indicates that the new economics which has been espoused from this comer of the house for thirteen years has at last found some justification. I do not know to what extent the proposed legislation will go, but certainly the government proposes to move in the direction which we in this section of the house have advocated for many years.
If I had any criticism at all to offer at this stage it would be in respect to the objective which the government may entertain. The question that is troubling my mind most is this: Does the government propose to try to repair capitalism by methods of this sort, or has it set its face towards the rebuilding of our economic system? I think that is the point that will determine the ultimate success of what the government is undertaking. So far as I am concerned I frankly say that I do not believe any government can successfully and adequately repair capitalism. I am quite convinced that the longer it goes on, the more serious conditions will become, and while I welcome these repair methods in so far as they may be able to alleviate human suffering during the process of getting wise enough to build a new system, nevertheless I do not desire to associate myself with the idea of repairing the capitalistic order. I believe we should begin to rebuild upon entirely new foundations, and however slowly we may go, every step we take should be towards that objective.
The resolution before the committee is a proposal in respect of unemployment insurance. The Prime Minister has explained t in a general way as sufficiently, I presume, as is necessary at this stage. It is an insurance proposal, and that being so, it must necessarily apply only to those who are qualified to come within the scope of its provisions. I do not believe much good can be accomplished by prolonging the discussion here. I think we should hasten to get the details of the bill and then to judge its merits from the actual
clauses of the legislation. But may I say that unemployment insurance has a very limited field, and that field becomes more restricted as the industrial system develops. The time for this legislation was twenty-five years ago. Then it would have done some good, for it would have built up a reserve which would have been of tremendous advantage to the Canadian wage workers during the past four years. The best time to insure a man against death is when he is alive. Now the government is being compelled by the pressure of events, by the threatening starvation of multitudes of the people, to introduce an insurance policy against unemployment at a time when unemployment is almost at its peak. That is like insuring people who already have tombstones at their heads. The government is faced with a difficulty. They had to do something to meet the situation, and while they felt that something had to be done, the economic conditions were inopportune for doing it.
This is perhaps one of the worst periods in the history of Canada for the introduction of such a measure as this, and yet it must be introduced. In that connection I think we ought to remind the opposition, in its criticisms of the measure, that in the years of great prosperity, when the Liberal party had power and when a measure of this sort could very well have been introduced, when its value would have been immeasurable, they did not do anything about it. Now we are faced with a very serious situation indeed and are compelled to take a step of this kind. But unemployment insurance-and this is the point I want to make-is inadequate in any country at any time to meet the industrial situation which has developed under the capitalist system. Personally I believe that the introduction of this principle will mark a beginning, if an inadequate one, in the right direction in so far as it will have meant, to a limited extent, the enabling of the working classes within its provisions to build up a reserve against the time when there will be no work for them to do. That may be extended indefinitely as the need develops, and so I say it is perhaps a beginning in the right direction.
But what we really need is insurance against being denied access to the abundance which mechanical invention and scientific methods of production have made available. And while, under a proposal of this sort, the government will make provision for the insurance of the workers of Canada, I would favour a system that would go much further than that and extend the principle to all the people of Canada, a system that would enable them to
Unemployment Insurance

have access to the abundance which our machinery and natural resources have made available. That is of course a matter of finance; it is a matter of using properly the national or social credit to provide purchasing power so that people may be able to buy the goods they produce. When the right time comes I shall be able to expound that theory further and perhaps move amendments in that connection if necessary. At the moment I only observe this, that there are many difficulties in the way of the government in bringing in legislation of this sort in Canada. There are difficulties to be faced in any country, and more perhaps in this coimtry than in any other. As I have already pointed out, the need of the moment is so great that action such as this is demanded; and yet conditions are inopportune for the inauguration of legislation of this sort. But in addition to that the government has to face certain difficulties in the matter of jurisdiction, with which other countries have not to contend.
I for one therefore propose to place no more difficulties in the path of the government than they have now. I want to congratulate them on what they have done and if they go any distance I will cheer them; if they go still further I will cheer them more, and if the opposition should make still more advanced proposals I should gladly commend them also. I do not care which government brings in legislation of this kind or legislation that has for its object meeting in any way, however small, the economic difficulties of our people at this time. Representatives of labour in Canada have asked for this legislation for nearly twenty-five years and this government Las been the first to undertake to provide it. Even if it is not all that we may expect, we welcome' it as a beginning, and shall look forward with great interest to the remaining portion of the government's program.


Mr. GERSHAW:: The resolution indicates
that a fairly comprehensive scheme of unemployment insurance is to be set up. Employees, employers and the dominion government will contribute to this scheme, and it would appear that the provincial governments are being largely left out of the picture. And yet we must remember that the provincial governments have been carrying on a great deal of the social work which has been done in this country. They have administered the Mothers' Allowances Act, the Old Age Pensions Act and particularly the Workmen's Compensation Act. They have therefore a great deal of information which would be of considerable use in carrying out the provisions of this proposed act. They have

statistics; they have trained staff; and the workmen's compensation boards in the various provinces have payrolls, so that they are in pretty close touch with the employers of labour and with the employees themselves within their respective territories. It would seem reasonable therefore that, instead of setting up an entirely new organization, these experienced people could be made use of and possibly the act administered by the workmen's compensation boards in the different provinces.
I quite agree with the last speaker that the people generally, particularly in Alberta, are looking for something much more comprehensive. Social credit has certainly taken a great hold in that province and in one town there has been erected a large wooden banner across the main street with the words Vote for Social Credit. I feel that many of these people will be looking for much that is more comprehensive than we have in this proposed measure.
I wish to commend one feature and that is the fact that it is contributory, because I believe that an employee who is contributing to a scheme is in a much better position than the employee who is receiving something to which he has not contributed. He has at least a contract and something that he can depend upon when he needs help.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I wish to make just one or two observations with regard to the resolution before the committee. May I say that I have followed the discussion so far with a good deal of interest and I shall reserve any criticisms I may have to make with regard to the measure until I see the subject matter of the bill and the actual facts contained in that subject matter.
This afternoon the Prime Minister discussed the question of jurisdiction, and the impression left with me when he was through was that he was somewhat in doubt. I am somewhat in doubt as to the final jurisdiction of the dominion to deal with a problem of this kind. That is the only angle of the question I wish to touch upon to-night. First there is the international and imperial point of view which the Prime Minister dealt with.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, international and interprovincial.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Did the Prime Minister not quote section 132 of the British North America Act in regard to dealing with the treaty obligations of Canada which bear upon the problem before us because we signed the peace treaty in 1919. I thought that was the

Unemployment Insurance
trend of the argument advanced by the Prime Minister, and I notice he admits that I am correct. That section reads:
The parliament and government of Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada or of any province thereof, as part of the British Empire, towards foreign countries arising under treaties between the empire and such foreign countries.
That means that so far as any peace treaty or treaty responsibility assumed by the empire with any foreign nation is concerned, since Canada is part of the empire and any province of confederation is a part of the dominion, we are provincially and nationally obligated by that treaty. I quite understand the arguments of the Prime Minister with regard to that provision of our constitution.
Looking at the question, secondly, from a dominion point of view, may I read just a few lines from the report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations in 1929 when dealing with the question of insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity. That question naturally brought up other questions akin to unemployment insurance, such as old age pensions and sickness insurance. The matter of social insurance came before the government in 1921 as a consequence of certain recommendations and conventions growing out of the international labour convention dealing with labour held at Washington in 1919. In 1921 the then Minister of Justice, Hon. C. J. Doherty, put forward his opinion of unemployment insurance based upon these recommendations and conventions of the Washington conference called by the international labour office of the League of Nations. The point of view put forward was this:
In this view-
That is the view put forward by the Minister of Justice at that time.
-unemployment insurance has a pronounced federal aspect

Not a one hundred per cent federal aspect, but just a pronounced federal aspect.
-and on the whole the minister thinks the establishment of a system of unemployment insurance is competent to the dominion in the exercise of its residuary legislative powers with relation to the peace, order and good government of Canada.
That is another argument supplementing the one made by the Prime Minister when he quoted this afternoon from the constitution of Canada.
Thirdly, there is another and final thought and it is this-the provincial nngle. May I
refer to the opinion of one of the law officers of the crown. In 1928, when this subject was before the select standing committee on industrial and international relations, Mr. Edwards, Deputy Minister of Justice, was brought before the committee and dealt with the jurisdiction aspect of this very important problem. Mr. Edwards was asked what he thought about the jurisdiction question and this is what he said. This question was put to him:
Would you say that comes within that?
That is, within peace, order and good government under our constitution, or under section 91 of the British North America Act. This is his answer:
Well, I was going on to say that you could not bring it within peace, order and good government so long as it belongs to any of the enumerated items of section 92 -
Which of course defines the jurisdiction of the provinces. He goes on to say:
-and my own view' is that it is a subject which falls within the general designation of property and civil rights.
That is of course under the jurisdiction of provinces and not under that of Canada or the dominion at all. I take from what the Prime Minister said this afternoon that he bases his conclusion almost entirely on certain judicial decisions that have been made in the last few years with regard to the two very important questions of the radio and aviation. He feels that on the strength of those judicial decisions the constitution of Canada can be made elastic enough to deal with this important problem. I am wondering whether it can or not; I am not going to say one thing or the other, but I expect the Prime Minister and those supporting him to come forward with further evidence to prove that from a constitutional point of view this question is wholly and entirely within the competency of the dominion government, that is, not solely within provincial jurisdiction.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Bennett thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 8, to establish an employment and social insurance commission, to provide for a national employment service, for insurance against unemployment, for aid to unemployed persons, and for other forms of social insurance and security, and for purposes related thereto.
He said: It may be useful to make some explanation of the bill that I am about to introduce; or possibly the house is sufficiently
Unemployment Insurance

seized of its subject matter to dispense with any such statement. I am entirely in the hands of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: not more than one week's benefit for every six contributions. Provision was made that an industry, with the approval of the Minister of Labour, might withdraw from the general scheme and set up a special scheme. I suppose readers of old country papers are aware that in many of the large industries in England there are schemes which have been set up by the employers and the employees, and the operations of the general act no longer apply to those particular industries at those particular points.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Might I ask the Prime Minister if that privilege will be maintained in this act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Charles Gavan Power: May I ask the Prime Minister the difference between a needs test and a means test? It seems to me the means test is important.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In this instance I have
used the words that are used in the report, namely " needs test."


Charles Gavan Power: What is the distinction?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not sure whether
or not the words are used interchangeably.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
words used are "subject to a test of need."


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the reason the
words " needs test " were used. The words describing the test were " needs test," because
Unemployment Insurance

advance money by way of loan. The insured persons are grouped in eleven wage classes, according to weekly wages, and a basic rate is fixed for each class upon which contributions and benefits are calculated.
The waiting period under the German scheme is fourteen days for persons without dependents, seven days for persons with not more than three dependents, and three days for persons with four or more dependents.
I do not propose to deal with other plans at length because I fancy the industry of hon. members of this house has been such that they have read the standard authorities upon the subject and have gone into more of them than I think it perhaps is desirable to mention to the house at this time. But I do mention the Wisconsin plan in passing because Wisconsin has always been in the front rank of states dealing with social problems, and their scheme has only just gone into operation. Whether it will ultimately succeed in the way it was planned I cannot say, especially if the United States government carries forward its plan for a national scheme. In preparing the bill which I seek leave to introduce we have endeavoured to profit by the experience of all countries in which unemployment insurance has been made a part of their system. The international labour office at Geneva came into being, as is well known, not as a part of the League of Nations, but by reason of the provisions of the eonvenant of the League of Nations, and is maintained at Geneva by all the signatories to the covenant and by the members of the league as well. It has been contended that some may be actively interested in the work of the labour office although they are not members of the league, and notably is that so in the case of the United States of America, but the regulations of the league itself set forth that those countries that are members of the league must as a matter of necessity also be members of the international labour office. The international labour office, which is a clearing house practically of the thought of all the world with respect to questions of this kind, has gone into the matter from time to time with great care, so much so that, as is known, last year they formulated their ideas, as a result of sifting all the information they had received and the suggestions that had been made as to how legislation should be framed, into a convention, which doubtless many members of this house have read.
Now no country has had a genius for dealing with social problems to the same extent as Great British. They have known the times

when to take occasion by the hand and make the bounds of freedom wider. They have had great success in dealing with these problems. I have heard men well able to speak with authority say that in their opinion the social legislation of Great Britain was responsible for the measure of tranquility that prevailed in that Kingdom during the darkest days of the depression when there was much agitation and difficulty in other parts of the world. Of course, to compare conditions in Great Britain with those in Canada is somewhat difficult. I do not desire to repeat what I have already said with respect to that unitary system of government with one parliament that deals with domestic problems, with local problems of the smallest character as well as with problems of the greatest magnitude, and with respect to whose enactments no question of constitutionality can ever arise, because there is a different condition to consider there from the condition in which you have nine provinces each enjoying exclusive legislative jurisdiction, under section 92 of the British North America Act, with respect to many matters, and a parliament which is charged with responsibility for the maintenance of peace, order and good government throughout the dominion and which has exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the many matters specifically mentioned in section 91. Then you have the field in which there is concurrent jurisdiction, with the provision that when there is a conflict between the exercise of legislative power by the province on the one hand and the exercise of power by the dominion on the other, the dominion shall prevail. There is a vast distinction between the conditions that exist in a country such as Great Britain and in a country such as this.
Relief, undoubtedly, as has been said so often in this house by hon. gentlemen opposite as well as by members on this side, is primarily the concern of the local authorities, just as in England it is also the concern of the local authorities. There, with a single parliament, the extent to which the poor law shall be administered by grants in aid from the central treasury is a matter to be considered from time to time in the light of the necessities that arise and the requirements of the particular communities; and it is rather difficult to see how it is possible in that great parliament to deal with the smallest matter of poor law aid in some remote community where, with the aid of public spirited men acting in an advisoiy capacity, and usually if not always in an honorary capacity, they

Unemployment Insurance
are able to administer the most trivial detail of local necessity through the instrumentality of those local committees and the boards that are set up, and the central treasury at Westminster.
In this country we recognize the fact that the primary responsibility for relief itself rests with the local authorities, the local authorities being largely the creation of the legislatures of the provinces; and in extreme cases, where there has been something of a national character requiring assistance, then we find the dominion making either grants in aid, as has been done in times past on many occasions, or taking over the entire responsibility where you have a drought stricken area in which hundreds of thousands of men, women and children find themselves without any means whatever. There you find the federal authority undertaking the administration in these local communities of relief and assistance.
Now the examination of the report of the British royal commission will indicate at once the magnitude of the problem and the reasons why it is believed that a form of unemployment insurance is necessary. I think one of the speeches this afternoon or this evening sufficiently indicated why this is desirable. I think the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) pointed out, what is well known to be the fact, that this is an effort on the part of parliament to provide that benefits shall accrue to certain named classes, they themselves contributing to the fund that insures the benefit and being assisted by the state; because it is believed to be in the interests of all Canadians that such a form of assistance should be given rather than that they should go on relief. That is true.
With respect to another matter, the hon. member for Lisgar was entirely right when he said that in days of depression you cannot begin to operate an unemployment insurance plan. But, as I have pointed out frequently and again point out to-night, the idea is this -that we are making a movement towards improvement, that we have already improved, that we shall continue to improve, and that we have learned from experience how desirable it is, at the very threshold of improvement, to take advantage of the possibilities of that improvement and to see to it that there shall be adequate provision for self-support on the part of those who are so vitally concerned.
In no captious spirit-because I am not discussing this in any narrow party sense-in no captious spirit, I say, nor yet in any spirit 92582-20
of criticism do I say that if in 1922 this legislation had been enacted, between then and 1930 there would have been this peculiar condition-a continued increase in employment and therefore in volume of the fund and a continued lessening of demands upon the fund as employment increased, so that the reserve would have been very great. In other words, the more prosperous the community grew between 1922 and 1930, because of the great improvement that was going on throughout the world, winding up in the spectacular debacle of 1929-30, you would have had by this fixed assessment upon the employee's wage a very large fund accumulating; and because he was relatively so little out of work during that period throughout the world, and especially in Canada, there would have been a very large reserve available for purposes so much required.
I mention this because it is rather important to keep in mind that fact. That is the reason why at this time we believe it is desirable to prepare this legislation and submit it to the house. It is the reason why in 1931 I indicated to the house that in my judgment it should be done, and it is the reason why I still believe it should be done. Now I will give a few figures with respect to these periods of time. They are figures that have been supplied by the bureau of statistics and they have reference in the first instance to the fact that in the census that was taken we asked every individual enumerated whether or not he or she was out of employment. And you will recall that I gave you figures the other evening from Mr. Cudmore's memorandum as to the number that were wholly out of employment and the number out of employment part time.
It is not possible to arrive at any sound conclusion from one year or two years; you must, I submit, have some average whereby you will be able to draw a fair inference having regard to the general business cycles of the world. We have taken therefore for our actuarial computations the years from 1921 to 1931 inclusive,-that is, eleven years. In the nine years from 1922 to 1930, the number of workers corresponding to those covered by the bill which I now have the honour to introduce averaged 1,605,833 persons. That is, on the average, under this bill, there would be under its operation 1,605,833 persons. Now here is the amazing fact supporting what I have just submitted to the house. The number losing no time at all during that period, 1922-30, was the very large figure of 1,125,689. The number losing some time was 480,144. The percentage losing

Unemployment Insurance

some time was therefore 29.9 per cent. The average weeks lost by the idle was 18.4 per cent and the average weeks lost by all workers was only 5.5 per cent. The idle percentage for the period was 10.6 per cent.
The figures on which these actuarial calculations are made cover altogether an eleven year period, the years 1921 to 1931 inclusive. In 1921 the average percentage idle was 1T8 per cent and in 1931 it was nearly double that, being 22-5 per cent, the average over the eleven years being 12-5 per cent.
I believe it will be the wish of the committee to have before it the actuarial table prepared by Mr. Andrew D. Watson, chief actuary of the dominion Department of Insurance, and Mr. Hugh H. Wolfenden, a consulting actuary, on which table we have acted in the preparation of the measure which we have submitted to the house. They are both Fellows of the Institute of Actuaries of Great Britain as well as of the Actuarial Society of America, and they enjoy an international reputation. While possibly there is ao duty to have these reports printed, it might be desirable to have them printed between now and second reading of the bill so that every hon. member may have before him a copy of the information which has been compiled on the report of the bureau of statistics, based as I have said upon the reporting firms as well as upon the information derived from the census of 1931.
I realize that necessarily there are imperfections in a measure of this character. I do not for a single moment suggest that it is free from imperfections, but as we are all desirous and have expressed our willingness to enact such legislation I can only say that the government will view with the greatest pleasure and satisfaction constructive and timely suggestions from those who sit in any part of the chamber in order that the legislation when completed may serve to the very greatest possible extent the demands and necessities of those whom it is sought to benefit.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the Prime Minister concludes his remarks may I ask him a question? He said that he had some doubt for some time as to the intra vires of a measure of this kind. Can he inform the house how recently he became satisfied in his mind that the measure that he is now introducing would be intra vires?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think the house is greatly interested in the exact moment when like Sard of Tarsus journeying to Damascus I saw the light. But I have given consideration to the legal aspect of this matter. I
(Mr. Bennett.]
once practised law, and I would like to say to the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee), not with the measure of success he indicated; nevertheless I have given a great deal of study to the matter and I convinced myself that the effect of the treaty statute, to which perhaps I should have directed my attention earlier than I did, and the two decisions of the privy council to which reference was made last evening, warrant the conclusion at which I have arrived.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Before the Prime Minister takes his seat, may I ask him a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not the proper time. There is no debate on the introduction of a bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has just said, this motion being one for leave to introduce a bill it is not proper that a debate should take place at this stage, neither is it expected that, on the part of the member of the government introducing a bill, more than a word of general explanation would be given at the time he is asking for leave to introduce his bill. But I hasten to say that I think the review which the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has given to the house of legislation on unemployment insurance in other countries and the history of it in Great Britain will be distinctly helpful to hon. members in their consideration of this measure and it is altogether appropriate that it should have been given at this time. As I have said there is no discussion on the motion for leave to introduce a bill and debate is not expected at this stage unless it is intended to oppose the motion. I wish to say that far from opposing the motion to introduce a national system of unemployment insurance hon. members on this side have long been advocating that such a system should be introduced in this house, and we welcome the introduction of such a measure at this time. We would have welcomed it still more had it been introduced, I shall not say at the first session of this parliament-


An hon. MEMBER:: In 1928.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -but at the second or third session, in order that this house might have had opportunity to give to a measure of such magnitude the due consideration which ought to be given to all aspects of a bill of this kind.
The Prime Minister has referred to the genius of the British people in dealing with social questions. If I might agree with him

Mounted Police-Pension
in that, I would add that the reason the British people have a genius in these matters is that they do not proceed by leaps and bounds in dealing with important measures which affect the whole nation, but the British method is that of nature herself which never hastens but also never rests. The British method recognizes the importance of growth in matters of this kind. Had we at least had the question of jurisdiction cleared beyond all doubt at one session, and had we had such conferences with the provinces that we might have known their attitude toward matters of this nature, we would have been in a much better position to deal in a satisfactory way with this legislation some time ago, or than we are at this time. It is regrettable that we have had to wait until the last session of this parliament to consider a national unemployment insurance scheme. But with a measure at last before us, may I say on behalf of myself and the members of the opposition that we shall endeavour in the words of the Prime Minister to be constructively helpful in the passage through this house of such provisions of it as may on their merits commend themselves to us.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is the bill
available for distribution?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not available for
distribution in the form in which it has been moved. The preamble has been added to it. It was the preamble that I had to deal with on Saturday last, as I explained to the house.


Mr. IIANBURY:: It has been under consideration for a year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has been under consideration for some time and the preamble has just been settled, but I do not apprehend it will take long to complete the English copy. The French copy may take longer to complete because of translation. The bill will not be moved on its second reading until it is printed in English and in French.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May we expect to-morrow to receive copies of the bill in English?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot answer that
question definitely. I can send the leaders of the parties copies of the bill with the amendments that have been made typewritten in before it is printed, and I shall be glad to do so to-morrow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the right
hon. gentleman will send us copies when the bill is distributed generally, that will be satisfactory.
92582-20}



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to provide that military service in South Africa may be counted for the purposes of pension, and to make further provisions in respect to the application of penalties and to contributions to the dependents' pension fund.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee-Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How
many are involved in this?


Hugh Guthrie: This is not a very extensive financial operation. Certain persons who served in the South African war subsequently joined the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Members of the militia who served in that war and subsequently became attached to the permanent force of Canada were permitted to count service in South Africa as part of their service for pension purposes, but this course was not adopted in regard to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. There are at most five, possibly only three, members of the mounted police force who would' be entitled to count service in South Africa, as part of their time for pension purposes.-This bill, if adopted, would enable them to do so on payment of the arrears into the pension fund. That is the main feature of the bill. The other is merely to provide for the distribution of the fines and penalties which have accumulated in a fund in the hands of trustees, and to enable contributions to be made from that fund to dependents of members of the force.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I have no quarrel with
the resolution, but last year in the civil service committee representations were made from various quarters of the civil service about some addition being made to the Superannuation Act for the purpose of extending its provisions to, for instance, the soldier settlement board and other branches of the service to which at present the act does not extend. The government did not see fit to concur in the recommendations of the committee in that regard. This amendment would operate on the line recommended by that committee. I do not see any reason
30S
Criminal Code

why we should make fish of one and flesh of the other. I hope this may serve as a precedent for the opening of the Superannuation Act so as to extend the same measure of justice to other branches of the government service to which at present the Superannuation Act does not apply.


Hugh Guthrie: I am afraid I am not
in a position to answer my hon. friend's question or give any assurance in the matter. I have a very hazy recollection of the proceedings of the civil service committee; I remember that it did report, but whether its report was adopted by the house I do not know. This is such a minor matter that I do not think it will establish a precedent one way or the other. The commissioner told me today that he thought there were only two men involved, but he said certainly not more than five. It is merely to give them the same treatment as was accorded to members of the permanent force.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I have no hesitation
in voting for this resolution, but the minister says it is a small matter. That may be, but why not extend the same measure of justice to those who constitute a larger number?


Charles Gavan Power: Does this measure apply
to persons formerly in the civil service who were blanketed into the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by legislation last year or the year before?


Hugh Guthrie: No, it applies only to
those who served in the South African war.


Charles Gavan Power: But the minister will remember that either last year or the year 'before a large number of civil servants, employees of the Department of National Revenue, were blanketed into or transferred to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Are the persons affected by this act among those who were so blanketed in, or are they original members of the Royal Canadian Moimted Police?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think they were among those blanketed in. I think these are old members of the force who never were in the customs service at all.


Eugène Fiset: But if any of the men transferred from the excise forces last year are old South African veterans they will come under this bill. I think there were one or two.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Guthrie thereupon
 moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 9, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INTERPRETATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the third reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Interpretation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the third reading of Bill No. 4, to amend the Representation Act, 1933.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Third reading of Bill No. 5, an act to amend the criminal code.-The Minister of Justice.
Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, for reasons which I will state in a moment I am going to move that this bill be referred back to the committee of the whole house with instructions to amend the clause in respect of the jury system in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. My reason for making this motion is that since the bill was given second reading the province of Alberta has made representations that it does not want any amendment to the criminal code in respect of that province.
Upon investigation we find that a jury system of six jurors in criminal cases has been in vogue in Alberta since a time prior to the entrance of that province into confederation. It existed under the provisions of the old Northwest Territories Act. That system has been continued as originally started without any amendment of the criminal code whatever, and the law officers of the province of Alberta now ask that there be no interference or change in the criminal code of Canada which would affect the old established jury system of that province. On the other hand the province of Saskatchewan desires the amendment. As the amendment was drawn it applied to both Alberta and Saskatchewan. Now I will ask leave to amend the bill by striking out the word "Alberta" in that sec-

Questions
tion and allowing the amendment to apply only to the province of Saskatchewan. This is at the request of the law officers of the province of Alberta.
I therefore move that the bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the third reading of Bill No. 6, to amend the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF*
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett declare before the Toronto Conservative Business Men's Club on January 19, 1932: "Every cent of the $20,000,000 voted by parliament for unemployment relief at the September, 1930, session had been of incalculable value"?
2.	Was that sum of $20,000,000 entirely sipent?
3.	If not, what proportion of it was spent and why was it not spent in full?


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	Since July 3. 1934. the date of the enforcement of the Bank of Canada Act, did the government appoint any persons for the management of same; if so. w'hat persons have been appointed and to what positions respectively, where were they residing when appointed and on what dates were they appointed?
2.	Are there any other appointments to be made by the government?
(a)	If so, why were not such appointments made?
(b)	When will such appointments be made?
3.	What other appointments of officers or employees have been made by the provisional administrators of the said bank, what are their names, where were they residing when appointed, when rvere they appointed and what are their duties?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This question is not in proper form. I would point to the second part of the question reading:
2. Are there any other appointments to be made by the government?
(a)	If so, why were not such appointments made?
(b)	When will such appointments be made?
These are both questions which this house
has indicated should not be asked. I have already answered both questions in replying to a question asked at the opening of the house one day. In regard to the third part of the question, the government has no record at all. I suppose it might be secured, but that would be extremely difficult.
TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY*


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	How many miles of the trans-Canada
highway remain:	(a) unconstructed; (b)
partially constructed?
2.	Of such, how many miles remain to be
completed:	(a) in Ontario; (b) in British
Columbia?
3.	What is the total estimated cost of completing the trans-Canada highway?
4.	Of such total cost, what is the estimated cost in: (a) Ontario; (b) British Columbia?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Part of the information in that respect would have to be obtained from provincial sources.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I mean as far as the information is available here.
Question stands.
GARIBALDI PARK*


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Has the government taken into consideration the requests from British Columbia for taking over Garibaldi park as a national park?
2.	Is the government prepared to make any statement with regard thereto?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer to the first question is yes and the answer to the second question is no.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS-RUSSIA*


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did the Canadian delegation sign, on or about September 15, 1934, an invitation to the U.S.S.R. to join "and bring its valuable collaboration to" the council of the League of Nations?
2.	If so, w'ho signed this invitation on behalf of the Canadian delegation?
3.	Did the assembly, on or about September 17. 1934, refer to the sixth committee the question of admitting the U.S.S.R.?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is not in his place, and perhaps it might be desirable to have the question stand until he

Questions as Orders jor Returns
is here. The whole circumstances in connection with the admission of Russia to the League of Nations are covered by the report made by the Canadian delegates to the fifteenth assembly of the League of Nations, laid on the table of the house in English and French a few days ago. They will be found at pages 6 and 21 of that report. That is the answer, but the hon. member may wish to have the question stand.
MR. HERMENEGILDE BOULAY*


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Was a claim made to the government by Mr. Hermenegild'e Boulay, of Kedgewick, Restigouehe county, New Brunswick, as exmember of the House of Commons, on his own behalf and of several others, for compensation for loss of property by forest fire at Oliver through negligence alleged by claimants on the part of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
2.	If so, what is the amount of the claim?
3.	Has the claim been paid?


Hugh Guthrie: I will answer this question verbally. The answer to question No. 1 is yes. The answer to question No. 2 is S2,500. The answer to question No. 3 is no.
TERRITORY OF AFGHANISTAN*


Jean-François Pouliot: As Afghanistan is now a member of the League of Nations, has Canada in its capacity as a member of the league assumed by that fact certain obligations relative to the defence and the integrity of the territory of Afghanistan, and are those obligations reciprocal?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That also is covered by the report to which I have referred, in which a full statement is made of the circumstances under which Afghanistan was admitted to the League of Nations.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Henry Elvins Spencer: With regard to the unemployment camp at Dundurn, Saskatchewan,-
1.	Who does the purchasing?
2.	Who supplies the provisions?
3.	What are the general prices paid, and on what basis are they agreed upon?
4.	Who does the trucking of these supplies?
5.	Is the truck used at night?
6.	What is the driver's name?
7.	Who is the cashier?


BRITISH WORLD TRADE
Jean-François Pouliot: What proportion of the world trade did the strictly British trade represent, that is to say,
I'Mr. Bennett.]
between Great Britain and the British possessions: (a) from September 1, 1929, to August 31, 1930;	(b) from September 1, 1930, to
August 31, 1931; (c) from September 1, 1931, to August 31, 1932; (d) from September 1, 1932, to August 31, 1933; (e) from September 1, 1933, to August 31, 1934?


EXPORTS AND IMPORTS
Jean-François Pouliot: From September 1,	1930, was the total
amount; (a) of Canadian imports and (b) Canadian exports, each month, larger, equal or smaller than the total amount:	(a) of the
Canadian imports and (b) of the Canadian exports during each corresponding month, from September 1, 1929, to August 31, 1930?


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	From January 1, to December 31, 1934,
was the monthly amount:	(a) of Canadian
imports, and (b) of Canadian exports larger, equal or smaller than the total monthly amount: (a) of Canadian imports, and (b) of Canadian exports, during the same period of 1930?	'
2.	If there is a difference between 1930 and 1934, how much more or how much less is it?


Jean-François Pouliot: Were Canada's imports from and Canada's exports to Great Britain and other British countries larger or smaller in the twelve months ended August 31st: (a) 1931; (b) 1932; (c) 1933;	(d)	1934, than in the twelve months
ended August 31, 1930?


TITLES, HONOURS AND AWARDS
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King:
That, in the opinion of this house, the Prime Minister should refrain from recommending to His Majesty the King the conferring of any grade of the peerage or of any order of baronetcy or of knighthood upon any of His Majesty's subjects resident in Canada.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: To-day we have had the introduction of one measure of social and industrial reform, and I suppose that is only the first of a number of measures. I think it is important that possibly the house should give its attention to those questions before it proceeds to the consideration of others. I therefore purpose not to proceed with the resolution which stands in my name at the present time but to give opportunity and time for the immediate study and discussion of industrial and social questions.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Bury):: Stands.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I suggest it is hardly fair to members whose resolutions appear on the order paper to have them called at this late hour. To-morrow is the regular day for private members' motions, and I suggest it would be better to call it eleven o'clock, as we already have had a heavy day.

Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie King


Richard Bedford Bennett: In order that there may
be no misunderstanding, in view of the fact that at least one of these resolutions stood because I was not here yesterday, we will consider we have not called the order for notices of motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it did not stand because of that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it stood for the reasons I mentioned. I was afraid a discussion on titles might occupy considerable time of the house, and I thought it more important that time should be devoted to a discussion of social and industrial problems.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree.
Motion stands.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.35 p.m.
Wednesday, January 30, 1935