1935-03-13

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a communication from two members notifying me that the following vacancy has occurred in the representation, viz:

Of Armand Renaud LaVergne, Esquire, as member for the electoral district of Mont-magny, by decease.
I accordingly issued my warrant to the chief electoral officer to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.
THE LATE ARMAND LaVERGNE


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received, through the honourable the Secretary of State, letters from l'Association Nationale des Veterans and l'Union Conserva trice de Limoilou joining with parliament in the expression of sympathy for the decease of Mr. Armand LaVergne, Deputy Speaker, and I now table these letters to form part of the records of the house.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. C. W. BELL (West Hamilton) moved:: That the petition of Mania Leizerson Ober-man, presented on the 7th instant, praying for a bill of divorce from Samuel Oberman, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing orders 92 and 93 (3) (a) and (c) in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. A. SULLIVAN (St. Ann) moved the first reading of Bill No. 27, (Letter B of the Senate) respecting Canadian Marconi Company.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. J. A. SULLIVAN (St. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, I believe a full explanation is given on the second page of the bill. Section 1 provides for an increase of directors from nine to eleven. Then, in section 2 the words underlined are new, and are as follows:
And also such other articles as may be conveniently manufactured in the plants of the company.
Then section 3 is explained on the second page of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	Will the special select standing committee of the civil service be convened during this session?

Questions
2.	Will the government during the present session take any action with reference to the recommendations made last year by the select standing committee of the civil service?


Mr. CAHAN:: Mr. Speaker, in reply to
question No. 1, I would say that there is no standing committee of the civil service. There was a select committee which sat during the last parliamentary session, but no reappointment has been made. With regard to the second part of the question I would say that the government's attitude will be made known when action is taken.


JOTJBERT, QUE., POST OFFICE
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	At what date was the post office at Joubert, Matane county, established?
2.	Who has been carrying the mail from Sayabec to Joubert since the establishment of the post office, and' on what conditions?
3.	Who is carrying the mail at present and what is his address?
4.	At what date did he sign his contract?
5.	How much does he receive?
6.	Who recommended him to the department?
7.	Did he obtain his contract after regular tenders had been called?
8.	If so, what tenders were received by the department?
9.	If not, why was he awarded the contract without tenders being called?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	November 15, 1922.
2.	J. Gagnon, from November 15, 1922, to September 30, 1934, at $200 per annum, and G. Boucher, from October 1, 1934, to date, also at $200 per annum.
3.	G. Boucher, of Sayabec, P.Q.
4.	July 13, 1934.
5.	$200 per annum.
6.	J. H. LaRue, M.P.
7 and S. No.
9. The Postmaster General, under the statutes, has power to award contracts at $200 per annum or under, without calling for tenders.


WAR BORROWINGS
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What were the total Canadian government
borrowings for war purposes from August, 1914, until mobilization was complete:	(a) amount
borrowed in Canada; (b) amount borrowed in Great Britain; (c) amount borrowed in United States?
2.	What was the total amount of said borrowings by bond, issued free of taxation?


Mr. CAHAN (for Mr. Rhodes):: 1.	Taking November 11, 1918, as the date on which mobilization was complete, the total borrowings (net) under war appropriation acts were: (a) In Canada, $1,447,138,558.44; (b) in Great Britain, nil; (c) in United States, nil.
2.	$1,339,526,528.91.


PATROL BOAT GAN NET ROCK
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Was Captain Nelson removed from patrol boat Gannet Rock?
2.	If so, why?
3.	Was the notice of his dismissal forwarded direct from the department in Ottawa?
4.	Did the. department receive any letters recommending the retention of Captain Nelson as captain of such patrol boat?
5.	Did Harry Gray, a returned soldier, apply for a position as third man on such patrol boat?
6.	If so, why was he not appointed?


Mr. STIRLING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Inefficient service.
3.	The chief supervisor of fisheries for the division was instructed by the department to replace him.
4.	One letter.
5 and 6. Mr. Gray's employment was considered but he was not regarded as being qualified for the kind of work involved.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
PACIFIC COAST TERMINALS LIMITED On the question:
["The first half of this amendment or a little more is the same as section 9 as it now stands. Section 9 in its present form provides that:\nThe governor in council may, in exceptional cases where it is recognized that the daily limit of hours of work cannot he applied and agreements between workers' and employers' organizations to -increase the daily limit have been made, give effect to such agreements and permit in such cases the said daily limit of hours of work to be exceeded: provided, however, that the average number of hours per week over the number of weeks covered by any such agreement shall not exceed forty-eight.\nThis amendment also gives the right to the governor in council, where agreements exist between workers and employers, to give effect to such agreements by regulation. Why then the necessity for the remaining part of the amendment, providing further for the case of an agreement made prior to the coming into force of the bill? This also has reference to agreements made prior, agreements now in existence. Although the basic principle may be the eight hour day it may operate so as to allow certain employees to work much longer than eight hours. If we are to have an eight hour day act any number of sheltered employees in any organization should not be allowed, by agreement with their employers or otherwise, to get away from the provisions of the act. I think that the committee should oppose this amendment.\nProgress reported."]
Mr. MANION:: Mr. Speaker, I have no
objection to this passing as an order for return on the condition, of course, that we will obtain from the Canadian National Railway all the information we can in the matter because we have not the information in the department and we have to apply to the railway for it. On that condition I have no objection to this question passing as an order for return.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: May I suggest that at least some of the information asked for should be in the possession of the government.


Robert James Manion: Whatever we have will
be gladly brought down, but I was referring to the information which we would have to obtain from the Canadian National Railway.



Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	From August 1, 1930, until now, did the Canadian government subsidize in any way, shape or form, directly or indirectly: (a) the illustrated weekly journal entitled " Canada," and (b) another one entitled " Canada's W sfikly
2.	If so, how and through whom was it done and what was the total amount paid in that connection ?


CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS
Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: 1.	How many appointments have been made by the Civil Service Commission or by the government since July, 1930, at salaries of $5,000 or over?
2.	What are the names of such appointees and what positions do they occupy?
3.	What are the names of all civil servants and of government employees outside of the civil service who have been given increases of salaries of $500 or more since July, 1930?


PRICE SPREADS COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GOI/DIN'G:
1.	What were the dates of the days for which Mr. Norman Sommerville, K.C., was paid other than the days on which the committee or commission on price spreads and mass buying held public sittings?
2.	Who was assistant counsel for the committee and commission on price spreads and mass buying?
3.	What was this assistant's remuneration per day?
4.	What was his expense allowance per day?
5.	What was the total sum paid this assistant for his services and expenses?
6.	How many auditors or firms of auditors were employed by the committee or commission on price spreads and mass buying?
7.	What was the total amount paid to each auditor or firm of auditors for services and expenses?
I Mr. Woodsworth.}
8.	What were the names of all investigators employed by the committee or commission on price spreads and mass buying?
9.	What particular matter did each one investigate ?
10.	What was the total amount paid to each investigator for all purposes?
11.	What is the total cost of this inquiry up to this date?

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	What prices are paid in National Defence camps at Spences Bridge and other neighbouring camps for: (a) potatoes; (b) carrots; (c) cabbage; (d) onions?
2.	From whom have such supplies been received during 1934 and 1935?
3.	Are the prices paid the best available in this district?


AIR SERVICE PROPERTY
Mr. REID:: 1.	Has the government acquired, any properties or options, either to purchase or lease any land or property for air service purposes, in the province of British Columbia or are any negotiations being carried on regarding this?
2.	If so, what properties, options or leases have been so acquired or are at present under negotiation, giving the names of the owners of properties, cost of same, location and terms of leases acquired or in process of negotiation?


SANTO DOMINGO TARIFF
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I want to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) -I want to apologize because: having received these telegrams only a few moments ago I was unable to get into communication with him before the house opened-if he has received any representations from people interested in the fish business or the potato business or the onion business in Canada calling his attention to the fact that prohibitive duties are being placed on these three articles by the Santo Domingo government?
I have a cable here from my agent in Santo Domingo, a man named Lockie, who wires me that on Saturday the Santo Domingo government imposed prohibitive duties on fish stuffs, also potatoes and onions. He states that the loss to the maritime provinces will 'be at least a quarter of a million dollars annually, and that the duty on a drum of fish, which as the minister knows is 128 pounds, was formerly $1-30 and is now under the new duty $10.15; the duty on a bag of potatoes was formerly 83 cents and now is

Mounted Police-Denial of Charges
12.90, and the duty on onions is similar. The telegram goes on to say that Pickford and Black have also telegraphed the minister.
1 have also received a telegram from Pick-ford and Black in regard to this matter. As the minister knows Pickford and Black Limited have a line of boats running from Halifax to Jamaica, Santo Domingo and other ports in the West Indies. The telegram from Pickford and Black io me states:
Lockie-*
That is the agent at Santo Domingo:
[DOT]-has wired you in connection with Santa Domingo increase in duty. This will mean serious loss to fishermen Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Magdalen islands. For your information we have wired Minister Trade and Commerce also Finance requesting them to take matter up with Santo Domingo government or through trade commissioner at Cuba or Jamaica. Would appreciate your efforts in matter as one vitally affecting the maritimes as well as Quebec fish industries.
.May ll ask the minister if he has received representations with respect to these new duties and if he has consulted with the government, and if so what action will be taken in the matter?


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member I would say that a telegram was received this morning from Pickford and Black, but no other communications so far as I am aware have been received. The matter is being given immediate attention by the commercial intelligence branch and I may have something to say a little later, but I can assure my hon. friend that we have lost no time in making inquiry.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, during the sitting of the house last evening when unfortunately I was not present, my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) made certain statements during a discussion of the estimates of the Department of National Revenue which cast somewhat serious reflections upon the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or upon that part of the force which is operating in the province of New Brunswick.
I think it will ibe remembered also that during the last session of parliament, that is for 1934, on the twelfth of March of that year, my hon. friend from Gloucester made
two allegations on that occasion in regard to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, one in respect of third degree methods which he alleged had been practised by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in regard to prisoners, and another charge in regard to certain boats under the control of the mounted police in the harbour of Bathurst. At the time that these were made last session I promised that an investigation would be made in both cases. Investigation was made, but as is customary within the force it was conducted by the force itself. A copy of the investigation was subsequently handed to the hon. member for Gloucester and I heard nothing further about it.


Mr. VENIOT:: Not a copy of the investigation about the boats.


Hugh Guthrie: Then on the fifteenth day of February during the present session the hon. member for Gloucester again made a charge that third degree methods had been practised in the province of New Brunswick with respect to a prisoner of the name of Williamson, and intimated on the same occasion that there were certain other grave irregularities in regard to the seizure of a vessel known as the Paul T. He also intimated on that oocasion that he was not satisfied with the investigations that were being conducted, particularly by Inspector Salt, who is the officer in command of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force in the province of New Brunswick, and I intimated to him at that time that further investigation would be held if he so desired. I may say that the investigations which have been held and reported to me in respect of the charges made last session show that the allegations were entirely without foundation.
The allegation made last night was rather more serious perhaps in one aspect than those made previously, and in order that no exaggerated idea of the incident may take possession of the public mind I wish to state that the vessel Paul T was seized under the provisions of the New Brunswick Liquor Act. Subsequently the attorney general of the province of New Brunswick transferred the whole matter to the Department of National Revenue to be dealt with iby that department. Under the provisions of the Customs Act it is provided by section 139 that the Minister of National Revenue may order "vessels, goods, vehicles or things forfeited to be disposed of as he sees fit, instead of being sold by public auction." On the 20th of November, 1934, a letter was dispatched from the chief clerk of
1664	COMMONS
Mounted Police-Denial oj Charges
the commissioner of customs to the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the following language:
Sir,-
Re: R.C.M.P. Customs Seizure No. 74293/3596
Referring to the above-numbered seizure of the vessel Paul T and cargo of liquor, you are advised that official advice has been received from the attorney general of the province of New Brunswick that the province waives all claim to the vessel Paul T and cargo, which have been forfeited to the crown in the right of the province.
In view of this confiscation it will not be necessary to formally render decision in the matter.
It will now be in order to proceed with the destruction of the vessel and cargo.
Yours truly,
C. H. Callback,
Chief Clerk,
for Commissioner of Customs.
Acting upon that authority and pursuant to the Customs Act the vessel was destroyed as well as the cargo. The charge is made that in the carrying out of these instructions ship's stores were also destroyed. It may be that there is a technical distinction between cargo and ship's stores, but ship's stores were destroyed. An inventory of the stores was taken at the time and the valuation put upon these stores was $44. I have the inventory here.


Peter John Veniot: Read it. I want to have it on the record and I think I should have it.


Hugh Guthrie: It is as follows:
i barrel pork.
1 gallon jug molasses.
1 small jug vinegar.
1 bucket full of sausages.
1	bucket half full lard.
40 cans tomato soup.
5 packages yeast cakes.
5	pound can baking powder.
15 pounds butter.
31 quarts milk.
3	cans peas.
2	cans tomatoes.
19 packages macaroni.
1	bottle vanilla.
7	bottles lemon extract.
6	packages rice.
2	pounds black pepper.
1 pound soda.
1 pound salt.
30 seven-pound bags flour.
4	twenty-four-pound bags flour.
60 pounds white sugar.
8	pounds tea.
6 pounds coffee.
All these goods were six months old.
The value of these stores was put at $44.


Peter John Veniot: Would the minister permit
a question?


Hugh Guthrie: Will my hon. friend allow me to make my statement? I shall be as brief as I can.

A portion of these ship's stores was condemned as not being in a condition to be used as human food. It was stated also that one hundred and fifty people watched the destruction of these stores and asked that they be given the stores as food. It was stated that these people were on relief but I am informed that there were only fifteen children and three adult people present. The government of New Brunswick must also be included in the record as the statement is made that no person in this locality was on direct relief between May 1 last year and January 1 of this year. I mention these things because I believe an exaggerated idea has gone out through the country with regard to the destruction of the ship's stores. Whether or not these stores were technically a part of the cargo, they were treated as part of the cargo by the members of the police force and were destroyed. This matter has been given prominence in the newspapers and the reputation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is so high, not only in Canada but throughout the world, that the officers naturally resent any reflection being improperly cast upon the force. They desire to have this matter cleared up at the earliest opportunity.
As he stated yesterday, the hon. member for Gloucester is making his charges on his honour as a member of this house. He has intimated that he will not be content with an investigation carried on at the instance of Inspector Salt, who is in charge of the force in that province. Therefore, the government has decided to appoint a royal commission to inquire into the two charges made last March and the two charges made during this session. For this purpose the government will appoint to-morrow the chief justice of the province of New Brunswick as royal commissioner to make an inquiry into these charges.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, on a question of personal privilege I desire to meet the statement made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). In the first place, let me point out to him that he did not submit to me the report of the investigation in connection with the patrol boats.


Hugh Guthrie: I have it here and if my hon. friend wants it, I will submit it.


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend made the statement that he had submitted to me the report of the investigation which was held in connection with my statement about the patrol boats. I have not received this statement.

Mounted Police-Denial oj Charges
In connection with the third degree matter, I think I am justified in asking for a further investigation. In connection with the patrol boats I am prepared to put my seat at stake. I saw these patrol boats tied to the wharf in Bathurst for three days while the sailors paraded the streets day and night with the young girls of the town. I know what I am up against and I am willing to put my seat at stake. I am up against the worst element which could be introduced into the mounted police of Canada. I am up against men who would not hesitate-I say this on my honour as a member-to take a false oath in order to protect themselves. I make this statement boldly and I know whereof I speak. I welcome an investigation by a royal commission but I say to the minister that this investigation should be thorough. I will be prepared to conduct it on behalf of those who are making the charges. Let the minister arrange that this investigation be held at a time when I can be present. I can summon witnesses but I do not intend to engage counsel to defend the statements I have made on the floor of this house. I hope to be there to defend them myself.
Let us deal with the statements I made last night. I made those statements in all seriousness and the minister's remarks have borne out what I said. I did not say how many stores were destroyed, I simply said that they were destroyed without any authority from the department. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Matthews) has stated that no specific instructions were issued for the destruction of these stores. I stand by my statement that there were one hundred and fifty people present and I do this despite any statement made by the mounted police of my county. I say that the people interfered and almost prayed that these goods be not destroyed, but their pleas were not heeded. I am not a lawyer but I think the Minister of Justice will agree that the statement that I am about to make is correct. There was no authority to destroy ship's stores or to classify ship's stores as cargo.
The charge of smuggling which was brought against the owners or the captain of the Paul T by the dominion government was dismissed by one of the highest courts of the country. The captain was charged in the magistrate's oourt with having in his possession liquor not purchased from the liquor commission of New Brunswick. Under this charge he was committed to gaol as he had liquor on board his vessel which had not been bought from the liquor commission of New Brunswick. Under the laws of that province covering the sale of
liquor, anyone in possession of liquor on board a craft of which he is in charge and which has not been purchased from the liquor commission is subject to fine or imprisonment. The vessel is also subject to confiscation along with its cargo. The liquor was part of the cargo. I claim that the attorney general of New Brunswick had no right under the law to transfer the jurisdiction of the province to the customs department of the dominion government, and that this action places the dominion in this position, that the question will become an international one and may cost the country fifty or sixty thousand dollars before it is disposed of. For that reason I felt, as a member of this house, that I was acting in the interests not only of my own people in Gloucester but of the dominion as a whole in directing the attention of the government to what I regarded as an illegal act on the part of the attorney general of New Brunswick in transferring the jurisdiction of the province to the dominion by means of a simple letter. Last night when the question was under consideration I asked the Minister of National Revenue whether they had authority to do this and his reply was, "We have nothing to do with it; you will have to go to the Justice department." Now the minister says that the whole authority was vested by the attorney general of New Brunswick in the department of customs. Who is right-the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of Justice? I claim, Mr. Speaker, that neither of them is right; they know that they are wrong. Legally they are wrong. I am not a lawyer; I may be what is called a sea lawyer, but I may know more about these regulations with regard to the seizure of vessels than even some of the officials of the Department of National Revenue.
This vessel, let me point out, was a ship in distress. Her foremast was broken in a storm. She had an auxiliary engine aboard and that went wrong, so that she was at the mercy of the winds and the open sea, miles from the shore. Her captain raised his flag of distress, and to show the efficiency of some of the officers in charge of the patrol boat-what was my astonishment, as I sat in the court listening to what was going on, to discover that the captain of the patrol boat could not tell the court what a flag of distress was. He did not even know that. He claimed that the captain of the vessel had never raised the flag of distress, -but when he was asked to give his definition of a flag of distress he could not do so.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.
1666	COMMONS
Mounted Police-Denial of Charges


Peter John Veniot: Keep order yourself, or I will get the mounted police after you. This vessel, I repeat, was in distress and raised her flag of distress and the fishermen miles away approached her. He told those on board one of the fishing boats exactly what his condition was, as I have described-the foremast broken, split in two, the engine gone wrong. He wanted to be towed into a Canadian port. He had been driven out of his course-I am giving the evidence-and did not know exactly where he was. The fishermen told him that they could not tow him in, but they saw, rounding the east point of Miscou island, a patrol boat and they told the captain, "There is a government patrol boat." The captain waited until the patrol boat came up; he cast his anchor and waited. No attempt was made to hide what was in the vessel, but the captain gave the captain of the patrol boat a description of the contents of his vessel. He was told that there was thousands of dollars' worth of liquor on board; the manifest was produced, the clearance of the vessel was given the patrol officer, and the hatches were sealed. The captain of the patrol boat said, "Yes, you are a vessel in distress; I will take you to the first Canadian port, the port of Shippigan." They took him there and his vessel was tied to the wharf, but he had not been waiting more than half an hour before the local mounted police came with a warrant and arrested the captain and his crew for having liquor in their possession without a permit from the liquor board of the province -not for smuggling. The smuggling case was tried afterwards and was thrown out by the jury, and on that count the captain and his crew were freed.
The Minister of Justice says that my statement against the mounted police is derogatory to the service all over Canada. I differ from him on that point. I indicated, when I made my statement, why I was making the charges. On the floor of the house, speaking from my place, I said that I had every respect for the old mounted police, but I deprecated the idea of there being placed in the force men who are aoting in such a way as to bring disgrace to the renowned mounted police of the past. And that is what is happening in my county; that is why I oppose it. The Minister of Justice says that I refused to accept Captain Salt as an investigator. Yes, I refused to accept him as an investigator because, as I stated in my place in this house, in many ways he i3 not qualified. Let me give an instance, since we are going into it-and I am only dealing with Captain Salt.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must interrupt the hon. member. I am sure the house desires to give him every opportunity of stating any matter which arises out of the question of privilege, but I would ask him to bear that in mind and stick to the question of privilege raised, without discussing any evidence that may have been given. I do not think that the hon. member should continue along the line which apparently he intends to follow.


Peter John Veniot: I refer to Captain Salt because in the investigation he claimed that no statement I had made in this house had been justified-I had made false statements. Under these circumstances I have a perfect right to reply to such charges against a member of this house, and I have a right to give the reasons why I cannot accept anything that Captain Salt reports. I claim that he is not qualified to carry out such an investigation. On August 16, 1933 the Prime Minister of this country and myself were guest speakers at a big reception in St. John, and we-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Peter John Veniot: I am coming to Captain
Salt.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I desire to give the hon. member every opportunity to state his position, but in a matter of this kind he should not refer to something that happened in 1933 which does not arise in connection with the question of privilege now before the house.


Peter John Veniot: I made a mistake, Mr. Speaker, I should have said August 16, 1934, after he had made the investigation with respect to the statements I had made in this house. The Prime Minister of this country and myself were guest speakers-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter John Veniot: -or rather the principal speakers-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter John Veniot: One moment now; I am not saying anything against the Prime Minister. Don't be so touchy. We both spoke that afternoon to about twenty thousand people in the city of Saint John. There was no politics in the matter at all. But at noon of that day a luncheon was going on in the Union club


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must ask the hon. member not to speak of matters that are irrelevant. I should be glad if he would kindly confine himself to the point at issue. I am willing to give him every latitude in putting forward his question of privilege.

Mounted Police-Denial of Charges


Mr. YENIOT:: I am coming to that. On that day at the Union club I was approached by a gentleman, Captain Salt.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter John Veniot: What is the matter with that? I think we had better have the mounted police here. I was approached by Captain Salt. I was with three friends, and I might say we had a cocktail before going into the lunchroom; in fact I had my glass in my hand when a man approached me and tapped me on the shoulder. I looked around; I did not know the man and had never seen him before. He said, "Look here, Peter; you and I are sufficiently well acquainted that I may call you by your Christian name." I looked at him and said, "Who are you?" He said, "I am Captain Salt."


William Duff: He must have been at sea.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, he must have been at sea. I said "I have nothing to do with you." He moved away, but the minute my three friends had separated from me, he again followed me up and tapped me on the shoulder. He said, "Do you want to know what politics I am in? Ask Premier Tasch-ereau. I am as good a Liberal as ever walked on shoe leather." That is the man who I expect will investigate the charge I made on the floor of the house. I want the minister to bring Captain Salt as a witness now to disprove what I said, and I will bring three gentlemen from Saint John who can prove that what I say is true. Those are my reasons.
As to the royal commission I wish to say this: I said that I would welcome a royal commission. I am sorry that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has stated that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick will be the royal commissioner. I have no objection to the chief justice of New Brunswick, but when the people of my province review the case and find that I am being investigated by the chief justice of New Brunswick, no matter what his standing as regards integrity or probity may be, when it is considered that he and I have been the two bitterest political opponents in the province, I think the people will say, no matter what the verdict may be, that Veniot did not get a fair show. I am not at all afraid of the investigation; I am prepared to stand it, but I am drawing the attention of the Minister of Justice now to what the effect, no matter what the verdict may be, might be in the opinion of the people of New Brunswick when it is considered that the gentleman occupying the high position of chief justice of the 92582-106
supreme court of that province and I have been the bitterest political opponents that can be found there.
In conclusion I would say: Let the minister bring on the investigation, but give me time to prepare for it. Let him not have it at a time when I may be engaged in a contest in the coming election and when I shall not be in a position to summon the witnesses I want to bring. Let him give me the investigation, and whether it is held before the election or after, when I am returned to parliament, if I cannot prove beyond doubt ninety per cent of what I state in the house, I shall be willing to put my seat at stake and retire from public life.


EIGHT HOUR DAY
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 11, consideration in committee of Bill No. 21, to provide for limiting the hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week, in accordance with the convention concerning the application of the principle of the eight hour day or of the forty-eight hour week adopted by the general conference of the international labour organization of the League of Nations, in accordance with the labour part of the treaty of Versailles of 28th June, 1919-Mr. Gordon (for Mr. Bennett)-Mr. Morand in the chair.
Mr. GORDON:: If I might have the committee's attention, clause 3 was one that was allowed to stand and probably we will make faster progress if we start with that clause and then take up the other clauses that were allowed to stand. With the consent of the committee I would like to revert to clause 3 because the Minister of Trade and Commerce will have an amendment to move. I believe when the legislation was drafted, a very important article of the convention was omitted from the bill.


The CHAIRMAN:: With the consent of the committee, we revert to clause 3.
On section 3-Eight hours in the day, forty-eight in the week.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I move:
That clause 3 be amended by adding thereto the following subsection as subsection 2:
2. The governor in council may define the line of division which separates industry from commerce and agriculture for the purpose of determining the employers and the employees to whom this act shall apply.

Eight Hour Day

That is a provision which was in the convention, which was not carried by the draftsman into the bill and which we think ought to be in it.


William Duff: Before this subsection is discussed further I wish to read a telegram I received from Truro this morning. It reads as follows:
Dairy industry Nova Scotia wishes exemption from eight hour day legislation.
Dairymen's Association of Nova Scotia.
I shall say only a word 'because my throat is very bad. The Dairymen's Association of that province comprises thousands of dairy farmers. I call the attention of the minister to the fact that they are opposed to this legislation.


George Gordon: I shall have an amendment to present to clause 10 which will take care of the situation that the hon. member mentions.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the minister of Trade and Commerce give us the terms of the convention to which he refers?


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the hon. gentleman has the draft convention-


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: -at page 10, near the top, he will find this provision:
The competent authority in each country shall define the line of division which separates industry from commerce and agriculture.
So that we have followed almost in express terms the provision of the convention ini this amendment.
Mr. MacNICOiL: I wish to protest against the low voices in which the ministers are replying to the questions.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. MaciNIOOiL: This is a matter in which I am vitally interested, and I want to hear the replies.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Shall I read again the provision from the convention?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: No, we will read it in Hansard.


Mr. CHURCH:: 
James Shaver Woodsworth: In connection with
the point I raised, the minister quoted the convention as follows:
The competent authority in each country shall define the line of division which separates industry from commerce and agriculture.
But in his amendment he provides that this shall be done by the governor in council. I submit that in this country parliament itself is the competent authority, not the governor in council.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Not
necessarily.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not necessarily, but I urge that position; parliament is here the competent authority, and if there is any definition to be introduced it should be introduced in the act itself by this parliament, not left to the judgment of the governor in council, where it can be so readily amended to suit the convenience of certain big corporations. I think this parliament is the competent authority and ought to deal with the matter.


Ernest Lapointe: I believe that the competent authority in such cases is the province. Anyhow I would be against the governor in council; I agree with my l hon. friend that it cannot be the governor in council.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On division.


Mr. MacNICOL:: In this part of the chamber we could not hear what was being discussed.


Mr. POWER:: Come down to the front
benches; that is where you should be, anyway.
Eight Hour Day


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: In my
opinion this amendment is but one further step towards making the bill of very little use. In the first place it never was of very much use, because over the great field of specialized industry to-day, where labourers are organized, the eight hour day is already in operation. In some industries, as hon. members have said, the hours are even shorter than that. Now we propose to establish the eight hour day, as a matter of law, with the possibility of forcing industries which have dropped below that level to revert to the provision for eight hours of labour. Furthermore this measure is based on a convention as old as unemployment insurance legislation. It is based on a convention which was drawn up at a time when eight hours was not the prevailing time of labour, and when pex-iods very much in excess of that were common. It was not uncommon for men to work nine or ten hours. The eight hour day convention was ratified by the nations. Not necessarily due to that convention but rather because of economic conditions and the organization of labour, industries in various nations of their own volition adopted the eight hour day principle. I contend that to-day we have long passed the time when eight hour day legislation will do what it is intended to do, or will have any real effect upon the distribution of employment among those who need it.
Yesterday I gave some figures showing the appalling state of our country so far as the volume of unemployment is concerned. That that volume is likely to increase rather than to decrease is well known to any person who has any knowledge whatsoever of the development of modern science. I need not again direct the attention of hon. members opposite, who in the past few years have learned much about these questions, to the fact that the development of modern machinery has so rapidly displaced manual labour that even if we were to return to the productive activity of 1929 we would not, as has already been stated, be able to employ half of those now unemployed. It may not be remiss to remind hon. members of this fact. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, in Great Britain, has admitted that there will be a tremendous number of unemployed and unemployable workers.
If work is to be the basis upon which a man is to secure the necessities of life, and if it is to be the basis of unemployment insurance, then obviously it is incumbent upon us as a parliament to pass legislation sufficiently drastic to enable the employment of the unemployed in useful and remunerative work. We cannot do that by passing an eight hour day
Eight Hour Day

law; we might approach a solution of the problem by passing a six hour day law. Let me point out that even passing legislation fixing the minimum hours of labour will not be sufficient and will not completely remedy or solve our difficulty. It may alleviate it, and it would enable the distribution of the available amount of labour over the widest possible field.
It is only within the last comparatively few years that these great scientific changes of the significance of which many are now so complacently unaware have taken place. In Canada to-day there is enough steam power already developed to do the work of 15,000,000 men. The greater part of that energy is developed on the railways. Then there are two other forms of energy which have come into existence in our time, one of them the internal combustion engine, which revolutionized agriculture in every country in the world, and the other electrical energy, about which we know very little other than the fact that it has brought about an immense displacement of man power. The result is that in the United States of America about 115,000,000 man power is represented in electrical energy alone, already in active production of services. In the whole world there is a man power of about 1,500,000,000 represented in electrical energy. In Canada we are, in one respect, in a happy position in that so far as our potential power to produce electrical energy is concerned we rank among the first of the nations. So far we have only scratched the surface of that potential energy; as I speak it is running away to the sea in almost untold volumes. Last year we had a development available for production purposes of, roughly speaking, 7,500,000 horse power. One horse power of electrical energy can do the work which it would require ten men to do, therefore we have in Canada in that one form of power the equivalent of nearly 75,000,000 men. That means that, through that type of energy, with a population of less than 11,000,000 we could do the work of 75,000,000. Obviously with the development of artificial energy there will be a constant displacement of man power. That that displacement has already developed to an enormous extent can be seen by facts disclosed by investigators who have been working in economic and sociological work. For example, James L. Davis, formerly Secretary of Labour of the United States, has said that whereas a few years ago in the boot and shoe industry one man doing hand work could produce 100 pairs in one year, to-day the machine produces 1,800 pairs

in a year, and only one man is required to operate it. He goes on to draw the following conclusion:
Taking into consideration the equipment available for the production of boots and shoes in the United States to-day that country could produce in 17J working days the entire year's requirements of boots and shoes.
What will the men do the remainder of the time? It is true they will produce some for export, but in view of the technological changes in the boot and shoe industries of all nations such export trade will not take up the slack.
Then, what about the men in the coal industry? In the United States, as in Canada, they can produce in six months one year's supply of coal, thereby leaving the men idle for six months, and giving them no work. In the motor industries the most extraordinary changes have taken place. I am glad to mention the motor industry at this time, because when we emerged from the war we found that in a technical sense Canada, Great Britain and the United States were potentially richer than when they entered it. We were richer because of scientific developments during the war years which had terrifically increased our productive capacity. The production of automobiles and radios served for a time to take up part of the slack. Rapidly, however, technical changes in both these industries had the effect of displacing them as fast as, in the first instance, it had employed them. I find that since 1922 in the motor industry 1,400 per cent more cars are being made with ten per cent fewer men. In the Buick plant of General Motors the daily production in 1923 had increased from 625 cars to 1,000 cars, despite a reduction of 5,000 men. To-day 30 men can do the work which required 100 men in 1914.
In the steel industry to-day seven men can do the work which 60 used to do in casting pig iron. Two men can do the work which 128 men used to do in loading pig iron. One man can do the work which 42 used to do in connection with the open hearth furnaces. Then, in the brick industry it used to take one man eight hours to make 450 bricks, while to-day a machine has been developed which in one hour will produce 40,000 bricks.
So we pass on from modern miracle to modern miracle. In the rubber tire industry 40 men to-day can do the work which formerly 100 men could do. So far as the internal combustion engine is concerned no estimate has yet been made as to the increase in the potential productivity of man. We find that

Eight Hour Day
in Saskatchewan alone there are 41,104 tractors and combines which in the three prairie provinces have, as I have shown on previous occasions, displaced about 100,000 harvesters, and these machines have taken off even greater harvests and higher bushelage of grain. In our own railways an interesting picture is drawn, and one worthy of consideration. While thirty years ago it would take one locomotive, with six of a crew, to move 1,200 tons of freight a certain distance in from sixteen to twenty-four hours, with two stops for coal and water, the modern K-l type of locomotive, with five of a crew, can move 7,500 tons of freight in from four to six hours, with no stops for either coal or water.
Between 1913 and 1928 the railway mileage of Canada increased by 40 per cent, and the ton miles of freight increased by over 100 per cent, and yet we employed 1,667 fewer men to handle 40 per cent more line and over 100 per cent more freight. There is no use in talking, because those are the facts; they come to the attention of anybody who takes the trouble to look into the thing. Therefore I ask the government, why eight hours? Why not six hours? Yes, Mr. Chairman, continually and progressively we shall have to reduce the hours of labour as the scientific attainments of man develop and continue to displace labour. There is no use in not facing this fact. It has to be faced, and we have reached the stage now where we have to reorient our whole thought with regard to the future, which involves largely the problem of the displacement of man power by the introduction of modern energy and the machine. I recommend to the government most strongly that they take into consideration the passage of a law for a six hour, not an eight hour day. It is not going to be enough to plead the constitution or to plead that the convention ratified calls only for an eight hour day. This government has protested that it is going to bring into effect legislative reforms which will revolutionize the injustices of capitalism and provide work for the unemployed. The eight hour day legislation will not provide one additional day of labour under present conditions.


Mr. RINFRET:: I have only a word to say about this legislation, and this may be the proper time to say it, although my remarks do not apply to section 3 but to the bill generally. I will present them in a very few words.
When this legislation was before the house a few days ago a number of members mentioned particular industries in which it would not be easy to apply this law on account of special
conditions of work. I wish to bring another such case to the attention of the minister, that of the longshoremen. I have had representations made to me by longshoremen in Montreal pointing out, in the first place, that their employment is seasonal, lasting only a few months in the year, and, in the second place that their work is intermittent according as the ships come into the harbour and varying with the quantity of cargo. Some of these men tell me that in one week they will work fifteen hours and in another week from fifty to sixty hours. I do not want to stress the point because it is very clear; it is similar to the point made in other cases which were brought to the attention of the committee on Monday when this bill was before it. I just want to ask the minister if there are in this bill provisions under which adjustment will be possible in cases such as this, so that longshoremen who work only a few hours in one week may work an extra number of hours in another week in order to establish an average. Perhaps the minister will be kind enough to take heed of these remarks and let the committee know whether that will be possible under his bill.


George Gordon: There are a great many instances where special conditions prevail, and under the bill as drafted it has seemed to me that clause 10 is not sufficiently clear. When we reach that clause I shall have an amendment to suggest which I think will take care of such	intermittent	work	as my	hon. friend
mentions and industries of that kind, and which would probably be impeded if the bill passed as it is now drafted.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, a
general discussion perhaps might have taken place on the second reading, but in any case clause 3 contains the principle involved in the entire bill and I should like to make a few general remarks with regard to it.
It	is gratifying	that	at last	an attempt
is being made to bring Canada into line with the minimum standards as proposed by the I.L.O. sixteen years ago.


Mr. JACOBS:: What is the I.L.O.?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The International
Labour Organization. It is too bad that Canada, so far as these regulations are concerned has been among the backward countries	of the world. I	hold in	my hand achart as presented	from	time to	time by the
international labour office, showing the progress of ratifications in the various countries, and if any of the hon. members received these charts I am sure they cannot be very proud of the position which Canada holds.
Eight Hour Day

I regret indeed that the scope of this legislation is so limited, and I do trust that the government will not attempt still further to limit its scope as might be done by the amendment now before the committee. I would like to suggest that the evidence given before the price spreads commission would point to the need of including in this legislation not merely those engaged in strictly industrial pursuits but also those engaged in commercial pursuits. There are employees of the chain stores who are working very long hours indeed, and it seems to me we ought not to allow this parliament to close without making some definite provisions safeguarding the hours of work of people in certain establishments.
We have been informed by some of the members of the official opposition that there are constitutional difficulties in the way. 1 can see that perhaps that may be so from the legal standpoint but I urge that such difficulties could readily be overcome. I am going to venture to suggest certain means which would appeal to me as a layman by which if necessary any government that was in earnest about this matter might bring the provinces into line. I would suggest that, for example, there should be no tariff concessions to any industry that does not operate under fair conditions with regard to hours, conditions of work, wages and the right to organize. I think that would have a salutary effect upon the interests that are to-day receiving very decided protection from this country, and if that could be put into force in these central provinces where manufacturing is so largely located, the provinces would not hesitate to take such action by way of concurrent legislation that would bring them into line. Again I would say that where tnere is a will there is a way.
Further than that, and I may say that in this matter I have not consulted with any of my legal friends-I was afraid to do so for fear they would raise all sorts of obstacles and difficulties-I think there might be a prohibition of exports from any province that refuses to fall into line.
I suggest that if such a provision were brought into force even the industrially highly organized, central provinces would hesitate very much to offer any great objection to such measures. I think that if they could not export to any other province they would gladly fall into line. Surely trade and commerce comes under dominion jurisdiction. Further, if I had any authority in the matter I think I would go a little further. I would suggest certain changes in the Bank

Act which would refuse credit to those industries which would not conform to such regulations as those now before us.


Charles Gavan Power: What would you do with the bankers themselves?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have discussed the bankers on other occasions. I think it would be quite possible so to alter the Bank Act as to make it impossible for banks to extend credit unless the corporation seeking credit had conformed to certain standards.


Edward Joseph Garland: Nationalize the banks.	*


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) says that he would nationalize the banks. Of course, that is our policy but perhaps that is looking a little too far into the future.


Charles Gavan Power: My question is: What would you do in order to coerce the bankers into following out your views?


James Shaver Woodsworth: We would threaten to revoke their charters. We can alter the Bank Act at any time. I think the banks should be as amenable to the law as any other institution. I get a little weary of that doctrine of what might be called the divine right of the bankers. As I have said in this house before, the bankers have no more inherent right to their charters than has a pedler to his licence. I think the threat to revoke those charters would bring about speedy action.
Another method occurs to me, that is to make any infraction of these regulations a criminal offence. My lawyer friends may shake their heads but we have in the criminal code laws against unlawful assembly, against fighting duels, against prize fights, against blasphemy and against gaming in stocks.


Edward Joseph Garland: Gaming in stocks?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am using the correct term, it is gaming in stocks. We have all sorts of laws covering offences against property and persons. Why not extend these? For example, here is one clause of the criminal code which I picked up almost at random. Section 249 reads:
Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to three years' imprisonment who, being legally liable as master or mistress to provide for any apprentice or servant, unlawfully does, or causes to be done, any bodily harm to any such apprentice or servant so that the life of such apprentice or servant is

Eight Hour Day
endangered or the health of such apprentice or servant has been, or is likely to be, permanently injured.
In my judgment it would not require any very great revision of such a clause as this to enforce the eight hour day, especially in those industries which require considerable exertion on the part of employees. In this connection I should like to read a paragraph from a report which was presented recently by Leon Henderson and Isador Lubin. This report was drafted for the perusal of the President of the United States and the N.I.R.B. before the renewal of the automobile code. What applies to the automobile industry in the United States applies to the automobile industry in Canada, and similar conditions exist in many of the heavy industries. Just in passing may I point out that last year General Motors earned a profit of 894,000,000. Legislation of this kind should protect the employee. What situation does he face? This report is summarized in The Nation of February 20, 1935, as follows:
The outline was given in the lengthy newspaper summary of the report published February 8. The industry needs young men; it needs a surplus of them. So it drums up its recruits from all over the country. They came by the tens of thousands before the depression, not knowing they would be discarded' at forty. They bought homes and automobile stock on the instalment plan. They were fooled by the glittering high figures of hourly wages, and they stormed the employment gates. One by one they were sucked into the factories, and taught to speed up. Before the depression the speed was a new high record in industrial production, but since the depression it has had to be accelerated. It now is screwed to a pitch relatively few human beings can endure. That does not matter to the employers, other workers are waiting at the gates.
This matter is directly related to the bill now before us. It is an almost intolerable thing to work eight hours under the conditions which to-day face many of our workers. The account continues:
The industry draws them in, drives them for long hours, then shuts down and lays them off according to its needs. The report does not give a clear picture of how much the average employee earns in the average plant. It is enough to say that in a test examination of 500 men 380 earned less than $800 last year and only 35 earned more than $1,200.
These figures should be considered in connection with the profit of 894,000,000 made last year by General Motors.	The article
continues:
When the plants reopen young men are taken back. The older ones, not told they are on the scrap-pile, apply and apply for reinstatement, and not till they see most of their former colleagues reemployed do they realize that they are done for. Wages are paid on a gang and
bonus system which promises a premium for inhuman speed, but the men do not know how much they are to receive until they collect their pay envelopes. Often the gang and bonus payments are changed, the inhuman speed being accepted as a normal speed. The men stand for hours on end at their belts, unable to pause for a drink of water or to visit a convenience. Their foreman has over them the authority of a Roman galley commander. He can collect petty graft. He can dismiss them. He can write on the dismissal card, " do not rehire," without giving reason, and if he does it will be hard for that man to find work in any other plant.
If an investigation were held in Canada I think it would be found that very similar conditions prevail. Some of these have come to my own personal attention. Unfortunately no investigation of this kind has been held in Canada and we have to quote from the experience of those just across the line. Many of our plants are owned by the same people that own the plants in the United States and industry in this country is carried on by methods very similar to those in that country.
I wish that we had the opportunity of moving an amendment in the direction of a thirty hour week but since this bill is in the form of a ratification of a convention, I understand that suich an amendment would be ruled out. of order or would be considered undesirable. The government is basing the constitutionality of this measure upon its being a ratification of the terms of a treaty and perhaps it would not be free to accept an amendment. Nevetheless, I feel that such action ought to be taken.
The hours to be worked should be related to the amount of work to be done- Only last night I gave some figures showing the enormous number of people who are unemployed. A computation based on the census figures shows that we are sacrificing in lost time something like 8400,000,000 a year. Under these circumstances, and with nowhere to place the goods that are already being produced, it seems to me only reasonable that we should still further limit the hours of those who are at work so that there will be enough work to go round. And in so limiting the hours, I insist that we ought to keep up the same rate of wages now paid to individual workers; otherwise our action would be no solution of the economic problem. We want to have greatly increased purchasing pow-er, and that could be secured by limiting the hours of work and at the same time maintaining the rate of pay.
I suggest that w7e should limit the hours not merely for humanitarian reasons but as one step towards the solution of our modem
Eight Hour Day

economic problem. I had not known that my hon. friend from Bow River was going to take the line that he did, but I should like to follow somewhat along the same line for a few minutes in an attempt-possibly reenforcing the position taken by my hon. friend-to impress upon the committee the necessity of still further reducing our hours of labour in view of the situation that confronts the world to-day. Power engineers tell us that through power driven machinery we have added to human muscles the muscles of nine billions of additional men, enough to increase the present population of the world five times, all ablebodied males. Mr. Howard Scott, the technocrat, promised $20,000 a year to every family on the basis of a sixteen hour week. That may have been an exaggeration, and undoubtedly he did not have the data at hand to make careful computations. But recently, in the summer of 1934, the Brookings institution issued a study, America's Capacity to Produce. This takes for granted the "general pattern of commercial organization then prevailing" and shows that American production could not have been expanded by more than nineteen per cent in the year 1929. In another study, America's Capacity to Consume, the Brookings institution states:
At 1929 prices a family income of $2,000 may be regarded as sufficient to supply only basic necessities.
And it goes on to point out that sixty per cent of the total number of families are below this standard. It 'would seem to me to be clear from these two studies that we must admit that under the present system we cannot produce sufficient to maintain a decent standard of living. Taking the present competitive system with all the handicaps under which it is labouring, we cannot produce enough to go round, to supply the necessities of life. So I suppose that under these conditions w'e shall have to continue to work long hours. A moment ago I heard an interjection from my hon. friend from Southeast Grey with regard to the farmers, and I quite admit that to-day under present conditions the farmers are working long hours, and if they receive low prices they must work long hours-altogether too long. But I take issue with some of my farmer friends who believe that this sort of thing must continue. If the farmers had decent prices for their produce they would not have to work so long. If they were properly organized, as the manufacturers, the bankers and many others are, they would not have to work such long hours; they would make themselves felt both in

the industrial and in the political field. But they are not so organized. I might quote a retort given some years ago in this house by my hon. friend from Wetaskiwin. One of the farmer members was urging that it was essential that the farmers should work very long hours and my hon. friend suggested that if the farmer would use his head a little bit more he would not need to work so much with his back. I think that is true The trouble is that in the past the farmers have not used their heads to organize and for that reason they have not been able to demand relatively as much of the income of the country as they should have as a class.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Does the hon. member think that the farmers could regulate their hours of work by legislation?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hours of work on farms have been regulated in other countries for a good many years. Only the other day I heard my hon. friend from Peace River, himself a farmer, make the statement that long years ago when he was in Scotland the hours of labour for agricultural workers were down to eight a day.


An hon. MEMBER:: They did not stay
there.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


Frederick George Sanderson: But I am speaking
of Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What can be done
in Scotland or in England can be done in Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: Were the cows milked
during those eight hours?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I urge that it is
quite possible on the farm to have two shifts or if necessary three, just as they have in industry.


Mr. FAFARD:: You don't know a thing
about farming.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My hon. friend
says I don't know anything about farming.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Yes; you don't know anything about it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, I have lived
on a farm and I know something of the difficulties that face the farmer, and under present conditions undoubtedly he must work very long hours. But even in farming, if the income of the country were properly divided, and if the farmer had at his disposal the labour saving machinery which he should

Eight Hour Day
have, it would not be necessary for him to work the extremely long hours he now does. That is my point.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: You would need mechanical cows.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I spoke a few
moments ago about two studies made by the Brookings institution. Another study has recently been made in the United States, the national survey of potential product capacity. This study objectively surveys on the one hand productive machinery with its possibilities and on the other the needs of the people. I quote from an article by Stuart Chase in Harpers of February:
___The National Survey of Potential Product
Capacity financed by the federal government, released the summary of a report prepared by sixty technicians over a seven months' period. Its conclusions indicated that the total flow of goods and services, valued at over 90 billions in 1929, might have been expanded to 135 billions without technical difficulty had the existing plant been operated at approximate capacity. One hundred and thirty-five billions of consumers' goods and services, evenly distributed. would have been sufficient to give each family the equivalent of about $4,400 a year. This means a possible increase of some 45 per cent, or more than twice the margin of the Brookings report....
I believe that the conditions in Canada are very similar to those that exist in the United States, and if their productive capacity, under proper management, might afford S4.400 to each family, I think it is quite possible for us to have something comparable to that in Canada. In commenting on these reports Mr. Stuart Chase shows how, under a planned system designed to produce for service, this minimum could readily be increased. He refers to the wastes in shoddy goods and adulterations by sabotage, obsolete plants, by withholding of new inventions and processes, by useless competition. There seems to be no limit to the possibilities.
Yet in the same number of Harper's, J. D. Bernal of Cambridge university ends an intensely stimulating article on a pessimistic note.
The present direction of economic and political forces holds out no hope that physical science can realize its possibilities or even escape from being used for the destruction of the world that it has helped to create. If science is to help humanity, it must find a new master.
That is the situation we find at the present time;-great possibilities of production and yet under our present arrangements the impossibility of our securing the advantage therefrom.
When we come to a measure such as the one before us, we in this corner find ourselves in a rather difficult position as to how to vote. As I pointed out with regard to the unemployment insurance bill, these measures were brought forward as part of a great reform program that was designed to solve our difficulties in Canada. Viewed in that light, I think we must admit that such measures are hoplessly inadequate and as such I would almost feel like rejecting them; yet as I come to face the individual measures,
I conclude that would hardly be right. An eight hour day is better than a twelve hour day, and some of our industrial workers at least until recently have been working on a twelve hour day. So I must admit that this is a little bit of improvement on that and as such it ought to be welcomed.
Further, the government must be given credit for tackling this problem that previous governments have sidetracked for a good many years. I am not particularly interested in the special legal and constitutional aspects of the question; I am interested much more in the actual conditions under which throughout all these years our workers have been forced to live. Therefore, in so far as this is a recognition of the responsibility of the government to implement the terms of the Versailles treaty and in so far as to a limited degree it does help the situation, I feel I must vote in favour of it. But let it be remembered that this is no solution of our problems, and if it were possible at this time, instead of an eight hour day I would gladly bring in an amendment, urging a thirty hour week.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I listened with great interest to the very able speeches delivered yesterday and to-day by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) and to the equally able one just completed by the hon. member for Winnipeg (North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). Both of those hon. members are gentlemen in whom I trust and respect for their ability, social outlook and integrity. But really as a representative of agriculture I cannot seem to agree with the position which they are taking at the moment. I quite realize that as mechanical energy or inanimate power,, whether it be internal combustion engine or electric power or steam power or whatever it may be, increases, manual or animate labour will decrease, and I believe the day will come when we shall have a six hour day. But as a representative of agriculture and mot so much as that, but as one who comes from a long, long line of agriculturists-and I say this because I sit in t'he
Eight Hour Day


Mr. MULLINS:: It is very interesting for me to listen this afternoon to the statements made here. As I look over the house and see practical farmers smiling at the advocacy of a six hour day by my late spiritual adviser the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I cannot understand it. How can farm work be confined to six hours a day, and what use is it to talk about two shifts for milking?


Mr. GOLDING:: It can't be done.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I am in agreement with the hon. member for Southeast Grey when she states that it is one thing for a man to propose a theory for the reform of some business condition where he has had some actual experience, and it is another thing for a man to propose a theory for the reform of a business in which he has no experience though he may have some measure of ability. I ask the practical farmers whom I see before me if the statement about six hours a day and the sending out of men to come to my farm to organize the workers is right and in the interests of this country? It is absolutely wrong, and I hope the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will listen for a few minutes to what I have to say. I see before me as I stand here practical farmers whom I know personally, such as the hon. member for Lanark; I venture to say there is no mortgage on his farm, and that if he finds it necessary to work early in the morning or late at night he will do it. I see another, the hon. member from Elgin who put these delicious apples on our desks


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I venture to say he is a practical farmer. I saw a smile on his face as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was talking.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Tell us about the eight hour day.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I have owned a farm in western Canada for over fifty years. If a farm is worked properly and practically there is no better asset for a man who has the ability to operate it. But when preachers, doctors or professional men begin to teach practical men they make a mess out of it, nine times out of ten.
I have here a speech that was made in 1870 by a practical man who went to the United States following the civil war, when conditions there were like our present conditions. I remember quite well that when my grandfather in law crossed over into the United States the American dollar could be bought for fifty cents, and farm products were selling at very low figures, much lower than to-day. We bought butter at ten cents a pound, chickens at twenty cents. But conditions change; they right themselves, With the permission of the house I should like to read part of this man's observations because I believe they will give some idea of what was happening at that time:
Our country is filled with the idle and unemployed and the great question asked for an answer is, "What shall be done with these men?" "What shall these men do?" To this there is but one answer

Eight Hour Day

And I give the same answer to-day, because there can be no other answer, "Go and get these men out of the camps. Put them on the farms."
They must cultivate the soil. Farming must be rendered more attractive. Those who work the land must have an honest pride in their business. They must educate their children to cultivate the soil. They must make farming easier so that their children will not hate it; so that they will not hate it themselves.
The boys must not be taught that tilling the soil is a curse and almost a disgrace. They must not suppose that education is thrown away upon them unless they 'become ministers, lawyers, doctors or statesmen.	It must be
understood that education can be used to advantage on the farm. We must get rid of the idea that a little learning unfits one for work. There are numbers of graduates of universities and colleges who are performing a hundred varieties of menial services. They are willing to do anything that is not regarded as work, anything that can be done in a town, in a house, in an office, but they avoid farming as they would leprosy.
It is a thousand times better to have common sense with education-than education without sense.
The western country offers every opportunity. Yet we are crowding men into camps; we are putting men into camps where they are getting all the luxuries which could be given, and luxuries costing all kinds of money. At the same time the united farmers of Manitoba, an organization to which I belong, are asking to have the camps disbanded. With 1,500 men in my constituency in Riding Mountain national park, Clear Lake camp, I ask, too, to have those camps disbanded and the men turned loose. Let them go to the farms for their work, because the farmers are offering them employment and will accept them. However those men will not go, and how can we expect to get them when conditions such as I am about to indicate, exist in the camps. I have before me an article showing the conditions at Clear Lake camp, and I read it for the special benefit of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) who at one time in this chamber had something critical to say about this particular oamp. These men are fed three times as well as we old pioneers of western Canada were fed. We knew no such conditions as those under which they are living. I see a smile on the face of the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell); I know that he has in mind just exactly what I have in mine. I say these men are fed the very best. Here is a letter which has come from the camp:
To the Editor of the Tribune:
Sir,-Every once in a while we hear a complaint emanating from the minds of some of the less grateful of our unemployed. It was

rather refreshing therefore, for me to receive a letter from my boy recently, who is at camp 8, Clear Lake, which in part says:
"We arrived at the main camp 7.15 and had supper. Boy, what a meal! Everything from soup to nuts. We were in a dining room that seats about 200. After the eats, we received four horse blankets each. They are like Jimmie's scout blanket.
"Prom hence we got back on the truck and proceeded to camp 8, where we are now parked. It is a new bunk house, and is it snarky? They keep the fires going all night; someone comes in every two hours and stokes up; the place is real warm. We have upper bunks; they are singles. There's lots of room to hang coats, and a big shelf above the bed.
"We breakfasted in the third relay. The food is wonderful. They had porridge-
I ask the hon., member for Winnipeg North Centre to get this, so that he will know just what they are doing up there in the camps.
They had porridge, pancakes, syrup, bacon, prunes, bread, buns, biscuits, etc., etc.
"So far we have not got our clothes, but expect them soon.
"There's a nice gang here.
"I've just finished putting up a few more shelves. Right now I am lying on my bed. In one end of the room someone is playing a banjo; at another end several mouth organs are in full blast.
"What little look we did get of the country was wonderful. It is all spruce trees and hills. It certainly is beautiful.
"I'll write you more when I've been to work and seen what that's like. Theres' about 20 of us loafing around the bunk house right now. It certainly is a wonderful bunk house; it's like a palace.
"Oh, Oh, now everybody's singing, so I guess I will have to join in.
And this is signed by M. Davis. If we are are going to take men out of the cities and place them in that sort of environment I do not know 'how we will get them back on the farms. I would not want to go back on the farm if I were in a place where they had their boxing matches one and two days each week, their hockey matches one day in the week, and all that sort of thing. Would hon. members in this chamber want to go back on the farm? I know that prices for agricultural products are low, but I would remind hon. members that only within the last ten days cattle have sold on the stockyards at Toronto for 71 cents a pound. I am sorry the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) is not in his seat because some time ago he referred to a 19 cent cow. At the same time an hon. member sitting next to him sold a cow for $40, and had the cheque in his pocket. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. MacMillan) sold ten cattle for $420, and had a cheque in his pocket for that amount. These men are practical farmers, and are making a success on their farms. I know the hon. member for

Eight Hour Day
West Elgin is feeding a barn full of cattle which will make him a lot of money. I say the farm offers every inducement, but unless these men go out of the cities and back to the land they will be charges of tlhe government, we will have them as wards, and we will have more talk about a six hour day and things of that kind.
I know that there is something wrong. What is wrong is this: the farmer receives nine cents and the consumer pays thirty cents. I want that fault corrected. I know there is a blank spot in the centre, but if time permitted me this afternoon and if I were given an opportunity to go into the matter more fully I could tell what is wrong. Do you think a farmer is wise who goes to the yards of the packers and permits those packers to do the purchasing? That man does his own trucking and helps to ruin the railways. I ask the intelligent men in the chamber this question: Did the farmers do that in your boyhood days? Do hon. members recall the time when in western Ontario they had fairs where the farmers showed their cattle, and where the cattle buyers would buy them? Did the cattle buyer go into, the hands of the packer, and let the packer set the price? The buyer who is employed by the packer has a killing sheet handed to him every day. He buys for the packer and when the product goes to the packing plant he is responsible for the outcome of his buying. Now I ask the farmer if he is wise to put himself into the hands of the packer under those conditions. The farmer himself is wrong in the methods he is using and in the methods in which he is doing business. I ask him to go back to the old days when the cattle buyer went on to the farm, as my hon. friend from Assiniboia and my hon. friend from Ontario mentioned; they sold right on the farm and the money was paid to them there. In those days the farmer was successful, but now he puts himself into other hands to be controlled as to price. I did not intend to take up any time this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, but when I heard the statements made about working six hours a day I could keep my seat no longer.
Go back to the land and operate it in a practical way. The best inducement in the world is offered in the great outdoors of the three prairie provinces. Handle it right. Take your coarse grains and feed them to live stock, and do not be subjected to the exploitation of the different elevators by selling them your coarse grains. No man can make money by selling his coarse grains in that way. No, Mr. Chairman, feed your coarse grains to live stock and drive them to market
on four legs. That is the only way. I see the hon. member for Yorkton; I remember when that town was prosperous, when there were hundreds of thousands of dollars paid out during the summer, but they have neglected the live stock industry. I do not intend to talk about live stock any more, but I hear hon. gentlemen talking about medicine and legal and constitutional questions and I could not help saying a word. The praotical end of farming is live stock. I have always stood behind that and I stand behind it still. The live stock are now finding a place, and the packers instead of going down the stock yards leisurely have to step up now.
We have a market in the United Kingdom that should be developed, but I have not time to go into that to-day. I may do so later on and then tell you something more about live stock. I stand behind live stock yet, and I will take second place to no man in that respect, although I may be nearing the end of my contribution in regard to them. I have spoken many times about live stock because I have seen what they will do for a farmer who has a well bred herd of cattle, not a common bred herd. No man wants a common bred herd any more than he wants a common bred man. They are of no use; many will be in camp with somebody feeding them, but when the farmer has a well bred herd of cattle, and when he has a farm without a mortgage, he is the happiest man in the world and I defy any man from the cities to be any happier than he is.
I would say in conclusion that the west offers the opportunity, and if we here do our part as legislators to help agriculture get on its feet we can do nothing better for this country because agriculture must be successful if this country is to succeed.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately the people of this country aje divided into various classes and sections according to their various economic interests. Some of us are in parliament representing certain interests, and others represent different interests. Theoretically I suppose we are here to represent all interests in this country, and so far as I am personally concerned, so far as representation of that kind tends to the equal distribution of the total produced wealth of the country I am quite willing to cooperate with any group to that end. I am always willing to cooperate with the farmer because I am satisfied that we cannot have a proper social order with the farmer left out of it, any more than we can have a proper social order with the industrial worker left out
Eight Hour Day

of it. Those are the two wealth-producing classes in the community, and they are the two most exploited classes in this country to-day-in fact the only classes that can be exploited. It is for these people that we who sit in this corner of the house are trying to legislate.
The bill that is now before the house is in my opinion one of the most important parts of the so-called reform program, because if we pass this bill I think it is the one that will soonest come into conflict with provincial legislation. I think we should be clear in our own minds as to whether this is going to supersede provincial legislation already on the statute -books. I know that in my province the employers are very anxious that the other provinces which have no limitation of hours legislation at the present time should have legislation of that kind in order that there may be some semblance of fair competition between the various industries in the different provinces. We should know first of all whether or not this legislation is going to supersede legislation already on the statute books of the provinces. That has not yet been made clear. If it is going to supersede provincial legislation, I think we should be very careful to see that the legislation we are passing now should not be less stringent than the legislation we now have in any province. I am not quite sure but I think that possibly British Columbia has more advanced legislation so far as the limitation of hours is concerned than any other province in Canada, and I do not want to see legislation passed here that would supersede legislation in British Columbia and be less stringent than what we now have in that province. I do not think any member coming from British Columbia would want to see any such legislation as that.
The amendments that are contemplated have a tendency in my opinion to take away from this legislation a great deal of its potency and effect, and consequently for that reason I am opposed to them.
I believe, with the hon. member for Bow River, that the time has come when we must recast many of our ideas in regard to social and economic matters, and that is as true of the problems of the farmer as it is of the problems of the industrial worker. The farmer also has been caught up in the industrial machine, if you like, by the use of machine power, and if he is going to live on the land as a producer of commodities and have a wide sale for his products he will have to change his methods of production to conform to the social conditions that arise. There is no getting away from that.

We have in the past heard too much about this industry or that industry not being able to stand shorter hours or higher wages or better working conditions, but I say Mr. Chairman, that an industry that cannot stand good working conditions for its employees should not be in existence at all. If the community needs that industry we should run it on such a basis as to give to those engaged in it a reasonable and decent standard of living. When we say that this or that industry cannot stand conditions that would provide a decent standard of living all we mean is that that industry cannot be carried on profitably with the -management it now has. We have to make up our minds whether the industries that are essential to the life of this country are going to be left in the hands of private individuals to be manipulated in their own interests, or whether we shall see to it that those industries function in the interests of the great masses of the people of this country. That is the problem facing us to-day. It was possible at one time to leave those industries in private hands; it was possible as long as a market could be found for their production, but we have now come to the stage where a market can no longer be found, and consequently if the community is going to keep up its standard of living it has to take hold of the means of production and operate them itself for the community. If my friends have any better solution for the problem than that I am quite willing to -hear it. Nothing has been brought forward as yet to show that it can be done in any other way. It seems to me that we have to stop thinking about industry and to begin thinking about the human beings who make industry possible. The trouble in the past was that the governments of this country gave all their consideration to industry and gave no consideration to the people of this country who make industry possible.
Bet me say a few words in connection with the farmer. I think the first thing the farmer will have to realize is that he is taking part in the production of a social product. When I say that he is taking part in the production of a social product I mean that he is no longer producing wholly and solely for his own family and himself, producing the things that he consumes on his farm. He is producing for a world market, and between his farm and the ultimate market must come hundreds of people who take just as much part in the production of the product as he does. The disposal of his product would be impossible if these people were not taking part. I see an -hon. member to my right shaking his head, but

the shaking of a head1 is not going to get over the difficulty. Wheat is grown upon farms of western Canada but it is sold and consumed in Great Britain, in China and in France. The wheat is not wholly produced until it has reached the ultimate consumer. Everyone between the farm and the mills in Great Britain, China or wherever the wheat is finally consumed takes just as much part in its production as does the farmer. They are essential to the production and if that process did not take place the wheat would stay on the farm. The shaking of a head will not get over that.
Wheat cannot be produced to-day without agricultural machinery. This agricultural machinery is not grown on the farms. It comes from the bowels of the earth, from the smelters, the factories and the machine shops of the cities. Considerable transportation is required before it reaches the farm. Our whole city organization is bound up with our farm organization. The farmer has two alternatives facing him; he must undertake cooperative production and distribution or go back to serfdom. These a'-e the alternatives facing the farmer to-day. You can talk as you like about the improved conditions of the industrial worker and the people living in the cities; you can state that the only solution to our problem is to go back to the land. But let us examine these things. The difficulty facing the farmer to-day is the fact that he cannot find a market at a profitable price for what he produces. As a matter of fact he cannot find a market at any price. If the farmer is going to sell he must sell to people living in the cities. He cannot sell to people who are producing the same things as he is producing. If we put the unemployed in the cities back on the farm and have them producing as well, then the farmers will be more and more unable to sell what they produce. Instead1 of their condition being improved, it will become worse. These things might as well be faced realistically. We are living in a social organization which requires the efforts of everyone in many different states in order to make production possible. If this is the case as far as production is concerned, then it must be the case as far as distribution is concerned if we are going to benefit by the improvements which have come about through inventions of one kind and another.
I should like to know how it would benefit the farmer to have a twelve hour day in industry. Would it benefit the farmer to have lower wages in industry? The result would be that he would be able to sell less
Eight Hour Day
than he sells now. He can sell only to a prosperous city population; he cannot sell to an impoverished city population.
The hon. member for Marquette has referred to the wonderful conditions existing in the unemployment camps. He quoted from a letter written by a boy in one of these camps, but I want to point out that that letter was written the first evening the boy arrived at the camp. I am not just sure of the conditions at his home when he was so pleased to be given four horse blankets. I would rather have blankets made for human beings. Horse blankets may be all right for horses but I would feel more like a human being if I was living like other human beings. If there were not sufficient human blankets, to use that term, to go around, then I might be satisfied with horse blankets but as long as somebody else had more blankets than he knew what to do with, I would not be satisfied with horse blankets. Any boy who is satisfied with horse blankets is not going to amount to much.


Mr. ROSS:: Where did he say those horse blankets were used?


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member for Marquette was reading a letter which he had received from somebody in the camp and it stated that they were used there.


George Gordon: They were used when he was riding on a truck.


Angus MacInnis: That is not my understanding of what the hon. member said.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are mistaken.


Angus MacInnis: salaries and wages paid amounted to 813,222,000, an increase of $61,000 or one-half of one per cent over 1932. The salaries and wages paid to a greater number of employees were very little more than they were in 1932. Let us compare the salaries and wages paid with the profits. The value added by manufacture was $28,671,000, an increase of $5,509,000, or 23 per cent over 1932. At a cost of an increase of one-half of one per cent in wages this industry was able to increase its profits by 23 per cent. Possibly this is where the farmer should look for some of his difficulties. I am not at all convinced that any of our social insurance measures will get us very far in the direction of improved social conditions, because I feel that so long as the life energy of the individual is a commodity on the market it will be sold just the same as any other commodity is sold. When the demand is great the price will go up; when the demand is low or the supply is more than the demand the price will go down, regardless of what may be done. The peace treaty, I understand, provides that the labour of the individual is not to be regarded as a commodity; but no matter what the peace treaty may say, I contend that so long as the present system continues, the labour of the individual, his life energy, will and must be regarded as a commodity. The peace treaty was signed in 1919, and I have before me the report of the board of conciliation that heard the grievances of employees of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1933.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Will the hon. gentleman try to keep to the section.


Angus MacInnis: Perhaps I am departing
a little from it, but I do not think I am doing so to any greater extent than has been done this afternoon.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I have given too much latitude.


Angus MacInnis: Well, Mr. Chairman,
when you curtail the latitude you have been giving I wish you would begin with somebody else. In regard to the twenty per cent cut which the railway companies were asking for, the board of conciliation, the majority members being Judge Gibson of the superior court of Quebec and Mr. George C. MacDonald, chartered accountant, made this statement:
The bearing that the general economic situation has upon the proposed twenty per cent cut is that railway labour, like all labour, manual, professional or clerical, is a commodity which
fMr. Maclnnis.]
fluctuates in value; w'hen the values of commodities generally, including other labour, have fallen in terms of money, it is but reasonable to contend that railway labour also should be entitled to less remuneration in terms of money.
In other words, if railway employees are to sell their labour they must sell it on the same terms as other workers sell their energy, at its cost of production. Coming to the eight hour day, it seems to me that this house should be very careful not to pass legislation that would supersede, if it will supersede, provincial legislation and be of less consequence in improving the conditions of human beings than is the legislation already on the statute books of the provinces.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is nearly time that
someone discussed the section of the bill, and I am probably the first speaker this afternoon who will do so. We have gone all over the lot from social credit to raising bulls, and apple sauce-at any rate, it has developed into apple sauce since we have started. We have heard the point of view of those who claim to represent the farming interests and we have heard the point of view of those who claim to represent other interests.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: We have
heard the two opposing points of view of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, on social legislation.


Humphrey Mitchell: There may be twenty points of view of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and that might go for other parties as well. But what I am concerned about is that this legislation when it passes shall have the widest application possible. We have he'ard many things said this afternoon, almost given as statements of fact, from the point of view of farmers and from our other points of view, but I think we must all agree that the policy set in motion by this legislation is a logical development of world opinion. It is a conclusion that has been arrived at by many nations which in their composition are almost akin to our own. The nations that have dealt with the problem of t'he hours of labour include Albania, the Argentine, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia and Denmark. There are others that I might enumerate. In this legislation therefore we see an attempt to move in the direction of world opinion. This movement on the part of the dominion government brings into practical application the dream of those people who are interested in the tremendous growth of science as expressed in industry and agriculture, and if my farmer friends thought it

Eight Hour Day
through I think they would find that their problems are much the same as the problems in the city. After all, the modern city is a reflex of the industrial age; it is an outgrowth of it. The boys have not left the farm because they wanted to do so but because they have been driven off by the machine. Therefore the problem of mass production must be faced, not only in industry but in agriculture.


An hon. MEMBER:: When are you coming to the section?


Humphrey Mitchell: Eight Hour Day

its application as possible and will go as far as the conventions and recommendations of the international labour office, which after all is said and done is its driving force, will permit it to go. I appreciate the fact that at the moment the federal government finds itself possibly in difficulties in connection with too broad an application of the measure, but what I would like to ask the minister to do is to see to it that the bill, when it is finally passed, goes as far as the conventions and ratifications of the international labour office permit it to do, so that it may bring its benefits to as many as possible of the people engaged in industry and commerce.


William Henry Golding: I have just received a telegram from one of my constituents and I feel I should bring it to the attention of the minister and the government. It reads:
Would strongly urge your support for exclusion of creameries and cheese factories from provisions of eight hour law in interest of producers. Any increase in operation costs will bear heavily on farmers as we cannot control butter prices to secure higher return.
That is from Mr. Barber who runs the butter factory and creamery in our town.
, Another communication to which I would like to direct attention is from the canning factory in one of our villages. It reads:
In regard to the proposed legislation dealing with the eight hour day, and forty-eight hour week, we fear that this legislation will work hardship on our particular industry. Most canning factories are located in small centres of population, and, due to the peculiarities of our business, we experience heavy deliveries of produce one day, and comparatively light deliveries on other days. This is due to climatic and other conditions, and with this problem to meet it is almost impossible for us to secure sufficient help for two shifts. Even if this were possible, we do not see how we could arrange a regular eight hour working day. We trust that this bill will have your careful consideration, and that you will bring this matter to the attention of the government.
I do not want to prolong the debate. This legislation is being introduced and put into effect by the government and they will have to assume responsibility for it, but I want to bring this matter to the attention of the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Exceptional cases.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I move by way of amendment that clause 9 be deleted and the following be substituted therefor:
The governor in council may in exceptional cases where it is recognized that the daily limit of hours of work cannot be applied and
[Mr. Mitchell.1
agreements between workers' and employers' organizations exist, give effect to such agreements by regulation and permit the said daily limit of hours to be exceeded'; provided however that the average number of hours worked per week shall not exceed forty-eight; and provided further that in case such an agreement made prior to the coming into force of this act embodies the basic principle of eight hours as the daily period of employment, the provisions of such agreement relating to the hours of employment shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this act, continue in force unless suspended by the governor in council.


Humphrey Mitchell: Who suggested this
amendment?


George Gordon: The matter was brought to my attention first by some of the railroad brotherhoods. Then it was brought to my attention through the officers of the Department of Labour that there were throughout Canada a large number of industries where organized labour had, through their properly constituted representatives, made agreements with their employers. Those agreements were entered into I trust voluntarily in all cases, and I think the great majority of them embodied the principle of the eight hour day. The agreements to which I make reference are agreements presently current and in force. It was my judgment, and by me recommended to the government, that such agreements should not be lightly disturbed. But if it appears to the governor in council that any of those agreements do violence to the basic principle that underlies this bill, such agreements can be suspended. I think that is the only sound method to follow. It is my judgment that if we passed the section in its original form we should immediately be confronted with disturbance in industry by reason of agreements that are in force, entered into voluntarily between the parties concerned. So long as the basic principle of the eight hour day prevails it is the judgment of the government that those agreements should not be disturbed, but they may be suspended by the governor in council if as I have said it is made to appear that they are in conflict with the principle underlying this bill.


Humphrey Mitchell: All I say is that if that amendment is adopted you might as well not pass the bill. I have had some experience in negotiating agreements. What is to prevent some company organization from being constituted to defeat the ends of this bill?


George Gordon: To do what?


Humphrey Mitchell: Some company union entering into an agreement to defeat the object of this bill. The bill has a wide application. I know something about the dr-

Questions
clarations of organized labour on the eight hour day. I think that in fairness all organizations should have been consulted. Take the railroad industry, you have the four running trades, then the machinists, the stationary engineers, the maintenance of way men, the car men, all organizations connected with the railroad industry. They should all be consulted, and so should all the other labour organizations. No amendment should be made to the bill to suit tlhe wishes of two or three organizations, especially when it defeats the eight hour day, the object of the bill.


George Gordon: It does not do anything of the sort.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, it does. It says it shall " continue in force unless suspended by the governor in council."


Richard Burpee Hanson: Presently existing agreements where the eight hour day is the basic principle are to be continued in force until suspended by the governor in council, so that we do not upset all the existing conditions.


Humphrey Mitchell: The other day the government said they were giving industry three months to adjust itself. Even where there are not agreements in existence there must be a great deal of alteration and change before this bill can apply. Why should any one company be treated differently from industry in general? I can say very frankly that the great majority of men employed in the railroad industry in Canada are not in favour of this amendment. Knowing that I think it is only fair that I should say it.


Mr. HOWDEN:: Is this legislation going to affect the help in charitable institutions? I mean cooks, engineers plumbers, carpenters, who are kept on steady employment?


George Gordon: My view is that the class of employees that the hon. member has in mind could not be said to fall within the interpretation of industrial undertakings. I do not think they would come within the four corners of the bill or of the convention.


John Power Howden: Charitable institutions by and large are not money-making institutions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are not industrial at all.


John Power Howden: It is hospitals I have chiefly in mind; they have a staff of engineers, plumbers, carpenters and decorators, and if these men are to be affected it is going to 92582-107J
have an unfavourable effect on hospitals, and cause an increase in rates to sick people. They are not included in it?


George Gordon: No.


Angus MacInnis: The first half of this amendment or a little more is the same as section 9 as it now stands. Section 9 in its present form provides that:
The governor in council may, in exceptional cases where it is recognized that the daily limit of hours of work cannot he applied and agreements between workers' and employers' organizations to -increase the daily limit have been made, give effect to such agreements and permit in such cases the said daily limit of hours of work to be exceeded: provided, however, that the average number of hours per week over the number of weeks covered by any such agreement shall not exceed forty-eight.
This amendment also gives the right to the governor in council, where agreements exist between workers and employers, to give effect to such agreements by regulation. Why then the necessity for the remaining part of the amendment, providing further for the case of an agreement made prior to the coming into force of the bill? This also has reference to agreements made prior, agreements now in existence. Although the basic principle may be the eight hour day it may operate so as to allow certain employees to work much longer than eight hours. If we are to have an eight hour day act any number of sheltered employees in any organization should not be allowed, by agreement with their employers or otherwise, to get away from the provisions of the act. I think that the committee should oppose this amendment.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 14, 1935