1935-03-07

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

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	How many employees were employed at the Montreal harbour during the navigation season of 1923 and that of 1934?
2.	What salaries were paid to these employees during the above years?
3.	What was the tonnage of the vessels that entered the Montreal harbour in 1923 and 1934.
4.	How many vessels came to Montreal in 1923 and 1934?
1.	British empire
Fiscal year	countries
1919-20			 60,659
1920-21			 75,783
1921-22			 39,606
1922-23			 36,360
1923-24			 78,740
1924-25			 54,943
1925-26			 37,569
1926-27			 50,378
1927-28			 51,552
1928-29			 59,497
1929-30			 64,962
1930-31			 28,144
1931-32			 7,332
1932-33			 3.283
1933-34			 2,454
fMr. Manion.]


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 
IMMIGRATION
Mr. CQTNAM:: 1.	How many immigrants were admitted to
Canada from:	(a) British empire countries;
(b)	United States of America; (c) foreign countries, each year from 1920 to 1934 inclusive?
2.	How many immigrants left Canada for the United States of America each year from 1920 to 1934 inclusive?
3.	How many Canadians returned to Canada from the United States of America each year from 1920 to 1934 inclusive?


Mr. GORDON:: From U.S.A.	All other countries	Totals40,728	7,021	108,40838,310	24,635	138,72821,670	21,048	82,32416,566	14,520	67,44617,211	49,299	145,25015,818	40,601	111,36218,778	39,717	96,06421,025	72,586	143,98925,007	75,041	151,60030,560	77,666	167,72330,727	67,599	163,28824,280	35,799	88,22314,297	4,123	25,75213,196	3.303	19,7827,740	3,709	13,903
British Settlers
2.	There is no information available showing emigration from Canada to the United States or elsewhere.
3.	Figures are available only from the 1st April, 1924. The movement since that time is as follows:
Fiscal year 1924-25			 43,775
1925-26		
1926-27			 56,957
1927-28			 39,887
1928-29			 33,798
1929-30			 29,830
1930-31			 30,209
1931-32			 19.411
1932-33			 17,625
1933-34			 9,172



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT

Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	What is the total amount of loans outstanding under the Soldier Settlement Act in British Columbia at the 31st of December, 1934?
2.	What is the total number of loans granted under the act in the province at this date?
3.	What is the minimum and maximum amounts granted in each case?
4.	What are the names and addresses, and salaries of those administering the Soldier Settlement Act in British Columbia at said date?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	$6,812,782.26.
2.	3,692.
3.	Minimum, $18.70; maximum, $8,000.
4.	G. Chalmers Johnston, District Supt., Vancouver; salary, $3,204.
Office Staff, Vancouver-
F. G. Coburn, T. B. Diplock, W. C. M, Broadbent, W. W. Hilton, F. K. Owen, L. R. Wood. J. S. Pells, E. J. Sager, George Johnston, R. C. Pitman, J. F. C. Kirk, A. D. Newberry, P. E. Curtis, H. T. Dobb, Miss E. L. Johnston, Miss M. McIntyre, Mrs. J. D. H. Bell, Miss E. A. Jackson, Miss D. Reed, Miss W. Atkins, Miss P. M. Welch, Miss G. E. Rowe.-Total office salaries, $33,213.96.
Field Staff-
J. C. Child, Vernon; D. Dodding, Nelson; H. L. Sinclair, Penticton; R. W. Brown, Kelowna; D. B. Holman, Salmon Arm; W. W. Wood, Vernon; F. Barber, Kamloops; A. Berner, Telkwa; I. T. Barnet, Vancouver; E. H. Cope, Abbotsford; R. L. Ramsay, Chilliwack; L. A. LaPierre, Vancouver; T. Godfrey, New Westminster; L. B. Plumbly, Royston; J. D. Patterson, Victoria.-Total field salaries, $30,402.
Note.-In addition to administering the Soldier Settlement Act the staff are engaged in General Land Settlement; investigations for War Veterans' Allowance Committee; Board of Pension Commissioners and Department of Pensions and National Health; appraisals for the Board of Review under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act; Relief Land Settlement; Relief investigations.



LOAN TO ROUMANIA

Mr. McPHEE:: 1.	What is the total amount owing at this date on the loan made by the government of Canada to Roumania, under order in council P.C. 690, April 2, 1919?
2.	Has anything been paid on said loan since it was made?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	Principal amount, as consolidated in 1922 into $23,969,720 4 per cent Roumanian bonds due 1968, is outstanding in full.
2.	No principal amount has been payable. Interest was paid in full to April 1, 1933. Coupons due October 1, 1933, and April 1 and October 1, 1934, were paid to the extent of twenty-five per cent.
Interest payments from October 1, 1933, to 1936, are being made on a reduced scale under a plan proposed by Roumania and recommended to private investors by the council of foreign bondholders and accepted by the government of Canada.



BRITISH SETTLERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wesley Ashton Gordon: I wish to answer an inquiry that was made yesterday by the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) with respect to certain newspaper reports having to do with a number of settlers under what is known as the three thousand British families scheme.


Mr. VALLANCE:: May I correct the minister? These are not newspaper reports; they were reports made to me direct.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Whether they were newspaper reports or not, I will try to answer the question. I have had inquiries made and it would appear that these settlers came to Canada under an empire agreement with the British government about ben years ago. A great numlber of t)he settlers have done very well, and some of them not so well.
On January 28 last a delegation of these settlers called at the office of the chief field

British Settlers

supervisor at Prinice Albert. There were nine families represented. I do not think it would be fair to name the families, but the spokesman for the delegation stated that the families had been induced to emigrate on promises which were not fulfilled and that the settlers required relief in food and clothing. Then they submitted what was almost an ultimatum, as follows:
(a) The group of settlers must be repatriated to the United Kingdom.
(lb) Allowances must be provided by the dominion government to keep the families in reasonable comfort until repatriation was carried out.
(c)	The settlers would not operate their farms this spring.
(d)	If allowances made by the dominion government were considered insufficient, application would be made to the British government for authority to dispose of stock and equipment purchased out of British funds; and
(e)	A reply must be made within a period of two weeks.
A report was immediately submitted by the district superintendent at Saskatoon and on the 9th ultimo the district superintendent was advised that on checking over the records here it was found that these families had come to Canada between 1926 and 1929 and had already acquired Canadian domicile by five years' residence. Therefore we have no machinery that can be put in motion to return these families to Britain.
The attention of the district superintendent was also directed to the fact that the distribution of relief is not in the hands of this department and that these families would be entitled to the same treatment as other residents whether born in Canada or abroad, and further that the settlers would have the same rights as other farmers under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act for a readjustment of indebtedness. One of the settlers, Mr. Fraser, acted as spokesman. He wired to the director on the thirteenth ultimo refusing to accept the department's reply to the delegation's demands and said that they would remain in occupancy of the Prince Albert office until the director would interview them personally.
On Thursday the fourteenth ultimo, the district superintendent at Saskatoon was instructed by long distance telephone to offer to transport the settlers back to their farms and to advise them that if any difficulty was met with in obtaining relief, he, the district superintendent, would take the matter up with the proper authorities. As is well known, the dominion government, acting in conjunction with the government of the province, is making

provision for necessitous cases throughout the whole province. The district superintendent was told to advise the delegation that the office was to be closed at the usual closing hour in the evening and they would be removed unless they left the premises.
Reports to hand show that the land settlement officer offered to provide transportation for any who wanted it. Two of the families who lived fourteen and nine miles respectively from Prince Albert had driven to the city in their own automobiles bringing some of the others with them. None of the delegates accepted the offer of transportation. They left the office shortly after three o'clock in the afternoon of the fourteenth without any force or persuasion beyond the advice of the land settlement officer. A press report of the fifteenth ultimo stated that the remnant of the delegation started to walk home distances of from ten to fifteen miles and that there were some women in the group. As there was only one woman who appeared at the land settlement office after the first day and as she and her husband drove their own automobile, the press report is evidently incorrect.
Then the director wrote to the spokesman for the group setting out the position of the department in the matter. It is quite obvious that these people, having resided in Canada as long as they have, while they may have_ met with difficulties, have assumed an attitude which in my judgment is at least not well considered, and if they find themselves at the moment in need of assistance, there is a proper source, namely the provincial authorities, who undoubtedly can take care of their situation.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 21, consideration in committee of Bill No. 8, to establish an unemployment and social insurance commission, to provide for a national employment service, for insurance against unemployment, for aid to unemployed persons, and for other forms of social insurance and security, and for purposes related thereto-Mr. Bennett-Mr. Morand in the chair.
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: The Prime Minister thought it best to stay at home a few days longer, and he asked me whether I might find it possible to take up this bill in committee and deal with the few remaining clauses that were left the other day. With the consent of the committee I am going to

Unemployment Insurance
try my best to do so. I would suggest thatg the chairman tell us which is the first clause* that was not passed.	1


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I would suggest to my right hon. friend that he do not confine his good offices to this one bill. Let him take all this social legislation and see if we cannot get it through this week.


George Halsey Perley: I am obliged to the right hon. gentleman, but I think he had better wait and see how I get along.
On section 7-Commission to undertake investigation.


George Halsey Perley: The other day there was some discussion with regard to the possibility of there being a vacancy in the commission for a very long time without its being filled. I would therefore move that we revert to clause 5 for the purpose of moving an amendment, because some of the representatives of labour claimed that as the clause read, it might be possible to leave a vacancy in the commission for a very long time and this might be very awkward.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 5-Duration of office.
George Halsey Perley: I move that
section 5 be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
4.	Any vacancy arising in the commission shall be filled within a period of six months.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Why six months? That seems like too long a period in which to make the choice of a commissioner. I see no reason why the government of the day could not choose a man within twenty-eight days. The amendment means in effect that two commissioners can sit for six months and adjudicate on problems coming before the commission without the advice, it may be of the labour representative, who is in ill health or dead, or it may be of the representative of the manufacturers, or it may be of a man of judicial qualification who is the chairman.
I see no reason why six months should be necessary, and I would like the government to take into consideration shortening that period to at least twenty-eight days. That is ample time for making a decision in regard to an appointment.


George Halsey Perley: The hon. gentleman must not imagine that any government would have the intention of taking the full six months, but there are times of the year
92582-95J
*	when for various reasons it is difficult to *make these arrangements. In some parts of
*	the year it is easy, but at other times there F is a good deal of difficulty because of the
holiday season and one thing or another. I think my hon. friend may rely on any government, even if it be one of his own way of thinking, to make a decision without taking the full six months.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I feel
quite sympathetic toward the position taken just now by the acting Prime Minister, but I still think six months is too long a period. I agree with him that twenty-eight days might be hardly enough, and I would suggest that three months, as the period during which the appointment would be expected to take place, would be ample, taking into consideration almost all factors that could be anticipated. I think three months would be fair under the circumstances.


George Halsey Perley: I am within the good sense of the committee on this subject. To my mind it does not make a great deal of difference, because such an officer would be very necessary and I think any government would make this appointment as soon as possible. But I want to submit to my hon. friends that there is a time of the year when for two months or more in the holiday season very few people and sometimes very few members of the government are here. I will compromise on four months. I have had a good deal of experience of holidays in that connection. When ministers are away attending to their duties in various parts of the country, it is sometimes difficult to decide on a first class man to fill one of these important positions.


Humphrey Mitchell: Might I make this suggestion, which I think is practical? Reducing the time would at least shorten the agony for the government. I am not unmindful of the large numbers who would probably offer themselves for a position of this description, and I think from a purely practical point of view a decision made quickly would probably be just as sound as if the government waited a full six months, or four, as the case might be. The number of men in the dominion who in my judgment could ably fill this position is not large, and in the interest of smooth administration I suggest that the shortest period of time should be stipulated in which a vacancy occurring in the commission should be filled. We have heard recently in the house of the office of a deputy minister being vacant for four or five years; and such a thing might occur in connection with this commission. We of the labour movement are anxious that when
Unemployment Insuranc'e

these vacancies occur, particularly if it is a Wbour vacancy, it should be filled at the earliest possible moment.


George Halsey Perley: This is being put in entirely to please the labour element, and we have no intention of holding these offices up at all. But 1 have explained to the hon. gentleman the reason why at certain times it is very difficult to select the proper man for these positions. I cannot go further than four months.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section.as amended agreed to.
On section 7-Commission to undertake investigations.
George Halsey Perley: Have hon. gentlemen any remarks to make about clause 7? This is the clause which provides that the commission may take into consideration any classes or parts of classes which are not covered by the act, and make recommendations to the governor in council regarding them The governor in council has no power to alter the act, but if the proposals from the commission were considered Satisfactory no doubt they would be passed on to parliament.


Mr. BRADETTE:: When I spoke previously on this matter I believe I was misunderstood by the Prime Minister. I spoke of people being put under the scheme who after paying all their life would never receive a cent of compensation for the very good reason that they had permanent employment. We see in this bill the excepted employments, which include civil servants, people working in financial institutions and so on. These excepted employments are listed on pages 31 and 32. I suppose those people in sheltered employments are not to come under the scheme for the reason that they are unlikely to get any benefit from it. But we have the very same situation in industry to-day. When I spoke of gold-mining the other day I had in mind to include all mining in Canada. I was also thinking of people who work all their lives in other permanent industries. I mentioned that in our section we have mines whose lives the geological report indicates have been extended to sixty or seventy-five years, and past experience indicates that those mines will be working every day of that life; yet the miners and mine owners will be paying for unemployment insurance during all that time, the miners never having a chance to receive any benefit. I was always in favour of contributory unemployment insurance, but when I see such an anomaly as that I am inclined to believe that I was absolutely wrong. I must

make the statement very clearly that you are going to have thousands of miners and workers in permanent industries who will never receive a cent of compensation but will be paying under this scheme every day of their life. The committee should be fully seized of that situation. I mentioned the Hollinger mine which has been working consecutively and steadily for the last twenty-two years and no doubt the same thing will apply for the next twenty-two. Those mine owners and miners will be contributing for the full extent of those working years without a chance of ever receiving any return. Anyone who knows anything about insurance is aware that if for instance I have a life insurance policy, some day my beneficiaries if not myself will get some benefit from it. If I have an accident insurance policy and after so many years I have had no accident the premium is graded down. The same principle should apply to these working men, absolutely working men, not in sheltered employment such as the civil service. Could the committee visualize civil servants coming under this scheme? No, for the simple reason that they are expected to work every working day. I must repeat, we have the same situation in some industries, and outstandingly in the mining industry; people who will be working every day and will receive no benefit from unemployment insurance. Is that fair? I think it is not. I brought this matter up the other day, I think that my proposal is fair, namely, that at the end of five years if miners or industrial workers have been working steadily, there should be a grading down of premium by twenty per cent a year to a minimum of five cents a week, both for miners and also the mine and industry owners. That should appeal to this committee, because the scheme as it is at present does an injustice to people who may be paying every day of their lives and never receive a cent of compensation. The Prime Minister said the other day that he had no sympathy with the wealthy people. Everyone knows that my sympathy is with that point of view. But this is going to hit the working man particularly. Surely it should be possible to have a graded scale in this respect. I am making this appeal very sincerely. I hold no brief for the gold mining industry, except that it happens that most of the mines are in my riding, and everyone realizes the stabilizing effect that the gold mining industry has had during the present time of depression. The Prime Minister said the other day that he had great sympathy for the coal miners in Alberta-, in the riding represented by the hon. member for Bow

Umemploymerit Insurance
River (Mr. Garland). But the committee should be seized of this fact; you may have some highly seasonal mining industries and other industries that pay higher dividends than industries working steadily all the year.
I want this committee to realize the injustice *that would be done under this scheme, which in general is good for the working people but in its present form is going to hurt some by taxing them although they have no chance whatever of receiving any benefit under it. There are hundreds of thousands coming within the excepted employments, for the simple reason that they are sheltered employments; these people are assured of work as long as they live. This applies to civil servants and men in banking and financial institutions and other occupations. On the other hand highly seasonal employments are excepted and farmers do not come under the scheme. Surely every hon. member grasps the point I have brought before the committee, but I must repeat it to make it very clear, that a large number of men will be working all their life and contributing to this fund although having no chance whatsoever of deriving any benefit from it. It would be different if there were an old age pension and accident benefits, but there is no benefit whatsoever to men who will be paying twenty-five cents per week all the time, which is a large amount to take from their wages. I think the amendment is desirable, and that the acting Prime Minister is fully seized of the situation, as he was closely in touch with industry and must be very familiar with the point I have brought before the committee.


Humphrey Mitchell: I profoundly disagree
with the argument of the last speaker. For fifteen years I have carried life insurance, as soon as I got married I took out a policy. Under that one has to die to win. I have insured my house, and the only way I can derive benefit from it is by the house burning down, but I do not want that to happen. As a working man I want insurance against unemployment, not with the end in view of getting out of work. You see the point. I have had some experience amongst working men of this country, and I have seen profound changes in industrial conditions. There is no guarantee that men working in the gold mines will continue to have steady employment for the rest of their lives. I remember before the coming of the motor ear the men on the old radial railways thought they had a job for life, but now most of them have gone into new vocations or are on relief. I could quote many other industries. There are the stone
cutters who, with the development of machinery, have experienced a drop in employment amounting to seventy-five per cent. They have had to look for other work, and I am sure that if legislation of this description had been in operation the effects of unemployment would have been softened. That same argument applies to the miners. I want to say very frankly that I have not changed the opinion I expressed in the second speech I made in this house, that we should have carried the cost of this depression out of income; we should have paid for relief by a tax on the incomes of the people of this country. We should have been good Scotsmen and paid as we went. I believe that if many of the municipalities that find themselves in difficulty at the moment had adopted a similar policy, with the provincial governments adjusting the avenues of taxation to permit them to meet the situation as it has existed for the last four or five years, they would have been in a better financial position than the dominion The question raised by the last hon. member who spoke was dealt with by the British government in 1924, I think, and this is what they say about it:
In the hope that unemployment insurance might serve as an incentive towards greater stability of employment, the act granted an employer a refund of one-third of his contributions for each worker that he had kept in steady employment throughout the year. Similarly, a person who contributed not less than 500 weeks was entitled, upon reaching the age of 60, to a refund of the excess of his total contributions over his total benefits together with compound interest at 2i per cent. Since these features did little to stabilize employment and were cumbersome to administer, they were repealed in 1920 and 1924, respectively.
That policy was set in motion by the British government. I think we can safely say they have the best unemployment insurance act in the world to-day, and they found that policy impractical.
As one who may be working at a trade within the next twelve months I want to say that I would raise no objection to chipping in twenty-five cents a week to help the poor chap who has no job. I should be thankful that I was working and able to do so; that is the attitude I have always adopted. These men in the gold mines, who are sitting on top of the world at the moment-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I did not speak of the gold mines in particular; I mentioned industry in general.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not being critical; I am just discussing the matter from the practical aspect. Since these chaps in the gold
Unemployment Insurance

mines are sitting on top of the world at the moment I think they should be willing and anxious to make their contribution. I quite agree with the hon. member that there should be no exemptions; I think the employees of banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions should come under the provisions of this act, so that they might make their contribution towards its cost. I believe that in this country, with its enormous seasonal unemployment, we will find it necessary to take that action before the act has been in operation for very long. I think we should take the long view in regard to these men and women who think they have jobs for Life; I believe they should come under the scheme so that if they should get out of work they will be able to take advantage of it.	,


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I could not have made myself very clear or the hon. member for East Hamilton would not have spoken in this way. He made a comparison with life insurance. If he pays for life insurance all his days he may not get the benefit himself, but his family will get the benefit of it, so I think his comparison is very weak.


Humphrey Mitchell: They will get the benefit of this.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: No. If a man works and contributes all his life or for ten, twenty or forty years he will not get a cent of benefit. Now I will ask the hon. member for East Hamilton if he is in favour of these excepted employees, these civil servants or employees of financial institutions, and others.


Humphrey Mitchell: I said I was not in favour of exempting anybody.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: But it is in the act. If we are going to exempt all these permanent employees we are going to penalize the ordinary workingmen. I did not mention workers in gold mines in particular; I was referring to industry in general. That includes gold mining, of course, but the hon. member cannot get away from the fact that people will get no benefit from this measure if they work and contribute to it over a long period of years. If there were no exempted employments I would say all right. The gold miners, the owners and workingmen of northern Ontario are willing to pay into this scheme, but they believe everyone should pay into it. If a man works for forty years and longer, and makes his contributions to this fund, he will pay in all his life without obtaining any benefit at all. I think if the contribution were gradually lessened until it became five cents per week we would be following the principle
fMr. Mitchell.]
of insurance on which this bill is said to be founded. I mentioned the people who are permanently employed; I believe they should make their contributions. Otherwise civil servants and men working in banks will not pay a cent towards the cost of this scheme. Is that fair?
I know something of the labour situation; I know something of the lives of the workingmen. I know that they are just as loyal as any other class of society; I think they are willing to pay their share of the cost of this scheme, but why should some people in selected employments not pay a dollar while the man who works in the mud and the dust must pay for the rest of his life without getting a cent of benefit unless he loses his job? Under the present system we will have the people in the excepted employments, those working for municipal, provincial and federal governments, those in financial institutions and others, who will never pay a dollar towards this scheme. On the other hand the people engaged in industry, who are willing and ready to pay something towards this insurance, may be required to keep on paying for many years without receiving any benefit at all. I am not speaking for any particular section of the country; I am speaking for the workingmen as a whole, the men who, under certain circumstances, will have no cihance whatever of benefiting under this scheme. One of the principles of direct taxation is that those who are taxed should obtain some benefit from such taxation, but under this scheme there will be thousands and tens of thousands of people who will contribute for twenty, thirty or forty years but who will never get a single dollar of benefit, and I say that is not fair. I again urge that the bill be amended as I have suggested.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have a good deal of sympathy with the view's expressed by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. We have been told that this bill is based upon the insurance principle. Obviously the smiling and good natured acting Prime Minister realizes that all insurance is sold on the basis of risk. Uniformity is not accepted as a principle of insurance at all. This whole bill is based upon the assumption that unemployment will be uniform throughout the respective industries that come within its scope. That of course is not and will not be the case.
In support of that contention may I submit to the aoting Prime Minister a case which came to my attention recently, of an industry in the city of Toronto. At the present time it is probably down to the bedrock level of

Unemployment Insurance
employment, that is, in keeping with the continued activity of the industry. It employs thirty men. I am informed by the proprietor that the probability is that not more than two of these men at the most will become unemployed; if it is necessary to let go more than two men it will mean closing down the plant entirely, but with the continued stability of conditions for which the proprietor hopes he does not think more than two of these men will lose their employment. It is pointed out that before those two would be able to take advantage of the privileges of this bill the employer, the employees and the government will have contributed for forty weeks, a total of $24 per employee. Multiply that by thirty and you have the sum of $720. If two of these men become unemployed they draw the maximum benefit for seventy-eight days or thirteen weeks, a total of $156. That is what they will draw out as their share of the fund and, so far as that industry is concerned, that will leave in the fund a balance of $564 for which no adequate return is made to that particular industry. But that $564 is not all, because during the period of thirteen weeks, while these two unemployed men draw their benefits, the other twenty-eight employees, the owner and the government continue to contribute, so that when these men who are out of work have exhausted their benefits under the scheme and gone back on relief, the total in the fund in respect of this industry will amount to $782. Obviously that is going to become quite a common case in those industries that are not so subject to unemployment as some other industries may be.


George Halsey Perley: May I ask the hon. gentleman how many men were employed in that industry in prosperous times?


Edward Joseph Garland: I have not that exact figure before me.


George Halsey Perley: The hon. gentleman would have to get that information in order to know how many men not now working would have been under the scheme if it had been in force.


Edward Joseph Garland: But the difficulty is that you are starting now and you have to consider this bill from the present time on, not from what has taken place in the past. The whole picture is altered now, and you could not draw any conclusions even if you secured the information suggested by my right hon. friend. I suggest to the committee that this point is made very clear by Paul Douglas and Aaron Director in their book The Problem of Unemployment, published by Macmillan, at page 418. They say that provided the contributory principle is
accepted-but I do not accept it. I think in view of the present low average wage level in Canada this measure, so far as the employee is concerned, is unjust. The position of those who advocate a contributory system for the employee is untenable. They point out that if the measure is accepted there should be no quarrel with the fact that under an insurance system the regularly employed workers and their employers must pay for .the irregularly employed workers, provided the risk of unemployment is uniform. Yes, provided it is uniform, but it is a well known fact that this latter condition is not fulfilled.
An investigation made in 1926 in Great Britain revealed that over a period of five years only fifty-two per cent of the insured who had paid contributions had at any time drawn benefits. This would argue for a differentiation of the contribution rates among workers, which in practice is difficult to work out. A state subsidy makes up in part the disadvantages to the steadily employed workers, and the fact that the forty-eight per cent of the workers had to pay for the extended benefit as well lends support to the argument that the state's share should have been increased during these years.
I submit that if there is to be a measure of justice done to industry, such as has been mentioned by the hon. member for North Timiskaming and other hon. members, the government's share in the scheme should be steeply increased. I further submit that if the contributory principle is to be insisted upon that there should be a sliding scale of contributions to keep step with the incidence or likelihood of incidence of unemployment in the industry. This point is dealt with by Paul H. Douglas and Aaron Director in the same work at page 492, when they point out that the premium rate as between industries and firms should, as we have urged, be varied according to the relative amount of unemployment characterizing them. In the event of the government refusing to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for North Timiskaming, and refusing to accept my suggestion for noncontributory insurance so far as the employees are concerned, then I say the least they can do is to see to it that they step up their grants, and bring under the operation of the act all employed persons in the country. Let the cost be spread out over the whole lot of them, so as to make the burden less. But to press the burden down upon those industries which are most likely to suffer from unemployment is an obvious injustice not only to the industry itself but to those engaged in it, and also an obvious injury to the whole principle supposed to be underlying the bill.
Unemployment Insurance

For these reasons I submit the points raised by the hon. member for North Timiskaming are well taken, and if the insurance principle is to apply then of course a pro rata contributory-as they call it-sliding scale, or graduated payments, would be the only fair basis for the definite insurance principle as adhered to. In the earlier part of his remarks the hon. member for North Timiskaming indicated something which pleased me, namely that he was in favour of the contributory principle, but having examined the bill more closely, and having considered its effect upon certain industries in the country, he felt that in the first instance he had not been well advised. I was glad to hear him say that. After examining the bill I have definitely come to that conclusion. Until I had read the bill I was much in the same position as he was. I now feel however that this bill will work an injustice, and that it will be of little benefit to anybody.


Mr. MARCIL:: May I repeat what I said
on the second reading of the bill? I observed at that time that the measure while excellent in some respects does not go far enough. In it there is no consideration for certain classes. I have had the honour for many years to represent the same constituency, and for the last month I have been endeavouring to find one person in my constituency who would benefit by this bill. I find they all belong to the exempted classes. The hon. member for North Timiskaming complains that the men who are going to work for thirty or forty years will make the greatest payments. I know some men who will not work at all but will have to pay just the same. Those men must pay part of the taxation of the country, and as the measure is to be maintained by the government, jointly with employers and employees, they must pay their share. In my constituency and no doubt in many others there are agriculturists, horticulturists, men engaged in forestry, fishermen, lumbermen, loggers, hunters, trappers and people engaged in transportation by water and by air, who will have to make contributions but will not reap the benefits. In a maritime constituency the people either fish, carry on lumbering or are connected with navigation. Yet these people are debarred. Why should not unemployment insurance be extended to all classes, and more especially to those who are unemployable?
Apparently the intention of the Prime Minister, if I understood correctly his messages over the radio, was to give relief to
IMr. E. J. Garland.]
the unemployed. That promise was a very worthy one, but was long overdue. The measure before us gives no relief whatever to the unemployed. Its provisions are for those who are employed continually for a certain length of time. If at the end of that time they have no work, or if no work can be found for them by the commission, then they will be allowed a certain amount per week. That is all right so far as the employed are concerned, but what about those who are not employed? Why should the taxpayers -and this includes the farmers, the lumbermen, and the fishermen-be completely debarred, although they are called upon to pay their share of the taxes for the maintenance of the scheme? That is the unfortunate and weak part of the whole system, so far as I can see.


George Halsey Perley: This bill has
not for its purpose the relief of the unemployed. It has for its purpose the establishment of a fund which will be effective when a future period of unemployment comes upon us. To leave politics out of the matter, if we can, may I say that this is legislation which should have been passed in the days of plenty. Had that been done we would by this time have had a large fund available, and when hard times came along we would have had money which could have been used for the purpose of relieving the situation. I repeat that this bill is not designed to relieve unemployment.
The hon. member for Bonaventure talks about the farmers and fishermen. I would remind him that the measure refers only to those who are employed by others. Either fortunately or unfortunately for themselves, the farmers are their own masters and so are most of the fishermen. What the hon. member has said may be true, but undoubtedly at some later point there will be a measure to deal with the unemployed. May I say to the hon. member for North Timiskaming that my experience tells me there is no class of workers which can be sure of employment all the time. There is no such thing; it does not exist. He has spoken about gold mines which have been operating for years, but I would remind him that there are other gold mines which are not operating at all. Why should not the men who work without interruption in the gold mines be called upon to provide something for those who are connected with the gold mines which are not now operating? All the mines are not Lake Shores or Nipis-sings. However, the hon. member for East

Unemployment Insurance
Hamilton covered the ground so thoroughly that I do not feel called upon to say anything further.


Mr. STITT (Nelson):: I find myself very
much in agreement with the hon. member for East Hamilton. The hon. member for North Timiskaming states that gold miners-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I wish to make a correction. I did not speak about gold miners particularly; I mentioned permanent industries in general.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: Well, I shall talk
about the mining industry for a little while, anyway. In my constituency there are many large mines; in fact one of the largest in Canada, operated by the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company, is situated there. As soon as this bill was introduced I secured several copies and sent them not only to the miners' welfare commission, which represents the men, but also to the companies, the general managers and the superintendents of the mines. In the first place I felt it was my duty to do so, and in the second place I thought by so doing I would get their slant on the bill. Several weeks have elapsed and I have not yet received one objection to the bill. The mining companies and the miners in Manitoba are willing to accept it, and if they are willing I can see no reason why there should be objections from Ontario, the province of Quebec or in fact any other province. In Manitoba we have a two per cent wage tax which all the miners are now paying, and if they are willing to pay towards this insurance scheme in addition to the two per cent they are now paying I should think the other provinces have very little kick coming. After all, Mr. Chairman, we are our brother's keeper; if we get away from that principle humanity will not survive very long. If I were going down the mines, or working in them as miners do for seven days in the week, even if I were sheltered by continued employment I should be very happy to make this contribution. But outside of that, what miner going down a mine knows the minute he may be carried out? In such event he would be cared for under the compensation legislation for a certain period of time, but that would not go on forever. That is where this legislation would step in. Then, he may lose his job. On top of that we know there is a peaceful but continuous penetration of industry by science. It has affected mining as much as any other industry with which I am familiar. I went down in mines myself and worked in them
for several years. For that reason I believe I may say I am familiar with the methods employed. When I go underground now, however, and notice the wTay they do things, I marvel. One man produces as much ore a day and does as much work as ten or twelve men used to do. I cannot see that the hon. member's argument carries much weight so far as the mining industry is concerned, and that is the only industry I am referring to at the present time. As I stated before, I have received no objections to the bill-nothing but commendation, and I congratulate the government upon having brought it in.


Humphrey Mitchell: Do I understand that the board has power to include within the provisions of the act those exceipted in part
n?


George Halsey Perley: They have power to investigate and make proposals to the governor in council. In fact, they are authorized and practically asked to do so under this act. If these proposals are approved, naturally it is expected that the government will be prepared to make suggestions to parliament to amend the act accordingly.
Section 7 agreed to.
On section 11-Regional divisions: central offices.


George Halsey Perley: When section 11 was under consideration certain questions were asked regarding the probable cost, and the Prime Minister at that time promised to have an inquiry made. I have here a memorandum, which I will read, prepared by the Civil Service Commission in cooperation with the Department of Labour:
Memorandum on the costs of the existing employment service of Canada and the estimated expenditures for national employment service and unemployment insurance during the fiscal year 1935-36.
Number of existing public employment offices now operated by provincial governments	 75
Staff employed in foregoing	 297
Federal government staff of employment service of Canada	 27
Total dominion and provincial staffs..	324
Cost of employment offices borne by
provincial governments	$ 325,000
Cost of employment offices borne by
dominion government	 150,000
Cost of dominion administration.. ..	58,000
Total cost of present system	$ 533,000
Unemployment Insurance

Estimated number of employment offices required under the Employment and Social Insurance Act:-
Permanent offices	 90
Part-time offices	 200
Total number of offices	 290
Estimated number of staff required for:
90 Permanent offices	 2,500
200 Part-time offices	 400
6 Regional offices	 500
Headquarters office	 400
Total staff	 3,800
Estimated cost of staff	$5,700,000
Estimated cost of other charges involved (including premises, office equipment, supplies, etc.)	 1,000,000
Total cost of staff	$6,700,000
Amount probably required for the portion of the present fiscal year during which the act will be in operation	$5,000,000
That was the information asked for when this section was under consideration before, and I have brought it down in response to the request then made.


Mr. NEILL:: An amendment was proposed by myself, and the Prime Minister promised to consider it and give his opinion on it. I proposed a new subsection 5 dealing with blacklists. It will be found at page 947 of Hansard.


George Halsey Perley: I am sorry I was not here the day it was discussed in committee, but the answer which the Prime Minister gave on that occasion appears to me to be absolutely conclusive. I regret that I cannot accept the amendment suggested by the hon. gentleman.


Alan Webster Neill: At page 950, in the second column, in the second last paragraph, the Prime Minister said that there was no reason why this section should not stand in order that the amendment I proposed should be considered. That at least I am entitled to have done. It seems that no one knows anything about the matter.


George Halsey Perley: According to the notes and papers connected with this matter, which have been handed to me, the question was considered and it was decided that the amendment could not be accepted.


Alan Webster Neill: The responsibility is the government's.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
[Sir George Perley.l
New section 13 agreed to.
On section 16-Persons entitled to certificates of exemption.
George Halsey Perley: It has been explained to the Prime Minister and those of us who have been considaring this matter that in some parts of the country, in the prairies for instance, the seasonal periods are pretty short, and we have been asked to increase the number of weeks in order that when the man is working it will not be so difficult for him to come within the exemption of this section. I move that 16 be amended by deleting from paragraph (b) of subsection 1 thereof the expression "twenty-two" in line eighteen and substituting therefor the expression 'twenty-four."


Alan Webster Neill: If I understand it, you are
extending the period by two weeks.


George Halsey Perley: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 20-Statutory conditions for receipt of unemployment benefit.
Alan Webster Neill: Has the Acting Prime Minister no statement to make in regard to this section? This is a very important provision. The language which the Prime Minister used was that it would have to be dealt with very carefully inasmuch as it involves the question of mining, to which the attention of the committee had been directed. Upon the interpretation of this section will depend the question whether a large body of men, coal miners, for instance, and possibly others in the same situation will or will not come within the act. I asked the Prime Minister whether coal miners such as I described, and under the conditions I indicated, would be eligible to pay and he said yes. Later on, when we came to dig into it, I asked whether under the same conditions they would be eligible to get money out and he said no. Therefore they would seem to be eligible to pay but not to receive, and this is certainly an unthinkable situation. It works out like this: the coal miners in the district which I represent are not working for one month or two or six months and then laid off. They are, so to speak, employed permanently, but they are paid just when there is a demand for coal. Three hundred men may work to-day and they may not work tomorrow. The result is that they are continuously employed in the sense that they are there, but they do not average more than three days a week. They may work two days one week and four days the next, but

Unemployment Insurance
by and large one might figure that they work three days a week. Apparently under this legislation they are liable to come under its provisions and pay, but when the question arises of their getting anything out, they are not eligible because the act requires a man to be nine days idle before he can apply. They are never nine days continuously idle, yet they work perhaps less than twenty-six weeks a year. When I mentioned the situation to the Prime Minister, my attention was called to subsection 4 of section 20 which reads:
Any three days of unemployment, whether consecutive or not, within a period of six consecutive days shall be treated' as a continuous period of unemployment, and any two such continuous periods separated by a period of not more than six weeks shall be treated as one continuous period of unemployment.
That means to say that I can take the three days that I am idle this week and add it on to the three days I am idle next week or some other week within six weeks. But what is the result then? I have achieved only six days' continuous idleness and that will not entitle me to unemployment benefit. What is needed is an extension of that clause so that a man could keep on adding those three days of idleness until he reached a period of two or three months when he could legitimately apply for unemployment benefit. The responsibility belongs to the government; if they want to pass the subclause as it reads, certainly they will have to explain it here and I shall have to explain the matter when I get home. Are the miners under this or are they not, because I received those two distinct answers from the Prime Minister? At one stage he said: Yes, they are liable to come under it. Later he said: No, they will not get any money under it if they are not eligible under the act. But they are not eligible because they cannot show nine days' continuous idleness. On the other hand, under the first part of the legislation they are certainly eligible to pay.


George Halsey Perley: As I understand
the matter, if a man is idle three days within a week, and then three days some other week within six weeks, that makes six days of unemployment and entitles him to the benefit of the legislation.


Alan Webster Neill: No; he needs to have nine
continuous days of idleness before he can collect.
Sir GEORGE PERiLEY: What clause is that?


Alan Webster Neill: That is the regular clause.
This is what the Prime Minister said as reported on page 979 of Hansard:
Under those circumstances I should like to look into that subsection a little farther, because if there is a period as long as a year in which men are employed only half a week, obviously there should be some readjustment of the provisions of the subsection.
I cannot quote the section at the moment, but I am in the judgment of the committee that it says that a man must have nine continuous days of unemployment.


Edward Joseph Garland: Where is
that?


Alan Webster Neill: I think it is under the
schedules. I am quite certain that it says nine continuous days.


Edward Joseph Garland: This subclause does not say that.


Alan Webster Neill: No. An hon. member suggests that I look at page 36 of the bill. On page 36, part II of the third schedule reads:
No person shall receive benefit for any fraction of a day, nor for the first nine days of any period of continuous unemployment.
How can a man who works three days a week every week become entitled to unemployment benefit? I do not know. I again quote the Prime Minister when he said:
Obviously there should be some readjustment of the provisions of the subsection.
I do not think we should pass this subclause until that promise of readjustment has been fulfilled.


Edward Joseph Garland: I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. There is no doubt whatever that section I of part II of the third schedule reads:
No person shall receive benefit for any fraction of a day, nor for the first nine days of any period' of continuous unemployment.
That is obviously not in conformity with subclause 4 of clause 20 on page 11 which reads:
Any three days of unemployment, whether consecutive or not, within a period of six consecutive days shall be treated as a continuous period of unemployment, and any two such continuous periods separated by a period of not more than six weeks shall be treated as one continuous period of unemployment, and the expressions "continuously unemployed" and "continuous period of unemployment" shall he construed accordingly.
There seems to be an anomaly in the clauses; at least I cannot understand them as they are written.


George Halsey Perley: So far as I understand the matter, it is this: Three days a week is taken as continuous unemployment.
Unemployment Insurance

Surely in six weeks a man may accumulate nine days and then he becomes entitled under this bill.


Alan Webster Neill: But under subclause 4 he
can take only two continuous periods within six weeks: one week to begin with of three days idleness and then another similar period within the six weeks, but the total is only six days.


George Halsey Perley: Suppose in the
six weeks he works only four days a week; could he not accumulate twelve days?


Alan Webster Neill: No; only eight days. He
can add only the days of unemployment in one week on to those in another week within six weeks.


George Halsey Perley: I do not read
the subclause in that way at all. This is practically the same as the British act except that they require a period of ten instead of six weeks. But the way we have it is better. By the second statutory condition the receipt of benefits depends on continuous unemployment. Literally construed this would be a severe condition and would tend to discourage an unemployed person from seeking work for short periods or for the odd day. This tendency would not be for the benefit of the insurance fund or of insured persons. The rule in this subsection is that any three days of unemployment within a period of six days shall be treated as continuous and that any two such periods separated by not more than six weeks shall be treated as one. In the British acts, "continuously unemployed" has always been subject to statutory definition, and since 1923, the definition has been as above except that the "'bridge" between two periods has been changed. They changed this "bridge" several times in England. Prior to 1923 the "bridge" was six weeks. In that year it was made three weeks; in 1924, six weeks, and in 1927, against the recommendation of the Blanesburgh committee that no change should be made, the "bridge" was increased to ten weeks. The process of change and extension in the British scheme may have been to some extent associated with the exigencies of the circumstances leading to the increasing departure of that scheme from an insurance basis. The fact that the "bridge was six weeks prior to 1923; that it was restored to six weeks in 1924, and that the Blanesburgh committee recommended in 1927 that it should remain at six weeks, is of more than passing significance. For that reason the six weeks' period has been adopted in our case.


Alan Webster Neill: What is the right hon. member quoting from?
Sir GEORGE PERLEY- This is a memorandum which I have had prepared. I am not quoting from anything; I had it put in this way so that I might be able to inform the committee more accurately than I could from memory. The fact is that a great many short periods of unemployment may be linked up for benefit purposes; as I understand the matter, according to this clause, eight periods of three days each, six weeks apart might be linked up to cover practically the whole year. I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken when he considers this clause to be at variance with the other part of the bill. As I understand the matter, any period of three days within six weeks would count as part of the continuous period.


Alan Webster Neill: I would be only too pleased
if it were proved that I was wrong, but unfortunately I have a great respect for the legal acumen of the Prime Minister and I can see from reading Hansard how very definite he was. Let me quote three statements by him, all dealing with this subject, as reported on page 979 of Hansard I have already quoted one sentence. He said:
I thought we should deal with it very carefully, because it deals also with the question of mining, to which the attention of the committee was directed' by another hon. member.
Then the hon. member for Swift Current raised the exact question that I have been raising and the Prime Minister said:
The paragraph reads: "any three days of unemployment, whether consecutive or not, within a period of six consecutive days shall be treated as a continuous period of unemployment."
Then the Prime Minister goes on to say:
That is, after six days of the week have passed and a man has been three days unemployed, whether those days have been consecutive or not they shall be regarded as three unemployed days. That is one period.
Then the paragraph states:
And any two such continuous period's separated by a period of not more than six weeks shall be treated as one continuous period of unemployment.
And the Prime Minister says:
That means that if within six weeks we have this event happening twice, you have six continuous days of unemployment which go to make up the nine. That is the position.
The nine I have been talking about which he must have as a sine qua non for having benefit. Then the hon. member for Swift

Unemployment Insurance
Current (Mr. Bothwell) asked "He has credit for the six days?" and Mr. Bennett replied, "Yes."
Then again Mr. Bennett's attention was called to men in the railway shops, and he
said:
Under those circumstances I should like to look into that subsection a little further, because if there is a period as long as a year in which men are employed only half a week, obviously there should be some readjustment of the provisions of the subsection.
Then other members took up the point again, the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) brought up identically the same question about men in coal mines, and the Prime Minister said:
I would suggest that subsection 4 be allowed to stand.
Mr. Coote made a suggestion that it be redrafted, and Mr. Bennett said:
I have noted on my bill the hon. member's suggestion, and we shall deal with it.
There is a very definite statement by a man whose opinion we must all respect. Now the acting leader of the government has produced a statement which, as far as I could catch it -and it is my disability that I did not catch it entirely-was presumably prepared by some of his officials. I earnestly suggest that he allow this subsection to stand until we can read the argument in Hansard, and then we shall be able to consider it more fully. I am not satisfied to let it pass without a more definite statement as to whether these men are required to pay, and if they are, whether they are eligible to be paid.


George Halsey Perley: Do I understand that what is bothering the hon. gentleman is that if they have a third period of three days perhaps it would not count?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, that is it. And that is exactly what the Prime Minister said.


George Halsey Perley: In order to make that plain, although I do not think there is any difficulty about it, would it do to make the fourth line read "and any two 'or more' such continuous periods"? I see no difficulty about that if the hon. gentleman wishes it. If that will satisfy his criticism I shall make inquiry.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask the acting Prime Minister if he has a copy of the British act before him?


George Halsey Perley: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think I heard him state that subsection 4 of section 20 was taken from the British act.


George Halsey Perley: I said it was
practically what is in the British act.


Edward Joseph Garland: That may have given rise to the difficulty because the British act provides for only six days of waiting before benefits become payable, whereas ours calls for nine. They may have copied exactly the provisions of the British bill without reference to the difference in the number of waiting days.


Mr. COOTE:: I wish to draw attention to the case of the miners in my own constituency. Speaking in a general way I think they are the only class who will be affected to any exent by this bill. I asked the Prime Minister, when this section was being discussed before, whether these coal miners would come under the provisions, because of the very uncertain conditions of their employment, and it was after that that he said again he would like the subsection to stand. I should like to place on Hansard for the benefit of the committee and the minister in charge of the bill figures which I secured just yesterday showing the days that some of the mines in my constituency worked last year. I notice one mine seems to have worked practically 183 days, that is the average number worked by the employees. For another mine the number is 180, another 170 and in one case as low as 140.
For my own part I would like it to be made very clear that if the miners are to contribute to the unemployment insurance fund they will be able under these circumstances to get insurance; that is that this particular subsection will not in any way prevent them. I wish to be assured that the act is drafted in such a way that they can get their benefits under it.


George Halsey Perley: I am quite ready to let this section stand for further consideration. Would the addition of the words "or more" answer the purpose of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill)?


Alan Webster Neill: No, I do not think that would help, because then you would be up against the words later on as to the period of six weeks. You want this principle to apply running over months. In the next line or two it says "separated by a period of not more than six weeks." The section needs to be redrafted to cover a period extending into months.


George Halsey Perley: Does the hon. gentleman argue that even if a man did not work six days out of the six weeks he ought to come under this bill?
Unemployment Insurance


Alan Webster Neill: No, what I am suggesting is that if he comes under the bill and only works on an average say three days a week for week after week, under the present wording he is not eligible to get any unemployment benefit. But if he only works twenty-six weeks in the year he should get unemployment benefit. I seek to have the section drawn so that the periods of unemployment should be cumulative beyond that six weeks, cumulative for such period as would render him eligible for unemployment benefit eventually. Let it stand.


George Gibson Coote: I think if the section is allowed to stand and the officials in the department have this placed before them they could probably draft the section in a way to meet the necessities of the situation existing in those mining areas.


George Halsey Perley: I think the hon. gentleman is unduly concerned about this matter; conditions in the coal mining industry are somewhat similar and the miners there come under this act. As I understand it all that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni wants is to make sure that the third and other periods of three days shall be included. He says that he does not think this section covers more than two of the three-day periods within six weeks. I think he is mistaken about that. It seems to me that the wording "any two or more such continuous periods" would cover all he wants.
Section stands.
On section 22-Period of disallowance of benefit in certain cases.
Sir GEORGE PERLEY The last part of subsection (a) of this section says:
Where a claim for benefit by an insured' contributor is disallowed by the court of referees or the umpire, on the ground-
(a) that the third statutory condition is not fulfilled in his case by reason of his failure to prove that he is unable to obtain suitable employment;
The other day it was argued, and it is considered by the Prime Minister that perhaps this is an unreasonable burden to put upon a man, and that if he is capable of work and willing to work and unable to find suitable employment he should not be compelled to prove such inability. Therefore the proposal is that this subsection dial! be so changed that the third condition will not be imposed. So I move:

That section 22 be amended by deleting from paragraph (a) thereof all the words following the words "his case" in line 19.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
'On section 20-Statutory conditions for receipt of unemployment benefit.
Edward Joseph Garland: Now that subsection (a) of section 22 is amended by striking out the provision that it be incumbent upon an applicant to prove that he was unable to obtain suitable employment, would it not 'be well to amend subsection 3 of section 20 in that regard also. It reads:
If an insured contributor proves in the prescribed manner that he was during any period, falling within the two years specified in the first statutory condition, incapacitated for work___
In other words, the element of proof is incumbent upon him there as it was previously in the other case. I think that is a burden that we should eliminate in this and other sections also, especially under present conditions.


George Halsey Perley: If the hon. gentleman reads them he will find that they are two very different things, one easy to determine, the other very difficult.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 27-Determination of questions by commission.
George Halsey Perley: The purpose of the amendment that is to be proposed is to prevent any party from appealing from a decision of the commission-


Edward Joseph Garland: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I direct attention to the fact that we cannot hear what the acting Prime Minister is saying, because of the conversations that are going on in the chamber. I am anxious to hear these amendments, and I would like hon. members to be a little quieter.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton):: The committee will kindly be a
little more orderly.


George Halsey Perley: As I remember it this clause was discussed with the Prime Minister and an amendment was suggested which would prevent any party appealing from the decision of the commission but would leave the commission the right to refer to the exchequer court any decision or any matter which they might think sufficiently important, instead of deciding it themselves. It was argued here the other day that it

Unemployment Insurance
would be very difficult for the workman to finance the appeal which is provided for in this section, and it was proposed to alter the section so that the commission itself might appeal to the exchequer court on any point with regard to which they thought there was any reasonable doubt.


Alan Webster Neill: "Apply" not "appeal."


George Halsey Perley: I move in amendment, seconded by the Minister of the Interior, that section 27 be amended by deleting from paragraph (e) of subsection 1 the proviso contained in lines 28, 29 and 30. Those lines read:
Any person aggrieved by the decision of the commission on any such question may appeal from that decision to the- exchequer court, and

Also deleting from subsection 3 all that part thereof contained in the last three lines. Subsection 3 would then read:
The commission may, on new facts being brought to their notice, revise any decision given under this section.
Further by deleting the words "an appeal or" and substituting the word "a", so that this subsection would read:
The governor in council may make regulations prescribing the procedure governing appeals under this section and those regulations shall provide for limiting the time within which a reference may be brought-
In other words the purpose of this amendment is to meet the suggestion advanced the other day it would be of very little value to the workers to have the right of appeal to the exchequer court, because of the expense involved. It was thought better to leave it to the commission, if there was thought to be any reasonable doubt, to have the matter brought before the exchequer court.


Alan Webster Neill: How will subsection 4 now read?


George Halsey Perley: Subsection 4 will be exactly as it is now except that line 48 will read, "time within which a reference may be brought."


Alan Webster Neill: But in line 47 it says: -prescribing the procedure governing appeals under this section-
It should read "governing references" if you are going to cut out the appeals.


George Halsey Perley: I think that is correct.


Mr. DUPUIS:: May I suggest to the acting Prime Minister that subsection 4 should read:
The governor in council may make regulations prescribing the procedure under this section,
and these regulations shall provide for limiting the time within which a reference may be brought.


Mr. IRVINE:: There are two more "appeals" to be cut out on the following page.


George Halsey Perley: I just noticed those. If the committee is agreeable to this change I will have the section redrafted so there will be no misunderstanding.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would the acting Prime Minister please read to the committee paragraph (ii) of subsection (e) ?


George Halsey Perley: Paragraph (ii)
remains as it is; it is not altered.


Edward Joseph Garland: In that case I wish to review or refer to the discussion that took place when this section was last before the committee. The question arose as to whether the commission would have the right to appeal to the exchequer court on any question. It was held by several members in this corner, notably the hon. member for East Hamilton and the hon. member for Winnipeg North 'Centre, that the commission should have the right to appeal only on a question of law. That was to receive the consideration of the Prime Minister, I think, and I should like to know the result.


George Halsey Perley: According to this wording they oould appeal on any question. Does the hon. gentleman object to that?


Humphrey Mitchell: The position wc take was fully explained when we discussed the bill previously. When you go before the courts the workingman is always at a disadvantage, because you have all the power of industry and perhaps the power of the state pitted against him. In the practical application of this sort of legislation-you can take the workmen's compensation laws as an example- we felt that when a commission has been given the power to decide a question, according to the law of averages the workingman is infinitely better off than if he has the right to go to the courts under the common law. What we want to make very clear is that in the ordinary application of the act the decision of the commission shall be final. I might give a practical example in connection with workmen's compensation legislation. I think about ninety-nine per cent of the cases in Ontario are satisfactory to the workmen, while one per cent are problem cases. If you permit an appeal, in eighty per cent of the oases that are satisfactory to the workmen-the employer will appeal as a matter of course, because if you give the employee the right to appeal you must give that right to the em-
Unemployment Insurance

ployer as well. We would rather take a chance on the fairness of a commission than take the risk, if I may call it that, of going to the courts, where we would be at a decided disadvantage. That is as clear as I can put it.


George Halsey Perley: What we are proposing is that there should be no right of appeal to either side, but that the commission itself may appeal. I do not suppose the hon. gentleman objects to that.


Humphrey Mitchell: On a question of law.


George Halsey Perley: The commission may make a reference to the exchequer court.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: There is no appeal whatever left now; there is only a reference, which is entirely discretionary and which is not mandatory at all. There is no appeal left in the bill at all.


George Halsey Perley: There is merely a reference; that is right. 1 used the wrong word. There is merely a reference to the exchequer court if the commission thinks fit.


Alan Webster Neill: It is rather more than a reference, because the section provides:
-the commission may, if they think fit, instead of themselves deciding such question, refer the question for decision to the exchequer court.
I think that provision should be eliminated if you are going on the theory that they can put only a sort of abstract problem to the court.


George Halsey Perley: I do not suppose the labour representatives object to the commission taking such steps as they think best to decide any questions that may come before them. Surely there can be no objection to that.


George Gibson Coote: It does seem to me the working of paragraph (ii) oould be improved upon, now that you are striking out paragraph (i). I think it should read something like this: "The commission may, if they think fit, refer any question which they may feel it necessary to refer to the exchequer court."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: That is what it provides now.


George Gibson Coote: It says "instead of deciding such question" and "such question" refers to subsections (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), and surely it is not those questions that are to be referred; it would be other questions regarding the interpretation of the act. Those are surely the only questions the commission would wish to refer to the exchequer court.


Humphrey Mitchell: As a layman reading
the law, I would understand that they may continually pass the buck until the commission is black in the face. We wish to obviate that. In our view the commission should take the responsibility, and if the government can assure us that the contention put forward by an hon. member from one of the Vancouver ridings is sound, then I am satisfied.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: That does not mean
anything.


George Halsey Perley: Does the hon.
member wish to have the whole idea of reference to the exchequer court left out?


Humphrey Mitchell: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, but
once more may I point out to the acting Prime Minister, a man who is a very capable lawyer, that he must be fully aware that it is usually the letter of the law which applies in a court, not the spirit. It does not matter what interpretation may be placed upon the law by hon. members, the court will undoubtedly decide in keeping with the actual written document.


George Halsey Perley: Quite so.


Edward Joseph Garland: This document clearly states that the commission has power to refer any case-any case, not just questions of law or questions of interpretation-for decision to the exchequer court. That is the point raised by the hon. member for East Hamilton, and other hon. members. Quite properly in my opinion they take objection to this point. When one gets into the claws of the law-or, shall I say, the arms of the law-decisions are subject rather to cold-blooded legal interpretation than to humanitarian or other principles.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order,
order.


Edward Joseph Garland: I submit- and no person knows it better than the hon. member who has just interjected his sardonic and ironic "order, order"-that if this point is to be adequately met there should be included in the subparagraph (ii) the words "any question of law" or "any question of interpretation arising out of this act," and nothing else. The right of reference should be limited to those two points.


George Gibson Coote: In other words, we should
not have a clause in the bill which would allow the commission, as we have said so often lately, to pass the buck to the exche-

Unemployment Insurance
quer court. Let them decide the ordinary questions arising under the administration of the act.


William Irvine: If we alter subparagraph
(ii) we will have to alter subparagraph (i), too.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, it
was altered.


George Halsey Perley: Stand.
Section stands.
On section 28, subsection 3-Umpires and deputy umpires.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
question was as to the classification of the term "deputy umpire." I believe the point was raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


George Halsey Perley: Yes, I think that is true. As a matter of fact, in England they have an umpire and, I believe, seven deputy umpires. In Canada the number would depend upon the number of sections into which we divide the country. I can see no objection to this subsection.


Alan Webster Neill: The point is this: There is no differentiation of duties assigned to the umpire and the deputy umpires respectively. The deputy umpire is clothed with the same authority as the umpire. Why should we appoint an umpire who would ostensibly have authority or jurisdiction above a deputy umpire? Why not simply state that a number of umpires is deemed necessary?


George Halsey Perley: I cannot follow
the argument of the hon. member. I suppose the umpire would be located at Ottawa, and the different deputy umpires would be in different sections of the country. All of them will be clothed with authority in accordance with the act.


Alan Webster Neill: If they are all going to be
clothed in the same authority why should one be put in a little pedestal above the others, but apparently without any added authority? When a deputy umpire makes a decision it is not referred to the umpire; they all act under the same basis of jurisdiction. Why have two distinct classes? Why not call them umpires? This is not an important point, but I should like to have it made clearer.


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, so that we
may more intelligently study section 27 I would ask that the committee revert to that section.


George Halsey Perley: Very well.


Vincent Dupuis: On February 21, as indicated at page 1038 of Hansard, there was some discussion about paragraph (e) and subparagraphs (i) and (ii), and a decision was made by the Prime Minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By the
house.


Vincent Dupuis: Hansard reports the discussion as follows:
A few days ago I listened with great interest to the statement made by the trades and labour council with respect to this matter, and I gathered' that they were of the opinion that if the question of appeal were taken away under subsection (i) of the proviso, then the commission itself might refer to the court any question which was of sufficient importance to warrant a reference being made. I am rather inclined to think that that would meet the difficulty the hon. member has raised, and it seems to me it would be fair to all parties. If that suggestion meets with his views we would accept an amendment to delete subparagraph (i) leaving it so that:
The commission may, if they think fit, instead of themselves deciding such question, refer the question for decision to the exchequer court.
Mr. Mitchell: I would move, in amendment, that subparagraph (i) be deleted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Bennett: Then the letters (ii) will be deleted, also.
Edward Joseph Garland: I believe
the Prime Minister may have referred to the double "i," itself, and not to the section.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes,
that is obvious.


George Halsey Perley: Yes, he referred only to the lettering.


Mr. HANBURY:: Just take out one of
the i's.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We do not see "i" to "i".


Vincent Dupuis: I think I may prove that the whole committee does not see eye to eye. According to the statement of the Prime Minister subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (e), subsection 1, section 27, are deleted.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Vincent Dupuis: Yes, they are.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
understanding of the committee was very clear and distinct. Last week the Prime Minister referred only to the marginal lettering of subparagraph (ii). On the amendment of the hon. member for East Hamilton subparagraph (i) was deleted, and then automatically subparagraph (ii) became subparagraph (i).

Unemployment Insurance


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is a merger.


George Gibson Coote: The ayes have it.


Vincent Dupuis: I will admit it was a
replacement, but I do say the question was decided at that time. Why should we revert to the same question to-day?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understand that the bill is left open for redrafting in any case.


George Halsey Perley: I think there
was some misunderstanding, namely as to whether the change had reference to the whole section, or just the two letters "ii."
On section 28, subsection 3-Umpires and deputy umpires.


Finlay MacDonald: Shall the subsection carry?


Alan Webster Neill: No. Of course if the leader
of the government insists on leaving the subsection in its present form he may do so, but I would point out that it is a duplication indicating that there are two officials when there is jurisdiction for only one. Why not appoint umpires, instead of appointing one umpire and in addition a number of deputy umpires who would do exactly the same work?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: And we would save
money, too.


George Halsey Perley: The practice suggested here is in accordance with that indicated in the English act. They have an umpire and also deputy umpires, but they do not seem to have had any trouble. The clause has been drafted so that the umpire shall not be a barrister. It states:
The governor in council may, from amongst the judges of the exchequer court of Canada and of the superior courts of the provinces of Canada, designate an umpire and such number of deputy umpires ...
This is in accordance with the procedure in Great Britain, and they do not seem to have any trouble about it. I do not see why one man should not be called an umpire and another a deputy umpire.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On section 33, subsection 1-Civil proceedings by employee against employer for neglect to comply with act.
Humphrey Mitchell: As I understand the
subsection, if the employer does not compy with the act and pay the necessary contributions the employee must sue. In my judgment that responsibility should rest with the government.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, and by that time the
employer will have disappeared. I brought that question up before the committee and pointed out that almost invariably, in cases where an employer had practically embezzled money which he had withheld from the employee, the company in question would be on the verge of bankruptcy. Probably by the time the employee discovered he had a claim against the employer, the employer would have run away-disappeared. It is not fair. I gave the example of an innocent purchaser who is protected under certain forms of law, and I suggest that in this instance the employee who has legally paid the sum due from him should receive the benefit to which he is entitled and that the fund should stand the loss, or that the commission should sue the delinquent employer, who by this time has no doubt absconded.


George Halsey Perley: The commission will have inspectors all over the country to see that these amounts are paid by the employer, it will be their duty to see to that. The commission itself must see that these amounts are paid promptly and they will have inspectors throughout Canada looking after that part of the work.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This subsection really confers a benefit on the employee because it gives him the right by statute to recover; it is specific in the statute; otherwise the employee might not have the right to recover.


Alan Webster Neill: I am not suggesting that any of the rights of the employee should be taken away from him, but as a matter of fact you are giving him a right which is not worth anything. The employer embezzles the amount which he has collected from the employee. The employee has received his wages minus, and properly minus, the amount of this contribution, and when he has made that contribution he has discharged his full obligation to the government; his obligation then ceases. He has done his part when he has accepted his wages with the reduction representing his contribution to the fund. Then, because of some relationship between the employer and the government, the employer having embezzled the money which he has received, as agent I suppose of the crown, or of the fund, the employee is asked to suffer the loss. I consider that you are not entitled to place upon him the onus of collecting the money which he has paid in. Having paid, as required by law, the money due from him to the fund, having paid it in the sense that he has agreed to accept his

Unemployment Insurance
wages leas that sum, you cannot go back a month afterwards and tell him to sue Tom Jones, the employer who is by this time perhaps in the United States. The acting Prime Minister says that there will be inspectors all over the country watching to see that these sums will be paid. But the Prime Minister, when he was asked about this matter, indicated that the payments would be made by the employer to the central fund here; they would be remitted here. Some man sitting in his office here will get round to that particular file perhaps ten days after its arrival, and he will then discover that the employer has not paid in the money. He will assume that it is just an ordinary piece of business neglect, something in the ordinary course of business, and he will notify the employer, that he is delinquent to the extent of two or three weeks' payment, and will ask him to make it up. I submit that it will take months in remote places before it can be discovered that an employer has disappeared, and the employee's unemployment relief may be wholly forfeited. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre says that I propose to take away the right of the employee to recover. But I submit that as this provision stands now it is a right that will be of no value to the employe^ in most instances. And, more than that, it is a right that does not devolve upon him, because it is not his business to go around collecting from employers who have not paid in the amounts they have received. The employer who embezzles amounts paid into him should be proceeded against by the government or by the commission, and the responsibility should not rest with the employee.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am at a loss to know how this unfortunate individual will ascertain that the amounts he has contributed have not been paid in, until a report is made to him by the commission. I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, and according to subsection 1 of section 33, it is only in the event of the unfortunate employee having lost in whole or in part the unemployment benefit to which he would have been entitled under this part of the act, that he shall then be entitled to start a civil suit to recover a civil debt, for an obligation which in my humble opinion is not his. The money has been handed over in trust to a trust fund under the commission and the commission must take full responsibility in the matter. It should not be incumbent on the employee to take proceedings.
92582-96*


Humphrey Mitchell: This is a compulsory unemployment insurance scheme. The employer breaks the law and it is left for the employee to do the work of the governments That is what it comes down to, and I think, it is absolutely unfair and ridiculous. The employee complies with the law; he pays ini his contribution, and then through circumstances over which he has no control the employer defaults; he does not pay over the money. But instead of the government stepping in and seeing that the employee gets what he has paid in, it is left to the employee to enforce the law, and he loses his benefit. It is an untenable position.


George Halsey Perley: I submit that this is a matter of administration for the commission to see that these amounts are properly collected, and I am sure they will carry out that duty.


Humphrey Mitchell: But that is taking the
employee up a blind alley and sand-bagging him. You cannot by regulation change the law as it stands here. I submit that the responsibility should rest on the government in view of the fact that this is a compulsory unemployment scheme. If the employee pays into the fund in good faith under this compulsory plan he is entitled to his payments, as stipulated in the bill.


Edward Joseph Garland: This section, I submit, should provide that where an employer has failed or neglected to pay contributions which under this part of the act. he is liable to pay in respect of any employee or person in his employment, or has failed or neglected to comply, in relation to any such person, with the requirements of any regulations relating to the payment and collection of contributions, this shall not be taken as any reason for the loss of benefit, and it shall be incumbent upon the commission to proceed by civil suit for debt against the employer who so acts.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend from Comox-Alberni did not understand the point I raised when I said that this provision benefited the employee. It is a benefit to the employee in that it gives him the right by statute to recover, though I agree with the hon. gentleman that that right is valueless as it stands here; it should be extended, and the duty placed on the commission itself to recover for the employee the benefits to which he is entitled under the act.


Edward Joseph Garland: And there should be no loss of benefit.
Unemployment Insurance


Humphrey Mitchell: If this provision is left
as it is now, wo shall have the common law racket of a man hawing to pay S75 to collect $30. The responsibility of suing the employer should rest with the government, with all its wealth and power to take action.


George Gibson Coote: Under this bill, undoubtedly the employee is bound to make certain contributions, and the bill also provides that the employer shall deduct the contribution from the wages of the employee and remit it to the insurance commission. The employee has certainly complied with the law when his contribution is deducted from his wages. He has made contribution in the manner laid down under the law, and that having been done his rights to all benefits under the law should be unquestioned, notwithstanding anything that the employer may do. I certainly think that this section should stand for redrafting so as to make it perfectly clear that it is the duty of the commission to see that the employer remits the money.


Mr. POWER:: There is a penalty provided in the event of the employer having failed or neglected to pay in contributions. That is well and good. The penalty is a fine of $50 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months, or both fine and imprisonment. But there does not seem to be any provision that the insured employee shall receive the benefits; and if some large concern, having got itself into financial embarrassment, as pointed out by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, has neglected to pay in the contributions for a certain period, then hundreds of men will be deprived of their right to benefit under the act. Now, it will not be very much satisfaction to them to know that the head of the firm will be obliged to pay a fine of S50 or to serve a term of three months in gaol, and that every one of them will have to sue for the $6 a week benefit to which he is entitled. I suggest that the amendment proposed bj the hon. member for Bow River, namely, that the commission, having been entrusted by this parliament with the duty of collecting the contributions, with the duty of administering this act, should pay to the employee the amount to which he is entitled under the provisions of the statute and proceed to collect as well as it can from the person whc. is obliged' under the act to remit the contributions. Under the workmen's compensation acts in various provinces I have no doubt this system exists. If a man is hurt even in provinces where there are contributory systems of workmen's insurance, the provincial board sees to it that the compensation is paid whether the company has gone into bank-
ruptcy or liquidation or has ceased its operations, and the injured employee receives that to which he is entitled under the provincial statute. I think the same situation should apply in this case; it seems to me there should be some provision.


George Halsey Perley: I think the
British act reads exactly the way this does.
I am willing that the clause stand and I shall give the matter further consideration.
Section stands.
On section 38, paragraph (i)-Penalties.


Alan Webster Neill: This is the paragraph giving
the commission power to make regulations constituting violations of the act and prescribing	fines	and	imprisonment.	I tookexception to the idea of giving them such wide powers as to allow them to define their own offences and then prescribe a term of imprisonment. I said that this at least should be limited to giving them power to prescribe an ordinary fine, limited to S50, and in default, possibly imprisonment, but not to	give	these	men, who may	not belawyers,	the	power,	I think I used	the expression	"to	start	off and make	a little
criminal code of their own."


George Halsey Perley: I heard this
discussed the other day and I really do not see any argument against it. The powers of the commission are extremely limited. The amount of fine and imprisonment they can impose is very much restricted and I cannot see any reason for a change.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to
protest very strongly against this clause remaining as it is. It is another instance of alienating the authority of parliament in defining what offences are to be regarded as crimes and turning over to a commission this function of parliament. We have done that under the marketing act with respect to a number of local boards, in different parts of the country, giving to these bodies, in no way representative of all classes, power to create offences in the nature of crimes. It is proposed in this legislation to give this new commission authority to define new crimes for being guilty of which persons are to be liable to imprisonment. What is parliament for if in such matters we are going to turn these powers over to local bodies? I certainly think the acting leader of the government ought to agree to strike out from the section the words:
And terms of imprisonment not exceeding three months.

It is possibly reasonable that power should be given to the commission to impose some penalty in the nature of a fine for violations of regulations that have to be carried out, but the commission should not be given authority to imprison men; the criminal code is there for the purpose of setting forth what are crimes, and it is for parliament to say what is to go into the code.


George Halsey Perley: May I suggest
to the leader of the opposition that in his day a good many bills were passed that had similar clauses in them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; I would
ask my right hon. friend to cite one of them.


George Halsey Perley: I cannot cite
them at the moment, but if I remember rightly, there were bills passed with regard to agriculture and other matters of that kind that had similar provisions in them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not with regard to imprisonment; my right hon. friend will, I think, find he is mistaken there. It is going too far to give to a body other than parliament the right to deprive any citizen of his liberty to the extent of subjecting him to imprisonment. I submit particularly with regard to legislation which is intended to be in the nature of social reform, the government is taking a wrong step in seeking reform in that direction.


Edward Joseph Garland: The difficulty might in some degree be obviated if an agreement could be arrived at that any such prescribed fines and terms of imprisonment as might be set up by the commission under its regulations should be subject to confirmation by the governor in council.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: By parliament.


Edward Joseph Garland: That would be the least that would be tenable under the circumstances.


Charles Gavan Power: All the regulations are
subject to the approval of the governor in council. My hon. friend's suggestion does not help any.


George Halsey Perley: Under this legislation the commission cannot make any regulations without submitting them to the governor in council for approval.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope the
acting leader of the government is not going to insist on this section being carried as it stands, because it certainly goes much further than it ought to go. To give to any com-
Unemplovment Insurance
mission, especially one of this character, power to create offences punishable by imprisonment, is extending powers entirely too far to a delegated body. This is an unknown commission; none of its members will be representative of or responsible to any appreciable body of citizens; they will simply be appointees of the government. To enact what are crimes ought to be left to the people's representatives in parliament and not given to any other body.


George Halsey Perley: Does the right
hon. gentleman suggest that this should be put into the criminal code? Supposing one of these employers makes a false statement or refuses to give particulars regarding his business and so forth, how does the right hon. gentleman propose to deal with that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my right hon. friend will find that there i3 already in the criminal code a provision to cover that kind of offence. It certainly should be for parliament to determine what is to be in the nature of a crime punishable by imprisonment. Everybody is entitled to know what the law is in these matters. How are individuals to know for what they are liable to go to gaol if it is left to boards in all parts of the country, and commissions here, and commissions there, from time to time to create new crimes which are punishable by fine and imprisonment? This section goes entirely too far and should be stricken out.


Mr. BURY:: I did not understand the bill gave the commission power to create new crimes. I understood the bill itself created the crime. Further, I did not understand the commission was given power to imprison. I understand the commission is given power, as are many other statutory bodies throughout the land, to lay a charge of a breach of a statutory duty created by parliament, and a criminal court first finds on the facts that there has been a breach of that statutory duty and then imposes the particular penalty which the parliament of Canada has attached to that breach. That is a common situation. There are all over this country and all over every other civilized country bodies that have exactly the same powers. This parliament or it may be a provincial parliament passes an act declaring a certain action to be a breach of a statutory duty and attaching a sanction to that duty, so that if it is broken, any body to whom is entrusted by parliament the administration of the act, can apply in a criminal court of justice established by parliament, to try the facts of the case, ascertain, whether there has been a
Unemployment Insurance

breach and then give the sentence of the proper penalty that is attached by this parliament and not by the commission. The commission neither attaches the penalty nor tries the case nor imposes the penalty; that is done by parliament and a court of criminal jurisdiction established by parliament. What the right hon. gentleman has said in his statement this afternoon, just as what he said on a previous occasion in connection with the marketing act, is in my opinion utterly fallacious.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid my hon. friend has not read the bill. The clause reads:
In addition to the authority otherwise conferred upon the commission to make regulations under this act, the commission may also make regulations:-
(i) for prescribing punishment for the violation of any regulation including maximum and minimum fines but not exceeding fifty dollars, and terms of imprisonment not exceeding three months.
That is quite different from what my hon. friend has said. This gives to an unknown body, a group of men at the moment unknown to this parliament, power after this parliament ceases to be in session or. for that matter, to exist, to define or create new offences in the nature of crimes which shall be punishable by fine and imprisonment. That is to say the least going altogether too far in a matter of social legislation.


George Halsey Perley: Would it meet the right hon. gentleman's objections if it were made imprisonment in case of default?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I do not think that any body of this character should have the right to create an offence punishable by imprisonment. If the commission believes that certain offences are liable to arise under this bill which should be punishable by imprisonment let it so report to the governor in council and let the responsible minister of the crown bring in an amendment to the criminal code to cover the offence. That is the proper way to proceed. Then we shall all know to what extent the judgment of the commission is wise in a matter of the kind. But this opens the way for the commission to make an offence of anything it pleases, and that offence punishable by imprisonment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am greatly surprised by the remark of the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury). One does not need to be a member of the legal profession to understand the full significance and implications of section 38. I regret very much that the hon. member should submit 
such an interpretation. In the first place look at the beginning of the section, it confers upon this commission the power to make regulations:
In addition to the authority otherwise conferred upon the commission to make regulations under this act, the commission may also make regulations;-
And then follow subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i) and (j), and in subsection (i) they are given the specific power to prescribe punishment, and the only limitation is as to the maximum fine and the maximum term of imprisonment. Within these limitations they have complete power to do what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) said the other day, to invent for themselves in regard to local administration a miniature criminal code for Canada. To my mind that is an absolute flouting of all fundamental principles of jurisprudence. These matters should be in the control of this parliament and this parliament alone.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: All I can say is that there are other statutory bodies that have poiwer to make regulations, and to the breach of these regulations penalties are attached.


Humphrey Mitchell: If I understand rightly, the commission can send a .man to gaol, without recourse to the courts-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Humphrey Mitchell: Then I am wrong.


Mr. STITT (Selkirk):: It seems to me that the language of the opposition is the language of exaggeration. By this section parliament now prescribes the limits of penalties. That is what we are doing, prescribing the punishment for violation of any regulation-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What regulation?


James Herbert Stitt: Any regulation the commission may make within the ambit of the act. There is no provision here whereby the commission can imprison anyone, but there is a limitation upon the penalties which the commission can impose, a very real limitation, namely a maximum fine of S50 and a maximum term of imprisonment of three months.


Mr. JACOBS:: A mere bagatelle!


James Herbert Stitt: A mere bagatelle in this way, that before any man could be imprisoned they would have to charge him with the offence before the courts and prove it and convict him by due process of law.

Unemployment Insurance


Alan Webster Neill: And the offence might be that the man said he thought the commissioners were dumb.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says, for the offence. I ask him to tell us what the offence is.


Mr. TURNBULL:: Breach of regulations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What regulations?


Franklin White Turnbull: Any regulation they
make.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In other words hon. gentlemen opposite are proposing that citizens of this country shall be liable to three months, imprisonment for breach of any regulation, they do not know what, which a group of unknown commissioners may see fit to make.


James Herbert Stitt: These regulations will have to be duly passed, prosecution will have to be duly instituted-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For what?


James Herbert Stitt: -and the charge will have to be properly tried before a competent tribunal. Another point I would emphasize is, how can this parliament anticipate all the ramifications of the administration of this act? Good law does not anticipate too much. I do not believe that a legislative body can take to itself a priori the details of administration. I think the law is good law, it protects the individual; all it does is to limit the penalties within reasonable bounds.


George Halsey Perley: I will consider this matter a little further. Subsection (i) can stand.
Subsection stands.
Subsection (j) agreed to.
On section 48-Act to become operative.


Mr. POULIOT:: May I ask the acting leader of the government if he does not entertain a different view from that expressed by his leader, and if he is ready in the absence of his leader to submit this legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada?


George Halsey Perley: Certainly not. If this legislation is objected to afterwards possibly someone will take it to the supreme court, but we are not going to do it at the present time.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I tell the right hon. gentleman more? This legislation is most
absurd because it is based on a convention which has lapsed. If you go back to the treaty, and the other treaties in regard to this so-called social legislation, everything is based on instruments which have lapsed. The Prime Minister asked us for a blank cheque and in return he gave us a prescribed note. What is the benefit to the people of this country? Moreover the Prime Minister does not know international law, and he does not know the rules of this house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: How can he tell us that this
legislation is based on international treaties? May I ask the acting leader of the government the same question which I put some time ago on the orders of the day, about the date by which such legislation should have been enacted? He knows very well the three treaties which have been published in extenso in the votes and proceedings and in the orders of the day; I am sure he knows them by heart. He knows very well that in each one of those treaties there is a clause to the effect that each agreement should be put in force before a certain date. The date specified in most cases is long past. Would the acting leader of the government tell the committee that the time specified in the treaties has not lapsed long ago?
If the right hon. acting leader of the government does not understand what I have told him I shall repeat it in the clearest possible language. And if he wishes I shall say it to him in French. Now, sir, here we have social legislation which is going to replace the old order. This is the new order of things. The sun is rising behind the mountains, the old order is gone; this is the new order. I do not say that in an offensive way, because I have the greatest respect for old age, but the old order is gone. Here we are in the new order of things. This legislation is brought in to remedy the social evils of the time. Great legislation! It is brought in to help the unemployed, but it will assist no one who is now unemployed, that is the first characteristic of this legislation. In order for any man to get assistance by virtue of this bill he will have to work forty days.


An hon. MEMBER:: Forty weeks.


Jean-François Pouliot: I said forty days in order to see if the right hon. acting leader of the government was following me closely. But imagine a poor man who is unemployed and who has not a cent in his pocket; he will have to make a contribution every week for forty weeks before he gets anything under this legislation. Therefore the hundreds nj
Unemployment Insurance

thousands of people who are unemployed will get no benefit from this so called social legislation.
That is the first point. Furthermore, if this legislation is attacked by any manufacturer who refuses to pay his share, what will happen? First the matter will be taken to the superior court of the province; then it will go to the supreme court or the court of king's bench, as the case may be, then to the Supreme Court of Canada and finally to the privy council. How long will it be before this insurance comes into force? This is only election propaganda, and that is why I denounce it. I was the only one to express myself against it, but if it were to come to a vote again I would do the same thing. I am strongly opposed to it, because it is all humbug, deceit and cant. That is all there is to it. I am afraid of the road to Damascus; I am afraid of those people who have Tory souls and Tory minds, and who are bold enough to call themselves Liberals. Liberalism is a mentality, a doctrine, and to be a Liberal one should be in touch with the people; one should know the sufferings of the people; one should not be a despot, with flatterers all about telling anything but the truth. This legislation is a great joke but it is a sad joke; it is too bad to take advantage of the troubles, the misery and the misfortunes of the people for political capital. It is shameful. If there are some people credulous enough to think this legislation will be of any assistance to the poor and humble people of this country who have suffered so much because of the policies of the government, I have the greatest compassion for them. They will get nothing out of this legislation. I am sorry the Prime Minister is not here; I regret very much that his ill health keeps him away, but on the treasury benches we have several of his cabinet ministers who have not the courage to tell him that this legislation, which was imposed on him by his election managers, is of no use and will serve no purpose to the common good of this country. That is why I am so sorry about what is happening now.


Humphrey Mitchell: I rise to a point of
order. I would like to know what all this has to do with section 48.


Finlay MacDonald: I think the hon. gentleman is in
order. This section is quite wide enough to cover his remarks.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Speaking to the
galleries.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not speaking to the
galleries. I am speaking to the chair and through the chair to all members of this committee.


Finlay MacDonald: I would ask the hon. gentleman to
confine his remarks to section 48.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir, and my contention is that although it is set out in section 48 that this act shall come into force when assented to, this act-


Humphrey Mitchell: I rise to a point of
order. At page 1088 of Hansard for February 21 I find the words, "Section 48 agreed to."


Finlay MacDonald: It is marked here as standing.


Humphrey Mitchell: The discussion is all
out of order; the section has been agreed to.


Finlay MacDonald: The section is marked here as standing.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am quoting from the records of this house.


Finlay MacDonald: Our records show that this section is standing.


Jean-François Pouliot: Sir, I thank you for your fairness to all hon. members of this house. I am not flattering you when I say I deeply appreciate the way you are fulfilling your high duties.


Finlay MacDonald: The clerk finds that the section has been carried, and consequently this discussion is out of order.


Alan Webster Neill: We have not passed the schedules.


George Halsey Perley: We come to the schedules now.


Jean-François Pouliot: On the schedules, sir,-


Finlay MacDonald: The first schedule has been carried.


George Halsey Perley: I have a suggested amendment to schedule 1, if it could be reopened.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacDonald Cape Breton):: With the consent of the committee.
On the first schedule, part II, excepted employments.


George Halsey Perley: In subsection (c) of part II employment in lumbering and logging is excepted. It has been represented to the government very strongly that this

Unemployment Insurance
section should be amended in, some way to include the workers in the regular trades such as saw mills, shingle mills and so on. Therefore I move, seconded by the Minister of the Interior, that after the words "Employment in lumbering and logging" be added the words:
-exclusive of the saw mill, planing mill and shingle mill industries.
That is to say, they will be allowed to come under the act. I may say that we realize perfectly well, and no one more than myself, the difficulty about the logging business itself. I should have liked to see some way devised by which the men working in the woods would be able to come under the act, but so far I have not been given any wording which seemed suitable for the purpose. Perhaps it will be remembered that this act is not final. It is not like the laws of the Medes and Persians; it can be amended, and later on I hope some way will be found to include those working in the woods as well. I am moving this amendment in order to take in the saw mill, planing mill and shingle mill industries, which are excluded at the present time.


Mr. VENIOT:: By this amendment those working in saw mills will be included. Will that take in saiw mills running only part time, say during the summer season?


George Halsey Perley: I think it is broad enough to cover any saw mills.


Charles Gavan Power: I should like to point out to the right hon. gentleman that this will not be of very much benefit to those employed in saw mills in eastern Canada. These saw mills operate only from about May to October, a period of approximately twenty-five to thirty weeks. Those are the saw mills operating for the longest period; there are some winter mills which to my knowledge operate for only two months, particularly the small shingle mills near the scene of logging operations. So an employee in such a mill would have to make his contribution for well over two years before he would be entitled to draw any benefit. I quite understand that even then he will derive some benefit under the act, but in eastern Canada, nearly all through Ontario and certainly all through the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick and the maritime provinces, work in the saw mills is a purely seasonal occupation, which does not last much longer than the work of the men engaged in logging. So I doubt very much whether the commission, when it comes to consider this matter-and I understand that the commission, by a system of analogy which
was explained to us with some difficulty the other day, may exclude these trades-will be able to include these workers. I think perhaps the minister should make it pretty clear that so far as eastern Canada is concerned the saw mill workers will still be excluded from the operations of the bill.


George Halsey Perley: I think that is a fair statement. I should like to see them all under the bill and I have so stated more than once, but it is a very difficult problem to work out. I am hoping the commission will, under the powers given it, look into the matter, make a report, and try to find some way of arranging it.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the acting Prime Minister explain a little further just what the objection may be to including logging, as well as sawmill operations, because it is notorious in the west that logging is an allyear-round industry. The Prime Minister indicated that he appreciated that fact, but that he had in his mind the provision of something along the lines of zone regulations. I notice the amendment states that the sawmill, planing mill and shingle mill industries will be affected. I should think the shingle mill industry would involve the cutting of shingle bolts, too. When we refer to the shingle mill industry we raise the doubt as to whether or not the cutting of bolts would not come within the operations of shingle mills. Would the minister explain what led the government to exclude the logging industry?


George Halsey Perley: I have tried to
explain. The difficulty is that the bill now before us is for the whole of Canada. The hon. member suggests that zones were mentioned. That plan has not been accepted as yet. So far as logging operations are concerned may I say that I should like to see them included, speaking from a purely personal standpoint, because in years gone by I knew something about that industry. Under the present bill we could not include logging in British Columbia without including logging in this part of Canada where it is a seasonal occupation, entirely.


Alan Webster Neill: So that this amendment, to use the language of the hon. member for Quebec South, will take in the sawmills in Quebec province which are only seasonal and will rule out logging operations in British Columbia which are distinctly carried on all the year round.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I have before me
a communication from the camp and mill workers' union urging that every effort be
Unemployment Insurance

made towards having the workers in the lumber industry included in the bill. As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has said, in many parts of British Columbia this is a steady occupation.


George Halsey Perley: From where is the communication?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The camp and mill workers union, Vancouver.


Humphrey Mitchell: Would not section 15
(2) meet the objection which has been made?
(2) Where it appears to the commission that the terms and conditions of service of, and the nature of the work performed by, any class of persons employed in an excepted employment are so similar to the terms and conditions of service of, and the nature of the work performed by, a class of persons employed in an insurable employment as to result in anomalies in the operation of this act, the commission may, by regulations either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as may be specified in the regulations,-
do so and so. Would that not take care of the situation?


George Halsey Perley: I understand
that that subsection is intended to give the commission power to go into these matters. May I repeat that this measure is by no means final. We have brought it in to cover as many people as possible, but there may be need at a later time to bring about what is suggested by the hon. member.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not think that meets
the situation. The suggestion reminds me of the story Mark Twain told. He said he had some disease, and the only medical advice he could obtain was that of a horse doctor. The horse doctor said, "Well, I don't know what you have got, but I could give you something to change it to botts, and I could cure that." In the present instance a person would seem to be met with this reply, " Well, you are not under the act, but if you could prove you are an anomaly you could get under it." I do not believe in getting into something by means of an anomaly. If it is right at the present time, and if it is the best consideration of the government that a change should be made, then it should be made. Do not leave it for some fictitious anomaly to be proved later on.


James Shaver Woodsworth: When the matter
was under discussion a few days ago I suggested the Prime Minister should detail the reasons why the government had excluded these various groups, going over them one by one. I understood the Prime Minister accepted the suggestion. I should like to urge that before we proceed further with this

section the acting Prime Minister should tell us why these particular groups have been excluded. There must be some reason. Certainly so far no general principle has been laid down by the government. It seems as though they have taken classes arbitrarily, and left out other classes. There must be some reason why large numbers of needy people should be thus excluded. I would urge the acting Prime Minister to give in some detail the reasons for excluding certain classes.


Charles Gavan Power: As has been indicated by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni the terms "sawmill industry" "planing mill industry" and "shingle mill industry" may cover more territory than is anticipated by the amendment. I suggest the term "sawmill industry" covers the entire industry, from the cutting of the tree until it leaves the saw.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Gavan Power: I suggest that unwillingly and unwittingly the government will be bringing in the logging industry. Personally I believe they should, but I do not think it should be done in a left-handed way. If the amendment is left in its present form the commission most certainly will have the right to include the logging industry with the sawmill, shingle mill or planing mill industries.


Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: Having listened to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni may I direct this fact to the attention of the committee: While the hon. member is undoubtedly correct in his representations about the logging industry along the coast of British Columbia being an all-season or all-year round operation, his observations do not apply to the interior of that province. The interior of British Columbia is in the same position as was indicated by the hon. member for Quebec South. They get out their logs in the winter time and do their milling in the summer time. The people who work in the winter time are very often working in the mills in the summer time. The point I make is that the representations made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni do not apply to all of British Columbia; to be specific, they do not apply to the interior of that province.


Finlay MacDonald: Shall the amendment carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: No. Before it carries may I say I regret very much the committee has taken so much time in a discussion of this matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.

Economic Council


Jean-François Pouliot: I regret hon. members have been splitting hairs. This chamber knows very well the bill will never be put into effect; it is just election propaganda. I believe it is ultra vires and that it is void, and that it would be so declared by any independent tribunal of the country. That is why I have strong objections to the measure. It is a very sad show, when it is made at the expense of the people who are suffering from unemployment and distress. I regret that so much time has been taken up in a discussion of this matter, because it will never come into effect; you may be sure of that, Mr. Chairman. Take my word, sir, when we meet together after the next election there will be great changes, the left will turn to the right. I cannot take seriously any discussion or any hair splitting about any section of a bill which is not seriously placed before the House of Commons. It is only election propaganda, and will serve the purpose only of adding to the arguments of the Tory canvassers during the next election campaign. That is why I strongly oppose the measure. And I am against it for another reason-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am opposed to it because it is based on international agreements which lapsed years ago. What is the strength of an international instrument which has no life? It is dead. It has been dead for years.


George Halsey Perley: If the hon. member wished to speak in this way it seems to me the appropriate place would have been on the motion for second or third reading. However if the amendment is agreed to I would suggest that the section be passed. Then I would ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not
think the amendment should pass until the promise of the Prime Minister is implemented.


George Halsey Perley: Is the hon.
member referring to the memorandum?


Edward Joseph Garland: I am referring to the exemptions. Many of us when we go to our home

in different parts of the country will have to make explanations and to give the reasons the government gave. I want to know what they are.


George Halsey Perley: I shall have a
memorandum prepared, and shall read it to the house the next time the matter is brought up.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am satisfied with the
promise that there is to be more serious consideration given to it.


Finlay MacDonald: Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. MANION:: Carried.


Finlay MacDonald: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.
Amendment stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir George Perley the house adjourned at six p.m.
Friday, March 8, 1935