1936-06-20

MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SECRETARY


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following message:
Ottawa, June 18, 1936.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that His Excellency the Governor General will proceed



Agriculture-Implement Prices
to the Senate chamber Saturday next for the purpose of proroguing the present session of parliament.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald) moved that the fourth report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, laid1 on the table on Thursday, June 18, be concurred in.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I desire to make a few observations with respect to this report. The course which has been taken by the committee is one that certainly does not commend itself to me, in view of the fact that a tariff board has been set up for the purpose of considering the very matter that has been referred to the committee and we have been expending substantial sums of money without obtaining, it seems to me, any real result. I think it desirable to make a few observations also because of the fact that in 1930 we increased the tariff on agricultural implements, and the action taken at that time by the manufacturers was, as has been represented to this house on more than one occasion, an undertaking not to increase the prices. During the period of time that elapsed from 1930 to 1935 they actually reduced the prices; in 1936 the prices were increased to the point from which they had been reduced, and I had hoped that there would have been a little clearer appreciation of and fairness to the interests upon which the west so largely rely for sustenance and support when they are bankrupt. I say that with great frankness. These western provinces are coming to the dominion, asking for money, asking the dominion to find it by borrowing from the people of the country, and then denying to industry the right that it should have to compete in its own territory upon at least even terms with those who would take its market from it.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: That is hardly correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is hardly correct?


Malcolm McLean: It is not correct at all, Mr. Speaker, but I wanted to be polite. I knew I was out of order but I wanted to be polite.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then, if the hon. gentleman knew he was out of order there is no reason why he should depart from his usual custom and be polite.
IMr. Speaker.]
I want to point out a few facts that I think should be borne in mind by every Canadian. First, we cannot build our country if we are going to do it on a sectional basis. I referred to that the other day in connection with another matter. The Canadian manufacturers have at no time during the depression used the tariff to exploit their customers, the farmers. Why have they not done so? Because, having given an undertaking that they would not increase their prices, they have maintained that undertaking and kept their honourable word to the people of this country. Second, the Canadian prices have not been materially, if at all, higher than the United States prices despite the advantage they have in regard to mass production. Third, Canadian prices of implements, as a whole, are not higher to-day than they were in 1930, despite the small increases that took place this year. Fourth, these increases only restored, in any event, reductions that were made in 1932 when the position of the farmers was so difficult. Anyone who is familiar with agricultural conditions in western Canada and who knows the extent to which the farmer has more or less relied1 upon credit for the purpose of obtaining his implements, cannot help but be aware of the fact that the implement companies took enormous losses and wrote off hundreds of thousands of dollars-I am not sure that in the aggregate it would not run into the millions-'because of the depression. Then in 1932 they reduced the prices and the increases of 1936 only put them back on substantially the same basis.
The fifth point is that the Canadian companies made special provision for the wheat producers when conditions were at their worst, providing cash discounts and also reducing the receivables, that is, the obligations of the agriculturists, by very large sums of money when the situation was found to be at its most acute point, in 1933. Sixth, the Canadian companies, as I have pointed out, have taken great losses in notes due and interest due and have given the greatest possible consideration to their debtors as compared with that given any other class in this country. Add to that the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, and you have a situation that is not similar to that in regard to any other class in the country.
There is a seventh point to which I think attention should be directed, and it is this: In opening our markets to the large United States concerns without Canadian plants we have simply further divided the market, lessening the employment in Canada and rendering it more difficult for the Canadian manufacturer to reduce his cost of production. As to that

Agriculture-Implement Prices
I think there is no reasonable doubt. Then there is a further point, the eighth point, that Canadian companies carrying stocks of machines and parts give service and extend credit to those who desire it on terms that are somewhat different from any other enterprise of which we have knowledge.
These seem to me to be compelling reasons why we should at least consider this matter on as favourable a basis as we consider any other enterprise. I am not arguing that any preference should be given these people but I do argue that they should have the same right that is accorded to others. While to others we accord an opportunity to appear before the tariff board to present their case, however, this committee now recommends that this shall be a continuing inquiry. The companies have already intimated that they desire to apply to the Minister of finance for the opportunity to appear before the tariff board.


Mr. DUNNING:: No, my right hon. friend is quite wrong. I have had no such intimation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I certainly saw in the press that they proposed to ask for the opportunity to appear before the tariff board, and I remember passing down, the street with one of the representatives of the companies whom I met. I asked him, "Are you going to the tariff board?" And he said, "Yes, if we get rid of this committee." That is as far as I can go. I certainly accept the minister's statement that no formal application has been made, but my understanding was that they intended to avail themselves of the offer the minister made the other day, when he said if they asked to have this matter considered by the tariff board he would permit that to be done.
Now let us look at it from another angle. Almost every other agricultural industry has some measure of protection in this country. Fruits have an ad valorem protection in the vicinity of 15 per cent. On cereals we have a protection ranging from 15 per cent to 80 per cent. Poultry has an ad valorem duty of between 15 per cent and 20 per cent. Dairy products are protected to the extent of from 15 per cent to 50 per cent, and the ad valorem duty on live stock runs all the way from 15 per cent to 70 per cent. These are the ad valorem duties dealing with farm products, and is there any member of this house who does not recall the agitation in connection with the increased duty on butter coming from New Zealand? The Minister of Finance of that day and' of this day (Mr. Dunning)
12739-252J
was compelled to give notice terminating the New Zealand treaty because the Canadian dairy farmer said he was not able to compete under the uneven terms that resulted from the imposition of so low a duty as that which then prevailed. The then government, the then minister who is the present minister, took steps to terminate the New Zealand treaty and on the very day that the succeeding government came into office the treaty was terminated.
I should like for just a moment to put this from the point of view of one who has been charged in eastern Canada, and especially in these two large central provinces, with having been unduly friendly-in the sense of giving public support-to the wheat grower. There was a time when wheat was sold in the markets of the world on a supply and demand basis, but with the support of various kinds that was given the wheat growers of other countries the Canadian position became such that steps were taken at the public expense to endeavour to improve the position of the wheat grower in this country. We have many things. In the first place we have a duty against importations of wheat from other countries, which is unimportant because we are an exporting country. Then we have the Crows-nest pass freight rates, which involve a very large sum of money per annum, being lower rates than those prevailing in the United States of America. Then we have the stabilization operations which were carried on under the aegis of the government which involved this country, on the application of the Minister of Finance, in an expenditure amounting to in the neighbourhood of $7,000,000. Further, we have the fact that last fall we fixed the price for wheat at 87J cents, which price witness after witness has said is not an unreasonable price to have fixed for Canadian farmers. Wheat is now being sold at from seven and a half to ten cents a bushel less than the price paid for it. The Canadian people must bear the loss. I differ from the policy of the present government which makes that inevitable, but I just want to put it this way: the wheat eaters of Canada do not consume more than one-fifth of the wheat grown and sold. If by reason of the fixed price of 871 cents that we now have we are involved in a loss of five cents a bushel, it means that the taxpayers, that is the wheat eaters of Canada, will pay a premium of 25 cents on every bushel of wheat they consume. That is what it means. And if the loss is 10 cents it means that for every bushel consumed in Canada a premium of 50 cents a bushel is imposed upon the consumers of

Agriculture-Implement Prices
Canadian wheat. That is a matter of computation. I repeat, we do not consume more than one-fifth of our wheat. If it means that we have a loss of five cents a bushel, that is 25 cents a bushel imposed upon the wheat eaters of Canada, the taxpayers; and if the loss is ten cents, it means fifty cents. Now, that will amount to many millions of dollars, $10,000,000, $15,000,000, whatever it may be. I put it to the house whether it is quite fair for the agrarians in the west to say to the manufacturers in the east that they, being in the centre of the most populous part of the country, where the larger part of the wheat is consumed, shall pay an added tax burden of 25 to 50 cents a bushel for what they consume, and expect them to contemplate with satisfaction their market being taken away from them by those who are outside of Canada. Is it fair? That is my point. I leave it at that.
One word more. This country according to the last census is no longer an agricultural country. Over half our population is now in cities and towns. We have become an industrial country, and we are taking our place now as the sixth trade country in the world- last year or thereabouts. That being so, can we contemplate with equanimity a situation which, without a hearing, reduces such measure of protection as was afforded to the manufacturers of implements, who had not raised their prices beyond what they were in 1932. and whose prices were not substantially different from what the prices are in the United States of America? It is true we exported some farm implements to the United States during recent months. Why? Because with the revival of agricultural production they found themselves short of implements, and we were sending implements to them as we did to other parts of the world.
I mention this at this time only because I cannot give concurrence to a report that contemplates sending back to a committee of the House of Commons, which has never been a useful body for the purpose of studying tariff matters, a question of such importance to every part of the country as that which has been under review. When I found the report of the tariff board on other matters accepted by the minister-and I cannot recall any reports made by -the tariff board since it came into being which successive ministers of finance have not accepted and crystallized into legislation-


Charles Avery Dunning: Not in whole, in all cases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, substantially that is so. What is the exception?
IMr. Bennett.1


Charles Avery Dunning: The exception is one of the reports this session.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To which does the minister refer?


Charles Avery Dunning: I refer to the report which recommended that the government use its powers to increase the tariff when necessary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, that is only a matter of procedure.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is a very important exception.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I quite appreciate that point. The point is this, that the board thought the government should be in a position where if conditions varied it could increase the tariff so as to maintain the basis upon which the recommendations were made. That is a matter of governmental policy which the government, with its expressed view of policy, of course would not adopt. But that has not to do with the point I was making. As far as tariff changes in ad valorem and specific rates are concerned I know of no case in which the rate recommended has not been adopted, substantially at any rate. That is the reason I suggest that this report, contemplating a further review by the committee, is not in the public interest.


Mr. THORSON:: May I say a word?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Might I remind the right hon. leader of the opposition that there are other than tariff matters which must be inquired into in order to carry out the investigation entrusted to the committee by the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) indicates that other matters are to be inquired into. My impression of the reference was -that it was for the purpose of ascertaining whether the tariff was adequate or inadequate.


Charles Avery Dunning: It did not mention tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The discussion in this house was about prices. It was said that there had been an increase in the price structure by the implement producers which was unfair, when there had been a reduction of duty; therefore there should be an inquiry into the matter. That is how it came about.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No, the reference is to inquire into the causes underlying the high prices of agricultural implements, with particular reference to the advance in prices in 1936.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But undoubtedly in operation it has meant an inquiry into tariff matters.

Agriculture-Implement Prices


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That is only one of the subjects of the inquiry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One point more and I shall have concluded. We had before the price spreads committee and commission under oath a most complete inquiry, which may be found embodied in the minutes of that body. The matter was gone into in great length and detail. I have no desire to limit inquiries by any body that has to do with the conduct of the business of Canada, but why multiply them, when it accomplishes no useful purpose? There is the evidence before the price spreads commission; there is the report of the commission; here is the tariff board, and if it is desired certainly the minister has power under the tariff board act to direct that the board shall extend its inquiries, make them sufficiently wide to reach the very points that the committee has in mind. I can only say from observation during my experience in the House of Commons that I have never seen a House of Commons committee deal adequately with a matter of that kind, nor do I believe in the very nature of things it is equipped to do so. That is the reason the government, in dealing with wheat, said: We will have a royal commission. The very government that now is asking this house to vote concurrence in a report which contemplates the continuance of a committee to deal with the problem of implements of production, a matter closely allied to the wheat problem, asked the house to accept the view that there should be a royal commission to deal with the wheat problem, and not a committee of the House of Commons. I certainly agreed with them in that regard, and I do yet. I have no doubt that a royal commission is better able to deal with such a matter than a committee of the House of Commons. Why have two policies, one with respect to wheat, the other with respect to implements, which have already been investigated, and which the tariff board can deal with? As a matter of fact, dealing with the question of textiles, to which reference has been made-I can only pass it by because the report has not been made-no House of Commons committee but a royal commission was appointed to deal with that. If it is desired to appoint a royal commission to deal with this matter, well and good; I can understand that. But from what one sees and from the preconceived attitude of mind of those who have to deal with these matters in a committee of the House of Commons, is there any chance of being able to arrive at fair conclusions?
I have ventured, Mr. Speaker, to make these observations, because when in 1930 we
dealt with an exceptionally difficult situation and had to do something to redress the adverse trade balance and deal with other acute problems connected with currency and finance, the duty upon agricultural implements was increased to a very high point. It was increased to a high point on one understanding, that it would not involve the payment of higher prices by those who used implements. And because the implement producers kept their word and maintained their honour in that regard, I do not think it is fair, in view of our present conditions, of the contributions we have made to the wheat growers in the west and to western Canada as a whole, and of the present economic conditions in the western provinces, that we should not afford some opportunity to the implement industry to present its case to an independent, fair-minded tribunal rather than to a politically constituted committee of the House of Commons.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, it has already been pointed out by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) that the reference to the committee made on March 2 reads as follows:
That an immediate inquiry be made by the standing committee on agriculture and colonization into the causes underlying the high prices of agricultural implements, with particular reference to the advance in prices in the year 1936.
There is no direct reference in that statement to the tariff question. Tariffs of course have an effect upon the prices of products, and, as has been often said, if tariffs did not have the effect of making an increase in price possible there would be no necessity for putting them on.


Mr. CAHAN:: Oh, no; nonsense.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is evident to almost any one that the intention of those who advocate tariffs is that there should be an increase in. prices.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite the opposite.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not my intention at this time to go into a discussion on the question of tariffs. J wish only to point out to the house in the first place, the subcommittee of the agriculture committee was unanimous and in the second place the full committee was unanimous in its findings. There was only one point of difference in the committee and that was as to whether this investigation should be committed next year to the whole committee on agriculture or whether there should be a smaller select committee. The final finding was that it should be a small select committee.

Agriculture-Implement Prices
I am surprised that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) should take exception at this stage to the adoption by the house of the finding of the committee, andi I am astonished at the reasons he gives for taking that position. This is the first committee of this chamber upon which I have had the privilege of serving, but I believe I can say-and in this I think all hon. members of the committee from both sides of the house will agree-that we had the full cooperation of the implement companies in the investigation so far as it has gone. Representatives of the International Harvester Company came here in numbers from their head office in Chicago; others were here from Hamilton, and there were representatives from the Massey-Harris Company. They answered in every particular, so far as it was possible for them to do so in the time at their disposal, the questionnaire which was sent out by the committee, and they made no objection whatsoever to giving their evidence to the committee. The only reason a finding of a definite nature was not made by the committee was recognized by every member of the committee, and' by those who represented the companies, namely that the evidence was not by any means complete. But I have no record, and I am sure the committee has no record, indicating that the representative of any of the companies objected to giving evidence to the committee, either during this session or at the next session.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has never been suggested they had.


Mr. STEWART:: How could they object?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was suggested a few minutes ago that while walking down the street someone had said it should be before the tariff board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is different altogether.


James Garfield Gardiner: That suggestion was
not made to the committee, so far as I remember the representations made by the gentlemen who appeared before it. They gave their evidence without objection, and raised no objection to the committee hearing further evidence with regard to it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is that not the proper attitude of witnesses before a committee of this house?


James Garfield Gardiner: Certainly it is the proper attitude.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is it their business to suggest that some policy should be followed other than that adopted by the government?
[Mr. Gardiner.!


James Garfield Gardiner: But is it not the proper attitude for every member of this house to accept the position taken by the representatives of the implement companies as being the position that we can expect them to take before a committee at the next session?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Certainly.


James Garfield Gardiner: All the evidence available will be given to the committee.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They would have to take that position.


James Garfield Gardiner: The whole speech of the leader of the opposition presupposes that some finding will be made by the committee on agriculture that will not be favourable to the implement companies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not any such thing, nor did I say it. I will not be misrepresented by this gentleman. I made no such suggestion.	[DOT]


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, hon. members will have within their memory the words of the right hon. gentleman, and I shall go on to deal with a few of them at length, in order to indicate to him that some such suggestion was made. In beginning his argument the right hon. gentleman founded much of what he had to say upon the statement that the western provinces of Canada were bankrupt.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not so, of course.


Malcolm McLean: Of course they are not any more than in other places.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course it is not so; but it has been inferred in this house on another occasion during this session, by the leader of the opposition, that the western provinces are not in a position to finance, and I think some explanation of their position is due to the house. It was also stated by the leader of the opposition that this country is no longer an agricultural country. I do not suppose he will deny that statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; what he said was that this country is not an agricultural country solely, or only, or primarily.


Malcolm McLean: Never was.


James Garfield Gardiner: I wrote down the exact words of the right hon. gentleman as he uttered them. His statement was that this country is no longer an agricultural country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And followed with a sentence afterward.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; true, he followed it by that statement. But his statement was

Agriculture-Implement Prices
that this country is no longer an agricultural country. I submit that will be news to many inside and outside of Canada. This country is still an agricultural country, and while probably no more than fifty per cent of our people are actually living upon the land, the right hon. gentleman's government, while it was in power, tried in every possible way to get a larger percentage of the people of Canada back on the land, because he realized it would* probably be much better for us if more than fifty per cent were still on the land. In other words, this country from that point of view is preeminently an agricultural country. Then, in addition to that, the railways which have been built from one end of Canada to the other, the ships that are plying down the lakes and canals from the eastern ports to western Canada, those who are engaged in taking supplies into every agricultural community in the dominion are, in every proper sense of the term, concerned with the development of agriculture in Canada. All those who are interested in extending financial assistance to the people across the prairies, the people in the agricultural areas of eastern Canada, the farmers in British Columbia and the farmers in the maritime provinces-all these make their living from the pursuit of agriculture in some of its spheres.
I suggest that while oply fifty per cent of the people are living upon the land, at least seventy-five per cent of them owe their living directly to the fact that agriculture is pursued in Canada. And for anyone even to suggest that Canada is no longer an agricultural country, when these facts are admitted by every member of the house and every person who has made a study of the situation in Canada, is to suggest a situation which does not exist.
I was astounded, too, at the statements made to the effect that agriculture has had more consideration from the governments of Canada than have the industries for which the leader of the opposition was speaking a few minutes ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I said no such thing, and I am not going to be misrepresented in this house in this way.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not going to take so long to make my points as my right hon. friend took, but that was the point he made.
Mr. BENNETT; It was not the point.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You can call "order" as much as you like.


Malcolm McLean: What is the point of order to which the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Bennett) is addressing himself, I should like to ask, Mr. Speaker?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the statement attributed to me was not made. I ask therefore that it be withdrawn.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman argued a few moments ago that the paying of 87| cents a bushel on wheat under conditions where only one-fifth of the wheat of Canada is consumed in Canada meant the compelling of the payment with respect to the other four-fifths by those who were consuming that particular commodity in Canada of anywhere from 5 to 10 cents a bushel; or he indicated that if it were 5 cents a bushel it would be a certain amount, if it were 10 cents a bushel it would be a certain amount, and this was assistance which was going to the farmers of Canada at the expense of all the population. He pointed over to this side of the house-I do not know Why, because there are members from western Canada sitting on the other side-and called the attention of the house to the fact that western members were making certain requests in spite of the fact that they were getting this assistance from the people of Canada through the government of Canada. Well, if there was any point at all in placing an argument of that kind before the house it was to try to convince hon. members that some consideration was being given to the farmers in addition to the consideration which is being given to people in other parts of this dominion. I suggest to the hon. gentleman, when he speaks of butter coming in from Australia, that the government of Canada for years has been subsidizing boats to bring butter from Australia into Canada to compete with our farmers. I suggest to him also that the government of Canada, whether Liberal or Conservative, has since the time of confederation been assisting other lines of industry. I am standing in my place to-day not for the purpose of objecting to the assistance that has been given, but for the purpose of pointing out to the leader of the opposition that when he contends that agriculture is getting more consideration than some other lines of industry in this country-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that or contend that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I am not going to permit that statement to be made. I have tolerated this long enough.


Malcolm McLean: Tolerated it, oh!
3968	COMMONS
Agriculture-Implement Prices


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, tolerated it-that is what I said.


James Garfield Gardiner: Some of us think we have tolerated the hon. gentleman for quite a long time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. You had to deal with this thing the other day. No member from his place can attribute a statement to another member which he did not make.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I have been following the argument of the hon. gentleman-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the point. The question is the statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: -and I think the conclusions I drew were reasonable inferences.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not complaining of conclusions. I am talking of the statement which the hon. member said was made by me, which I did not make, and which every member of the house knows I did not make.


James Garfield Gardiner: What is the statement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wish to have that statement withdrawn, Mr. Speaker.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would ask the hon. gentleman what the statement is that he did not make.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is easily answered. The member Stated-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, now that order has been restored, I wish to conclude. I was just observing that the member stated that I had said agriculture was receiving more consideration than was accorded to other lines of activity. I made no such Statement, and I desire that statement to be withdrawn.


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be within your memory, Mr. Speaker, that what I stated was that his argument led to that conclusion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that is not what was said at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think the hon. gentleman has any more right to say what I said than I have to say what he said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You can make this house ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, by a little effort, but I press the matter, Mr. Speaker. Do not for a moment, sir, think that I am going to yield on this point, for I am not. I did not make the statement that agriculture was receiving more consideration than anything else, neither did I argue it. On the contrary, I
[Mr. McLean.J
argued something else. I cannot question conclusions but I can question what the hon. gentleman says I said. As a member of this house I have certain rights which cannot be taken from me very readily, and I would ask therefore that I receive at your hands, sir, those rights which you have always accorded to others.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, if Hansard shows I made the statement which the hon. gentleman has just now said I made, I am quite prepared that it should go on Hansard that I withdraw. But I think he will find when he reads Hansard that the statement he infers I made was not made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is just the sort of thing that brings the house into a condition that we had not long ago. If the hon. gentleman conceives that to be a withdrawal, and you accept it, Mr. Speaker, it is not for me to question it, but it is for you to determine, as the custodian of the rules and conduct of this house, whether it is a withdrawal or not.


Walter Edward Foster: I would remind the house that there is a rule in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, No. 313, page 193, which says:
It has been formally ruled by Speakers ill the Canadian Commons that a statement by an hon. member respecting himself and peculiarly within his own knowledge must be accepted, but it is not unparliamentary to temperately criticize statements made by a member as being contrary to the facts; but no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible.
And there are references to Bourinot, pages 352 and 365. It is sometimes difficult to determine the exact words that were used by an hon. member, and different interpretations may be given. I did not understand the Minister of Agriculture to attribute motives to the leader of the opposition, and as he has said that he is willing to withdraw his statement if it was contrary to the facts, I think he should be considered to be within the rules of the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to
refer again to the point raised by the leader of the opposition. I was discussing the statement that this country is no longer an agricultural country and the arguments that were based upon that statement. I should like now to deal with the first remarks made by the leader of the apposition when he took the floor. At the beginning of his remarks he sought to imply that this investigation before the agriculture committee was being carried on largely as a result of discussions

Agriculture-Implement Prices
which had taken place in western Canada and as a result of requests from western members on this side of the house. In dealing with that he referred to the condition of the western provinces. This is not the first time this session that he has inferred that the western provinces of Canada are in a condition of bankruptcy, and in referring to them to-day he used the word "bankruptcy."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: And now he says, "hear, hear." I should like to suggest that at least one province in western Canada has taken action to indicate to the people, both inside and outside the province, its exact position. I realize that when we look at the public debt of Saskatchewan we cannot help but see that it is of considerable proportions. I do not need to dwell upon the reasons for the proportions of this debt, but I think it is very suggestive that the greater part of it was added during the years between 1929 and 1934. At the moment I am not so much concerned about the public debt of Saskatchewan as a province, the debt which has been incurred by its government, as I am with the position of the people generally and their ability to pay as they go along and to liquidate their debts.
A great deal has been said from time to time about the condition of the municipalities in the three western provinces. I venture to say that the western provinces, and more particularly the province of Saskatchewan, will compare favourably with the oldest and most highly industrialized province in Canada, especially when a comparison of the financial positions of the different municipalities is made. When I make that statement I am not saying anything that is contrary to the facts. Inquiry was made into the debt situation of the people of Saskatchewan, and that inquiry is not yet twenty-four months old. As a result of that inquiry it was determined- I speak from memory and the figures may vary a little, but only a little-that two-thirds of the school districts in Saskatchewan had no debenture debt whatsoever, and over one-third of the school districts had no indebtedness. A condition of that kind is not so bad.
It was found also-again I speak from memory

that only 16 out of 301 rural municipalities had an indebtedness of more than 8200,000. The increased indebtedness of these sixteen, and much of the indebtedness of many of the others which had a debt under $200,000, was because of the relief payments during the last four or five years.
As far as individual indebtedness is concerned, the last census showed that something in the neighbourhood of fifty per cent of the people in the province had no mortgage indebtedness against their property. I do not know that anyone is justified in getting up in this house when we are dealing with a report that has to do with the price of farm implements and stating, with regard to a province with such a record, that after all the consideration that has been given to a part of the country where bankruptcy prevails, we should not be passing the inquiry in connection with this matter to a committee to meet in a succeeding year.
I scarcely understand the argument of my right hon. friend when he suggests that a committee of the house cannot investigate a matter of this kind, at least to the stage of obtaining the facts. Publicity would be given to the evidence presented from day to day in the press of Canada; it would be broadcast over the country, and irrespective of what finding might be made by the committee, the people of Canada would formulate an idea as to what that finding should be at all stages before the committee. If the committee to be appointed next session found, after all the evidence was before it, that they could not come to a conclusion, there would still be sufficient time to refer the matter to the tariff board or to some other board that might be able to inquire further along certain lines. The tariff board certainly would not inquire along the same lines as the committee has already started to inquire.
For the benefit of hon. members who were not on the committee, I may say that in view of the intricacy of the matter referred to the committee, the house was asked to consent to the appointment of counsel and) accountants in order that the necessary information might be gathered. That was agreed to. Under the instructions of the committee, the accountants and counsel prepared a questionnaire which was sent to all the important implement companies. They in turn consented to make a return. As we drew towards the end of the activities of the accountants and the counsel, it was evident that the house would conclude its session before a report could be made. The implement companies were asked to come before the committee and answer such parts of the questionnaire as it was possible for them to answer. This they consented to do. The answers to the questionnaire which had been placed in the hands of the counsel and the auditors constituted only from sixty to eighty per cent of the information asked for. The companies indicated their willingness to present the other twenty to forty per cent to a committee on a future

A griculture-Implement Prices
occasion. The committee thought it highly important that evidence should be heard at a succeeding session, in view of the fact that the companies could not be brought back this session.
According to the report of the committee, the questionnaires and the answers received have been placed in the custody of the Minister of Agriculture. The instructions of the committee are that the officials should receive the remaining replies or any other information which may be available as a result of the sending out of the questionnaires during the interim. AH this information is to be submitted' to the house through a committee at the next session. I do not know of any more reasonable way of dealing with the situation. I suggest to the leader of the opposition that for the time being we forget any argument we might like to present with regard to tariff matters, or any argument we might like to advance with regard to other matters, and that this report be allowed to go through in its present form. At the next session, when all the information is produced to the committee, the house will be in a position to determine whether there should be a further inquiry by a committee or whether it should go elsewhere. At the moment the committee is of the opinion, and I think it is unanimous, that the proper thing to do is to have this investigation submitted to a smaller committee to meet at the next session. That committee can receive the evidence in full and either make a report or recommend something further.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: In my remarks with reference to this subject, Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to be brief. The reference to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization was in these terms:
That an immediate inquiry be made by the standing committee on agriculture and colonization into the causes underlying the high prices of agricultural implements, with particular reference to the advance in prices in the year 1936.
I confess that I was astonished when I heard the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) oppose the adoption of this report. I thought from his argument that there was a misunderstanding in his mind as to the terms of the reference. As I see it, the tariff in its various phases is only one of the fields of inquiry that the committee should explore. Not only the tariff on the finished agricultural implements, but also the various tariffs that apply to the materials that go into the manufacture of such implements should be investigated. There is a wide field relating to the tariff that ought to be explored,

but the tariff field is not the only field that is of vital concern to the farmers of this country, and when I speak of the farmers of this country I mean not only those of western Canada but also those of Canada as a whole. All of us who represent agricultural constituencies in this house know intimately the deplorable condition of agriculture at this time throughout the whole length and breadth of Canada. There are other fields of inquiry that, as I have said, should be explored There is for example the whole question of the efficiency and the capacity of the industry which serves this country in the matter of agricultural implements. We must go into the question of capital set-up, of possible overcapitalization. We must consider the equipment of the various plants engaged in this industry, with a view to determining whether such equipment is in excess of normal, ordinary demand or is adequate to the demand that might be expected. We must also investigate the very wide spread which exists between the price of the machine at the door of the factory and the price the farmer must pay for it when it is delivered to him. The whole field of distribution of agricultural implements is one that needs to be explored. All of these are important lines of inquiry.
I have a high opinion of the tariff board, but that -board is not equipped for the conduct of an inquiry of this kind. Its duty is to determine what should be the tariff to be put into effect on any particular commodity. But as I have pointed out, the scope of this inquiry is very much broader than that of tariffs alone. Nor has the tariff board either power or jurisdiction under the statute to undertake an inquiry of this sort.
I believe all the members of the agriculture committee were convinced that not before in the history of this parliament has there been a reference to a committee so involved and intricate as the subject matter of this inquiry. There must be a detailed and careful search into all the factors that enter into the cost and the present price of agricultural implements. The committee was fortunate in having the services of counsel and an accountant, and in the course of preparation for the purposes of their inquiry they prepared a most exhaustive and thorough questionnaire. Everyone realizes the value of careful and intense preparation for the prosecution of such an inquiry as this. That exhaustive preparation has been made. Copies of the questionnaire have been sent to the companies. The companies have sent their replies to the questionnaire-in some cases fairly complete replies; in others replies not quite so complete. In addition, not all the

Agriculture-Implement Prices
Teplies that have come in to the questionnaire are wholly upon the same basis, and it will be necessary for the purposes of a continued inquiry to coordinate and correlate the information supplied by the various companies.
It is highly desirable that this inquiry should continue. It is in the interests of the farmers of this country, and of the industry itself. I believe that if it is thoroughly and properly made it will benefit both the farmers and the persons who are engaged in the agricultural implement industry, because the interests of the two groups are related. If the farmer is not able to pay, how can the agricultural implement industry prosper?
The committee approached this inquiry in no spirit of hostility towards anyone, but rather with the desire to ascertain as completely as possible the essential facts. There were no preconceived ideas in the minds of the members. There was the desire to ascertain facts, so that upon the ascertainment of the facts a report could be prepared that would be of real value to the people as a whole, both to the farmers and also to the persons engaged in the industry. The fields of inquiry are important. Never yet have they been properly explored by any parliamentary committee or by any agency instituted by parliament for the purpose. In my opinion this is the most important inquiry that parliament has had to deal with for a number of years.
I would be inclined to agree, with qualifications, with one suggestion made by the right hon. leader of the opposition. I thought he was wrong in suggesting that this inquiry should be made by the tariff board, but perhaps that error was due to a misunderstanding on his part as to the terms of the reference. However, I do agree with him that a royal commission might conduct the inquiry with greater thoroughness than could a committee [DOT]of the house, whether the standing committee on agriculture or a special committee to which the subject might be entrusted. I agree with the leader of the opposition in that expression of opinion because of the involved and intricate nature of the proposed inquiry. But while a royal commission could explore the fields of inquiry that have been opened to us by the exhaustive and careful preparation that has already been made, it by no means follows that a committee of the members of this house could not make a proper and thorough inquiry. It would be difficult for such a committee to carry out the investigation that should be made in this sphere, but it is not impossible, if hon. members would devote to it, with its intricacies and its difficulties, that intense application, that careful
study, and that willingness to ascertain the facts which are requisite for the purposes of a report that would be of any value.
I think there will be agreement in the house, as there was in the committee, that this inquiry is such an important one that it ought to be continued. Frankly I would have preferred to have the inquiry made by a royal commission, but next to a royal commission I would like to see it carried on by a committee of the house. I think members of this house may be trusted to give such an important inquiry the study and application it deserves. Therefore I support the motion for concurrence in the report, and I hope that in view of the statements that have been made the right hon. leader of the opposition will withdraw his apposition to the motion so that the house may be as unanimous in adopting the report as the members of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization were in presenting it to the house.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a word, as a member of the committee and perhaps also because of my association with the little group in this corner. We want to see as thorough an investigation as it is possible to make into this question of agricultural implements. I believe it is always difficult to get a commission which will command the confidence of all the people of the country, but having listened to a great deal, though not quite all, of the evidence, it seems to me that the matter is tremendously involved. Early in the inquiry I was greatly impressed with the very efficient work that was being done by our own bureau of statistics. I think if I had known as much about the bureau of statistics earlier as I did later I would have expressed myself as unfavourable to engaging any other assistance in order to bring out the facts in relation to this matter. However, that was done and I concurred in it because, in common with most of the members of the committee, I thought it the best thing to do.
With regard to the recommendations of the committee, Mr. Speaker, I think it is doubtful whether a large parliamentary committee such as has 'been going into this matter can arrive at a unanimous or nearly unanimous decision, because there are political streams which we must recognize. If the government could appoint a body that can command the respect of the producers and the people of Canada generally I believe it would be well worth while, even with the expenditure involved.
With regard to the tariff board, I think that perhaps the board has the confidence of the people of Canada to a greater extent

Agriculture-Implement Prices
than such boards have had in the past; nevertheless the tariff board views a problem from the standpoint of the tariff, and, that being the case, I do not think it is altogether fitted to look into this matter as we wish to have it looked into. There are so many factors involved. When I listened to certain evidence, to which I am not going to refer because we are more or less under obligation not to do so, I could not help thinking that this is something of a tangled skein and it strikes me that the tariff board is not the body to look into questions of capitalization, the various methods of doing business, the profits as between different parts of an organization, and so on. Consequently I am going to support the motion for concurrence in the recommendations of the committee.


Malcolm McLean: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is dealt with by this house I should like to say just a few words. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) has read to the house the terms of reference in regard to this matter, which apparently were misunderstood by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). The terms of reference provided that an immediate inquiry should be made by the standing committee into the causes underlying the high prices for farm implements, with particular reference to the advance in price for the year 1936. In my own mind I am sure the right hon. leader of the opposition misunderstood these terms, because he embarked on an abusive harangue to some of the members on this side of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I rise to a point of order. I am now going to protect my rights in this house as far as I can. I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the hon. member used the words "an abusive harangue," which are offensive words and must be withdrawn. It might also be well to direct the attention of hon. members to the fact that when a point of order is raised it is the duty of the hon. member who has the floor to take his seat.


Malcolm McLean: I shall withdraw the words, immediately and unreservedly, but I may say that it was in view of the kindly and polite way in which the right hon. gentleman addressed himself to me when I ventured to pass a remark that I thought he was under a misapprehension. If not,
I am all the more surprised that he should have advanced the reasons he did advance in objecting to the motion for concurrence.
Here we have the greatest industry in Canada; it has been so for many years in the past

and is likely to continue to be so for many years to come. The right hon. gentleman says the industry does not take in half the people of Canada to-day. This industry of agriculture has been sick almost to death during the past five years particularly, the years during which the policies of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition have been in effect.


Mr. BARBER:: Oh.


Malcolm McLean: Oh, what? My hon. friend from Toronto knows that what I am saying is the truth. He knows it in connection with the people with whom he deals.


Mr. SPENCE:: I did not say a word.


Malcolm McLean: I am sorry, but I did not mention any name, so I do not see how the hon. gentleman can say I referred to him. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this great industry, the greatest in Canada, is financially sick nigh unto death because of two things principally, drought and weather conditions in one part of Canada and, for the rest, mainly the policies of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition for the last five years. On the other hand here is a secondary industry, a subsidiary industry, which is very important to the primary industry of agriculture. It too is sick almost to death. Why any man who has the well being of his fellow men at heart and who has the well being of the primary or secondary industry in mind, should object to a searching, kindly, adequate inquiry into the causes underlying these high prices, which have made it impossible for the secondary industry to sell its goods to the primary industry, is beyond my conception.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Once more I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not object to the most searching inquiry being made;
I only indicated the tribunal that should make it.


Malcolm McLean: I accept the words of the right hon. gentleman, of course, but let me say that he shows little faith in his fellow members of this house, which is not surprising to me because he has shown little faith or confidence in them for the past six years. He persists in reading lectures to them at every opportunity. I have listened to them and taken a great deal of pleasure out of them, because I have laughed at them within myself, and probably will continue to do so.
What does the right hon. gentleman want us to do? He wants us to stop looking at the underlying conditions with which the order of

Agriculture-Implement Prices
reference asked us to deal. He wants us to get away from that point and to confine the inquiry to the question of the tariff on implements- and to submit that matter to the tariff board. The right hon. gentleman knows more about that board than I do. He knows how its members were appointed; he knows the previous occupations of some of the members of that board. I am not going to mention any names, but it is well within the knowledge of members of this house that one of the gentlemen whom he placed on that tariff board was previously a valued employee, a salesman, of one of the companies that would have to be investigated. I do not say that that would affect his judgment, but I do say that- it would affect-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had no knowledge of that fact until now.


Malcolm McLean: My right hon. friend has less knowledge about the men whom he places in high positions than I should think would be desirable. I am not saying this should be held against the gentleman whom I have in mind and whose name I will not mention, for I have no desire to draw attention to him. But I do say that the farmers of western Canada who were induced to buy combines in districts where combines were not suitable or profitable, by the gentleman whom I have in mind1 and who is now a member of the tariff board, really could not be expected to have much confidence in the decisions arrived at by that same gentleman, knowing his bias in matters of tariff, implement companies and that sort of thing. Therefore I think the people of Canada, east and west, would have more confidence in a committee of members of the House of Commons, of whom my right hon. friend seems to have a lowly opinion as to their capacity as investigators of a question of this kind, than in the kind of tariff board that we have at the moment in Canada.
Now the leader of the opposition says that this matter should not be further investigated by a committee of this house because the implement companies should have a fair chance in their own country and their own market. That was a cry that was very popular five or six years ago-that the manufacturers in Canada should have a fair chance in their own market. The market for farm implements in this country, Mr. Speaker, is not the property of the implement companies of Canada. The farmer is the only one who owns that market. He is the one who has to buy, and to say that a few companies, employing a few men in this country, should have that market, that it should be their market, and
that it is to be treated as though they had a monopoly ownership of it, is most unfair.
Then the right hon. gentleman adds that they did not raise their prices because they agreed not to do so. Well, that is a most amazing statement. I am surprised that even the leader of the opposition, little a3 is the knowledge he has shown in the house at times this session in connection with some matters when he has lectured us so profusely, now makes it a virtue. I am amazed that he does not know more about this question than to try to make it appear as a virtue that the implement manufacturers did not raise prices between 1930 and 1932 or 1933. Everyone knows that the only reason they took lower prices was that they could not sell their goods.
I hold in my hand an official document which leads me to believe that they did not in fact lower their prices. The president of one of the companies, on the stand the other day, told us under oath that they had not lowered their prices during these years. In order to encourage sales and try to collect their money they gave a discount in addition to the cash discount. What they did in connection with collections was to give a small discount, and part of the same policy was to give a higher nominal price for wheat in order to collect more money in that way. But whereas many other companies were in a position to give and did give very large discounts, the implement companies limited themselves to something like ten per cent. I am not complaining of that at the moment, but when the leader of the opposition says they did so and so, it should be remembered that they did it because they could not help themselves. They could not raise their prices in those days because they could not sell their goods as it was.
I have been told many times during this session that the companies agreed to do certain things. I read here the words of my right hon. friend in which he says that the manufacturers of implements are of the opinion that the consumers of agricultural implements should not pay higher prices for them. And they are equally emphatic in the statement that if the Canadian market is secured to Canadian factories instead of opened to a volume of goods manufactured elsewhere they will not increase prices to consumers, with this important proviso:
Provided the factors entering into the manufacturing costs are not increased.
The promise was not worth the paper it was written on. This promise I find was signed' by seven companies. But the one large company, the company that sets the pace, the company that supplies a very large percentage of the implements in Canada, did not

Agriculture-Implement Prices
have its name on this promise. And when the vice-president of the parent company, the president of the Canadian company, was asked1 the other day who had made the promise and in whose name it had been made to the government of that day, he knew nothing about it. When the document was looked up it was found that the name of the largest producer of agricultural implements in this country was not there.
Now I pass to another matter. I say it is necessary that a certain inquiry be held into this matter by those who are in sympathy with the needs of the primary industry, to which the secondary industry is so important. The companies during the last few years, we are told, have lost large sums because of their ventures in foreign markets.


David Spence: Does the hon. member not believe it?


Malcolm McLean: That is not the point. I am glad my hon. friend asked the question. The point is that companies enjoying twenty-five per cent protection under the regime of my right hon. friend, and having the advantage of many other forms of protection, which were not of value to but were a distinct detriment to the primary industry, were investing their money elsewhere, money they had accumulated from the Canadian primary industry; and they lost it elsewhere, not by hundreds of thousands of dollars, but by the million, on this and other continents. They lost money galore everywhere. Then they come back and say that the Canadian farmer, because that is the market in which the Canadian implement manufacturer happens to be located1, should be pleased to allow them all the protection that the high-minded tariff advocates of this country want to give them.
I want to say a word further about the success that came to the companies during the time my right hon. friend gave them such extreme tariff protection, protection which he himself acknowledges to-day was very high. In the four years from 1926 to 1929, when a reasonable tariff policy was in effect, the average number of employees in the Canadian agricultural implement factories was 10,844. In the four years of the high tariff regime, the regime of the leader of the opposition, the years 1931 to 1934 inclusive, the average number of employees in these same factories fell to 3,493 per annum, and the output was reduced from $40,000,000 to $5,000,000. The industry was sick almost to death financially, and it is time it was looked into and investigated by those who have the greatest interest in it. Let me quote one or two figures.
tMr. MacLean.]
During these years with which I have just been dealing, when the number of employees fell from 10,000 to 3,400 and the production declined from $40,000,000 to $5,000,000 a year factory valuation, I find that costs of certain kinds went up very greatly. I have here a statement of one of the largest companies in Canada, giving the average cost of six implements in 1913 and 1933. Some one might say, why bring in 1913 and 1933? But the prices of farm products to-day are comparable with prices in 1913.
I find several increases in cost, some reasonable and1 others unreasonable. For instance, the prices of material at the factory increased 77 per cent. Productive labour increased 105 per cent. Prime cost was therefore increased by 83 per cent. But listen to this amazing item: Other factory expense increased by 505 per cent during these twenty years. Most of that increase was incurred during the period 1930 to 1934; lack of sales, because of lack of flexibility of price structure that would enable the implements to be exchanged for a comparable amount of agricultural wealth, caused such a decrease in production that other factory expense was increased by the enormous percentage of 505, against 105 per cent for labour and 77 per cent for material, or an average increase of prime cost of 83 per cent.
Another Canadian company had an increase in this item of 247 per cent as against an increase for productive labour of 27 per cent. That is very striking. I would1 like hon. members to bear it in mind. During the years from 1913 to 1933 for this large Canadian company the increase in cost of materials was 64 per cent; the increase in productive labour was 27 per cent, the prime cost increase was 58 per cent, but the increase in other factory expense was 247 per cent. I submit that when conditions of that kind are found, something should be done about it.
Mark you, these conditions existed and were accentuated during a time when, because of two specific conditions I have mentioned particularly, one the climatic conditions in western Canada and the other the effects of the economic and fiscal policy of my right hon. friend opposite, the income of the farmers in the province of Saskatchewan-and I will take that province only because the evidence respecting it we have had before us recently-had dropped from the high mark of $333,000,000 to the low mark of $66,000,000 between 1925 and 1931. That income of $66,000,000 is spread over a million people who had formerly enjoyed an income of $333,000,000 from agriculture alone, leaving aside their secondary production. My right hon. friend knows that the prices of implements had increased to

Agriculture-Implement Prices
such an extent, in comparison with prices of agricultural products, that instead1 of taking 200 bushels of wheat to buy a binder, as it did in 1925, it took 1,500 bushels of wheat at the low of the 1932 crop price to buy the same binder. These are extreme figures, and I would not want anybody to think I am giving them to the house as average figures-not at all. But during those years when the income of the largest Canadian customers for the implement people was being reduced from $333,000,000 to $66,000,000 the cost of the implement was going up, in terms of goods that the customers of the implement people were producing, and in actual cost. Those costs were going up in some items at the rate of 505 per cent and 247 per cent as against a time in 1913 when the prices were comparable.
I do not think there is much more I need say at this time, except to point out that there are many factors entering into the question of cost, namely, conditions of sale, freight rate, methods of shipment, and methods of collection, which sometimes add a great deal. Then we must consider customs and valuation for duty purposes. I wonder what the leader of the opposition will say when I tell him that in the sworn evidence we found that a Canadian subsidiary of a great American manufacturing company was being charged $200 per piece more on an American tractor coming into Canada than the American selling agent- was being charged. I repeat that there was an additional charge of $200 per piece on the same kind of tractor.


David Spence: You heard the reason for it.


Malcolm McLean: Yes, I heard the reason. I am asking my right hon. friend what he thinks of his policy which made it necessary to have such a condition. And in addition to the increased value for duty purposes on tractors there were increases on other implements of around 134 per cent. The present mark-up as against what the parent company charges the American company is around 6| per cent. That is something which I am sure the committee will foe interested in looking into at the next session if a committee is appointed-and I hope it will be. Six and two-thirds per cent is too high to-day, but what do we think of 134 per cent and 25 per cent, amounting to $200 on a tractor sold in the days of the regime of the leader of the opposition?
What did that mean? It simply meant that the Canadian company was not able to make a profit at the prices they charged the farmer on goods they sold those farmers. Those very products were made by the owners of the same parent company; they were made
in one country. But my right hon. friend's administration which was so much embarrassed for money in those days was content to see those profits stay in the country to the south of us where a foreign government was collecting taxes due to them; it was content to see the Canadian company struggling along without making as much profit on these particular items as it would have made if it had not been for these charges for duty purposes.
We are told that the companies lost much money under these conditions. Of course they did. With a flexible production and an inflexible price structure I do not see how those companies could avoid losing money, and they will probably continue to lose money until the time comes that they are able to sell their product at a lower price in relation to the prices received by their customers for what they have to sell.
There is one observation I should like to make here before passing on, and that is as to the opinion expressed by the leader of the opposition that the agriculture committee has never been a useful body in respect to tariff matters. That is his opinion, and he is entitled to it. But I do not think he sat in on the agriculture committee to listen to the discussions. I would say that probably never in this house has a committee worked with a more sincere desire to obtain the truth first. Perhaps some of us looked for one thing and some for another, but the desire of the committee as a whole was to learn the truth in order that they might know how this question might best be approached. We cannot get at the truth by lowering the rate of duty on one particular line of implements. Back of that line it is important to know how much protection, how much privilege and how much added cost to the consumer of those goods in Canada went into the factories and machinery that built this implement, that went into the homes and into the cost of living of the man who had to produce it. I do not mean to say that those men working in Hamilton or Brantford are too highly paid for making implements; I do not suggest they are overpaid, but I do say that the cost of their living-not the standard of living -in this country, and particularly in the last five years, has been too high in comparison with the purchasing power of the people to whom they sell their products. That has resulted from the fact that for many years many artificial charges have been loaded on to everything that has been done in connection wtih the living which these men are able to obtain from their work in the plant. It is
Agriculture-Implement Prices

added on to the clothes that they wear, the roofs that shelter them, the furniture that surrounds them and everything that goes into their mouths. Everything that they use has been loaded up with undue costs, and that is passed on to the machine they turn out or any other wealth they produce. It could not be otherwise. The loaded cost or, as the manufacturers describe it, the added burden, is passed on to the primary producer who simply cannot pay these prices and compete with other people in the world market, where his competitors are free from such high costs. The attitude of the committee which has just made its report was to try to learn more about these things in order that they might more intelligently weigh the facts.
There are two large companies in Canada, and we are led to believe that they are not in good shape financially, and that something must be done for both of them before the situation can be improved. But when the leader of the opposition says that the agriculture committee has not been a useful body-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that.


Malcolm McLean: I took down his words at the time. These are the words he used, "The agriculture committee has never been a useful body in respect to tariff inquiry matters." That is what he said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is different altogether.


Malcolm McLean: I said that a
minute ago, and he denied it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not correct.


Malcolm McLean: There are many other matters in addition to direct tariffs which must be inquired into. There must be tariffs back of many articles which have led to an accumulation of costs, and that is a condition which must be investigated.
Dealing with the agriculture committee the right hon. gentleman referred to the preconceived attitude of mind of those who deal with such matters on the committee, and he went on to read the lesson that the committee could not deal with the matter fairly because of that preconceived attitude of mind. I want to tell him that the members of the committee, as a composite body and as individuals, are more open-minded, to say nothing of their intelligence, than some of the appointees he made to the tariff board to whom he would have this matter referred.
I just wish to add one word in answer to the statement of the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I am glad to
[Mr. McLean.J
see he is supporting the motion, even if he had to support the leader of the opposition to a certain degree in connection with the tariff board. He said that the tariff board has the confidence of the people to a greater extent than any previous board has had their confidence. That is a matter of opinion, and he has a right to express it. I do not want to go into detail in the matter, but I would say that within the past few months the people of Canada have shown whether or not they have confidence in the tariff board as at present constituted.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say that this inquiry, which was commenced but not completed because of lack of time, should be carried on by those who are sympathetic and know something of the difficulties of the primary industry, and who are inclined to look without prejudice upon a secondary industry that is most important to the primary industry. The inquiry should be committed, in short, to those who will carry on the sort of investigation which the agriculture committee has carried on. It is a matter of record that the implement people who came before us assured the committee that they were highly pleased with the courtesy and consideration and kindliness with which we endeavoured to get the information that was desired. There was no misunderstanding. They were asked to give certain information, and a great deal more information will no doubt be required. But as to the manner of securing the information that was placed before the committee, the implement people expressed themselves as highly pleased. I have great pleasure in supporting the motion.


David Spence: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and other members of the house have been trying to conclude the business of the session, that we should lose so much time having to listen to a tirade of abuse from a member of the agriculture committee, one of the 'worst kinds of political speeches that we could hear at this stage of the session.
I am quite satisfied that the committee were sincere in their viewpoint, but their viewpoint was different from mine in many instances. I do not criticize the committee for that. We started to investigate the price of farm implements, which meant implements all over Ontario and all over Canada, and finally we wound up with nothing accomplished, nothing but talk about Saskatchewan, Dakota and Montana. That is all that was talked about. On two or three occasions highly technical men from the departments

Agriculture-Implement Prices
gave us lectures that I do not think five per cent of the committee understood, and in the end we wound up by sending out questions to the fawn implement people, who told us they thought they would not be able to answer them for two months, and so the work of the committee was held up for a considerable time.
I am of the opinion that an investigation is not needed at all. I am not in favour of these royal commissions. All they do is spend money and the only result is that we are poorer and poorer. We had the International Harvester people before the committee and the evidence they gave was satisfactory. No one can doubt that Mr. Russell of the Massey-Harris Company gave his evidence in such a way that only a suspicious mind could come to any conclusion other than that the Massey-Harris Company were doing their very best for the farmer, and doing a great deal more than they were getting credit for. He showed that the losses in the farm implement business were very heavy, and that bad debts were very heavy. That is one of their great difficulties, that they have to get the money somewhere. It is like going to a specialist on one particular disease. My friend might go to one and take so long that he would be charged $1,000, while I, because I am poor, might be let off with $100. The same sort of thing applies in the farm implement industry. They have to try to make up their losses through bad debts; they have always got to figure that in their overhead.
Some hon. members should get a training in the business world and then they would be better able to criticize men in the business world. The wheat industry is not the only industry in the world. I am sorry it was interfered with, and it would be better off if it had not been interfered with, but the only way to get it back to where it should be is to make up your minds to play square with the consuming public and give the buyers in Great Britain and elsewhere a square deal -give them what you are purporting to sell to them, without mixing grades and deceiving them. There is too much interference in business.


Malcolm McLean: Hear, hear.


David Spence: You want to be a Mussolini, a dictator, like you did on the committee.


Malcolm McLean: I have no desire to prcrtong the proceedings, Mr. Speaker, but my hon. friend has just done the very thing of which his leader complained so bitterly 12739-253
a few days ago. He has called me Mussolini, and I know that he will be pleased to withdraw that remark.


David Spence: I should not have used the word, and I apologize, but will anybody say that my hon. friend did not try to be a dictator on the committee-I think that is parliamentary, Mr. Speaker. I did not intend to insult the hon. member, for whom I have a great deal of regard.
I was saying that these investigations only mean a waste of public money. We started our investigation on March 17 by selecting a lawyer, whom I am not going to criticize, but who acted like a police court lawyer when it came to getting evidence. We also selected an accountant, a high type of man, I assume, and we have spent a lot of money, probably $15,000 or $20,000, but what have we accomplished? I admit that the recommendation we made was the only one we could make under the circumstances. We had to compromise. We could not do other than recommend a continuance of the investigation. I was personally opposed to a royal commission because I thought it would cost too much money. I have to make every dollar I get and I do not like to see money wasted.
I say without fear of contradiction that only a man with a suspicious mind would think that the implement people were not giving this country a square deal. As a matter of fact I believe the implement people are getting the worst of it.


Malcolm McLean: We never said they were not.


David Spence: But the inference was that something was doing something to somebody. Evil be to him who evil thinks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 1 did not care to interrupt the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) in his very moderate and courteous observations, but perhaps I might now answer his question by referring to the statute. What I had reference to was subsection 5 of section 4 of the Tariff Board Act:
It shall also be the duty of the board to inquire into any other matter or thing in relation to the trade or commerce of Canada which the governor in council sees fit to refer to the board for inquiry and report.


Mr. JOSEPH NEEDHAM (The Battle-fords) :: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the standing committee and having attended, I think, every meeting, I am amazed at the turn which this discussion has taken. We were not able to finish our inquiry into the price of implements and make a complete report to the house, and it is likely that



Agriculture-Implement Prices
another price list will be given out by the implement manufacturers before the inquiry is completed. That is the sad part of it. We have heard a great deal about Saskatchewan and the west, and the condition in which they are placed because of these things. In the district I represent I do not think five per cent of the farmers have a full equipment of efficient machinery. That has been the condition during the last four or five years. The situation was so serious that they did not know what to do regarding further investments, with the prospects that lay before them.
I was amazed to read a little while ago that the prairie provinces from 1900 up to the present time produced 112,500,000,000 of new wealth; that is equal to $1,000,000 per day. And yet we find these people in the situation they are in to-day. We must remember that if western Canada suffers, the rest of the dominion will suffer with it. Our interests are theirs, and on behalf of this group I wish to express our concurrence in this report.
Motion (Mr. Weir) agreed to.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.



WRECKS IN ONTARIO WATERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broad<view):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask a short question of the Minister of Marine (Mr. Howe) with reference to two wrecks which occurred yesterday in Ontario. One was at Amherstburg, where the steamer Tashmoo, with 1,100 passengers, had great difficulty in making shore, and the other wa9 at Brockville, where the steamer Kingston was damaged. Is it the intention of the minister to have the wreck commissioner hold an inquiry under the act?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Marine):: I have asked the officers of my department to investigate both these matters. If an inquiry is called for it will undoubtedly be held.



NIAGARA RIVER SHOAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. H. E. WILTON (Hamilton West):: Will the minister look at the conditions on the Niagara River, where there is a big shoal three miles long, and large steamers are running over it? It is partly in American waters and partly in Canadian.



COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, June 19, consideration in committee of Bill No. 55, to amend the Copyright Amendment Act, 1931- Mr. Rinfret-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When the committee rose last night we were discussing section 1.


Mr. RINFRET:: Before we proceed with the discussion of the section, I desire to say a word or two with regard to a remark made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Esling) before the house rose at one o'clock. The hon. member has been very accommodating, and my observation is made in a friendly spirit and is, I hope, courteous in relation to his view of the matter. The hon. member said that he thought this matter should go before a committee before the house passes upon it. May I remind him and other hon. members that there is no subject upon which so many committees of the house have sat as that of copyright. We have had them from year to year and from session to session. Besides that, there have been two inquiries, one by Mr. Justice Ewing, which was held in 1931, I believe, the other one by Mr. Justice Parker, in 1935.
I repeat that the object of this bill is neither to redraft the copyright bill, nor to abolish it, as some hon. members, to judge from their remarks, seem to think, but to regulate the matter, and only on the points that have been touched by the inquiry of Judge Parker and his commission. The recommendation is for an appeal board. In other words, the inquiry that my hon. friend wishes to have continued by sittings of a new committee of the house can be made before that appeal board. Representations from both sides can be made to that board, which will sit from year to year. But I say again that it is urgent that we adopt some legislation before parliament prorogues. We cannot continue in the undecided state in which the whole question is at the present time.
Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, and very properly so, because there was no discussion on the second reading, you gave quite a leeway to the various speakers to deal generally with the question in discussing the first section. I understand that the hon. member for Ottawa East wishes to speak to this matter. I am sure the committee will give him the same latitude that was given to the hon. member who spoke yesterday. But once that is done the committee, I suggest, should be ready to

*Copyright Amendment Act
proceed with the two sections of the bill, and as they are very clear, we can deal with them in an orderly but expeditious way.


Mr. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: In these the
dying hours of the present session it is not my intention to traverse all that was said yesterday in the three hours during which we listened to speakers on the other side. I have no hesitation in saying that at least nine-tenths of what was said last night was absolutely irrelevant to the issues now before us. What we are confronted with is the bill in committee. The bill is divided into two clauses. There is an amendment to clause 1 which I shall speak about in a moment or two. At the outset I desire to say that this bill was more or less called for by reason of the legislation which was enacted by the previous secretary of state. It would have been very much better if that legislation had not been enacted at all. In that event we should not have been faced with the conditions that now confront us-a most difficult situation, not for the performing right society as such, because I am not concerned with it as a performing right society, but for the authors.
This bill is not a bill for the performing right society. This is a copyright bill, and so long as we continue to misunderstand the purport and intent of the bill, so long we shall face the difficulties that we experience at this moment. The copyright law is not for the purpose of protecting some society; it is for the purpose of affording that rightful protection to which authors are entitled by law. I said it had been called for by the legislation that was passed by the former secretary of state and upon which Judge Parker's report was initiated. It would have been very much better if that investigation had not taken place in the manner in which it did. We are not concerned here with the control of the performing right society, because it was on trial before Judge Parker, and nobody in that instance received any measure of justice. The authors got no justice and the users of music got more than they were entitled to.
I say at the outset that this bill, when enacted, will have the result, by giving effect to section 1, of making clear the statutory permission to infringe copyright in flagrant contravention of an international agreement and in defiance and violation of authors' personal rights, and, by giving effect to section 2, of establishing and fixing rates interfering with the collection of fees, again in violation of an international agreement and in defiance and violation of private rights; and thirdly, in an endeavour to meet an isolated case, 12739-2535
namely that of the performing right society- which, by the way, is a very bad way of legislating, from the particular to the general-of inflicting heavy and unjustifiable hardships upon innocent bystanders, all of which, again, is in flagrant violation of an international agreement and in defiance of private rights.
Time will not allow me fully to go, as I should like to have done, into the question of law, but I gravely doubt whether this matter could not have been achieved, and the present situation remedied, by a procedure altogether different from the creation of an appeal board and inflicting upon authors the restrictions which are again inflicted upon them. I should have been satisfied to make an endeavour to reduce the restrictions that were placed upon the authors, but apparently it never rains but it pours, and now I am faced, in an endeavour to remove the difficulties that previously existed, with an amendment conceived for the purpose of making more onerous the inflictions upon the authors, through the extension of the unwarranted privileges that are now being accorded to industrial fairs. First we had this provision giving agricultural fairs the right to use the music of these composers without obtaining their permission and without paying fees. Now we find that is not enough, that up to the moment the composers have not been sufficiently ill treated, that in their greed some people have insisted that industrial fairs now must have the same privileges. If this sort of thing continues there will be nothing at all left for the authors.
I should like to point out also, Mr. Chairman, that up to the moment there has been no definition of an industrial fair, and if this amendment passes and becomes law it will provide another subject of contention, as to what constitutes an industrial fair. We will not only be faced with the situation that existed up to the time the Canadian National Exhibition was sued by the Canadian Performing Right Society in order to determine what was private profit; the situation will be made even more complicated. In that case the court decided what private profit meant. Now we are to extend the law and inflict further restrictions upon the rights of the authors.
I wonder if hon. gentlemen really appreciate the position of an author. This morning the right hon. leader of the opposition said that protection existed for practically everybody in industry, and he mentioned the fruit growers and others who were protected. With that I have no quarrel, but it seems that in Canada the only one who is not protected
Copyright Amendment Act

is the Canadian author. May I cite what the honorary secretary of the Canadian Authors' Association says:
The basic fact of all the feeling against the performing right society (and against the composers and authors for whom it acts) is that the public has not yet realized that composers have both moral and legal right to be paid for their work, and next, that (with the sheet music and gramophone records for private use practically superseded by talkies and radio), the only means they have of getting paid is through performing rights.
Now by this amendment covering industrial fairs, to this further extent we desire to deprive the authors of their rights.
I am going through my notes rather hastily, Mr. Chairman, but yesterday we were told what copyright was. Well, the copyright with which we are concerned is not the copyright as defined by Webster's dictionary or any other encyclopaedia; copyright is defined in terms of the law and section 3 of the Copyright Act says:
For the purposes of this act, "copyright" means the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatsoever-[DOT]
Then paragraph 2 of article IV of the convention of Berne says:
The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to the performance of any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise are independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment exempting industrial fairs unduly takes away from the rights of the authors. In this matter we are not at all concerned with the performing right society. That society has nothing to do with the rights of the authors, in regard to letting their works be used for fairs, whether they are under the control of the dominion, the province or the municipality. Why in the name of common sense should a composer 'be forced to allow his music to be played gratuitously at any agricultural fair under the dominion, province or municipality, or at an industrial fair? Why, Mr. Chairman, the peanut vendor is paid at these fail's; everyone makes money at these fairs except the author. The farmer makes money; he is protected, but the author is not protected. I do not believe there would be any fairs if there were no music. Everyone is prepared to pay all those who have anything to do with the fair except the author who provides the very first requirement in order that the fair may be held. I do not think the point needs to be elaborated to show how illogical, how uncharitable and, I might even say, how unlawful that is.

While I am on this point may I say that in taking this step we are not only dealing with Canadian authors. Under the terms of the convention of Berne a large number of authors living in such countries as France, Italy, Belgium, Switzerland and many other countries are protected in Canada. If I had time I could easily proceed to show that while we in this country have the right to treat our own nationals in any contemptible way we may wish, the law of the land is that we cannot treat nationals of other countries in the same way. We can do what we like with our own people; we can be as mean as we wish towards them, but if we act in that way towards authors belonging to nations other than Canada we do so in flagrant violation of the convention of Berne. If proof of that statement were needed I could go back to 1921, when the licensing clauses were under consideration. The then Minister of Justice, Mr. Doherty, decided that the licensing clauses placed in our law could be operative only in connection with our own nationals and not in connection with the nationals of other countries who were protected by the convention of Berne. So I submit that by taking this action we are not showing Vespeet for an international convention in which we have participated. We are told that this does not amount to very much, that the authors will not lose very much in the way of fees by exempting these small fairs. But, Mr. Chairman, may I point out that at page 42 of the Parker report 278 fairs are listed in the province of Ontario.
I have not time to go through the whole of the report or to traverse everything that was said last night, but most hon. gentlemen who spoke then stated that the fees charged were exorbitant. I am not concerned with whether it is the performing right society or any other society that collects these fees. These are the fees of the authors and composers, and I say we have not the right to place this further hardship upon them. For the time being the Canadian Performing Right Society is the duly constituted agent of a certain number of authors, and they have the right to collect their fees.


Mr. BETTS:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Last night I listened with great patience to every speaker on the other side, and time is now so limited that I hope they will extend to me the same courtesy that I extended to them.
The rates were stated to be $5 to $30 a day; I say it is not so. The Parker report shows that no such fees as $30 a day were exacted. But if they had been I say it

Copyright Amendment Act
was perfectly all right, because after all those would have been the fees the authors would have asked, and if people do not like to pay for music why should they have it? If they do not want to pay for a fur coat why should they get it? After all, my property is mine and if anyone wants to use it he should pay for doing so. Although hon. members say the performing right society gathered in the fees, the evidence will disclose that none of the small fairs operate for more than a day or two; even if they paid $5 a day for two days it would amount to only $10, so that at no time is there any such amount charged as was stated last night.
I am sorry I have not the time other hon. members had, but if I had and proceeded to show what the Canadian National exhibition in Toronto gathered in in the way of fees and what they paid for the privilege of using this music, hon. members would be astounded. The society submits that a fee of $982 for the use of music at the Canadian National exhibition during 1935 when the total attendance was 1,444,000 is prima facie evidence that the fee is fair and reasonable. It is also established in evidence that large sums are paid annually by the Canadian National exhibition to the performers of music. There was spent on bands in some years I think $35,000 or $40,000. In 1934 the bands got about $15,000. There was a definite understanding that Rudy Yallee would get somewhat less than $30,000 for two weeks. I could continue that ad nauseam but I do not think I should insult the intelligence of the committee by further argument that the authors have a perfect right to ask what they think right for the performance of their music. If they choose to select the performing right society or any other society to represent them for that purpose I care not. If the performers desire to use the music they should pay what the authors ask; if they do not want to pay, then let them not play the music.
May I point out also that there is a public demand for this music. The author is protected during his lifetime and fifty years thereafter. Every day a tremendous amount of music falls in the public domain which may be used free, and not only music but all kinds of artistic and literary work. Why do not those who use this music take that which they can have free? But it is with them just as it with moths; you always find the moth in the nicest piece of fur, and you always find these people trying to get the latest music and paying nothing for it.
Now that is in relation to clause 1. Under the terms of the Berne convention and under
the terms of the Copyright Act we have no right to take the music of any Canadian author, or of authors of any of the other nations adhering to the Berne convention without paying proper fees. I submit that it is a further spoliation of the author's rights to enact this amendment into law.
I should like to proceed with the other feature of the bill, that which has to do with fees. The explanatory note to the bill reads thus:
"10c. In March, 1935, His Honour Judge Parker was appointed a commissioner under subsection 2 of section 10 of The Copyright Amendment Act, 1931 (hereby repealed) and under the Inquiries Act, to investigate and report whether the Canadian Performing Right Society Limited or any other society, association or company proposed to collect excessive fees. The commissioner submitted a report which, inter alia, recommended the appointment of a copyright appeal board and also recommended modifications of the tariff filed with the minister by the Canadian Performing Right Society Limited in January, 1935. The act, chapter eighteen of the statutes of 1935, provided for a stay of proceedings pending the receipt of and action upon the commissioner's report. This section is designed to enable the governor in council to provide for the revision of the tariffs filed in January, 1935, in the light of the recommendations contained in the commissioner's report and also to prevent the recovery of fees or damages in excess of the fees prescribed by the governor in council.
Here is a piece of legislation directed against one society. As a result of the investigation that took place into this society, and followed by the Parker report, we now have general legislation affecting everyone that may be in the same position, every society, every company, all who may deal with performing rights, whether rightfully or wrongfully, whether they charge proper fees or whether they do not, whether their business was investigated or whether it was not-all will be subject to this iniquitous legislation. I say that proceeding from the particular to the general is as bad a way of legislating as could possibly be conceived.
If I speak of the performing right society I do so for two reasons: because it is the collecting agency for the composers, and because any fair-minded member of this committee is interested in justice. Let me point out that you can legislate against this society; you can legislate it out of existence if you like, but by doing so you would be depriving the musical composers and authors of what is at the moment their only collection agency. But notwithstanding that, you cannot compel authors and composers to accept fees that this committee or anyone else may desire to impose. You can do as you please with that society but you cannot fix the fees
Copyright Amendment Act

to be received by composers, whether nationals or those outside Canada. That is the situation. I have a telegram from John M. Bison, secretary of the Authors' and Composers' Association of Canada, protesting against this legislation. He says:
Meeting executive Authors and Composers Association of Canada Doctor Healey Willan presiding following resolution was passed on motion Sir Ernest MacMillan:	We desire as
representing authors and composers throughout the dominion to protest strongly against passage of Bill 55. This measure we feel distinctly contrary provisions Berne convention arid will react unfavourably against Canadian authors and composers whose works may be performed in other countries. Authors, composers, publishers appeared before Parker commission but our evidence seems to have been ignored judging by page 46 of Judge Parker's report and terms of Bill 55.
Those two statements are true:
We request you to delay this measure for further consideration.
Appropriating to myself the words of a Canadian musical publisher and composer, I say that no other country in the world, not even the most barbarous, has treated the rights of its authors and composers as Canada proposes to do under this bill. Whether or not it is against the letter of the Berne convention it is certainly against the spirit of it. The memorandum addressed to the Prime Minister states:
The curtailment of the rights of foreign authors and composers in Canada is bound to react unfavourably upon the rights of Canadians in foreign countries. This was the case in connection with the mechanical royalties which Canadian authors and composers struggled so long to acquire. If this bill is aimed particularly at the Canadian Performing Bight Society, would it not be better to control the society in some other way rather than by imposing hardships on Canadian authors and composers ?
Is not that a fair request, Mr. Chairman?
Copyright is a property right vested in creators of intellectual work and as such should be subject to the same laws of supply and demand as any other commercial commodity. Compulsory charity is not relished by Canadian authors and composers. Other property owners are not compelled to hand property to a charitable organization.
Is there any place in Canada where a Sunday school organization may ransack a bakeshop to get supplies for a Sunday school picnic to be held to-morrow, because it is for a charitable purpose? Is there any place in Canada where a person can go into a retail store and take goods, clothing and provision for the upkeep and maintenance of the needy, simply because it is for a charitable purpose? Is not this property just as sacred as any other?
IMr. E. R. E. Chevrier.l
The world's best music is free to all users. Mendelssohn, Handel, Schubert, Beethoven, are free to all. While the performing right societies control the majority of present-day copyright works they have by no means a monopoly. The music users might create their own music.
There are a number of other observations which could be made along the same line.
Coming back to the proposed change in the law, may I place on record subsection 2 of section 10, under which the investigation took place:
Whenever in the opinion of the minister, after an investigation and report by a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act, any such society, association or company which exercises in Canada a substantial control of the performing rights in dramatico-musical or musical works in which copyright subsists, unduly withholds-
Who will say that they unduly withheld? We have had an investigation, and it has been stated that they did unduly withhold. Why should they not withhold? Why should I not have the right to withhold my musical composition? It is not something like insulin; it is not something which could be classed as a necessity of life. Music is not a necessity of life. It is not the object of public utilities corporations, as are telephone or steamship lines. Why not withhold? It is suggested 'that if I do not wish to let my song be played anybody can come and take it over, and pay what he wishes, and I must let it go. Then the section continues:
... or proposes to collect excessive fees-
Why be so arbitrary? I cannot determine for myself what the fees shall be, but have to be kept within bounds by a guardian who will look after my fees. It continues:
-or otherwise conducts its operations in Canada in a manner which is deemed detrimental to the interests of the public.
Can anybody by any construction, say that the withholding of a piece of music from public performance or otherwise is detrimental to the interests of the public? Yet that is the law. But what I want to point out is that the law as framed to-day affects the performing right society and every other society now doing the same thing in the same way in Canada. May I point out that in addition to the performing right society there are French societies which control a certain number of titles, and the former Secretary of State is not without knowledge of them. For instance, one of the largest societies now doing business in France and Canada is La Societe des Auteurs, Editeurs et Compositeurs de Musique. That society, doing business in France and Canada, was never the subject

Copyright Amendment Act
of the investigation. Yet by the operation of this act that company has to go through every one of the things iniquitously prescribed, in violation of the convention of Berne, in violation of our own statutes, and in defiance of property rights. Those other companies have to do that. I cannot help the inflicting of the direct punishment upon our own societies, even to our own disgrace, but I do say there is an international statute which ought to be respected and which is not being respected by this law, nor was it respected by the former law.
May I say a word about the findings of the commission. The most important problem before the Parker commission was the determination of what would be a fair tariff or fee. In the first place there was no legal right to go into that matter. The report states:
It is a fair assumption that the present tariff of _ the Canadian Performing Right Society Limited was made higher because of the expenses incurred in persuading a public that was often unreasoning and ignorant of the society's legal rights to purchase a licence.
I, the author, who owned the play or composed the music or wrote the work, have to suffer because the public was ignorant.
The demand for payment by the society was regarded as an unjust imposition, and the music user honestly believed that the author, composer or publisher was not entitled to any payment for his performing rights.
If the public were ignorant to that extent, does it mean that this committee must inflict punishment upon authors because of the ignorance of the general public?
Due to the very nature of the intangible right possessed by the society, it is most difficult, if not impossible, to determine what is a fair fee.
Notice the unfairness of all this.
The society, however, is not in as good a position as the broadcasting stations themselves to determine-
Substitute the words "author and composer" for the word "society," because the society is the collector. Then we say that "the author and composer is not in as good a position as the broadcasting stations themselves to determine what part of this gross should be contributed by the various stations in Canada, and it was suggested by one of the witnesses, who was closely connected with broadcasting, that an association of the various stations could best determine what each station should contribute." Is that a fair statement? Is it fair to go into a store and say, "I know better than the merchant does what he should charge for his wares. If he does not want to
take what I offer, I have a right to appropriate it unto myself." Then, 'with regard to theatres they say:
The commission is of opinion that the 1935 tariff is excessive.
I am not concerned about the performing right; I am concerned only about that which is due to the authors. That is the only way in which it can be collected. May I say right here and now that if this attitude is continued and if the pious or expressed wish of the gentleman who spoke last night is that of putting the performing right society out of business, I do not care if it does, but if they do put it out of business then I ask hon, members to notice the chaotic condition into which you will throw the authors and users of music. There will then be no one to whom one might go in an endeavour to make a bargain or to procure rights to perform. All people who operate hotels, theatres, music halls and the like who have to pay fees from time to time will be driven to finding out who the authors and composers are and endeavouring to make bargains with them. Just imagine what the condition will bel Instead of dealing with one corporation in Canada you will have to try to find out the name of the copyright owner in Canada, and what if he happens to be not in Canada but in Switzerland? If, without his authority and consent his music is used, then so long as the law remains as it is and so long as the rights are still preserved for him, he may invoke the law for infringement of his copyright, and one can readily appreciate how difficult it will be to secure the consent under such conditions. It simply means that if this is to be pursued the whole organization will be broken down.


Mr. ESLING:: Probably a good thing.


Lionel Chevrier: Probably a good thing, the hon. gentleman says, but then he is driven to the situation I have just explained, and may heaven help him then, because if he wants to obtain by proper legal means the right to perform music or a play, he will have the obligation put upon him to find out the copyright owner, and probably the author. I know that my hon. friend has too great a sense of justice to want such a situation as that to exist. May it not be that there is some nefarious influence at work for the purpose of wrecking this society and every other such society in order that some people may unduly appropriate to themselves that which does not belong to them and perform it without paying any fee.
We heard yesterday that this was a racket. I am not concerned with the word racket. I

Copyright Amendment Act
am concerned only with the one racket which some people ' are establishing in another attempt further to strip the composer of his rights through the amendment that is being proposed. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the author in Canada is placed in a tremendously difficult situation. He has to enter into competition with such companies as Famous Players Canadian Corporation. Let us see what obstacles there are in his way. Nobody mentions this, nobody presents the counterpart of the difficulties of the author and composer. Let us see who is directly opposed to the author. Let us see who is the one who is trying to take unto-himself without any payment the works of the author. The gross earnings of Famous Players Canadian Corporation in 1935 were SI,788,000, and the current assets of the corporation $2,000,000. We have all these other corporations, which time does not permit me to mention, leagued together in an endeavour to get every possible drop of blood out of the author and composer and pay nothing for it in return. We have all these other concerns on whose behalf Colonel Cooper has been so continuously active to take away by all conceivable means from Canadian authors and composers every bit of revenue they might possibly obtain. Let us see what his activities are in connection with this matter, and I mention this to show what authors and composers have to suffer. On November 16, 1935, shortly after Judge Parker had made his report, Colonel Cooper wrote to a Mr. Hess, one of his New York correspondents, the following letter, which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of March 26, 1936, and in the Ottawa Citizen of March 31, 1936:
The agitation for the royal commission and the investigation under the royal commission have occupied a good deal of our attention for nearly two years and I am glad to have it behind me. We still have to get an order in council through at Ottawa implementing the report. After that will follow some amendments to the Copyright Act in the next session of parliament.
That is what Colonel Cooper says. That is the way in which the rights of Canadian authors are recognized by the general public.
May I again point out, what I stated before, that in one of the reports of the committee it was shown that $90,000 was paid for rentals, $65,000 to the performers, and $2054 for fees for the music. There was $20 odd paid to the authors and $150,000 for rentals and talent. I have here a reply from Mr. Paine, of New York, in answer to a telegram of mine:
If an artist of Rudy Vallee's importance performs an evening of Irving Berlin music, ten songs in the broadcast, which goes oyer a national hook-up of fifty stations, according to figures given me by National Association

of Broadcasters, Irving Berlin would receive fifty cents for each station or twenty-five dollars for his contribution to the success of broadcast, Rudy Yallee would receive three thousand dollars or more for his contribution, and the broadcasting station would receive seventy-five hundred dollars, approximately, for its contribution. This indicated disproportion of receipts by creator of the musical works and inadequacy of his remuneration, for without him in the first instance the program could not have been given.
That is true, Mr. Chairman, all along the line. Without the music in the hotels there would be less food consumed; there would be no dances; there would be no circus without music. And yet the fiddler, the man who plays the music, the dancers and the entertainers and everyone else are paid.


Frederick George Sanderson: I must inform the hon. member he has spoken forty minutes.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not think we should continue on the same lines all the time. Every copyright discussion in this house and in committee has always brought forth an exposition of both sides of the question. But there is one point to which the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Chevrier) alluded in his very striking although not true picture of the situation to which I should like to refer. He mentioned Rudy Vallee performing an evening of Irving Berlin's music. Now, I wish to make a complete distinction between a performer being paid for a personal appearance and a performing right being paid to a composer. When Rudy Vallee appears in person the people want to see him and hear him in person, and they will come no matter what music he sings. Irving Berlin is in a different position. He might get a smaller amount that night than Rudy Valleee got for performing his music and making a personal appearance-I do not know whether the figures are correct-but do not forget that probably at a hundred different places Irving Berlin's music was being played that night, in hotels, at the theatres, in dance halls, everywhere, and I believe very strongly that Irving Berlin made more money that night than Rudy Vallee. As a matter of fact Irving Berlin is a very wealthy man, and if you want my personal opinion of Rudy Vallee, high priced vaudeville artist, and Irving Berlin, the composer of much jazz music, I think both of them are very much overpaid.


Herbert Earl Wilton: Mr. Chairman, having
already spoken on this question it is not my intention to take more than a few minutes in reply to my hon. friend from Ottawa East (Mr. Chevrier). But first I want to compliment the minister (Mr. Rinfret) upon his explanation in reply to the statement that

Copyright Amendment Act
hotels and entertainment places could not be run without the performing right society. I do not think I ever heard such nonsense in my life, and I commend the minister for straightening that out.
Throughout his address the hon. member for Ottawa East has stressed the point that his whole effort is to protect the authors. Well, Mr. Chairman, the performing right society does not aid the authors one iota. I understand that the authors do not benefit from the activities of the performing right society to the extent of one single penny. Canadian authors do not get one penny of the money collected by the performing right society. A 'large number of the authors of musical compositions sell their works outright and have no further financial interest in the matter. A large number of the authors of musical compositions for which this organization collects reside in the United States. The whole thing can be summed up in just a few words: It is a yankee doodle racket which is playing Canadians for suckers.
The hon. member says that this is detrimental to the authors, but I would point out that it is detrimental to the public, and when I say the public, I mean the taxpayers. The activities of this organization have forced the government to spend money on royal commissions, and the government is being forced to spend still more money on the creation of a board to regulate this piratical organization. Much stress has been laid upon the protection of the author, but as a Canadian I am interested in protecting the taxpayer. That should be the object of every hon. member of this house and every loyal Canadian, especially when the authors are not benefiting from this organization to the extent of one single penny.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: 
Frederick Cronyn Betts: Mr. Chairman, last evening I moved an amendment to section 1 of this bill which was ruled out of order. In a moment I intend to move a subamendment to the amendment of the Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott). In reply to the eloquent plea of the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Chevrier) for the rights of the authors and composers, I must say that I would have been more impressed with what he had to say if he had told us how many Canadian authors or composers are members of this association.


Lionel Chevrier: Seven.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In that case they must have come in within the last month or two.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: They were not members at the time of the Parker inquiry. I am speaking on behalf of all the agricultural and industrial exhibitions in Canada, and I should like to point out the results of this licence fee, as disclosed in the evidence taken before the Parker commission. The evidence of Mr. John A. Carroll, superintendent of agricultural societies in the Ontario government, is to be found at page 1306 of the evidence. He pointed out that some 292 fairs were conducted under his supervision in Ontario in 1934. These different fairs were in receipt of legislative and municipal grants. No effort was made to make a profit, but if a profit was made, it was devoted to the improvement of agricultural conditions in the community or returned to the municipality or the province or the dominion government which had made the grant in aid. He went on to enlarge on the excellent work that these fairs were doing, and I do not think I need to elaborate that.
Copyright Amendment Act

I would remind hon. members who come from rural ridings of the helpful activities carried on by these fair associations through the years. There are boys' and girls' clubs and the fair comes along as a sort of day of achievement. The youngsters come to the fair with the animals they have been attending or with whatever exhibits they have to offer. They find out what is going on in other parts of the district and they have a most cheery day. The band plays, which is a good thing. If there is any class of people who get the minimum of relaxation and cultural advantages, it is the people in the farming community.
Mr. Carroll went on to give instances which had come to his notice as superintendent of these societies where those in charge of the fairs were deleting music from the program because of the licence fee being demanded. Many of the smaller fairs are carried on entirely through voluntary efforts. The directors are not paid and much of the actual manual labour is done free of charge. The horticultural societies in the district may scrape together a little money to hold a fair and if they want some music they are forced to pay a fee to this performing right society. This society has a very wide outside field in which to work. There are the hotels, the public dance halls and similar places, and it should leave these educational and instructive country fairs alone.
The hon. member for Ottawa East referred to the contemptible way in which we treat our own nationals, and he spoke of the greed of the exhibitions and fairs, as I remember, and used the word "uncharitable." I should like to remind him of some of the remarks made by Mr. Jamieson, the president of the Canadian Performing Right Society Limited, when in the witness box before the royal commission. He was asked as to the basis of the fees charged and how he conducted his tariff making operations when it turned out that those from whom a fee was demanded were unable to pay it. His answer in effect was that that was something for them to worry about; that was their business-if they could not pay the fee they could do without the musdc. I think the words he used were that the society was in no way concerned with the ability of the music user to pay. That will be found on about page 198 of the evidence. Later he said there were no Canadian authors or composers in the membership of the society because the Canadian authors and composers were too greedy.
I (have to agree with the hon. member for Ottawa East when he says that this legisla-

tion is actually an interference with private rights, but we have heard the principle expounded in this chamber time after time that although private rights must be preserved throughout the country as far as possible, when private rights conflict with public rights, to a certain extent private rights must yield. When that was expounded in the course of the past week or so I think it was put something like this: There' may be, there undoubtedly are, times when private institutions view matters exclusively from the point of view of their own shareholders and investors, and private interest becomes contrary to public interest. At all such times the public interest should be made to prevail. Music, when it is controlled by a monopoly, is in a sense a public commodity, just as transportation is, or bread, or coal, or any other necessity. The hon. member for Ottawa East says that music is not a necessity. But it is pretty close to becoming a necessity, and it is an extraordinary situation, when we spend large sums of money training the young people in our schools in an appreciation of music, if we do as is done in Ontario in connection with these fairs-exempt them from payment of the amusement tax in respect of the admission fee, and then permit this performing right society to crack down on them and deprive a number of the small fairs of the right to have music. Therefore I am going to move an amendment to the amendment, in the following terms:
That the proposed amendment be amended by striking out all the words after the word "only" in the seventh line thereof and substituting the following: "profit accruing to the society, board, corporation, or other authority holding the exhibition or fair is applied in furtherance of the general purposes for which such society, board, corporation or other authority is constituted, or is returned to any dominion, provincial or municipal body which granted money in aid of the said exhibition or fair.
Just to explain the purpose of that amendment, may I state that it would leave subsection 8, which is the subsection defining private profit, as follows-perhaps I should explain that the purpose of the subsection is to exempt from payment of a licence fee any performance without private profit, which the subsection goes on to define:
The performance without private profit of any musical work at any agricultural or agricultural and industrial exhibition or fair which receives a grant from or is held under dominion, provincial or municipal authority, provided that such performance shall be deemed to be given without private profit, if the only profit accruing to the society, board, corporation or other authority holding the exhibition or fair is applied in furtherance of the general purposes for which such society,

Copyright Amendment Act
board, corporation or other authority is constituted, or is returned to any dominion, provincial or municipal body which granted money in aid of the said exhibition or fair
As I said last night I am entirely in sympathy with the purposes of the amendment of the Postmaster General, but I fear that it will not accomplish its object, because it limits its definition of "performance without private profit" to cases in which the only fees which are paid are paid to individual performers or their agents. My submission to the committee is that a bandmaster cannot be properly called an individual performer. His very function militates against that description. He is a conductor. And if you limit the exemption to cases in which the only fees paid are those paid to individual performers, you will have every fair which employs a band and pays a bandmaster subject to a successful action by the performing right society, who have proved themselves among the keenest litigants and defenders of their rights in the courts that we have seen for some time in Canada. Therefore I ask the members of the committee to vote for the subamendment. With all deference I must express my fear that the amendment will be a mere gesture to protect those fairs and societies, whereas the subamendment will be rockbound.
I would remind hon. members of the committee that this question is not clouded by party issues; that they will be going home soon, and when they get back, if they have not protected the local fair from the payment of this licence fee, they need not expect the old brass band to be out to meet them.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I regret I cannot accept the subamendment. I do not jump at that conclusion; it is the same point my hon. friend wanted to make last night. I wish merely to point this out, that in this bill we wanted to give a definition of a fair where there is no private profit, and that is in accordance with the act of 1931 and also with the recommendation of Judge Parker. What my hon. friend now proposes is that even when there is a profit, but the profit accrues to the fair, it should be exempt from copyright. I do not think that would be in the spirit either of the recommendation of the judge or of the act of 1931, but would introduce an altogether different principle. Therefore I would ask the committee not to accept the subamendment but to accept the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment negatived.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall the amendment to section 1 carry?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Before we proceed there are one or two matters I wish to point out. I was awaiting the hon. member for Ottawa East; I did not know he had concluded his address.
In the first place, when musical compositions began to receive copyright there was no question of licensing the performance of musical copyrights. The publishers of music bought the copyright from the author and published the music and distributed it at a price for each sheet of music. That was the return which publishers obtained in compensation to them for their publication and for the prior payments which they had made to the composers of the music. When the Copyright Act as it now exists was first enacted by the British parliament, and then when certain clauses of it were enacted in 1921 by this parliament, the provision with regard to the infringement of copyright and the performance of musical copyright was adopted and remains the same in Canada as it exists in England. I desire to read section 26 of the Copyright Act of Canada, which I think is taken verbatim from the English copyright act:
26. (1) Any person who, without the written consent of the owner of the copyright or of his legal representative, knowingly performs or causes to be performed in public and for private profit the whole or any part, constituting an infringement, of any dramatic or operatic work or musical composition in which copyright subsists in Canada, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars, or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, either to such fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months, or to both.
That is the provision in the statute of 1921 dealing with and providing penalties for infringement of musical copyright. But the exception made in England, which was adopted by statute in Canada, was that the performance in public for private profit only should constitute an infringement of the copyright of a musical work. Therefore there must be private profit in order to constitute an infringement, and since then the question has arisen as to what constitutes private profit in connection with fairs and educational institutions. The minister has introduced an amendment to the existing legislation, which I assume has been framed by the law officers or at least approved by them.
Just a further word. There can be no infringement by a public performance of a copyright musical work unless that performance is for private profit, and this definition of private profit, providing as to when it applies, which is embodied in the proposed amendment, I am prepared to accept because

Copyright Amendment Act
I am not prepared to present any argument against it at the present time. But I should like to remind the hon. member for Ottawa East that he has confused the former Secretary of State with the parliament of Canada. He has repeatedly stated that the copyright act of 1931 was enacted by the former Secretary of State, and I should like to remove from his mind any such misapprehension, because the Secretary of State has no power of enactment. A bill was introduced. It was referred to a committee of this house, where it was studied for weeks, and many witnesses were called. The whole matter was thoroughly investigated; a report was made thereon and the bill was reported with certain amendments by a majority of the committee. I grant that the hon. member for Ottawa East was a dissenting member of that committee, but the bill then passed this house almost unanimously, with the exception of the vote, I think, of the hon. member for Ottawa East. It was then passed on to the senate, who again referred it to a committee. It passed the senate and received the endorsement of His Excellency the Governor General. So it is hardly fair to the former Secretary of State to suggest that an enactment passed in the ordinary course is an enactment by the former Secretary of State.
The hon. gentleman has also stated that this bill is a flagrant violation of the copyright convention and a defiance of public rights. Last evening I quoted from the report of a committee of the House of Commons in England, which I believe to have been unanimous, and that report appears on Hansard. It was referred for the consideration of the Board of Trade in England and that government department obtained the opinions of experts. Only recently the reports of the experts were considered by a special committee of the department, which reported to Right Hon. Walter Runciman, president of the Board of Trade, on November 21, 1935. This committee does not discuss the question whether legislation such as is here proposed is within or without the terms of the Rome convention, but they do insist, whether it is within or without, that at the ensuing meeting of the copyright union at Brussels, which was to take place in September of thi9 year, the position of the British government should be made clear in this way, and I quote from the report:
117. We have taken account of the findings and recommendations of the select committee of the House of Commons on the musical copyright bill-
From which I read last night-
-and we recomend that a proposal be put forward for the addition to article XI of the following two paragraphs:

(4)	Each country of the union may, by its national legislation, provide for the regulation of the exercise of any of the rights covered by this article in respect of musical and dramatico-musical works in any case in which any person, or any body of persons, owns or controls such rights in respect of so great a number of such works that such person or body of persons is able to, and does,
1.	impose unduly onerous charges or conditions for permission to exercise any such rights, or
2.	unreasonably refuse to grant any such permission; but no such legislative regulation shall prevent the payment of an equitable remuneration for any dealing with such works in any of the ways covered by this article,-
That is, the amended article of the convention of Rome that is to be proposed at Brussels.
-such remuneration to be fixed, failing agreement, by the competent authority in the country concerned.
(5)	For the purposes of the preceding paragraph, a musical or dramatico-musical work shall be considered to include the combination of music with any words so closely associated therewith as to form part of the same work.
Then the report proceeds, in paragraph 11S:
We further recommend that, in the event of the non-acceptance at the Brussels conference of the principle underlying the provisions proposed by us, the United Kingdom delegates should be instructed to make a reservation or declaration to the effect that His Majesty's government consider that this country is free to enact such legislation as may be considered necessary in the public interest to prevent or deal with any abuse of the monopoly rights conferred upon copyright owners by United Kingdom law.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the hon. gentleman read paragraph 119 also? It says:
We would add, however, that our recommendation should not be taken to imply that we think that such legislation is called for in this country.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman did not read that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My hon. friend did not give me time.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This committee found
that the rates in England were not excessive, but they wanted this provision in case the rates should become excessive. I may say they are much lower than the fees asked by the Canadian Performing Right Society.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was proceeding to give the quotation in full and the explanation with regard to it. It was due to the fact that the rates have not been raised in England, and the performing right society in England has conformed to public requirements and by amicable arrangements from time to time has dealt with the public interest so that the

Copyright Amendment Act
exorbitant rates demanded in this country have not been demanded there. But in view of the possibility of rates being so raised in England the government of the united kingdom have taken preliminary steps to make it [DOT]clear that if such exorbitant rates are demanded legislative action will be taken there, as this parliament is requested now to do.


Lionel Chevrier: Subject to the approval of Berne.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I beg pardon, no. They say if Brussels does not agree they will make a reservation-


Lionel Chevrier: But we have not done that yet.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is not necessary. They make the clear, clean-cut statement that their delegates shall be instructed to make a reservation or declaration to the effect that His Majesty's government consider that their country is free to enact such legislation as may be considered necessary. The British government desired that there should be no confusion in regard to the matter.
One thing further. I do not intend to descend to the sort of platform argument that my hon. friend suggested is applicable to this case. He made the suggestion that a producer of musical copyright has the same right to ownership of his product and the sale of his product as the farmer who produces potatoes. Granted. We have done nothing in this country to interfere with Canadian authors of music or composers, and not one of them while I was Secretary of State made any such suggestion to that department. Furthermore, there are other societies, foreign societies, which conformed to the requirements of the law. The French society has so conformed and not a complaint has been received from them, and until I left office not a complaint had been received from the public of Canada with regard to their operations in this country.
But let me refer to the case of a grower of potatoes. If I grow potatoes I have a perfect right to keep my potatoes in my cellar and not sell them for a price. But if some company is organized in this country which purchases the entire product of over 2,000,000 producers of potatoes and then fixes a price for the product which is beyond the capacity of consumers to pay-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: -how long do you think the parliament of Canada would allow the operation of such a super-monopoly as that to continue? That is similar to the case we are now dealing with. We are dealing with a
quasi-criminal attempt to exact excessive fees and charges from hotels, from broadcasting companies, and from every cafe or restaurant which uses music. We are not abolishing the right to receive compensation. This bill, which the government has introduced simply places it in the power of and imposes the duty and responsibility upon an independent body now to be created to ascertain in each case whether the price asked is equitable and just or whether it constitutes an undue exaction.
I am glad to know that at last there have been found four or five or six Canadian authors who since this last investigation was made have been induced to join the Canadian society. I assume that the literature which has come to me, some of it most extravagantly abusive, so that I regard it as a breach of the privileges of this house that it should be sent to a member of parliament, emanates from the three or four Canadians who by some means have been induced to become identified with this society. I can only hope that they enjoy the pleasure of sending this anonymous correspondence to members of parliament and to former ministers. I simply say to them that as far as I am concerned it does not affect my temper in the slightest. This Canadian Performing Right Society, which, despite all that is stated by the hon. member for Ottawa East, is the only society at present in Canada that is prejudicially affected, and it has for four or five years been defying the parliament of Canada, by stating that neither the government nor parliament dare regulate its proceedings. They are not acting on behalf of the authors of this country or on behalf of the authors of any other country. They are not mere agents to receive fees for the authors. Ninety per cent of these musical compositions are owned by publishers, and have been so owned since they were first published. It was only when the objection was made that they did not really represent the authors that they undertook as a subterfuge to grant a certain portion of their receipts to the authors of the musical works concerned. This society stated in the evidence which came before the committee of which I was chairman that the rights of these authors and publishers had been transferred to it, and this legislation deals only with a society which has acquired musical works and deals in the acquisition of musical works and in the licensing or granting of licences for the performance of such works in Canada. As the law now stands and as reenacted in this bill it applies to:
10. (1) Each society, association or company which carries on in Canada the business of acquiring copyrights or dramatico-musical or
Copyright Amendment Act

musical works or of performing rights therein, and which deals with or in the issue or grant of licences for the performance in Canada of dramatico-musical or musical works in which copyright subsists, shall, from time to time

Two facts must concur before this statute applies. First, the society must acquire the copyright of the musical works, and then it must proceed to deal with the licensing of such works. I suggest that this company, incorporated under the laws of this country, incorporated here in order to obviate certain obligations which would apply in case it was not incorporated here, has to submit to such legislation as the parliament of Canada enacts within its legislative jurisdiction.
I do not intend to pursue the matter further, no matter what objection may be taken, except to say that in the course of the examination of Mr. Jamieson, the president of the Canadian Performing Right Society, before the committee of which I was chairman, he had proceeded to cite a decision of the English court to the effect that copyright is a privilege or monopoly right conferred by statute, and in regard to that I questioned him as follows:
Q. It is a monopoly or privilege conferred by statute upon an individual owner or author?
A. Right.
Q. But you-your company is a supermonopoly. In your company-thirty thousand men have joined together and vested in your company the right to deal for the whole thirty thousand, so that when, in the ordinary course, a broadcasting company approaches you, you say, "Our terms for the use of the works to the number of two and a half million or three million of these thirty thousand authors are granted to you wholesale, for a certain price which we fix." Now, that is new. That super-monopoly, or combination, which you represent is a combination of two million five hundred thousand little monopolies which are created by statute. We do not want to interfere with the author, we do not want to prejudice the author; but we do desire to arrive at some mode, or method, by which we can regulate this super-monopoly of performing rights, which, by virtue of an international combination, is not found in any other trade?
A. We appreciate, sir, all that you have said; but let me make one point: We must associate in order to protect.
I wish to add to that observation the fact that even under the international convention of Berne, revised at Rome and now about to be again revised at Brussels, the author who is a national of one country has only the rights which are specifically granted by the convention, and the rights which are accorded him by the domestic legislation of any other country which is a member of the union. There is not one line in the Rome convention which authorizes either a combination of authors or the fixing of prices by such a com-

bination or, in fact, the fixing of prices by an individual author in violation of domestic legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1 as amended agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 27, to amend the War Veterans' Allowance Act.
He said: The amendments will be found at page 525 of votes and proceedings for Friday, June 19. They are not contentious.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 21, to amend the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, 1933.
He said: These amendments are of only minor importance. There are eight of them. The first is a technical correction; the second is a substitution of words; the third, fourth, fifth and sixth make it perfectly clear that no officer or director of the company can obtain more than one salary from the railway, which agrees with the views of the government, and the seventh and eighth provide that the appointment of auditors shall be by resolution of the senate
Richard Bedford Bennett: Joint resolution.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, joint resolution of the
Senate and the House of Commons, instead of by resolution of the House of Commons, as previously.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of a message from the Senate insisting upon its amendment to Bill No. 97 to amend the Combines Investigation Act,-Mr. Mackenzie King.

Combines Investigation Act
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the amendments made by the senate to the bill to amend the Combines Investigation Act are set forth at page 528 of the votes and proceedings of this house for yesterday. The purpose of the clause which has been deleted by the senate is merely to place the investigating commission, under the Combines Investigation Act, in the same position in respect to documents produced during an, investigation as that of a royal commission investigating under the Inquiries Act. So far as I know no one has suggested that a person who is required by a royal commission to produce documents is being subjected to proceedings which are contrary to the traditions of British law. Yet the purpose of such royal commission may be, and frequently is, to seek out wrong doing of a type punishable by fine and imprisonment.
Until amendments of last year prevented the effective use of this power equal to that exercised under the Inquiries Act, the Combines Investigation Act contained no provision limiting the use of documents produced in an inquiry at any subsequent trial. To-day documents obtained under the Inquiries Act can be used in a subsequent trial of the person who produced them, but under the Combines Act they cannot be so used.
Section 4 of the Inquiries Act reads as follows:
The commissioners shall have the power of summoning before them any witnesses, and of requiring them to give evidence on oath, or on solemn affirmation if they are persons entitled to affirm in civil matters, and orally or in writing, and to produce such documents and things as the commissioners deem requisite to the full investigation of the matters intt>
which they are appointed to examine.
Under section 11 of the Inquiries Act the commissioners may be authorized to appoint and depute any qualified person to exercise these same powers and otherwise conduct any portion of the inquiry.
There appears to be no good reason why investigations under the Combines Act should be hindered and the act itself rendered practically valueless by this obstacle in its provisions which was placed in the act last year, an obstacle which does not impede investigations under such statute as the Inquiries Act.
In the Natural Products Marketing Act, passed in 1934, Part II gave to the minister, his authorized representatives, and to committees appointed to investigate matters of excessive price spreads, all the powers of a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act. Under the marketing act persons receiving or attempting to receive excessive spreads in natural products to the detriment of the public are guilty of an indictable offence.
Yet the marketing act does not provide that a document required, to foe produced in an inquiry shall not be admissible in any subsequent trial of the person who so produced it. Neither do the security frauds prevention acts which are in force in various provinces of the dominion. The Ontario Security Frauds Prevention Act of 1930, section 10, contains provisions on this point as follows with regard to investigations by the attorney general or his authorized representatives "to ascertain whether any fraudulent act, or any offence against this act or the regulations has been, is being, or is about to be committed." I quote:
No person shall be entitled to claim any privilege in respect of any document, record or thing asked for, given or produced on the ground that he might be incriminated or exposed to a penalty or to civil litigation thereby, and no evidence given shall be privileged except under the Evidence Act or the Canada Evidence Act.
Nova Scotia, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia have passed acts for the prevention of security frauds, which contain identical or similar provisions. Various other acts which inolude provisions authorizing investigations, such as the Ontario Milk Control Act of 1934 and the Quebec Electricity Commission Act of 1935, provide that witnesses may be required to produce documents, but do not limit the use of such documents in any trial.
Under the Tariff Board Act of 1931, the governor in council was authorized, by section 4, subsection 4, to empower the tariff board to hold any inquiry authorized by the Combines Investigation Act and in so doing to exercise all the powers vested in the registrar or commissioners appointed under the combines act. These powers included that of requiring production of documents which could nevertheless be later used at the trial of the person producing them, the same power which remained in the act until it was removed last year.
One reason for this unlimited requirement for the production of documents under these various accounts, including the combines act as it was, is that the person giving evidence and producing documents is doing so in an investigation and not in a court. He is not accused of a crime and is not on trial. If as a result of such investigations any person is later charged with an indictable offence, he is not obliged to give evidence at his trial, and no statement he made in an inquiry under the combines act is admissible against him. His proof of a document produced in an inquiry cannot be used as proof
Combines Investigation Act

of the document in the trial; it would have to be proven by someone other than the accused.
It has been suggested in another place that the commission can issue a search warrant and compel production, that it has all the power that the crown has in any court of law. That is incorrect; the combines act does not give such wide powers to the investigating commission.
Section 24 of the combines act as it was prior to the 1935 amendment did not take away from a defendant in a criminal proceeding any right which he would otherwise have had. What it did do was to guarantee to the member of an alleged combine that any oral evidence which he might be required to give during an investigation could not be. used against him in any subsequent prosecution. It gave to him the same protection as the Canada Evidence Act makes available to a witness in a trial. Under section 5 of the Canada Evidence Act a witness at one trial! may be compelled to answer a question, but the same section provides that his answer cannot be used against him in that or any other criminal trial except for perjury. The exemption is clearly restricted, however, to answers to questions, in other words to oral evidence. In no section of the Canada Evidence Act is it provided that the documents which a witness is required to produce are inadmissible against him in any subsequent proceeding.
In speaking on the amendment to this act a few days ago I read to the house a communication which I had received from Mr. Sedgewiek, chief commissioner of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission, setting forth the need for the amendment to the act. Mr. Sedgewiek has since read the debate which has taken place on this measure in the other house and has given me his opinion with respect to some of the impressions he gathered from it.
He entirely disagrees with the argument that a person charged with a criminal offence is entitled to protection from documents which he has previously been called upon to produce. He points out, as the court pointed out in a British Columbia fruit combine case, that such a provision would keep from the court documentary evidence which, but for the act, would be admissible.
Mr. Sedgewiek says it has been alleged that if a corporation were involved the secretary or manager of the company could be required to produce the documentary evidence and then, while it would be inadmissible against these individuals, it could be used against the company.

Mr. Sedgewiek says that in his opinion it would be inadmissible against the company, too, if the act remains as it is.
The opinion of the law officers is the same as that of Mr. Sedgwick. I have been given the following opinion by the Justice department with respect to the amendment which is at the moment before us for consideration:
With respect it is suggested that there is a misapprehension on the part of the members of the senate as to the effect and purpose of the amendment to section 24. As the section now stands if a person investigated is required to produce the agreement which is objected to as offending against the act, section 24 renders this agreement thereafter inadmissible in a prosecution of such person. Surely such a document should be admissible against him if properly proved, i.e., by oral evidence other than his own.
The purpose of the amendment is not to render admissible documents otherwise inadmissible, but to provide that admissible documents are not inadmissible.
If the section stands, the best thing that could happen to a person guilty of combining in restraint of trade is to be required on investigation to produce the documents proving the offence. Thereafter he will be immune from conviction by means of the agreement.
I should like to add that if the amendment made ,by the senate is not withdrawn and the clause retained in the bill as introduced in this house, it will be necessary for the government with respect to certain inquiries which it was hoped it might be possible to conduct under the Combines Investigation Act, to proceed by royal commission under the Inquiries Act, and until the clause deleted by the senate is restored, a number of royal commissions may have to issue to conduct the investigations which it was intended should be made as provided for by investigation under the combines act. I therefore move, Mr. Speaker:
That a message he sent to the senate to acquaint their honours that this house disagrees with their amendment to Bill No. 97, an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act, for the following reason:
Because the amendment of their honours would have the effect of exempting documents which are ordered to be produced during an investigation from use in any subsequent criminal proceedings against the person producing them, thereby rendering impossible effective enforcement of the Combines Investigation Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it will be recalled that last year I asked the house, under protest, to accept the amendment made by the senate. It was in the closing days of the session and I disagreed with the view taken by the senate, but in order to close parliament the general sense of an amendment similar to this from the senate was adopted. I disagree with the action taken

National Parks-Mr. Bennett
by the senate now, and I think a conference is highly desirable. I have thought a good deal about the matter and the only explanation I can give-and I say it with deference -is that there is a confusion in terms, and that they have used the word "admissible" in a wrong sense. Suppose I am engaged in an investigation .and during its progress so many documents are produced. The mere production of these documents does not render them admissible when they are tendered in evidence before judge and jury in the trial of a criminal action. I fear that the senate concluded that we were trying to make documents admissible without the reservation of the right to object before a criminal court to the admissibility and the proof of the documents.
I think the language we have used to clear up the difficulty might be that the documents shall not be rendered inadmissible upon proper proof in	any trial	of a criminal action.	Isay that	only for	those who	may have	todeal with the matter. I feel quite certain that there is a confusion between "proof" and "admissibility." To prove a document means that you must establish its authenticity to the court that has to deal with its admissibility. The admissibility depends not only upon its	proof but upon its	relevance.	Itdoes not	follow in	a criminal	case that you
can ask the court to accept as admissible every document you produce merely because it was before an investigation, but it is equally true that it should not be precluded from being admitted because it was produced before a commission. The admissibility depends upon proper proof being given before the criminal court. In view of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said, I cannot help thinking there is some slight confusion between the questions of admissibility and proof. What the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) tried to do and what the commons has now done is to say that documents produced on an investigation shall not, by reason of being so produced, be admissible in a criminal case; that is all, and I think if that is made clear there should not be any difficulty in another place in providing appropriate words to make it clear. Upon its being properly established that documents constitute real evidence, they shall be admissible when offered in court.
For instance, to produce a copy of a letter might be quite satisfactory before an investigation, but it would not be competent to use it in a criminal trial unless proof were given as to the loss of the original or other matters of that kind. Documents that are frequently
used on investigations are, in cases where the liberty of the subject is at stake, not admissible because there has not been adequate proof of their authenticity or as to the competence of the documents as real evidence in the inquiry. I support the view taken by the government in this matter. I think I mentioned the matter to the Prime Minister last year. I walked across the floor of the house and spoke to the right hon. gentleman about it. It was close to the end of the session and we accepted the amendment rather than delay matters. However I see no reason why between now and Monday there should not be sufficient time to consider the matter in its legal implications. I feel quite confident that upon investigation and discussion it will be found that the mere fact that a document was produced and used in an investigation has never prevented its being accepted as evidence in a criminal case, provided appropriate proof was given.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: We are very glad to support the motion of the Prime Minister. I am heartily in favour of the amendment and if by any chance a conference will facilitate the passage of this measure at this session, I think a conference should be held.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines) moved the second reading of Bill No. 102, respecting the establishment of a national park in each of the provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to impede the progress of this bill into committee, but I should like to make one or two observations. I see no reason why similar treatment should not be granted to New Brunswick as is being granted to Prince Edward Island. No area is set out for a park in the case of Prince Edward Island, and no area need be set out with respect to New Brunswick. In our time I was urged very strongly to deal with the matter and they were prepared to go on, but I felt that the financial situation was such as not to warrant the expenditure involved in the creation of new parks. It is not the acquisition of the park that has to be considered as it does not cost the dominion anything, but the minute a park is acquired

National Parks-Mr. Bennett

there begins an annual expenditure on a very substantial scale. It was because of this fact that we did not care to embark upon the project. But I have always felt that there should be similar power with respect to New Brunswick as there is in the case of Prince Edward Island. The government is not committed to any particular area, but it is committed to the general principle of the park. Perhaps I may be pardoned for making these observations as I was bom in New Brunswick, but I have a strong feeling that if a park is to be created in Prince Edward Island, with its limited area and small population but with its valuable attractions from the tourist standpoint, similar treatment should be accorded to the neighbouring province through which the tourist must proceed, generally speaking, to reach Prince Edward Island.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3

Addition of lands to the park.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it not possible to treat New Brunswick in the same way as Prince Edward Island is being treated? We are not committing ourselves to a park in Prince Edward Island; we are not defining the area and we have not established the park, so why could not similar treatment be granted to New Brunswick?


Mr. CRERAR:: The only reason I have
to offer, and perhaps not a very good one, is the fact that the expenditure for a park in Prince Edward Island will not be extensive, in the very nature of things.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was going to ask the
estimated expenditures in both areas for 1936-37.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is proposed to spend
$40,000 in Prince Edward Island and $100,000 in Nova Scotia. My right hon. friend will recall that one or two years ago an investigation was held in connection with the sites in both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I am not sure of the time, but at any rate it was when my right hon. friend was Prime Minister. There is a difference of opinion in New Brunswick as to the site. I intimated to the committee when the estimates for these particular parks were being considered, that it is the intention of the department to have a resurvey of the sites in New Brunswick this year. In Prince Edward Island the choice has been narrowed down to three or four sites, but in the very nature of things the park

in that province will not be as extensive as the park in Nova Scotia, or as it will be in New Brunswick. I hope to be able to come to parliament at the next session and make a definite recommendation as to a site in New Brunswick, and ask parliament for a vote to initiate the creation of a park in that province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is certainly a fair
statement. The minister has said that the selection in Prince Edward Island has been narrowed down to three or four sites, but in New Brunswick it has been narrowed down to only two. Therefore there is a choice between one of four in Prince Edward Island and between one of two in New Brunswick. As long as the assurance given by the minister is merely a delay, I think this will satisfy, as perhaps nothing else would, the people who are affected, because it is probable they will not get further in Prince Edward Island than the selection of a site if the Minister of Finance has anything to say about the matter. In any event I think the site chosen in Nova Scotia is so admirable as to warrant an expression of hearty good will on the part of anyone who knows that beautiful section of the country. It involves an area of a little less than a quarter of a million acres, perhaps 229,000 or 230,000 acres, and the scenery is so striking, the surroundings are so beautiful, and an historic site so near to it, that I cannot but think it will be a place of great interest to everyone who desires to journey into that part of Canada.


Mr. NEILL:: This section requires the province to furnish Canada "with clear title to the said lands." I understand from that, everything above or below the surface. Would the minister make a pronouncement whether the dominion government in the past has ever set a precedent, or is inclined to do so in future, of accepting title from a province containing a reservation as regards oil or water or minerals?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am not able to make a statement on the point my hon. friend has raised, but if my memory serves me aright, I think the underground rights go with the surface rights of the park. Perhaps the right hon. leader of the opposition knows that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Without endeavouring to lecture, I may mention that in the west, as will be recalled, the crown in right of the dominion owns the whole rights, and therefore the mines and minerals around about Banff and all the country north still belong to the crown in right of the dominion. But there are some parts of this country that are still held as park areas in which, I believe,

Unemployment-Reliej Expenditures
the crown in right of the province still controls the mineral rights. Perhaps the minister recalls one or two places connected with the western parks where he has had to deal with that situation. I think the patents which are outstanding in Nova Scotia do no more than_ reserve to the crown in right of the province all gold and silver and other precious metals. There is no reservation of water, but there is, 1 believe, a reservation of gold and silver and other precious metals. I think the point raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is one that is well worth drawing attention to, and once attention has been directed to it one may assume that the law officers of the department will take such action as is necessary, because it is inconceivable that a park would be established under the aegis of the dominion and staked out for mines and minerals in the right of a province.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. UNEMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 17, consideration in committee of Bill No. 100, to amend the Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act, 1936-Mr. Rogers-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Agreements with provinces.
Mr. STIRLING:: When this bill was before the committee previously, the minister did not have an opportunity of explaining in general terms just what it means. I have read the wording several times but I am not at all clear what it means. The amount payable by the province in question during the months of February and March appears to be a datum to which the dominion government is going to refer its subsequent payments under agreements with the provinces, but for what period of time?


Mr. ROGERS:: The clause as drafted is
designed to accomplish two objects: First, to permit the dominion to loan to the provinces such parts of payments made by the provinces for direct relief or relief undertakings during the months of February and March for which accounts have not been rendered to the dominion before the expiry of the relief act of last year.


Grote Stirling: It has nothing to do with subsequent months?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Nothing whatever. The
second object of the clause is to permit the dominion government to loan to the provinces their share of direct relief payments or their share of payments for undertakings carried on cooperatively with the dominion government. Under the clause as originally drafted and before the amendment which was introduced a few days ago, provision was not made for a loan by the dominion in excess of the amount which might be paid by the dominion to the province under any agreement with that province. The amendment is designed to meet a quite unique situation which exists in Manitoba, arising out of the continuation of an agreement made by the late administration with that province touching the construction of a sewer and sewage disposal project in the city of Winnipeg. Under the terms of that agreement the dominion is obligated to loan to the province its share, which is twenty per cent of the total cost of the undertaking, and to the city its share, forty per cent of the total cost of the undertaking, the remaining forty per cent of the cost of the undertaking having been assumed by the dominion government.


Grote Stirling: The minister was going to give certain information with regard to the numbers of men who were sent to the railway camps. Will he make it ample in the sense that he will give us the information with regard to those who had the opportunity to go, how many of them went and how many refused, and how many are now in those camps?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I had intended to make
that statement. I quite recall, as the hon. member has just stated, that when this bill was before the commiUee at an earlier stage I gave an undertaking that I would deal at this time with the movement from relief camps to the deferred maintenance work on the railways for which provision was made under the special supplementary estimates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister will pardon me if I suggest that he deal with Saskatoon and Prince Albert at the same time, the movement in Dundum camp and matters arising out of that, since it is part of the same subject.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps a general statement might be couched in very brief terms. On February 26 it was announced on behalf of the government that arrangements would be made to place 10,000 men from relief camps on deferred mainten-
3996	COMMONS
Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
anee work on railways; that the wage allowance to men remaining in relief camps would be increased from $5 a month to $15 a month effective March 1, and finally that it was the intention of the government to close the relief camps on July 1. I am .now able to state that the movement of men from the relief camps to the railways has been carried out according to plan. There has been a steady reduction of the camp population, which now stands at less than 1,500 including supervisory personnel, and finally that the relief camps will be closed, as proposed, on July 1.
I am quite sure my hon. friend would desire me to amplify that statement, and I think I might do so in the first instance by indicating the transfer of men from relief camps to maintenance work on railways by provinces. Prior to June 15 there had been 8,689 men placed in the railway extra gangs, recruited from the relief camps, and the following are the figures according to provinces:
Nova Scotia	 252
New Brunswick	 642
Quebec	 1,679
Ontario	 2,938
Manitoba	 636
Saskatchewan	 912
Alberta	 954
British Columbia	 676
That makes a total, as I said, of just less than 8,700 men.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did they all come from the camps?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes; all these men have come from the camps and have gone to the special maintenance work on railways. I should add that from March 1 forward there has been a steady reduction in the camp population, to some extent in excess* I should say, of the normal reduction of the camp population which in other years has taken place during these months. But in addition to the men who have been placed on the railways, through the cooperation of the department of colonization and the employment service some 650 men from the camps were also placed at farm labour.
As to the remainder, we have reason to believe that a very considerable number left the camps to return to employment, and also that a considerable number left the camps to go to their own homes. I think it may be stated quite definitely that quite a large number of those who were in the relief camps went to such camps from homes where it was difficult to meet expenditures and where the camps offered, as it were, a shelter during the winter months. During the spring, quite naturally, for some years past there has been a very considerable movement from the

camps back to the agricultural communities from which, as I suggest* some of these men come. In addition, undoubtedly there have been some hundreds-I am not prepared to give the exact figure-who have left the camps because they did not desire to accept employment upon the railways.
I should like to mention at this point that on the announcement of this policy employment on railway work was offered to every man in the relief camps. I think it is reasonable to believe that some hundreds, at any rate, left the camps because they did not desire to accept this work which was offered upon the railways, nor did they desire to continue to work in the camps, because when the allowance was increased from $5 to $15 per month instructions went out that if men refused to work they were to be summarily dismissed. In the nature of things the removal of some hundreds of men from camps to the larger urban centres of the western provinces has led to a concentration of transients at certain points. Possibly that is the question my right hon. friend has in mind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; I had in mind the
press notices with respect to the situation in Saskatoon and Prince Albert.


Norman McLeod Rogers: We have sought to meet-that situation in at least some degree by offering to these transients, through employment services, an opportunity to go on this deferred maintenance work on the railways. The camps have supplied, as I have indicated, some 8,700 men for the railways, leaving some 1,300 men to be supplied. The situation in some of these western centres has been relieved to some extent at least through the additional employment that was offered in the manner I have indicated.


Mr. COLD WELL:: I was very glad to hear the Minister of Labour discuss this problem, but I may say that in the dying hours of this session I am troubled over this whole situation with regard to unemployment, particularly as it affects the single men of the country. I have discussed the matter with the Minister of Labour himself, and I do not propose to refer to specific cases that we have taken up. I am quite satisfied, as far as the minister personally is concerned, that within the limits of the authority given him he is endeavouring to do what is possible to meet this situation. Therefore what I am about to say is not any personal criticism of the minister.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that we are facing a very grave problem in the larger centres, particularly in certain areas of Canada. The right hon. leader of the opposition asked some

Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
questions concerning Saskatoon and Prince Albert. I rememlber that last week end, in four cities of Saskatchewan, there were something like 1,000 single men, transients, being provided for. I also noticed that during the week a resolution was passed in Saskatoon by a conference convened very largely by disinterested people, shall I say, such as United Church ministers, deploring the situation there and pointing out that the men. concentrating in these cities were increasing in number day by day. I believe the same thing will happen in other cities of Canada in the near future.
We have to remember, also, that work may have been offered to a majority, perhaps all, of these men. In my opinion one of the tragedies of this continuous unemployment, particularly among young men, is that it completely undermines them physically and mentally, and, if continued long enough, will create a permanent problem in this country. I feel that this parliament and the government, together, have not taken adequate measures to meet the present situation. This afternoon my mind goes back to the occurrences in Regina last year. I well remember meeting that group of young men who came to Regina, I believe almost exactly a year ago to-day, in an endeavour to concentrate public opinion upon the difficulties which they faced. Now I know it has been said, and it may be said again, that that was the result of the work of a few men agitating among them. But that was not my observation. You cannot agitate unless there is suitable soil in which the agitation may grow. For my part, meeting many of these young men as I did, I found them to be largely average Canadian boys who were not out to cause difficulty but were there in_ order to direct public attention to the conditions under which they suffered. What I am afraid of is that the concentration in various cities throughout the dominion, of young men from the unemployment relief camps, will lead to similar trouble in other parts of Canada. I submit to the minister and to the government that the requests which these young men are making for work and wages and the opportunity to live are natural requests, requests which deserve well of the government and of the Canadian people. To-day we have not only thousands of young men transient throughout the country, but in the homes of Canadian people many thousands of other young men who are unable to get employment, and a similar number of young women in much the same condition, although we hear very little about them. I would draw the attention of the committee and the government to this situation.
It is true that work for 10,000 has been provided on the railways. There is considerable criticism of conditions in some of the construction camps that have been established. I have no first hand personal knowledge of those conditions. I believe that they will be carefully investigated. But I know this, that after young men have been in relief camps, for several years under the conditions existing in those camps, they have become unused to heavy work such as they now have to undertake, and working as they claim they are for ten hours a day under summer conditions, that of itself is liable to cause grave dissatisfaction and unrest. I do not know what the government propose to do at the end of the four months of work during which these agreements will run. As we come closer to the winter season I am convinced that this condition will become more and more aggravated. We may say that conditions in Canada are improving, though there is not a great deal of evidence to support that statement. Moreover, even if this year we have a comparatively good crop on the western plains, it will not absorb more than a fraction of this class of labour. That, of course, is largely due to the mechanization of western farms, the use of the combine and other labour-saving devices. Consequently I must impress upon the government that it is useless to look forward to the garnering of a good crop in western Canada as a solution of the unemployment problem there. That being the case, in my opinion it is even less likely that improved crop conditions there will assist materially in eastern Canada. In support of that may I say that if a good crop is garnered in western Canada and marketed at an adequate price, it means that pressure will be brought to bear upon the farmers, by their creditors, so that their purchasing power for eastern goods will not be so much greater than it was during the last year or two.
Consequently I view this whole matter of unemployment, both of married men, for whom some quite inadequate provision is being made, and of these thousands of young men throughout the country, with great apprehension. I think the committee generally knows that I have been engaged in dealing with young people during the major portion of my life. One thing that has saddened me in the last few years is observing young men whom I knew as boys, with ability, initiative, ambition, unemployed for long periods of time and sinking down into deep hopelessness. I fear for the future of our country unless more comprehensive steps are taken than we are taking at the present time to solve this problem. In Saskatoon these transient single
3998	COMMONS
Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
men are being allowed, I believe, fifty cents a day for bed and board. That, of course, is totally inadequate and tends to breed grave dissatisfaction, which may result in serious difficulties. As one of those who witnessed the coming of those young men to Regina a year ago, who knew that the intentions of the great mass of them when they came to that city were peaceful, that they desired only to compel public attention to their condition, I view this situation with the very gravest alarm.
Then I go a step further and say that I sometimes fear that the government and the departments which are handling these particular difficulties are not acting wisely or properly. From my own personal experience I believe that among the men who came to Regina were officers of the law who may not always have acted in the interests of law and order. I was hoping that an opportunity might be given to discuss that phase of this matter on the estimates of the Department of Justice. But from my personal knowledge and experience in connection with one of these police officers who gave evidence in connection with these young men, I know perfectly well that for a long time he was secretary of a communistic organization and propagated communism, although at that time he was in reality an officer of the mounted police. I say that not only on my responsibility as a member of parliament, but on his own sworn evidence, a copy of which I possess, given at an investigation about a year ago. So I say to the Minister of Labour that I hope that every effort will be made by this government not only to provide work at adequate wages for these men but to see to it that nothing is done which will create again a situation in any of our Canadian cities similar to that which has arisen from time to time and which was particularly acute in Regina just a year ago.


Mr. BAKER:: If I understood correctly the hon. member who has just spoken, he said that there were hundreds of men on relief coming from these camps and flocking to the cities. Also I understood the Minister of Labour to say that employment had been offered to all these men. The net result seems to be that unfortunately we have hundreds and perhaps thousands of young men who are refusing to work. That is quite a different question and needs a different method to deal with it. We have hundreds and hundreds who are refusing work; they would rather flock to the cities and live on fifty cents a day.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is one side of the question. As I said before, we must face it. There were some in the camps who were not prepared to accept work when it was offered1.


Richard Langton Baker: There were a great many of them, according to the minister's statement.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I said that I would not hazard a statement as to the actual number; obviously it would be impossible to give such a figure. The point I made was that on March 1 the announcement was made that those who remained upon the project would receive not $5 but $15 per month. The understanding at the same time was that if they refused to work satisfactorily, that is to the satisfaction of the supervisors in the camps, they would be dismissed.
Then came the opportunity to offer railway work. Less than 9,000 of the men in the camps have been moved to that work, but, all who remained in the camps at the time the railway work was provided had an opportunity of accepting it. So I believe we are justified in saying that my estimate would be conservative, rather than extreme, when I say that some hundreds of men in the camps were unwilling to accept the work that was offered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I suggested some hundreds. Obviously I am not in a position to give the exact number.


Mr. HEAPS:: Nine thousand accepted it?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, 9,000 accepted it, and I want to say with respect to those 9,000 that we have received from the railway companies assurances that they are giving the utmost satisfaction. There has been no difficulty at all, and the railway companies have found them most suitable in every way.


Mr. YOUNG:: Mr. Chairman, I desire to say a few words about the situation in Saskatoon. I have had communications from the mayor and city council, and other public bodies interested. In that city we have what appears to be a concentration of single, transient unemployed men in greater numbers than at any other point in the same province. The last advice I have is that we have approximately 450 single unemployed transients at that point. Until recently there was a camp at Dundurn where a number of men were located. My advice is that a large number of men at Saskatoon did not come from the Dundurn camp, but came from various other points in Canada. I am advised further that about twenty per day are arriving. I placed the communication I received before the Minister of Labour and other ministers of the government. May I thank the Minister of Labour for getting into communication immediately with the provincial government in order so far as possible to alleviate the situation. But I want to suggest to the gov-

Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
eminent that those particular men should not be the responsibility of that community. They do not belong there, and have never lived there.
We have a difficult problem to handle our own unemployed in the city, and I would ask the government to take special notice of the conditions I have described and to see if it is at all possible to give the men useful employment, or in any event to make sure that the problem does not become one for the city of Saskatoon.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Was any examination
made as to the physical capacity of the men who refused to do the work of railway construction? It is a particularly strenuous kind of physical labour, and from having had some experience with it I know that not every man one might pick up on the street could be engaged for that work and be expected to give satisfaction.


Norman McLeod Rogers: At least there must be the presumption that every one who entered the relief camps was physically fit, because there was a strict medical examination upon admission. As a matter of fact complaints have been made that the medical examination was altogether too strict. I am not prepared to say at this time whether or not those who are doing railway work had to undergo a special physical examination, but I believe the fact that the men when they entered the camps had been accepted as medically fit would argue against a further examination, except in the event of a man being reported ill and requiring hospital attention.


Angus MacInnis: Being physically fit and
in a condition to pass an examination, and being in a physical condition satisfactory for construction work, are two different things. For example, the Minister of Labour, myself, the leader of the opposition or the Minister of Justice might pass a physical examination, but I doubt whether we could last a week on railway maintenance work. I am very doubtful whether it would be safe to run trains on railway tracks we might lay.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The hon. member has suggested that all the work was of a heavy nature, involving the movement of rails, and the like. From my knowledge of the work that particular operation forms only a small part of it. A great deal of it has to do with the clearing of right of ways, and is not of the particularly difficult character suggested by the hon. member.


Angus MacInnis: I was talking to two men who had been working on the railways
and who, incidentally, had left the work. They maintained, although I see that the agreement calls for an eight hour day, that they were working ten hours per day laying rails. They said that they were putting in new rails at points where old ones 'had been removed. They told me that when the rails were deposited by the crews those rails were thrown off the cars and down an embankment. The result was that the men had to carry those rails weighing one hundred pounds to the foot-


An hon. MEMBER:: Per yard.


Angus MacInnis: How many yards are in a rail?


Richard Langton Baker: One man would not lift a rail.


Angus MacInnis: Quite so; it would require more than one man to lift a rail. However, that was the kind of work these men were doing for ten hours a day, although the agreement calls for an eight hour day.


Norman McLeod Rogers: A basic eight hour day.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, a basic eight hour day, and a twenty-six day month. Would the minister tell us the remuneration the men receive per day, and the deductions for meals and other necessities in the camps?


Norman McLeod Rogers: First of all, may I speak concerning the hours of labour. The hon. member has suggested that the men worked ten hours per day when the agreement called for an eight hour day. I am quite sure he has examined the agreement and is familiar with its provisions. He will correct me if I am wrong when I state that in the past a ten hour day has been the accepted rule for extra gang work on the railways in Canada. This is the first occasion there has been a recognition of the basic eight hour day. This is seasonal work, and no doubt the men will be interrupted because of a change in weather conditions. It is provided in the agreement that they may work in excess of eight hours per day provided that the total number of hours in the month shall not exceed 208 on an average for six months.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I noticed that provision in the agreement.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Having regard to the
nature of the work and the period of the year in which it is to be done that appeared to be a reasonable arrangement. The hon. member has asked me about the wages being paid. In the course of the negotiations the government insisted that the men who worked
4000	COMMONS
Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
should receive not less than the current wage for this type of work. That wage, as the hon. member is no doubt aware, is twenty-five cents per hour.
He has also asked as to deductions. That is not covered by the agreement. The railway companies in the past have themselves made arrangements according to practice for the feeding of men doing this class of work. I understand the arrangements existing at the present time are in no wise ^different from those in force in other years with regard to_ catering.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is the charge per month for feeding?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Again I speak subject to correction, but I believe it has been customary to charge SI per day for the catering; that is to say, it would come to about $6 per week. That has been the practice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That includes shelter and food?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: When we go home we shall be asked immediately and frequently for the terms of the deal between the government and the railway. Much of this debate could have been avoided if we had had that information in front of us; I think the minister should furnish each of us with a copy.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have arranged to have copies of the agreement mimeographed. I have at least fifty copies available and I shall be glad to have a copy sent to every member who desires one. The agreements themselves were tabled some time ago and were before the house for the information of members.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Before this clause carries, Mr. Chairman, I realize, along with others who have spoken before me, the importance of the question of our youth in the camps and the effect of the camps on them, but I think the question of the relief camps and of those employed in them is only a very small part of our general unemployment and relief situation. At this time when we are on the eve of prorogation I think we ought to have, ii we possibly can, some definite statement of policy from the Minister of Labour on behalf of the government. At the beginning of the session when parliament had just met it might have been a little difficult for the minister to give that desired information to the house. But the present government were elected to a very large extent because of the economic conditions which prevailed in this country last year and in

the years, preceding, and the people who elected t|em hoped that when they met parliament they would present to the house definite and constructive proposals to deal with the problem of unemployment in this country. Not only have we not had those proposals presented to us but so far all that the government and the Minister of Labour have suggested to us, I believe, has been the employment commission which was recently appointed. That legislation took up a great deal of the time of the house, although in my opinion it was hardly necessary to have legislation to appoint the commission. But I think the people of Canada want something more than a commission to deal with this problem of unemployment. The commission with its limited powers can do very little to cope with the unemployment situation.
A few days ago the Minister of Labour indicated by the figures which he gave to the house that there was very little diminution in unemployment this year as compared with last. In presenting his various statements to the house the minister spoke of the haphazard and disconnected efforts of previous governments to deal with the whole problems of unemployment and relief, and yet this year it was impossible for us to find out from the minister exactly what the government are doing to cope with the unemployment situation existing in Canada to-day. A glance at the estimates will not give members the information they desire, and when the minister was asked to give the exact amount of money that is being spent on unemployment in the present fiscal year he was not able to do so, nor could he give a breakdown of the figures submitted in the estimates.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The figures are in the estimates. I do not need to do the calculations for my hon. friend.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If I asked the minister to say how much we are spending this year as compared with last, could he give those figures?


Norman McLeod Rogers: A comparison of the amount expended?


Abraham Albert Heaps: The total.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend from
Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) asked me when this bill was before the committee what was the amount expended this year and last, and I think he will agree with me that I gave that information to the house a few days ago.
Mr. BARBER; That is right.

Unemployment-Relief Expenditures


Norman McLeod Rogers: If there ia any other information that my hon. friend desires I shall be only too glad to give it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am sorry if I misrepresented the situation. I remember asking the same question myself, and we could not get a break-down of those figures because there was an unexpended portion left over from the amount voted in the previous year.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is right here in the recapitulation of the special supplementary estimates: Department of Labour, projects already undertaken, $7,720,115; other projects, $11,825,000. That is to be spent in conjunction with the provinces on a fifty per cent basis, so if my hon. friend desires to know precisely how much is going to be spent for joint relief projects he has simply to double each of those amounts.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is assuming the provincial governments go into the scheme.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That assumption may be taken for granted. There has been no question whatsoever as to the intention of the provincial governments.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is only part of the general statement which I wish to make. Assuming that all that is correct, and that an equivalent amount is going to be spent this year with last, that hardly begins to deal with the general problem of unemployment. The minister asked me a direct question a few weeks ago, whether I thought relief works in themselves were a remedy for unemployment. I answered just as directly, no, they were not a remedy for the unemployment problem.
I think as a nation we are about the most backward in the whole world when dealing with unemployment. I do not know any other civilized country that has not a definite scheme of some kind and that is not trying to do something in a general way for the unemployment situation, but in this dominion for the past six years we have apparently been proceeding on the basis that unemployment is a temporary problem. Unemployment is not a temporary problem, and while we may talk of conditions to-day as being abnormal, I am inclined to think what we call these abnormal conditions are likely to be normal for many years to come. If that is the case-and it is being accepted; I believe it is accepted to-day by all students of the problem of unemployment-I think the government ought to have some proposal to submit to parliament for coping with this problem in a completely different way from what has been followed in past years. We may hope for a good crop, but even a good crop will not solve the situation. I know the Minister of Labour is a keen student of economic problems and I believe he realizes as well as we do here that what he is doing now is merely toying with a very grave problem. Some of us who come from industrial centres will be back in our own constituencies within the next few days. We shall be going back to the men and women who are unemployed, to the men and women who are only partly employed, to the men and women whose jobs hang by slender threads, and what are we going to tell them as to what has been accomplished during the present session on their behalf? What has been accomplished in a definite sense? It is true that we have in a way taken control of the Bank of Canada; it is true that we have passed appropriations for relief and for the creation of public works; it is true that we have passed other pieces of legislation-


James Shaver Woodsworth: And appointed a commission.


Abraham Albert Heaps: As the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) says, we have appointed a commission to deal with the problems of employment and unemployment, but beyond that, what has been done? Year after year the unemployed have been living in the expectation that something would be done for them. We find that we must go back and tell them they are in just the same position as they were in previous years.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) referred to the demoralizing effect of unemployment upon the youth and even upon the older generation. I know there is nothing more demoralizing for a young man who has completed his school education than to tramp the streets of our industrial areas year after year and find no chance or hope of being absorbed into a useful vocation. It is quite true that camps have been closed, but although that was laudable, it does not solve the problem of thousands of other young men. The young men previously in the camps are now helping to construct railways, but when August or September arrives they will be no longer required. What is to become of them? May I point out to the Minister of Labour that we shall be faced with more or less the same problem as we were faced with a year ago.
I should like to see this government take hold of this problem in a definite manner and deal with it in a fundamental way. It cannot be dealt with piecemeal as has been done during the past few years. I should like to take back some ray of hope to the thousands of men who are either partly employed or
4002	COMMONS
Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
totally unemployed. I should like to be able to tell them that this government has proposed to deal with unemployment in a fundamental way, in a way which holds out some ray of hope for the future. I am sorry I cannot take that message back with me. All that has been done this session is very little different from what was done in previous years although it may have been done in a different way. It is true that instead of a blank cheque the government is being granted a definite amount, but I do not know that the man or woman who is out of work cares very much whether the government has been given a blank cheque or a cheque with a stated amount. All he or she is interested in is work at reasonable wages. Whether or not a cheque is blank is not the important question; the important question is how many people can this government by its policies absorb into useful employment in the Dominion of Canada? As far as the figures would indicate, so far only 8,700-the men previously in the camps-have been absorbed into some form of useful and productive activity in constructing railways, but what about the tens of thousands, yes, even the hundreds of thousands who are unemployed in our cities with no hope of any useful work in the immediate future? That is a problem we must face and we are going to leave this parliament in the next few days without having solved this very serious and grave problem.


Richard Langton Baker: I should like to ask the hon. member how he would deal with the problem of young men who come to the cities and refuse to accept work?


Abraham Albert Heaps: There were 8,700 young men who were willing to go into construction work and who had probably never done that type of work before. Apparently they are giving complete satisfaction, and I shall not allow any hon. member to judge all the unemployed by the misdemeanours of a mere handful.


Richard Langton Baker: I asked how you would
deal with the young men who refuse to work.
Mr. Speaker having resumed the chair:



MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SECRETARY


Walter Edward Foster: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following message:
Ottawa, June 20, 1936.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that His Excellency the Governor General will not

proceed to the Senate chamber to-day for the purpose of proroguing the present session of parliament.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General. At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 100, to amend the Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act, 1936-* Mr. Rogers-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Frederick George Sanderson: Shall clause 1 as
amended carry?


Grote Stirling: The minister told the committee that 8,700 men had gone from the relief camps to the railway camps. Could he tell the committee how many of them have remained in the railway camps?


Norman McLeod Rogers: According to the latest
information available there has been a turnover to date of only six and a half per cent of the total number who went from the relief camps to work on the railways. I am advised that this compares very favourably with the turn-over of those engaged in normal industrial employment.


Grote Stirling: Ninety-three and a half
per cent remain in the camps?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is my information.


Grote Stirling: With regard to the 1,500 who are yet in the relief camps right across Canada, that number, I take it, is composed of those who, though physically fit, were not considered capable of taking on this work, and besides that, the supervisory staff. I do not remember the numbers of those men, but what will happen to those two classes of people on July 1? With regard to the second class, the supervisory staff, I should like the minister to remember the faithful and excellent work these people have done at a time of considerable difficulty when they helped us out.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The hon. member for Yale has asked as to the disposition of the men who will remain in the camps on July 1.

Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
Those who, presumably, will be demobilized on July 1, will have received the $15 a month wage allowance from March 1 to July 1. My hon. friend will recall that there was a special provision under which a portion of that wage allowance would be deferred, so we are justified in saying that those who will leave the camps on July 1 will have this deferred allowance of $4 a week for at least seven weeks. They will also be given special rates upon the railways to the points from which they came.


Grote Stirling: And the supervisory staff?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There was also an increase in the allowances paid to the supervisory staff of the lower wage brackets. They have been offered work upon the railways if they desire to accept it. I doubt whether a very large proportion of them will accept work upon the railroads. I join with my hon. friend in the tribute he has paid to the excellent work they have done in a very difficult situation within the past two or three years.


Grote Stirling: Supervisory work on the railways, or labour?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Provision was made for
some of these men to receive supervisory positions upon the railroads, but obviously there was a limited opportunity whereas the supervisory staff of the camps was quite large.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: I want to make a few remarks with reference to this situation, but before doing so, I desire to know from the minister whether any deduction is made from the pay of these men in the railway camps for blankets and that sort of thing, other than board.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The figure that I gave
before six o'clock covered-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Everything?


Norman McLeod Rogers: -provision for blankets and shelter as well as food, and I am informed that the figure I gave at that time was correct and that the deduction made is $6 per week.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to follow up this question of inability to get these young men to accept positions in the railway camps. It may be difficult for us here, far removed from the actual situation, to realize something of the problems that have confronted these young men, many of whom have not worked for several years, while some have not worked at all.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend will recall, perhaps, that they were supposed to be working in the relief camps.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am sure the minister knows perfectly well that it was not very hard physical work, hard manual work.


Grote Stirling: Oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Be that as it may, let us look at the inducement that is being offered. The minister will correct me if I am wrong. Twenty cents an hour-


Norman McLeod Rogers: No, twenty-five cents an hour. In fact the wage paid is the wage which has always been paid for that type of work on railway maintenance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Twenty-five cents an (hour on the basis of an eight-hour day, twenty-six days a month, amounts to $52 a month. Deduct $24 or $25 for board, and the average young man would have to spend from $8 to $10 a month to keep himself supplied with clothing. I do not suppose that covers clothing, does it?


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend will permit me. Provision was made for the clothing of the men while they were in the relief camps, and I am certain that instructions were issued that, when the men left the camps for the railway work, they should take with them this clothing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Quite so, but any person knows how quickly shoes and gloves and overalls, in particular, wear out when men are doing the type of manual labour that these men are doing, and I do not suppose the railway or the government is supplying them with clothes during the summer. If they are, I want to know it; if they are not, this means that out of $52, of which $24 or $25 a month goes for board, they must buy clothing. It seems to me that that leaves them about $15 a month, which means that at the end of four months they have the magnificent sum of $60. I wonder what is going to happen after that. It is not much of an inducement to these young men to go out and do the type of work that is entailed in the railway camps, that at the end of the summer, if they are fortunate, they will have about $60, not including the nominal fee they may be charged for moving them from one place to the other. True, the minister says that is what has been paid for that type of work, but I think he will recall that it is what has been paid to, very largely, oriental labour in different parts of the country. It is what we call Chinese pay. I submit that this is no

Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
inducement to young men., and while I am not excusing them for not taking up that type of work, I maintain that we have to put forth something much more concrete if we are to get definite results in so far as putting these young .people to work is concerned.
I was very much struck the other day with a statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) that in most of these cases it would be far -better to spend some of the money in dealing with the underlying causes rather than to try to mop up the results of our mistakes. I think that is particularly true of the problem we are facing to-day. In a case of this kind an ounce of prevention is worth a pound- of cure. There are groups of transients gathering in different parts of western Canada. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) told me just before the six o'clock recess that he noticed that a group of, I believe he said, a thousand unemployed were coming by truck from York, outside Toronto. They cannot all be malcontents; they cannot all be agitators. All over Canada groups of people, young men particularly, are looking to this parliament. The railway camps, which may absorb 10,000 of these men, cannot begin to meet the situation, and we are going to be confronted by a very real problem before this summer is out. What I have to say is said in no spirit of rabid criticism, for there is no man in this house who more demands our sympathy and admiration than does the Minister of Labour. He has a tremendous problem, and I can think of no better way to meet it than appears in one of the sensible statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer)-one of the most sensible he ever made-in a message to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) on May 1, 1035.
He said:
Communist organizers and agitators taking advantage of justifiable dissatisfaction on part ot citizens in every state of society and particularly objectionable features of relief camp system.	e
Then I shall leave out a paragraph that deals with details which are not important, and continue:
confident that if federal government would cooperate with provincial and municipal go\ erninents situation could be remedied and riots with their inevitable consequences would be avoided. In name of humanity I appeal to you to come to assistance of provincial and civic governments in this province so that our people 'who want to work may be permitted to earn wages. I
I would direct attention to the words "justifiable dissatisfaction.M I saw these young men who were mentioned this afternoon, when they went to the city of Regina. It 
has been said that there were agitators among them and I have no doubt that is true. The point we fail to see, however, is that agitators do not stir up trouble. It is economic dissatisfaction and insecurity that provide the material which enables agitators to make trouble. When the average Anglo-Saxon is working; when he has a job and a home and normal social ties, he is not good seed for revolutionary propaganda. The commissioners themselves said that these young men in the main were not of a vicious type. I met many of them. Some had gone partly through college; some had graduated from high school and some were university graduates. Never mind the leadership; the fact is that these young men were longing for some type of expression and we-re not finding it. A great mass meeting was held in Regina, and on the platform sat representatives of every church and of different social organizations. I shall never forget the words of the representative of the Roman Catholic church, who said, "You men, you have taken the only means left open to you to uncover the ulcer that lies at the heart of modern society." The commissioners who discussed this matter stated that in the main the citizens of Regina were sympathetic towards these young men because they came to know them and to understand their problems. It is significant that with the exception of the day of the riot there was no vandalism and no property destroyed. The very men who supported these young fellows and tried to help them were elected as mayor and city councillors in Regina the following fall.
I say this because I think it is very easy for us here in parliament, far removed from some of the realities of life, to throw the whole matter aside by saying that the young men were agitators. They were not agitators.
I do not say that there were no agitators among them; I know better than that, but the great majority were not agitators, and we have to deal with the situation in a much more realistic manner.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Evans, for instance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not discussing Mr. Evans. I am wondering why Mr. Evans ever was able to get the hold he did.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Or Shaw.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Or Shaw, or anyone else. The fact remains that if these conditions had not existed these men would not have had the power they possessed. So my argument holds good, that the solution lies in giving these young -men opportunities to live that will make ineffective the declamations and

Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
harangues of the professional agitators. That is my position. But unfortunately we do. not do that; unfortunately we refuse to realize the urgency and the dangerous nature of the situation until it is upon us. Then a catastrophe occurs for which no one wishes to accept the blame. I was in the city of Regina and I never in my life saw brutality to. equal that which occurred in Regina on July 1 last. I am not going into the details of that incident, since it does not bear directly on this subject.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did the hon. gentleman
give evidence before the commission?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No; I was never asked
to give evidence.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Lake Centre):: What
good purpose is served by talking about riots and agitators at this time, during this debate?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A very good purpose, I
think. It is people who ask questions like that who help create conditions that lead to occurrences such as we had last year. If we continue to do nothing-and I mean not the government only but all of us-it will not be a trek of two hundred people, or ten thousand people or one hundred thousand people, marching on Ottawa. We shall have this thing growing all about us. We may resist it this year or the year following, but there can be only one result and that is bloodshed such as we have had in the past, only more so. This can mean only hard feelings, distrust and further material1 for the type of men who started the trouble last time. I am not speaking in this way to ask that such people should be absolved from blame; I am suggesting that we take such action as will make their action impossible in the future.


John Frederick Johnston: Seven
thousand of these men have been put to work at fair wages, and my hon. friend is criticizing that action.
Mr. MaeINNIS:	Is twenty-five cents an
hour a fair wage ?


John Frederick Johnston: Under present conditions it is not bad.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. gentleman has a marvellous sense of proportion; he says that 7,000 men have been put to work, and at the present time we have on relief nearly a million and a half people.


John Frederick Johnston: We are talking about the men in the relief camps.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am talking about the whole situation, and the men in that trek were not necessarily men from relief camps; other men joined them, and other organizations are
springing up. The men from York county who are planning to come to Ottawa, according to my hon. friend from Davenport, are not men from relief camps. I am not asking that we criticize what has been done in the past; I am asking that we do something for the future.


Mr. GRANT:: What would the hon. member do?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the hon. gentleman will just wait, he will see. We have placed our program before this house time and again.


An hon. MEMBER:: So did Aberhart.
Mr. DOUGLAS': I am not worried about Mr. Aberhart.


James J. Donnelly: You would not say you were not a social crediter when you were running in the election, would you?


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am endeavouring to discuss an issue that is economic, that bears upon the welfare, happiness and livelihood of nearly a million and a half people throughout Canada. Unfortunately some hon. gentlemen opposite cannot forget partisan politics long enough to discuss anything. They sit in this house and sneer and laugh. Then, when something takes place such as occurred in Regina last year we appoint a commission; we try to whitewash the thing, and attempt to forget about it. We say, "We all regret it, 'but we will let bygones be bygones." I say that is not sufficient; I say the time has come to go into this matter very thoroughly. I do not rise to criticize; I rise to ask the Minister of Labour-


Thomas Vincent Grant: Who was responsible for the trouble in Regina last year?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am rising to ask the Minister of Labour-


Thomas Vincent Grant: They say you were the fellow.


Frederick George Sanderson: I must appeal to all members in all quarters of the house not to interrupt.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the hon. gentleman has any legitimate question he cares to ask, or if he wishes to debate the issue rather than hurl these remarks across the floor, I shall be glad to discuss the question with him. What I am saying to the minister is that a repetition of what took place last year is not at all improbable. In the light of that we ought to be prepared to approach this matter sympathetically. We ought to be prepared to see the men's point of view. I doubt whether many hon. members know much about the actual conditions under which these men are living.

Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
We ought to know. There was the report of the Macdonald commission on the camps, which I believe have been cleaned up since, but no one believed that those conditions actually existed until the commission revealed them. We do not know what the conditions are in these camps.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If the hon. member will permit me. Is he speaking now of the relief camps?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, of the railway construction camps. Has the minister some information on the question?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have the information that the men who have gone from the relief camps to maintenance work on the railways are living under precisely the same conditions as the men who did this work before. We have received very few complaints from the men, and not a few letters expressing satisfaction with the conditions under which they are working.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wonder whether the
government is carrying on any inspection as to conditions?


Norman McLeod Rogers: If any complaint is received we see that an investigation is made immediately.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: By whom is the investigation made?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Through the representative of the Department of Labour especially charged with this work, in cooperation with the railway.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not want to delay the committee, but undoubtedly during this coming summer the Minister of Labour will be confronted by many of the situations that arose last year.


Malcolm McLean: How does the hon. member know?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have already cited a number of reasons: The fact that men are gathering in different parts of the country; the fact that there is talk of some coming down from East York. Undoubtedly if unemployment continues as now there are going to be mass demonstrations. I am asking the Minister of Labour to approach this question sympathetically. I am asking that we attempt to spend money in trying to clean up the situation rather than to whitewash it after it has occurred. I suggest that what occurred in Regina last year is an excellent demonstration of how not to settle a labour dispute.


Mr. QUELCH:: I have had a good deal of practical experience in railway construction work and also in farm labour, and I say without any hesitation that it is absolute nonsense to expect that men who have been trained as clerks in a city or who are physically too weak are able to go out and do eight or ten or twelve hours' work a day on railway maintenance or farm. The minister stated, I believe, that some men had refused to go out. Were those men physically fit to do that work? I have been in some of those camps and I know that many of the men would not be able to stand up under such work. That was recognized in the camps and they were given work which was suitable. If they are not fit for railway work or farm labour, what is the alternative? Is it suggested that they are either to do that work or to be turned adrift? Are they to be treated as convicts and sentenced to hard labour? Are they to be condemned to what is nothing more or less than physical torture or to be told that they will be deprived of the means of living? I should like to know what other alternative will be given these men.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As I have said before, the men in the camps were given an alternative. As from March 1 the wage allowance for work in the relief camps was increased from $5 to $15 a month, and as far as the projects could be usefully continued an opportunity was given to the men to continue in that work. Subsequently, when the railways were able to take on men for this extra gang work, all the men in all the camps were given an opportunity to accept that work if they so desired. There was no compulsion whatsoever.


Victor Quelch: The rest were allowed to
stay in the camps?


Norman McLeod Rogers: They were allowed to stay in the camps as far as the projects could be usefully continued. The Department of Labour also made every effort to secure alternative employment through cooperation with the employment service of Canada and the colonization branch of the Department of Immigration. As I have already mentioned, some 700 men found employment on farms in western Canada as a result of this effort. We have information also that a considerable number in the camps went- to employment which they found for themselves.
I also suggest that at no time did I state that any large number of men in the camps had refused work. I was very careful to put the number in hundreds rather than in thousands. I know the danger of any general indictment. I was equally careful to point

Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
out that the railway companies had expressed the utmost satisfaction with the quality of the work done by the men who did go to this work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are being asked by
this measure to grant to the governor in council authority to deal with two specific matters, one of which is for an ascertained amount and the other for an undetermined sum. We are also asked to reenact the provision that permits the governor in council to make arrangements with corporations and companies. I suggested the other day that I thought it desirable that as we are to advance money by way of loan to the provinces for the sums they had expended, some supervision should be exercised with respect to those expenditures, and I indicated that at least at one time an officer was sent by the Minister of Finance to supervise in order to ensure: (a) that moneys being advanced by the dominion were actually being expended for drought relief; (b) that the dominion advances were being expended in such a way that individuals and municipalities in need of relief by reason of crop failure due to drought were being treated equitably with each other, having regard to crop record and other circumstances determining the degree of need; (c) that the moneys advanced for relief in the drought areas were being expended on a scale proportionate to and in line with relief payments made in other provinces and in other areas.
Under those instructions it will be recalled that certain investigations were made and that in one case payments were claimed amounting to $5,134 and the investigators were able to locate only $3,078. It was also found that payments made in adjoining municipalities were not on the same basis. It will perhaps be recalled that the representatives of certain municipalities explained that they did not regard it as their duty to take any action, if the population felt it desirable to receive relief, regardless of what their crop conditions were. And what was true in those particular localities was true, perhaps to a lesser extent, in other parts of Canada. The result was that the Minister of Finance satisfied himself that it was desirable to exercise the utmost care and supervision where moneys were being advanced by the dominion by way of loan to take care of the portion expended by the province, for in the result it merely means that we are furnishing the whole of the money, as the minister said the other day. The only difference is that in one case we have treasury bills, that may or may not be paid, for that
portion of the expenditure which nominally is to be made by the province. This bill now before the committee, amending a statute already passed this session, which has been given the number 15, it being an unusual proceeding in itself that there should be an amendment of a statute during the same session of parliament, is brought about by the circumstances to which the minister refers. One can understand that difficulty, but it does not explain why it is thought desirable to provide a blank cheque with respect to the other matters, even though it would be on a qualitative rather than a quantitative basis, as the hon. gentleman said the other day, or perhaps it was the reverse.
I mentioned, too, that relief in Saskatchewan was being carried on by men in whom the public had not great confidence. I mentioned to the minister that the alleged commissioner of urban relief was a disbarred solicitor and that there were two other disbarred members of the bar engaged in relief work in that particular province. For some strange reason the commissioner of census for one of the constituencies in Manitoba was also a disbarred lawyer. Just why the preference should run to these men I never have been quite able to understand. I need not mention names, although I have them beside me. I have always refrained from mentioning names, so far as possible, unless it had to be done in court proceedings, when I have been speaking about a man who has been disbarred. But it is difficult to have relief administered in any area by those who have deprived deserving persons of their means, and who have found themselves in difficult positions by reason of the embezzlement of funds.
I suggest to the minister the desirability in the public interest, where the dominion is finding all the money, half of it by way of its own expenditures and half by way of loan, that there should be in cases of that kind in any province a general supervision which will satisfy the minister that the moneys have been properly expended. It will be recalled that an order in council was passed directing the auditor general to take such steps as might be thought necessary, and in one province, an eastern one, payments have not yet all been made because the proper vouchers have not yet been forthcoming. That, too, is a circumstance which strengthens the suggestion I make to the minister.
I desire also to point out that the criticism urged some years ago against the efforts made to provide work through the railways in shops and other facilities owned by railway companies is rather out of step, shall I say, with the action now taken. I quite agree
4008	COMMONS
Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
that it is desirable to take these men from the camps and give them work on the railway-rights of way as maintenance men. But in looking at the agreement I find that it is nothing but a gift to the railway companies who become the agents of the crown to make expenditures, and are paid for making them. I was amazed when I read the first paragraph of the agreement to find that a substantial sum of money is being given the railway companies for the organization, and I use that word for lack of a better one. The sum they are to accept is stated in the agreement. If the minister will look at the agreement I believe he will find in the opening paragraph what I mention. I looked at it upon an earlier occasion when the agreement was laid on the table of the house.
From the terms of the agreement I suppose part of it could properly be regarded as a loan and part of it as not. The position taken by the government is the position taken by the former administration, the only difference being that in one instance the work was given in shops which were paying much greater pay per diem, and the men were from urban communities rather than from the camps.
I indicated to the house, as I do to the committee, that I think it was a mistake in policy to increase the monthly pay to $15 when the men were being given notice that on July 1, their employment-or, shall I say, their engagement-in the camps was to terminate. Of course the result was to create a situation of some difficulty, but inasmuch as it was a difficulty for the government perhaps it should be left at that. Fifteen dollars per month for food, clothing and shelter was regarded as a very satisfactory arrangement by some, obviously not by all, and not by the younger men who desired to have employment. But there is the fact. The protest made by the hon. member for Weyburn is hardly correct, because working twenty-six days at S2 a day they would receive $52, and board at one dollar per day for thirty-one days leaves $21. So that at the end of four months they would have a substantially larger sum than that which has been suggested.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I subtracted for clothing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member states that he made an allowance for clothing, but, is the minister very properly pointed out, particularly after notice was given, those men were pretty well supplied with clothing, as we know from the indents which were made upon the stores of the country.

Those of us who have followed this matter from its beginning will remember that the camps originally came into being to meet a pressing problem in connection with single unemployed men, and it was never intended that the camps would become a permanent institution. When the government took the step of ordering that they be shut down by July 1, what amazed me was the number of bitter cries and criticisms which have gone out from certain men, and the earnest entreaties that they be allowed to remain in the camps. Those who have foregathered in Saskatoon are now saying, "Why is Dundurn to be closed on the first of July?" This illustrates some of the difficulties that any government must experience in dealing with a problem of this kind.
The situation as disclosed by the press- and the minister will have more information than I have-indicates that communications had been sent to the minister from Prince Albert and Saskatoon. In the Third Avenue church of one of the cities a meeting was addressed by a minister of the gospel and a social service worker. The attitude taken seemed to indicate that they did not quite appreciate the general policy of the government in dealing with the problem. I suggest that possibly through no fault of the minister, but through the fault of those who have charge of the matter, his intentions have not become thoroughly known to those who are directly affected, because some of the statements made could not possibly have been made had the authorities been aware of what the minister said this afternoon. I feel that possibly there has been a lack of understanding on the part of those affected as to just what the intentions of the minister and government are. It is quite clear that they seemed to think no opportunity was being offered for work, whereas the minister has made it clear this afternoon that there was an opportunity for work on maintenance of way operations, and that that opportunity was still open to at least 1,300 persons. That being so, it appears that it would be desirable-and I offer this in no sense of captious criticism-to make it clear in Saskatoon and Prince Albert that work is available. Press dispatches disclose that the situation in Prince Albert is a little different from that in Saskatoon.
Leaving that aside for the moment, I could not but reflect upon the fact that a year ago, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, complaints were made of the policy being followed. There has been no

Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
departure from that policy. There is only one change in the policy of a . year ago and that of to-day, and that is that the so-called relief camps are to be closed on July 1. That means that for the present there is no shelter afforded in the camps for the unemployed but it does not mean that some camps, may not be required later to take care of a situation which may become pressing. So far as the general movement out of camps is concerned, it is quite clear 'that last spring there was a movement out of the camps which was not as large as the present movement, but during the summer, in the height of the season, the numbers in the camps did fall. I visited two of those camps and I am bound to say that what the minister said this afternoon is quite true, namely, that there were men in them who had come from farms, had remained during the winter and then, not being able to find employment on farms to their satisfaction, were remaining on. The action taken by the government in that regard is, I think, to be commended. That is, the camps, for the moment at any rate, are no longer to be kept open for the purpose of providing opportunities for food, clothing and shelter without work, and I trust very sincerely that the agreements which have been made and which contemplate the employment of the men in the camps upon railway maintenance work may be successful. On the other hand, it is equally true that the criticisms which were urged against the former administration for endeavouring to secure employment for men on the railways, in shops and among skilled mechanics, can no longer be directed in view of the steps, and, I believe, proper steps, taken by the government to meet the situation at the moment.
I mentioned the other day a difficulty which had been experienced in Belleville in connection with the employment of these men, and the Minister of Railways was to look into the matter. I stated that my information was that the men had been required to produce cards. I find that that is not the statement which is now made. It is that two employees of the Canadian National Railways who are supporters of the government pass upon the fitness of each individual to receive employment on the railway. It was not a question of receiving cards in an organization but rather that they should be acceptable to these two gentlemen, who are employees of the railway. I believe an investigation by a royal commission will substantiate that fact beyond a question of doubt. I think such a situation is very much to be deprecated, if it exists. I have no doubt that the minister will be told it does not exist. As soon as anyone is dis-12739-255	'
covered carrying on actions of that kind, at that moment they deny any such thing and abandon the operation. But even at the risk of losing their jobs I believe there are some who are prepared to indicate, if a proper investigation is held under oath by a properly constituted commission, that such conditions have existed,


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have asked for an investigation. I had received a snap report and I sent it back to the management with the demand that the matter be investigated by officials whose probity could not be questioned. I had hoped to have the report by now, but it could not be. I sincerely hope to have it by Monday for my right hon. friend's information. I may say that if such a thing has happened there, it will never happen again.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am satisfied that neither the Minister of Railways nor the Minister of Labour was cognizant of the facts, because I do not think either of them would become a party to such a thing. But it created a good deal of feeling in some quarters. I naturally felt that there must be. some mistake, but the information was so accurate with respect to that phase which I have now presented that I do not think there is any question about it. I am of the opinion, as the minister says, that the practice has stopped for very good reasons, among others the inquiry w-hich was made.
I could not but be reminded, as I was saying, of the barrage of criticism and attack that came from this side of the house a year ago. I wonder if those present in this chamber at that time recall the nature of the attacks which were made from time to time and from hour to hour. To-night, a new government, through an enterprising and patriotic Minister of Labour, is desirous of giving effect to policies that for the life of me I cannot see differ in any respect from those of his predecessors, except in so far as closing the camps on the first of July is concerned. Railways? Yes. Advances of money to enable them to carry on? Yes, the same as before. Farm placements? Yes, the same as before. Increased payments, it is true, are being made to the men in the camps, with, I think, doubtful results.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My right hon. friend would not expect me to agree with that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not for a moment, because undoubtedly the minister took the action he did after careful consideration, believing it a useful thing to do. Then you have your agreements with the provinces, your

4010	COMMONS
Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
contributions to the provinces, your loans to the provinces, your public works-the same old story in the same old way, all these things just as they were before, without a single change, not different by the crossing of a "t" or the dotting of an "i" so far as bringing them into legislation is concerned. And now we have the last, the blank cheque, on a small scale. It was on a larger scale. Quantitative and qualitative distinctions had not then been made; the disarmament conference had not then been held, but as it is now, with the restrictions upon the armaments that protect the federal treasury removed, we find the government still clings to the desire without limitation to make "agreements with corporations, partnerships, or individuals engaged in industry respecting the expansion of industrial employment." That, of course, is very desirable; it sounds well, and I hope it will have something more than mere sound to it as the months go by. That is all I have to say with respect to that, except to point out how differently men view matters when they occupy different positions in a legislative assembly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend forgets that he did not allow the present government to get into office until away on in October, and at that time it was wholly impossible to make many changes that might otherwise have been made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am delighted to have the Prime Minister make that observation because, whatever may have been his intentions, it is quite clear, like the language which he used with respect to the Bank of Canada Act, that when his intentions became crystallized into legislation we could certainly understand what he meant, and this legislation provides for loans, 1-o-a-n-s, spelled the same old way, provides for public works, spelled in the same old way, for advances, spelled in the same old way, provides for agreements, spelled in the same old way, provides for employment by the railway, spelled in the same old way. It is not a matter of time with these things ; they are all now matters of legislation'. They have been reduced and crystallized into statutes. However skilful one may be in disguising one's thoughts with words, when they find expression in a statute it is not so difficult to understand them, and the legislation we have here, as my hon. friend from Winnipeg North said, is exactly similar to what we had before, not the slightest difference except with respect to the amount of the blank cheque.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Previously it vas all done under peace, order and good

government or the blank cheque, except that in his last year or two of office my right hon. friend yielded to the pressure of the opposition and enacted certain legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. Orders in council speak for themselves. There was special provision for loans to provinces, just as there is to-day. There was special provision for public works, without limitation as to the amounts. To-day the public works are stated in the appropriation bill that has been passed, *passed twice, for that matter, part of it passed two years ago and part of it this year. I congratulate the minister upon having the courage to act as if change was not necessarily progress; when he adopts and continues the methods in vogue by his predecessors, he must realize after all that they were the best methods available under the circumstances that existed, and he finds himself unable to make any changes except as to the method in which he carries out some of these matters.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is a very important factor.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes, very important to the man who is looking for a job. He is vitally interested in knowing whether there is a limitation by parliament on the amount that may be expended.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So is the taxpayer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is going to pay anyway. As one hon. member said this afternoon, he has to pay. The Minister of Public Works said that there was no reduction in the amount available for the purpose of looking after unemployment relief. Perish the thought that there should be. We are taking a generous attitude towards this matter and providing for it just as did our predecessors. He tells the committee that there is no reduction in the amount to be expended. But, forsooth, the taxpayer receives no protection. It does not make any difference in actual fact whether the amount of $20,000,000 is arrived at by one method or another, the taxpayer has to pay. It does not make any difference to him if he has to pay it in one way or in another way. The difference between quantitative and qualitative payments is so refreshing. It is such a delightful thing for the unfortunate taxpayer to be told that he should not complain, that this is a qualitative tax measure, whereas the one he had before was a quantitative tax measure, or vice versa. How delightful it is to think that, after all, we can look into the past and perhaps we can learn something, even though it comes from Thomas Carlyle, but for the present we shall shut our eyes to the facts and look into the future.

Unemployment-Relief Expenditures


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, in discussing this question we do not seem to be able to get away from the blank cheque. I have always had the idea that the blank cheque was not adopted in order that the government might raid t'he treasury; I believe it was adopted in order that expenditures might be kept as low as possible. I can see how that situation would come about. After the former government was elected a special session of parliament was held and $20,000,000 was voted for unemployment relief. This money was distributed to the various municipalities and provinces on the understanding that the municipalities and provinces would appropriate an equal amount. The result was that some of the municipalities, thinking they were getting something for nothing, very nearly went bankrupt in order to meet the amounts being paid by the government. The astute Prime Minister of that time decided that another method should be adopted; that he would ask for a blank cheque. That meant he could pay as much as he wished, or could issue as little as he wanted. He did issue as little as he could get away with. I do not think there need be much time wasted on that phase of the matter.
I have been interested in the agreements entered into with the railway companies. These agreements were not tabled until a few days ago. As has been pointed out by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), each railway company is given $1,502,450. As far as I can see, this is a clear gift to the railway companies, on the understanding that they will employ a certain number of men.


Norman McLeod Rogers: And that sum will be paid
in wages to those men.


Angus MacInnis: Quite so. Furthermore, the government is to loan each of the railway companies two amounts, one not to exceed $554,700 and another amount of practically the same size. These amounts are to be used for organization work and materials. I noticed in the estimates the other day that there is an item of $55,000 to pay the sales tax on the materials the railway companies are going to use for this purpose.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In the absence of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Howe) I hesitate to correct my hon. friend, but my impression is that that item for sales tax relates to the transaction of last year when certain equipment orders were placed with certain railway and locomotive companies in this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that is right.


Angus MacInnis: If the Minister of Labour is satisfied I shall make no further mention 12739-255J
of it. What will happen is that each railway company will receive $1,502,450, which they will pay out in wages to the men who are to do the maintenance work. If these men work eight hours a day-I shall come to the matter of hours a little later-it. will mean $2 per day. For every day a man works, and, I assume, as well for the days he does not work, he pays approximately $1 to the company for his keep. Each railway company is getting a free gift of $1,502,450 worth of labour from the people of Canada, while the men who perform the labour will receive very little.
I do not know, nor, do I suppose, does any one else, how long the men will be working. Any estimate as to the time they will put in before the end of the season would be merely a guess but I think five months would be a good average. At the rate of twenty-five cents per hour, working eight hours per day and six days per week, the total wages for the five months would amount to $260. A man's meals would cost about $125, at $6 per week. I am told that there is a blanket rental of fifty cents per week, which would amount to approximately $11 for the five months. That would total $136, which would leave the man $124 after working five months.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I hope my hon. friend will allow me to correct his statements as he goes along, as I know he does not want to make misstatements. I am sure that the blanket rate is included in the $6, which is a deduction for shelter and food.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is also a small deduction for medical services.


Angus MacInnis: The statement was made to me that this $6 was for meals, and that there was a blanket rental of fifty cents.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In addition to the $6?


Angus MacInnis: My information is that it is in addition.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think my hon. friend
is misinformed.


Angus MacInnis: I thought the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was in his seat. He was present when I got that information. At the end of the five months, provided a man does not spend anything on tobacco, provided he does not spend anything on clothes, provided he does not spend anything on magazines and books, provided he does not spend anything on amusement, provided he does not spend anything on any
4012	COMMONS
Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
of those things the average individual requires, he will have a total of $124 provided he has worked every working day during that time.
The minister said that the agreements called for a basic eight hour day. That is correct, but the wording is such that a ten hour day can be worked most of the time. Let me read that part of the agreement referring to the working day. It says:
The basic working day for men so furnished shall be eight hours, but inasmuch as this is seasonal work, subject to intervals of discontinuance, and exceptional owing to pressure of work for the time being, the hours of work may exceed eight hours in any one day, or forty-eight hours in any one week, in which ease the men so furnished shall be paid overtime pro rata for the additional time worked beyond eight hours; provided that the number of hours during which any man is actually engaged in work on his regular assignment during any six consecutive months shall not exceed 208 hours per month as an average.
The possibilities are that the men will not be working six months, and when you take into account that month which they have not worked at all, and calculate the average of the time they have been working, they could not possibly work more than ten hours a day and be within this agreement, so that I do not think that part of the agreement is worth very much.
A question was raised of some of the men having refused this kind of work. I do not think the minister wished to give the impression that this happened generally; he said that a few hundred out of a good many thousands refused this kind of work, and I think in that respect he was right. But let us look at the situation as it is. A great many, if not the majority, of the men in the camps are young Canadians. Many of them have had a fairly good education. In the past this kind of work on the railroads has been done by Chinese, at least on the Canadian Pacific Railway to some extent, and in many parts of Canada by Europeans recently arrived in the country. Very few Canadians heretofore have done this sort of work, and it is not surprising that a few men out of eight or nine thousand should have refused to do it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will my hon. friend permit me to state that I have received representations from Canadians in, I believe, every one of the provinces, desiring to participate in this particular work at the present time?


Angus MacInnis: Yes, I can quite understand that.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend is speaking of times when there was an ample supply of general employment for Canadian workmen.
fMr. MacInnis.J


Angus MacInnis: The Minister of Labour
must realize how hard it is for men who expected something very much better than that to bring themselves to the position where they have to do that kind of work, which offers no hope whatever for any future advancement or progress. I do not know whether the minister is able to make any announcement in the matter or not, but I should like to know what the government has in mind to do for these men after the work on the railways is over. It does not seem to me that we can hope that through any general improvement in conditions these men will find work in the ordinary channels of trade and industry. Clearly they cannot do that. They will have very, very little money when they leave railway work, and it will not carry them very far. And men who have been away for several months from all contacts with the rest of the community will be very likely to have a "blowout" when they get away from the monotony of four or five months of such work, and who can blame them?
Now, let me refer to the general improvement about which we hear so much. Building construction is one of the best barometers of industrial activity that I know of. I have before me the figures compiled by MacLean Building Reports Limited for the first four months of the present year. Taking the seven largest cities in Canada, I find that in all but one of those cities building permits in that .period are considerably lower than they were last year. Vancouver is the only city where they are higher than they were last year. There is a reason for that, namely the new city hall and a few buildings of that kind. The figures are: Vancouver, this year, $2,219,000; in 1935, $621,000. Let us look at the other cities: Toronto, 1935, $3,008,000; 1936, $1,477,000; Montreal, 1935, $2446,000; 1936, $1,118,000; Ottawa, 1935. $1,740,000; 1936, $312,000; Hamilton, 1935, $1,056,000; 1936, $305,000; Winnipeg, 1935, $1,911,000;	1936,
$160,000; Quebec, 1935, $125,000; 1936, $90,000. I have given round figures. So there is no possible hope of improvement, and I think, before the house adjourns, the government ought to give some indication of what the general policy is in regard to unemployment for the coming fall and winter months before parliament meets again.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I had
decided before lunch that probably it would not be necessary for me to deal with a matter that had been brought up on two previous occasions while discussions of this bill were under way, but since lunch time the matter

Unemployment-Reliej Expenditures
has been again referred to. Therefore I should like to clear >up one or two references that have been made to the administration of relief in one of the provinces of Canada. On page 3653 of Hansard I read these words, spoken by the leader of the opposition:
Since we were dealing with this legislation before I have had occasion to follow up the question which I then raised as to the supervision which the government was exercising. I pointed out that the government had removed from office one who had been sent by the Department of Finance to cheek over the expenditures in Saskatchewan.
In the first place I should like to call to the attention of the committee that the man spoken of in this connection was not sent to Saskatchewan to check up on the work which was under discussion on a previous occasion we referred to, that is on farm placements. He was sent there under an arrangement made between myelf, as premier of that province, and the council of the government of Canada, meeting in the council chamber under the chairmanship of the present leader of the opposition, and the arrangement made is set out in a letter under date of November 2, 1934. That letter is signed by Hon. Edgar
N.	Rhodes, who at that time was Minister of Finance.
Dear Mr. Gardiner,-
Confirming our telephone conversation of last evening, we are to-day forwarding to Regina by wire the sum of $750,000 as an accountable advance, to be used only for relief purposes.
The government has from the outset recognized that there was a grave problem in Saskatchewan in the drought areas which could be properly regarded as national in character, and which called for special assistance from the dominipn government. This view was kept fully in mind when the Prime Minister telegraphed to you on the 31st day of August offering to assume full responsibility for food, clothing and shelter, and to deal with the question of feed and fodder as outlined in that telegram.
While we are still of opinion that inasmuch as the dominion was providing the funds it was our duty to assume responsibility for their expenditure, notwithstanding the fact that you declined the proposal made by the Prime Minister as outlined above, we would adhere to that position if to do so would not impose hardship upon a large number of people resident in the province of Saskatchewan.
Notwithstanding the fact that our position was made clear to you as far back as August last, you now return seeking assistance at a period when it is too late in the season to attempt to set up our own machinery, and therefore to provide further assistance, there is no alternative to our utilizing the machinery you have set up for distribution.
We are prepared to advance such sums of money as may be necessary to take care of our full obligation in the drought area and such further assistance from time to time as it may be our duty to render, also to provide such portion as may be required for general relief purposes, if any, over and above the
sum of $200,000 per month which we are now paying, provided always we are satisfied that the moneys so advanced are required and expended for the purposes intended.
The measure of this advance will have to be determined as we proceed, and to avoid delay and to_ ensure that the expenditures are being made in conformity with this understanding, we propose to take such steps as may be necessary to provide for a proper check and audit of all relief expenditures which will only be paid by us from time to time as it may be established that the expenditures are warranted and made for the purposes intended.
I take it that in conformity with your advice to me over the telephone this course will be perfectly satisfactory to you and that you will confirm this arrangement by wire as speedily as possible after receipt of this letter.
This letter is signed by Hon. Edgar N. Rhodes. It was addressed to me at Regina, under date of November 2, and there are one or two references in the letter to which I should like to direct attention. I should like to read this statement from the letter once more:
Notwithstanding the fact that our position was made clear to you as far back as August last you now return seeking assistance at a period when it is too late in the season to attempt to set up our own machinery, and therefore to provide further assistance there is no alternative to our utilizing the machinery you have set up for distribution.
We are prepared to advance such sums of money as may be necessary to take care of our full obligation in the drought area-
I wish to point out that in those and other statements contained in the letter it is emphasized that the obligation was an obligation of the federal government which the Prime Minister of that time undertook to assume, as early as August of 1934. The objection I took to the proposal when I met the government was due to the fact that the greater part of the expenditure to be made in the drought area would be for feed and fodder. The cost of feed and fodder in the drought area is much greater in a year when there is a crop failure than is the cost of actually feeding, clothing and sheltering the people who live in that area. I emphasized the fact that it would be inadvisable to have set up in the province of Saskatchewan one relief organization to look after feed and fodder and another relief organization to look after direct relief. I indicated that either one or the other, either the provincial or the federal government, should assume full responsibility for setting up the organization for distribution of both direct relief and feed and fodder. During the period intervening, between August and the 2nd November, an organization was set up in Saskatchewan to purchase feed and fodder, to make provision for straw as it came away from the threshing machines, and to look
4014	COMMONS
Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
after the problem generally. When the then Prime Minister returned from Great Britain, where he had been during October, I met him in Ottawa and made the arrangements that are agreed to in this letter I have just read.
The point I wish to emphasize is this: The provincial government was asked at that stage to use an organization that it had set up in order to look after an obligation which was entirely an obligation of the federal government, and recognized by the federal government as such. In order to check the expenditure of the money required they sent a man to Regina. -Some of the reports that were made by Mr. Barnett, who was appointed to do this checking, were quoted to-night by the right hon. leader of the opposition without being referred to definitely as having come from that source. I recognized them because of the discussion that took place at the time in connection with reports dealing with the treatment of one municipality in Saskatchewan as compared with another, in the matter of giving assistance under this plan. All I wish to say with regard to that criticism is that after Mr. Barnett had been on this job during tire entire winter; after he had investigated an expenditure that ran to something like $9,000,000 prior to the time he left the service of the Department of Finance, he had1 refused payment of only $40,000 of the amount that had been distributed. The federal government, out of the $9,000,000 that was involved, paid all but some $40,000, after they had placed a man in a position to check the accounts both before and after payments were made. Well, I venture to say that no other organization set up by one government- in Canada to administer the affairs of another government in Canada, in connection with the expenditure of money, has shown as great efficiency as was shown in Saskatchewan both under the government in power in Ottawa at that time and under the government that has had to meet some of those expenditures since.
I wanted to make that statement in order to clear up the reference that is here made. This man was not appointed for the purpose of checking up on farm placements; he was appointed for the purpose of checking up on the expenditure of federal money spent by an organization created by the federal government in order to do a federal job.
Well, Mr. Chairman, having made that perfectly clear there are one or two observations I think should be made with regard to the other matter that has been referred to continuously, namely the payment of those who were entitled to $5 a month from the fund provided for farm placements. I have before me letters and telegrams from the files of the Department of Labour which I had copied a
[Mr. Gardiner.!
few days ago, after the reference made to this matter by the right hon. leader of the opposition. I find at an earlier date a telegram sent by myself to the Minister of Finance on January 8, 1935:
Hon. E. N. Rhodes,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa.
Reference placement; single homeless persons on farms under terms agreement September 15,
1933,	and privy council order of October 11,
1934.	Chief accountant unemployed relief branch federal Department of Labour rules that agreement instituted to assist in the relief in urban centres of homeless persons and who are definitely found not to be a legitimate charge on any municipality. Therefore persons who have resided in rural municipalities are not qualified for bonus even though they are homeless, destitute and unemployed. Primary object of whole scheme as concurred in by your premier at interprovincial conference 1933 was to provide measure of relief to thousands of farm labourers in drought areas of province thus retaining men on farms in preference to their congregating in cities. Ruling department labour officials above referred to practically nullifies whole scheme in so far as our drought areas are concerned and would urge you request labour department to issue ruling based on terms of agreement which simply states that five dollars bonus available to persons placed on farms.
That matter was referred to by the Minister of Municipal Affairs in Saskatchewan, in charge of labour, on February 5, 1935, and I shall read one paragraph from that letter for the purpose of indicating to the committee and to the leader of the opposition what the point at issue was between the government of Saskatchewan and the government at Ottawa:
I understand that during the winter 193334-
That is the winter before the change of government in Saskatchewan, the winter before the last provincial election.
-a large number of farm labourers were placed on farms, presumably under the terms of the agreement, and that the records and accounts for these placements were submitted to representatives of your department, approved, and payments were made.
Let me emphasize that point. These accounts were submitted to the representative of the Department of Labour; they were checked by him and they were paid in the winter of 1933-34.
We now find that a sum amounting to nearly $90,000 of the money which had been passed upon one year ago, and actually paid out, is being questioned by your department because of an interpretation placed upon the agreement by officials of your department, and that this interpretation is also being applied to the placements being made this year, which also will undoubtedly result in a large percentage of the moneys paid to these single homeless men being charged back to this government.

Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
That was the point at issue throughout November and December, 1934, and January, 1935, and with that point at issue during January, 1935, I took the position as premier of the province that we could not become responsible for the payment of $5 a month to men placed upon farms in Saskatchewan, from funds of the dominion government, for the purpose of carrying out a policy of the dominion government, if payments of $90,000 made in the year previous were going to be charged back against the province. We indicated to persons who were receiving payment from that fund that no payments would be made after January 31, 1935, by the province. We took the position that we would not make the payments until the matter of policy had been definitely settled. We did this because to have followed the policy set out by the Department of Labour with regard to payments for the previous winter would have resulted in money paid out from this fund being charged back to the province on all but a very small percentage of the cases. We notified all the men that payments would not be made after January 31, 1935.
What action was then taken 'by the dominion government? The action is set out in a letter dated February 23, 1935, written by the Deputy Minister of Labour to the Deputy Minister of Finance. I am going to read that letter in part, because it sets out the action taken by the government at that time and the reasons for it:
Under the provisions of P.C. 2465, October 11, 1934, the agreement between the dominion government and the province of Saskatchewan, dated September 5, 1933. was revived as from October 1. 1934. effective to March 31, 1935, thus providing for payment by the dominion government to the province of $5 per month for persons placed on farms. I enclose copies of the order in council and agreement referred to for your information.
Now these are the important parts:
The provincial authorities have interpreted this measure of assistance as applying to all persons, whereas this department has taken the stand that the 1933 agreement and the revival thereof by order in council merely renews the provisions of the 1932 agreement, confining this provision to transients.
I may say by way of explanation that by that time the transients were supposed to be in the relief camps, and transients as they came along and qualified for the relief camps by health tests were placed in the relief camps.
This situation is set forth in my letter of February 18 to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for Saskatchewan, copy of which I enclose. I also enclose copy of a letter of February 18, addressed by the Hon. Minister
of Labour to the premier of Saskatchewan. If you will refer to the final paragraph of this letter, you will see that the minister has informed premier Gardiner that the dominion will provide for the continuation of the bonus of $5 per month to the 5,300 persons reported by the province as being on farms under the plan as at January 1, last.
I may say that there is apparently a stenographical error here as the 5,300 persons referred to were reported by the province as at January 31, last.
I do not think it necessary to read every paragraph of the letter, because this paragraph really sets out the point that I wish to bring before the committee. It is this, that down to February 1, 1935, the dominion government refused to make payments to men other than those who were transients. There were 5,300 persons receiving $5 per month from the provincial government, who qualified under the provincial interpretation of the plan to be paid by the federal government at January 31, 1935. The dominion government refused that payment through the provincial authorities, and therefore the provincial authorities refused to pay it to the men. But immediately the provincial government stepped out of the field, the dominion government took on the whole 5,300 men and agreed to pay them $5 a month, not through the provincial government at all but through a man they themselves appointed to do this. That man is indicated in this letter:
This department has at Regina an auditor, Mr. Symons, who is engaged in auditing the accounts of the Saskatchewan relief commission and who is familiar with the situation as regards the $5 a month farm placement plan. He will be instructed to place himself in touch with Major Barnett and it is suggested that he shall jointly, with Major Barnett, certify the accounts sent to this department for credit to the advance made.
The point is that Major Barnett was sent to Saskatchewan for the purpose of checking the accounts as they passed through a provincial set-up, with regard to moneys that were being paid to farm labourers through an undertaking that the federal government assumed as their responsibility. He had nothing to do with farm placement until the provincial government entirely passed out of the picture. Then the payments of the $5 amounts were made through Mr. Barnett by the federal government advancing to him $60,000, $30,000 per month, with which to make payments during February and March, and those payments were made and audited without any necessity for any check on the provincial government whatsoever. The moneys were paid by the dominion official, and paid directly by the dominion officials to the farm labourers who were placed on farms.
4016	COMMONS
Unemployment-Reliej Expenditures
Mr. Barnett and, later, Mr. Burgess, checked the payments in the drought area. In dealing with their criticism I want to read to the committee one document I found on the file of the Department of Labour. This is a letter addressed to Harry Hereford, Esquire, Dominion Unemployment Relief Commissioner, Department of Labour, Ottawa, reading as follows:
Dear Mr. Hereford:
I enclose herewith quotations from letters and telegrams received by the minister with reference to relief in Saskatchewan.
Yours very truly,
D. L. Burgess.
D. L. Burgess was secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. On the file sent down to the Department of Labour from the office of the Minister of Agriculture are samples of some of the checks that were being made and the results of those checks upon relief expenditures in Saskatchewan, under the set-up referred to. I have before me a letter which I shall read. I do not know who wrote it, because the file does not show, but the letter I have just read indicates it was clipped from a communication received by the Minister of Agriculture:
Since Mr. Gardiner took office the relief allowances have been cut down from $2.50 per family to $8 per family.
"Per family" obviously should come after the "18."
Remembering what was said in this house in connection with the necessity for checks and the insinuations that have been made-I call them insinuations because of the references I shall make in a moment-that all was not well in connection with the administration of relief in Saskatchewan, and the inference to be drawn that some very close check should be kept by the Minister of Labour upon expenditures in Saskatchewan because of what is happening there, let me read it again:
Since Mr. Gardiner took office the relief allowances have been cut down from $2.50 per family to $8 per family. I know this, and here are the actual reductions, for a family of fourteen in April, 1934, received $15 and two sacks of flour.	In April, 1935, $10
straight. From this you will see the difference and they say now it is all going to be cut off and a single man cannot get work here so I should like you to try and picture what will happen here if they do cut it off and they are not giving us any road work yet.
That is the kind of reports which were coming in, the kind of report being sent by one department of government in Ottawa to another department of government in Ottawa, in order to see to it that a proper check was kept by the department on the Saskatchewan expenditures of relief moneys which, the

leader of the opposition is quite correct in saying, were supplied by the government of Canada.
But that report shows that the government of Saskatchewan was actually cutting down the relief allowances. Actually it was paying less than was being paid before, actually saving money to the government of Canada. I say if there were many reports of that kind being sent on from one department to the other they could not have resulted otherwise than to make the ministers believe that relief was being properly administered.
I now come to the other statement to, which reference was made to-night, and which has been referred to on previous occasions. I read from Hansard of June 12, 1936, page 3653 where the leader of the opposition is reported as follows:
I pointed out that the government had removed from office one who had been sent by the Department of Finance to check over the expenditures in Saskatchewan. I find that certain relief expenditures in that province are under the control of a disbarred lawyer who was guilty of embezzling trust funds. That would hardly be a highly desirable person to have in charge of the expenditure of moneys which we have to pay.
Before going on to deal with the statement itself and the reference it makes to an individual in Saskatchewan, I want to say that ever since the government in that province was taken over by the Liberal party in 1934, or at least ever since the reorganization put into effect after that, direct relief expenditures in that province have been under the control of T. M. Molloy who was at first Deputy Minister of Labour, and who is now in charge of the Bureau of Labour in that province. I know that any official in the Department of Labour in Ottawa will agree with me when I say that Mr. Molloy is one of the most capable labour officials to be found in any provincial government. He has had twenty-five years' service in the province of Saskatchewan. He is the man who has administered the expenditure of all direct relief funds in Saskatchewan, ever since the present government of the province of Saskatchewan came into office and set up a new organization for the expenditure of those funds. He is not a lawyer.
Naturally we were concerned the other evening when my right hon. friend made that statement. The Minister of Labour asked this question:
Mr. Rogers: Would my right hon. friend care to name "the official in question?
Mr. Bennett:	I prefer not to mention a
man's name.

Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
Mr. Rogers: Is my right hon. friend suggesting that he is an employee of the dominion government or of the Department of Labour?
Mr. Bennett: I said he was in charge of expenditures in the province of Saskatchewan.
Those two statements are very plain ones, namely, "I find that certain relief expenditures in that province are under the control of a disbarred lawyer who was guilty of embezzling trust funds," and "I said he was in charge of expenditures in the province of Saskatchewan."
Later on I came into the house and asked one or two question in regard to the matter. I asked:
Mr. Gardiner: What was the nature of the position held by the gentleman?
Mr. Bennett: In connection with the administration of relief.
Mr. Gardiner: Out in the country or at the head office?
Mr. Bennett: My memory is that he was in a position of some considerable authority, that lie was not an ordinary administrator out in the countrly, that he had come into Regina and was administering from there. I will have the letter with me and will give those particulars when the bill is in committee.
Mr. Gardiner: I understand that three persons were referred to.
Mr. Bennett: There were two others who were also members of the legal profession and who, according to my information, were also in the same unfortunate position.
I think there can be no misunderstanding about the inference which was left in the minds of all those who listened to that statement, and there can now be no doubt in the minds of those who listened to it as to what it really means.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: It means that someone
in the province of Saskatchewan who had been disbarred as a lawyer-and I might say some persons have held responsible positions in Canada after they have been disbarred as lawyers-*


Mr. McPHEE:: Cabinet rank.


James Garfield Gardiner: This gentleman is said
to have been disbarred. That evening, after the discussion, the leader of the opposition was kind enough to send to me the name of the individual. I did not know the man. I had never heard of him, as a matter of fact. Not having heard of him I was quite satisfied he was not in charge of the administration of anything. So I wired Regina in order to get the facts. On the night of June 12, 1936, I sent this wire to the Hon. T. C. Davis, Attorney General, Regina, Saskatchewan:
Mr. Bennett stated in house to-day that a member of the legal profession who had been debarred because of embezzling funds had held or now holds an important position in the administration of relief funds in Saskatchewan.
He also stated there were two other employed who were in the same unfortunate position. Kindly wire me any information possible. If such persons were employed, give details re time of debarring and present standing.
I received a reply to that wire from Mr. Davis. The wire is dated Regina, June 13, the following morning, and reads as follows:
Statements made by Mr. Bennett are not true and the facts are as follows. Former solicitor in employ of relief department in minor position of correspondence clerk at salary which barely provides existence. This man was at one time a practising lawyer but was accused of failure to account for some funds and was struck off the rolls of law society. Since then he has made complete settlement of claim against him and I am satisfied that if he applied for reinstatement he could secure it, but he has never had the funds wherewith to do this. No profession in this province more hard hit through depression than that of law. Two other former practising solicitors employed in connection with northern settlers' reestablishment in minor clerical positions. One is still solicitor in good standing.
I have had information since that this gentleman who was still a solicitor in good standing is not practising because his practice practically disappeared because of the hard times. The wire continues:
The other was suspended for three months for irregularities and subsequently voluntarily filed statement of non-practice with law society and therefore is not on the active rolls.
I am informed, on applying for further information, that this gentleman while not on the active rolls at present, was reinstated, had not sufficient practice to be able to get along in the community where he was, and then ceased to be a practising lawyer.
These three gentlemen have been given employment in very inferior positions, not in the administration of relief, but merely clerks in the office in charge of distribution. They are not handling any funds whatsoever. After a man in Canada has met with a difficulty which has been brought upon him by the situation through which our country is passing, after he has got into some difficulties that probably he would have been wiser had he not got into, and after he has had his punishment, whatever that punishment may be, is anyone going to say that that man is never again going to obtain employment in this country? Is any man going to say that governments must see to it that he is passed up every time he makes application for a job? Is anyone going to say, if that man can write letters properly and be a correspondence clerk, he must, instead of taking that kind of work, go into a relief camp or some other place to find an existence?
I do not think even the leader of the opposition would take that position. I can
4018	COMMONS
Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
quite agree with him that had any of these gentlemen been in positions such as the .eader of the opposition must have thought they were in from the correspondence he has obtained, he would probably have been justified in raising the question, but I think all of us, before raising questions about individuals who find themselves in difficulties in these days, should be very careful to get all the facts with regard to them; and if I had not all the facts with regard to these men, I would very much prefer to err on the side of not knowing all that is to be known about them than to err on the side of coming into this house as a representative of the people, even as a humble member attending his first session, and raising the matter on the floor of the House of Commons. I think we have much bigger matters to talk about, much bigger matters to discuss, much bigger problems to settle. I regret that the right hon. gentleman found it necessary to bring up this matter on three occasions in order to elicit some kind of reply to the question. I hope that the incident is closed.


Mr. MacNEIL:: I wish to bring to the attention of members of the committee another aspect of this problem. I think nothing could be more dangerous than to allow the impression to go abroad that members of this house are not entirely sympathetic with the plight of those whose welfare is being discussed. It would be equally dangerous to have the impression go abroad that we are more interested in what might be termed the political aspects of the problem rather than in the rehabilitation of Canadian homes and the lives of matiy of our Canadian people.
I am not disposed at this stage to indulge in any criticism of the government's policy. We must, I assume, adjust ourselves as best we may to the plans outlined. I appreciate the magnitude of the problem and the difficulties facing the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) and in the name of those who are suffering misery and distress at this time I hope that we may achieve in the ensuing months some appreciable degree of progress towards the solution of this problem.
I have on previous occasions stated my views with regard to the government's policy, and I cannot admit to any optimism as to the outlook. I cannot see any hope of the reabsorption into productive employment of any substantial number of those now on relief. But at this moment I would rather plead with the Minister of Labour to give his most earnest consideration to some aspects of the problem that in my humble opinion seem to be most important. When the Minister of 
Labour was dealing with the unemployment situation on a former occasion, in committee on the bill, he gave statistics of those now unemployed and on relief but he did not have an opportunity to give the statistics on employment. I notice in our journals in Canada several attempts to analyze the situation and to give the impression that the number of those on relief is not decreasing as might be expected from the statistics given as to the increase in the number of employed, and propaganda is abroad that the majority of those out of work are out of work because they won't work and that relief should be severely reduced accordingly. I think the most effective answer to that propaganda was given by the Minister of Labour himself this afternoon when he stated that 8,700 men in the relief camps had accepted work on the deferred maintenance work of the transportation systems. Nevertheless this opinion is abroad, and I would ask the Minister of Labour, in administering the measures under his supervision, and also the Minister of Transport, to attempt to convince the single men and the married men on relief that it is the earnest desire of the government to give all these people a square deal.
There is on the part of many officials dealing with this problem what is sometimes called a hard-boiled attitude. Without question there is the occasional chiseller, the result being a tendency on the part of some to judge all the unemployed on relief as being a class of human beings quite different and apart from the rest of our people. It must be held in mind very clearly at all times that even if a man is down and out, even if he is unemployed and on relief, he is still a human being; those whom we classify in general terms as the army of the unemployed, the jobless and so on, we must never forget are human beings, and unemployment is doing terrible things to human beings. These people are part of our nation. We cannot divide our nation into a number of water-tight compartments. These men live in a separate world, for those on relief do live in a separate world. But they have the same aspirations, the same ambitions and the same desires as other people and these things are being denied them. . The denial of these natural ambitions and natural aspirations over a prolonged period is bound to have a terrible influence upon human beings, and the results of a prolonged period of unemployment with inadequate relief measures must be taken into very sympathetic consideration. There must be some effort made to gain an understanding of the problem, from this point of view.

Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
I urge the consideration by the Minister of Labour of the problem of our single, homeless young men, to whom reference was made this afternoon. It was said that some of these men would not accept work when it was offered to them. The minister has said that no medical examination was provided to determine the physical fitness of these men for this arduous, manual labour, or their aptitude for this kind of work.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Perhaps I should have
said that I had no knowledge of such an examination having been made.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am sorry if I have misquoted the minister. My information is that no medical examination was conducted. May I remind the minister that in every large relief camp which I have visited there was a sick bay or hut. At all times there were a certain number of men requiring medical attention in spite of the physical examination they had received upon admission to camp. I have personal knowledge of men who were quite incapable of undertaking maintenance work such as is being arranged for them with the transportation systems. There are also a number of elderly men in these camps. I met men of the ages of sixty and sixty-five years, and it is quite obvious that they would be unable to do this arduous manual work. I ask the minister to investigate the cases of men alleged to have refused work, and to ascertain whether or not their reasons for refusal were valid. I am very sure that all but a small percentage who did refuse to work did so for justifiable reasons. From my personal knowledge I know there are a considerable number of these men who are wholly unfit for this work.
I bring to the attention of the minister the question of clothing, a problem now facing these men on maintenance work. It is quite true that they were permitted to retain the clothing they had in the relief camps, but very little of that clothing is of the protective nature necessary for the work in which they are now engaged. Many of these men are working in swamp lands and some of them are working in rough country where, for instance, they require gloves. If we consider the work they are engaged in, a pair of gloves would last only a week or ten days.


An hon. MEMBER:: Boxing gloves?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am talking about work gloves to be used in clearing work. I am endeavouring to gain a sympathetic consideration of this matter. Any one who has done work of this kind will realize the truth of what I am saying.
Another point to be considered is the conditions under which these men are living. We all know that men engaged in construction work must endure a certain amount of hardship, but these men are of the opinion that they are being treated as coolie labourers. Very often they are housed in box cars which are not clean, and sometimes through lack of a sufficient supply of water they are unable to keep themselves clean and observe the ordinary decencies of life. I ask the minister to exercise the most careful supervision and try to Obtain the best possible living conditions for these men under the circumstances. What is more important, the men should be convinced that the federal government is endeavouring to give them a square deal. I speak feelingly of this subject.
There has been a disposition in the past to treat these men as cattle. Some time ago a young man from a relief camp was killed on the railway in the Rocky mountains, and I am told that when they were gathering up the boy's remains, the official in charge complained of having to go to Vancouver to attend the inquest and referred to this boy and his companions in profane terms as being cattle. That attitude has been communicated to the men and I leave it to hon. members to realize that there can be only one result when men believe they are being treated as cattle.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Would my hon. friend give me the particulars of that incident, when it occurred and where? Perhaps not now, but if he would send me a letter.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I was not making any charges, I was using this incident to illustrate a general attitude.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I would not for the world have my hon. friend leave the impression that that is typical of railway officials, and least of all of any official of the government.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I assure the minister that it was not an official of the government; it was an official of the railway. I am merely illustrating the attitude.
Reference was made this afternoon to the unfortunate occurrences Which took place in Vancouver and Regina. I am not attempting at this time to fix the blame, but I want to say that I have an intimate knowledge of the circumstances leading up to the most unfortunate occurrences in the city of Regina last Dominion day. I also had knowledge of the facts long before the men invaded the city of Vancouver. Time and again efforts were made to make representations to the authorities that certain action
4020	COMMONS
Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
was necessary to prevent any disorderly occurrence. All that was necessary was a frank man to man negotiation in this matter. The men finally came into Vancouver and I had daily contact with them. I knew the men who were designated this afternoon as communist agitators, and I also knew a large number of other men who came to me day after day and told me that they had no sympathy with the communist leadership which was directing the movement. They told me that all they wanted was a chance to present their views. I think I am fair when I say that during the earlier stages of the negotiations, which were conducted on behalf of the men by many representative business men in Vancouver, the attitude of those in authority and in close contact with the problem was arbitrary and high-handed. The result was that some of these men, decent men and some well educated, told me that they would rather take the bull whips in the gutters of the streets of Vancouver than return to the conditions they had had to endure in the relief camps.
Time after time we pleaded with them not to engage in any disorderly action, and they told us that they had no intention or desire of challenging constituted law and authority. On the other hand, they contended that they had been denied the processes of reasonable negotiation. Time went on, and I was personally present in the streets of Vancouver when these men were beaten up in a most brutal fashion by the city and provincial police. I ask any hon. member: If you had been present on that occasion, would you regard those occurrences any differently? The attack made upon these men on that occasion was unnecessary, unjustifiable and unprovoked. They were ousted from their quarters where they had been holding a peaceful and orderly meeting. When they scattered through the streets, they were followed and beaten up with bull whips. However, this is all past and ancient history. I point to it in the hope that we may profit by the mistakes which have been made.
If I know anything about the situation, as I think I do; if I know anything about the thought processes of these men whose interests are at stake, as I think I do, I fear for the situation that will arise next winter when these men are released from this maintenance work. It is for this reason that I urge upon the minister at this time the necessity of taking, through the very capable men 'he has around him in his department, such action as will make clear to these men that he is endeavouring to give them a square deal.
fMr. MacNeil.]
May I point out that there is a great deal of confusion with regard to the wages paid to these men, and the general tendency or influence of that schedule of wages set forth in the agreement is to alarm other recipients of relief who are working for their relief that the rate of wages secured by them while on relief projects will be lowered. The Vancouver Daily Province of June 15, 1936, in an article from Victoria, has this to say:
When the federal government agreed to finance half the cost of the work and loan the province the remaining half, it was understood at the labour department that men would be paid at the rate of twenty-five cents an hour with a ten hour day. This is the rate which the department is informed will prevail on railway maintenance work under the federal government and it was understood the federal authorities would insist on the same scale in provincial work. This rate was considered far too low here. It has been arranged now that the current wage rate shall be paid and this, while varying in all districts, is much higher than $2.50 a day.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is no foundation
whatsoever for that statement in so far as it pertains to the agreement between the dominion and the provinces.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I appreciate that, in view
of the minister's statements in the committee, but I bring to his attention that a great deal of confusion and alarm resulted from this misunderstanding. The article goes on to say:
Wages usually average about 40 cents an hour for an eight hour day.
I fear that the measures employed by the government to achieve economy have been misunderstood by municipal and provincial authorities, and a series of repressive measures that are quite unnecessary is being brought to bear upon the unemployed. The result can be only bitterness and discontent, and I think something should be done to allay this uneasiness, otherwise the ministerial chair in the months to come will be a very warm and uncomfortable seat. I think we should address ourselves to this problem with the idea of stabilizing this situation, and one way of stabilizing it is to create an altogether different atmosphere with regard to this problem, having in mind at all times the depression, misery and degradation endured by those who must accept relief. May I ask the minister to do what may be done to bring to the attention of the public the factors that are maintaining the number at present on relief? As each day goes by there are people who are reaching the end of their resources. Prior to this period they have been able to maintain themselves, but now they must,

Vnemployment-Relief Expenditures
very reluctantly, apply for relief. Only this week I have had no less than a dozen men, all of them ex-service men, call at my office in this house. They say: We have managed so far to get along without accepting relief; God knows we do not want to take relief; we have done this, that and the other thing to secure employment; do you know of any employment we can get in any way? The only alternative before them is that of applying for relief. That illustrates in a degree, I think, how people who have hoarded their resources through these years, with the help of casual employment, are now coming on the relief rolls. In addition, there are the young people-a new draft each month, of course-and besides them, an increasing number of people suffering from impaired physical health. I am not placing the blame entirely on the federal government; rather I am asking the government to do what may be done to avoid the sort of thing that is illustrated in a notice I have before me. For obvious reasons I shall not mention the town, but I notice, in a newspaper published in that town-


Malcolm McLean: What newspaper?


Charles Grant MacNeil: Unless the hon. member insists, I would rather not give it.


Malcolm McLean: We should have it.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Well, it is in the Pembroke Advertiser, "Notice I Change of Relief Regulations," addressed to the "relief recipients and ratepayers of the town of Pembroke." Among these "changes" I find the following clauses:
3. All clothing allowances of 20 cents per head shall be cancelled after March 31, 1936.
6.	No fuel allowance will be granted during the months of May, June, July, August and September.
7.	The rate of 20 cents per hour shall be used in computing the amount of time to be worked for relief granted for the month of March, 1936, and thereafter.
8.	Any relief worker not doing an honest day's work while on the job may be discharged by the foreman or town engineer in which case he will be cut off relief.
10.	All families who have wage earners in the home earning in excess of the relief schedule for such a sized family are struck off relief.
11. All relief recipients 70 years of age are to be granted no further relief after March 15. 1936. Also, anyone upon attaining age 70 will be automatically struck off relief regardless of whether they have applied for an old age pension or not.
12.	All deserted families are to be cut off relief March 1, 1936, and advised to secure support from their fathers or husbands. No "grass widow" will receive relief while her husband remains at liberty.
13.	Single persons who marry and apply for relief will not be granted same until they have been married at least one year and a half.
14.	Single persons will not be granted relief unless they are physically or mentally incapacitated; in such cases arrangements will be made to transfer them to an institution.
15.	The following food allowances are
effective after February, 1936:
Monthly
food
Number in family:	allowance
Man and wife (2)	 $ 8 67
Man and wife and 1 child (3)....	10 83
Man and	wife	and	2	children	(4) ..	13	00Man and	wife	and	3	children	(5) ..	15	17Man and	wife	and	4	children	(6) ..	16	25Man and	wife	and	5	children	(7) ..	17	33Man and	wife	and	6	children	(8) ..	18	42The maximum monthly food allowance shall be $18.42.	,	.16.	Any family applying for relief m Pembroke who have not established their residence here (12 months' continual residence previous to application) must arrange with the municipality responsible for them to have the cost of same relief charged back to the municipality they moved from.17.	All relief recipients who are unable to work for their relief shall receive ten per cent less than those that work.
20. All relief recipients who are not satisfied with the relief distribution after publication of this notice and who create any disturbance whatsoever will be cut off relief entirely.
That is about the general trend of these regulations.


Mr. FINN:: Will the hon. member say who signed them?


Charles Grant MacNeil: They are signed by the Pembroke Relief Committee, A. E. Cockburn, Chairman; D. W. Blakely, Secretary; G. E. Doran, Administrator. I understand Mr. Cockburn is the mayor of that town. Taking all these regulations together one may get some picture of what must result in that particular municipality or town. It is apparent that such regulations can only lead to disorder, for the very obvious reasons that they result in dangerously lowering the living standards of those on relief; they make it practically impossible to live decently; they deny all responsibility for those who reach the age of seventy, and for the wife who has been deserted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is the old age pension.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I point out to the leader of the opposition that the regulation states that at the age of seventy relief recipients will be cut off relief whether the old age pension is paid or not.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is not paid if it is not applied for.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The regulation applies to all persons seventy years of age.


Richard Langton Baker: If they are cut off relief they would be eligible for the old age pension.
4022	COMMONS
Unemployment-Relief Expenditures


Charles Grant MacNeil: The point I am objecting to is that-*
-anyone upon attaining the age of 70 will be automatically struck off relief regardless of whether they have applied for an old age pension or not.
There are lots of cases where, for obvious reasons, under the regulations, such as residential restrictions, those people cannot immediately obtain the old age pension. In my humble opinion such regulations provoke disorder. They create the impression that no responsibility is assumed for the welfare of those who are helpless, under these circumstances, to fend for themselves. These regulations are restrictive and coercive. I would urge upon the Minister of Labour at this time that he exercise as far as possible the supervisory powers conferred upon him with regard to the expenditure of federal moneys through provincial governments, insist that reasonable standards of living be maintained, that the utmost freedom be allowed to enable people to live decently, and assure them that there is some hope that as quickly as possible the federal government will institute projects which will enable them to obtain a secure and decent livelihood. I feel that at this time these considerations are important in order that we may avoid many of the unpleasant and regrettable occurrences which we have experienced in the past.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I must make a few observations in reply to the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, and I shall endeavour to do so without being offensive to certain gentlemen who have been mentioned.
As far as the supervision of expenditures is concerned, under the drought relief act it is quite clear that provision was made to deal with it; that Major Barnett did deal with it and 'that there was an auditor who dealt with it under the directions of the treasury department, also endeavouring to check up expenditures made by other branches of the public service. That, I think, goes without saying from a perusal of the records.
As to the other point, with regard to the extent to which bonus payments were made in connection with farm placements, if the hon. member had read the whole of the letter written by Mr. Dickson to the deputy minister of finance, which I assume the hon. gentleman will lay on the table since it is a public document, it would have been clear that there were also difficulties in the auditor general's office, and that because of certain attitudes taken by the Saskatchewan government Mr. Gordon, then Minister of Labour, directed that payments should be made through the Regina

representatives of the dominion government, one of them being the auditor whom I have mentioned. Receiving that list from the Regina government, of 5,134, the representatives of the dominion government were able to trace only 3,828 persons. That is what I said was the difficulty, and I did not say it was in any sense a matter of criminal intent. It was a fact, however, that payments were thus being made to something like 1,300 more people than the auditors could ascertain. That is why I suggested to the minister that it was desirable that some steps should be taken to see that the public purse was safeguarded.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may say just a word here, which will probably save quite a bit of discussion, all the men were cut off on the 31st day of -January, and the Department of Labour at Ottawa naturally did not come into the field until two or three weeks later. In the interval some of these men who had been cut off had gone away from their jobs before the work was taken over by the dominion government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I simply say there were 5,134 on the list and the representatives of the dominion government found less than
4,000	when they made the payments for the months of February and March. That is what I said originally, and it seems to be borne out by what the hon. gentleman has said.
The other question is not so easily disposed of; the reply received from the Attorney General of Saskatchewan would seem to indicate that unfortunately there must be more than three of these gentlemen. The first gentleman to whom I referred and whose name I gave the minister, because I do not intend to use his name in the course of this discussion, was known as commissioner of urban relief. That was his title.


James Garfield Gardiner: According to this telegram, which is the only information I have, that is not so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am saying that is his title; that is what he calls himself, and that is not hearsay at all. I have that information from a source that had to deal with him. That is that. One of the other two, unfortunately, was a registrar of land titles, and he was convicted of theft and sentenced to the penitentiary.


James Garfield Gardiner: He is not connected with this service at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was, when I spoke
of it; he was in the relief service.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not at any time.

Unem.ploymerit-Relief Expenditures


Richard Bedford Bennett: At least he put it in that way; perhaps he is doing something else now. The other had embezzled funds belonging to private persons.
The only reason I mentioned these three was because people who have had their moneys embezzled now find themselves in an impoverished state, and they raise the question as to why these men should be retained in positions connected with, the administration of relief to those who, by their actions, they have compelled to be on relief. That is a very serious situation. I have-and I suppose as long as I live I shall continue to do so-tried to assist men of the legal profession who have found themselves in that unfortunate position. I have paid large sums of money for that purpose, and I have no regrets for having done so. But I suggest that when a government desires to assist such men- and I have no objection to a government doing so-it should not be done in that branch of the service having to do with the administration of relief. That brings these men into contact with those who have suffered by reason of their actions and who are now denuded, of their moneys and their properties. These people see these men enjoying such positions; they write down and ask: "Is it possible that, going on relief, I must suffer and be placed in this position because my money has been embezzled, and the person who embezzled, my money is now employed in the administration of this very relief?"
That is the position, and I have been very careful not to mention names. I do not intend to dio so, though the provocation is great. I hold that men have every right in the world to another chance, but they should not be given that chance in such a way that their person is obtruded upon the attention of those who have suffered by reason of their action. That, I think, is a pretty elementary rule and one which should not be departed from. For the reason that I do not desire to do any harm to these men I have not mentioned their names, but with the' influence the minister has, I trust he will suggest that they be kept ip positions in which they will not have anything to do with the administration of relief.
There was an observation made with respect to persons occupying high places. That gentleman had not been disbarred. There is a power of punishment possessed by the courts of the country with regard to members of the legal profession who may be thought to have committed offences against the ethical rules of the profession. That is an entirely
different matter from having embezzled moneys. In the case in question the gentleman was suspended for six months for the offence which the judges thought contravened the rules of the profession. That is the story as far as that is concerned. I know of men who have held very eminent positions, on the bench of the country finally, who in earlier days had been guilty of offences which brought upon them the punitive power of the courts. That is an entirely different matter from the embezzlement of moneys that impoverishes and brings suffering upon people. It was with great hesitancy, notwithstanding what the Minister of Agriculture may think, that, having been appealed to, I brought the matter to the attention of this committee without mentioning names, because I believe it is a bad thing for society-using the word in the broad sense-to have men obtrude their activities upon the attention of those whom they have defrauded. That is the real truth of the matter; they have brought themselves to the attention of those whom through their criminal acts they have brought to a position of poverty. In any help I have endeavoured to give to men thus situated I have tried at least to keep them out of the sight of those who have suffered by reason of their conduct.
That is all I have to say about the matter. I shall give the minister the other two names, as I gave him the first name, without mentioning them in public, because I have no desire to do any harm or injury to these men. I wrote to the persons who were complaining to me and said that I had always taken the opposite view, that men must be given a chance. But do not obtrude them upon the attention of those who have suffered by reason of their conduct. That is the story. The other part of it was that apparently they were fairly active politically, which makes the matter a little worse, and that is one of the difficulties. The reason I mentioned the fact of the commissioner of census for one of the counties being a disbarred practitioner in Manitoba, was that it was stated in the newspaper that he had been disbarred. Notwithstanding that fact, however, that man was appointed a commissioner, and the very persons who suffered by his defalcations are now in such an impoverished condition that they wonder whether they cannot do something to garnishee the moneys which he is to receive in order that they may be kept from relief and obtain the money of which they were defrauded. That is the
4024	COMMONS
Unemployment-Reliej Expenditures
reason I bring these matters to the attention of the committee, without mentioning names, in the hope that sufficient has been said to bring a remedy for the conditions to which I have referred.


Charles Avery Dunning: Just one matter to which I think I should refer, not in any controversial way. Frequent reference has been made by the leader of the opposition to the removal of what he describes as certain checks which were formerly exercised by the Department of Finance. The position in that regard was, as I think my right hon. friend now knows, that in connection with Saskatchewan, because of the special arrangements made in respect to the drought area, there was a degree of supervision the complete effect of which I need not repeat-


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there was a representative of the treasury there who supervised other matters in respect to drought.


Charles Avery Dunning: But I see no reason for undertaking any different method of supervision. in Saskatchewan from the method now obtaining in connection with all the other provinces of Canada. The audit of the auditor general is available in that case just as in all others.


Harry James Barber: Statements have been made to-day in regard to there being a considerable percentage of men in the camps who are unable to work. I have visited these camps for some time; I have fourteen in my district, and have kept in close touch with them. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) as to the conditions, because I think the conditions are as nearly ideal as they can be in any camps, and I have visited lumber camps and other camps. The camps were clean, the food wholesome, and the men in charge were ideal. I do not think a better class of men than the foremen and superintendents could have been found in Canada; they were sympathetic, always willing to help the men, and taking a paternal interest in them.
Is it the intention of the government to dispose of these camps, or do they intend to keep some of them open so that some of these men who are not capable of working may be taken care of?
I should like to ask another question, which I believe has already been answered but as to which I should like to put in a plea. As to those foremen and superintendents who have been so faithful in that work during the last few years, many of whom are not prepared now to step out into the cities and get a job, some of whom are engineers, very

capable, I should like to know if something could be done to employ them. I understand the minister said that he has had something under consideration or at least might make provision for some, but I should like an answer to the other question in regard to the future of these camps; is the government going to dispose of the buildings or to put someone in charge by way of a caretaker?


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend, of course, will realize that the disposal of the physical equipment is a matter to be determined by the Department of National Defence. It is not the intention of the government to continue to maintain these relief camps as such after July 1. I quite appreciate the point raised by the hon. member with regard to those in the camps who perhaps are no longer employable because of age or of temporary illness. We are looking into that side of the question and taking the most humane measures possible to meet it. As my hon. friend will understand, the camps were designed for physically fit men and there was no assumption of obligation to care for men who are not physically fit, that is apart from giving them hospital care. If they are unemployable we must consider that question with the provinces in which the camps are situated. But I again assure my hon. friend that we are not indifferent to the various important considerations which he has raised.


Miss MACPHAIL:: We hear much about single unemployed men, and a good deal has been done to take care of them, whether it has beem well done or no't, by way of <Jamps, and now by transferring them to work on railway maintenance. This leads one to wonder what has become of single unemployed women. There must be a terrible unrevealed condition affecting single unemployed women. Often in listening to the debates in this chamber I have thought thiat we have a pretty masculine society, and at no time am I so impressed with that condition as when we are dealing with unemployment. A great deal has been said and written in times past aJbout the "weaker sex." If men are not capable of taking care of themselves during periods of stress and unemployment, does parliament think women are more capable of taking care of themselves? If they are not, what provision has the government made, or what provision does it propose to make for single, unemployed women?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not sure that I can do more than recognize as fully at this time as I have before the importance of the question raised by the hon. member. As she is

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
aware, we have appointed a woman on the national employment commission, and also propose to set up a special committee of the advisory committee to deal with the employment of women. It is a phase of the problem which so far has received inadequate attention. I can only hope that as time goes on we may be able to make some amends for this lack of attention.


Grote Stirling: I do not think the minister answered the question just asked as to whether the buildings in the camps will be disposed of.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think I answered it; I think I said that the physical equipment-


Grote Stirling: That is the contents, but what about the buildings, the lumber?


Norman McLeod Rogers: None of that has been transferred to the Department of Labour; it all belongs to the Department of National Defence, and that question is under discussion between the two departments.


Major James William Coldwell: Does the minister think it is wise to dispose of the buildings or the equipment? We may be as optimistic as we please, but we must be realistic too. I was recently in a camp where there were fifty-eight men whose average age was fifty-four, unable to look after themselves. I am quite convinced either that our institutions for aged people will have to be greatly enlarged or that something will have to be done in the way of camps for this class of men.
Then, however optimistic the government may be, I am convinced that under the measures taken by parliament at the present time there is no possibility of providing employment for all single and married unemployed persons in the Dominion of Canada within a measurable time, so I suggest that very careful consideration be given to the matter before disposing of the buildings and equipment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Other Projects Harbours and Rivers Quebec
Amos-wharf extension, $3,325.
Anse a Beaufils-repairs to harbour works, $15,000.
Anse a Brillant-fishing harbour, $45,000. Bolceil-protection work, $7,700.
Black River-dredging-the provincial government to contribute a like amount, $4,000. Bonaventure-protection work, $9,000.
Cap Chat-protection work, $7,700. Chandler-wharf repairs, $7,000.
Cross Point-dredging. $12,000.
Etang du Nord, M.I.-harbour improvements, $25,000.
Granby-protection work, $6,000.
Gros Cap, M.I.-landing pier, $3,100.
Havre Aux Maisons, M.I.-wharf, $6,500.
Lac Duparquet-wharf, $2,600.
Lac Rouyn (Mercier)-wharf, $2,300. Lanoraie-extension to protection wall $2,800.
Laprairie-icebreakers, $4,200.
Laprairie-repairs to dyke, $28,000.
Lavaltrie-extension to protection wall, $3,100.
Levis-wharf, $50,000.
Malbaie-small landing pier, $1,780.
-extensi°n	to east breakwater,
[Stage Direction]
Mont Louis-protection work, $5,600 Moffette-wharf, $3,500.
M?isieUT Pr°tection wall extension and repairs, $2,500.
New Richmond-protection work, $7,000.
$16 0006 Dame de P*erreT*Pe-protection wall,
Notre Dame de Pierreville (Chenal Tardifl -icebreaker, $3,200.
$limoe Dame dU PortaSe-^rf repairs,
Paspebiac-wharf extension, $46,000. Peninsula-wharf extension, $2,600 '
Pet^® 3iYibre St- Francois-wharf extension, $15,000.
Petite Yallee-wharf extension, $27,000. Pointe	Claire-completion	of approach,
[Stage Direction]
Pointe du Lac-protection work, $10,000.
Pointe Jauue-improvements to fishin°-harbour, $27,000.
St' Pierre-wharf reconstruction,
[Stage Direction]
Richelieu River-improvement of river and Chambly canal system, $500,000.
Rimouski-harbour improvements, $150 000
Riviere au Rats-wharf, $4,900.	'	'
Riviere Reaudette-protection work, $2,000
Riviere Blondelle-protection work, $5,200. '
Riviere des Hurons-contribution towards dredging, the balance of cost to be borne by the province, $75,000.
Ruisseau Pariseau - contribution towards dredging, the balance of cost to be borne by the province, $15,000.
Ste. Anne des Monts (river)-extension of training pier, $8,000.
St. Antoine de Tilly-wharf reconstruction, $17,000.
St. Etienne de Malbaie (Casgrain wharf)-* fill spans, $5,000.
St. Godfroy (Rivere Nouvelle)-protection work, $16,650.
St. Gregoire de Montmorency-repairs and completion of protection wall, $5,000.
St. Maurice River-dredging, $18,000.
St. Michel des Saints-extension to protection works, $1,800.
St. Omer-raising protection work, $4,400.
Ste. Rose-protection wall, $4,900.
St. Simeon de Bonaventure-protection work, $12,200.
Saguenay River-dredging. $200,000
[Stage Direction]


Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Harbours and Rivers-Concluded.
Sorel-harbour improvements, $85,000.
Tadoussae (Anse Tadoussac)-wharf improvements, $15,000.
Val Barette-protection work, $3,000.
Varennes-protection wall, $15,000.
Vercheres-protection wall, $10,000.
Yietoriaville-protection work, $5,000.
To provide for payment of salaries and expenses in connection with the investigation in Canada of the improvement of the waterway from Montreal through lake Champlain to the Hudson river, $20,000.
Mr. MacNICOL:: When the house rose on May 8, I believe one of the items under discussion was that referring to the Richelieu river improvements, and in connection with that item I should like to make a few observations. From what the minister said at that time it would appear that this expenditure of $500,000 is only an initial amount, and that the ultimate improvements in connection with Richelieu navigation may cost about $10,000,000 or $12,000,000.
In the course of his remarks the minister referred to two of the proposed junction canals from the St. Lawrence river system to the Richelieu system, one from Chambly and, if I remember correctly, the other from lake St. Francis, which might be considered in the future. The subject of canals and everything pertinent to the waterways of this country and those of the United States has long been a study of my own. I have in mind the fact that in 1897 the report sent by the Deep Waterways Commission to the United States government, and later confirmed in the 1919 report of the War Department of the United States, proposed several other routes including the two mentioned by the minister. As I understand the situation, those routes would tap the traffic in the St. Lawrence system and divert it from Montreal and the St. Lawrence river east of Montreal to the Richer lieu system, and via the Hudson river system to New York.
One of the routes began in the two western lakes, namely lake Superior and lake Michigan, afterwards entering lake Huron. From lake Huron one route according to the map I have, proceeded through lake Nipissing and the Ottawa river to lake St. Louis, and then from the west end of lake St. Louis over to Chambly on the Richelieu. From that point it went on up over the height of land and down through the Hudson river to New York. Another route which is not commonly referred to, but which is shown on the map, was to leave Georgian bay at the mouth of the Nottawasaga river, then overland, I assume, via the Nottawasaga valley and the Humber valley to Toronto, then by lake Ontario to Oswego and the Erie canal, or down the St. Lawrence to lake St. Francis, and from lake

St. Francis over to lake Champlain at a point near Plat.tsburg.
Another proposal was to divert the traffic by lake Michigan and the Chicago canal to the Illinois river, the Mississippi river and then to New Orleans. Personally I am opposed to any proposal which would divert traffic that should follow the St. Lawrence river to Montreal harbour and the river, east. The St. Lawrence river route is the natural route for traffic from the west via water, and the route via the Richelieu, river, the Chambly canal and the Hudson river is an unnatural route. The United States Champlain canal, from the point where it enters the Hudson .river at the Mohawk river is and for some years has been canalized to take care of boats of considerable length. I believe the locks are 331 feet long and 45 feet wide, with a draft of twelve feet. As I understand the matter, the minister proposes to follow up with other locks in the Richelieu river to permit traffic up that river of boats which would pass, through the Champlain canal locks. The locks are to be 339 feet by 49 feet, with a twelve foot draft. I cannot help feeling that that would divert from the St. Lawrence system a great deal of traffic that should be going down that river. That traffic should go from Montreal down to the sea by the natural route. It is some considerable distance longer by way of New York than by way of Montreal to Father Point, which is in the deep water section of the St. Lawrence river.
After referring to these maps which I secured some years ago from the War Department, during trips to Washington, I wonder if the department is certain that the building of the canal would be beneficial to Canada. Personally I do not believe it would. I feel that any diversion of St. Lawrence traffic down the Hudson river would be detrimental to traffic in the St. Lawrence river which is Canada's great artery and certainly the natural route. Unless the United States up traffic is particularly beneficial, I cannot see how it would be of great benefit to the boats using the system, because of the elevation that ships would have to ascend from Sorel to the south end of lake Champlain where Champlain canal commences. I believe it rises about ninety f-eet in all, then from lake Champlain up over the height of land and into the Hudson river, which I believe is up about forty-five feet and down about 140 feet, before it enters into the Hudson river near Albany. It is to cost $500,000, and then later millions will have to be paid out. In my opinion that large amount of money might be better spent in Montreal harbour and the route east from that harbour.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
The Montreal Standard of March 30 has a little item headed "Low water in port vexing problem. Channel control now suggested. Montreal port future menaced." That is just one of many articles which have appeared in the papers for some time past. In my humble opinion it would be much better to spend this money on deepening the Montreal harbour or providing works east of Montreal or improving the St. Lawrence river. I do not know if the minister can change the item from the Richelieu to the S;t. Lawrence river, but I hope it is possible to do so. I am not opposing the spending of this money because it will provide work, but I would much rather see this ten or twelve million dollars, which the minister has given as an estimate of the eventual cost, spent in Montreal harbour and on the river east of Montreal than on the Richelieu river.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: When we left off the
discussion of this item on a previous occasion I had raised certain objections to this expenditure. There are two very serious objections to it at this time. The first is the amount of this item itself, but more serious than that is the fact that it commits the Dominion of Canada to a very much larger expenditure in the future.
Following the discussion in this chamber there was some newspaper comment of which I am sure the minister has taken notice. The Montreal Gazette of May 14, 1936, contains an article which sets forth opposition to this expenditure and it indicates that the local council of the board of trade-


Mr. DUPUIS:: I do not think, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is in order in reading from a newspaper.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have not yet done so.
I am just referring to the fact that the newspaper contained comment on this expenditure. I do not desire at this stage to read long extracts from newspapers, but I desire to base my comments on what has appeared in the newspapers, and a very responsible paper in the city of Montreal is opposed to this project. It is being opposed by the council of the board of trade, and I assume the minister has been made aware of the objection from that quarter.
The Montreal Daily Star of May 29 also contains a long article setting forth objections and criticisms of this proposed expenditure.
As the minister knows, this is not a new proposition at all. It is one which has been considered by the department at different times, and one which has been postponed for reasons with which the minister is familiar.
12739-256^
This waterway, if developed at an estimated expenditure of eight or ten or twelve million dollars, will, after all, be a light draft waterway. The minister knows that the tendency of the day is toward larger ships, ships of deeper draft. In years gone by ships of lighter draft did serve a useful purpose and carried quite a large volume of traffic. Still, the trend of traffic is toward larger ships and deeper waterways. There is also a very marked tendency toward the carriage of local freight by truck. In view of these facts we should seriously consider at this time whether it is advisable to undertake the deepening of waterways which, after all, will not carry ships of heavy draft and which will have to depend to a certain extent upon local traffic.
The minister indicated that there would be tourist traffic coming up from Albany and from the Hudson to the St. Lawrence. That is all right, but it is, after all, not a very heavy volume of traffic and not very profitable from the standpoint of the government. The minister knows that in Ontario the Trent canal system has been abandoned and taken over from the Department of Railways by Ontario for the development of power. The Rideau canal, a good canal in days gone by, passing through my own county, and a canal in which I am very much interested, has outlived its usefulness except for small craft and for tourist purposes. I am sure that for the traffic which would be on any of these canals we would not consider to-day the expenditure of any large amount, and this proposed expenditure is a very large sum, ten or twelve million dollars, and that in these days when we are urged and find it necessary to economize in every direction. I would urge upon the minister that this is a work which is not justified by the volume of traffic that will be on this waterway, and if the minister presses the item and carries it through the committee I beg of him to reconsider and review the whole situation from every standpoint. The passing of an estimate is not a commitment of the government. It is not a contract to undertake the work, and I would ask the minister to review and discuss the matter with his colleagues and delay this comparatively very large expenditure for this year, and the very much heavier commitment for the future. I really think from my knowledge of conditions acquired in the department and from everything that has been said as to the possibilities of this waterway, that circumstances at this time do not justify our embarking upon an expenditure that ultimately will amount to eig"ht or ten ir twelve million dollars.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Mr. CARDIN:: Mr. Chairman, I think it is only fair that I say a word in answer to the two hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this matter. At this late hour I do not feel like entering upon a lengthy discussion to justify the proposal which has been made, or mentioned incidentally, the rebuilding of the Chambly canal. Certain comments have been made outside this house by certain people who, I am sure, do not know the first thing about the matter, and have never seen the Richelieu river and its surroundings. Without being too severe I may say that that criticism and their contention were most unfair and were evidently the result of a desire to say something disagreeable to the minister.
My hon. friend (Mr. Stewart) has referred to an article in the Montreal Gazette. That article is really very mild, but it contains some kind of answer to the fear expressed by my hon. friend. It says that already a very important paper company in the province of Quebec has built two ships capable of navigating the rowboat canal as we have it at present at Chambly, and that other paper companies are contemplating the building of ships capable of navigating that canal in order to ship their paper and wood pulp to the United States, avoiding by that method going round the Gaspe peninsula into the gulf of St. Lawrence and the Atlantic ocean in order to reach New York and other important ports in the United States. They have found it advisable to build ships to navigate the present canal. We must remember that this canal is capable of being navigated only by vessels of 250 tons. That was all right in the old days, but the experts tell us that it is possible to develop this canal to permit its navigation by ships of 1,800 tons. This would be quite sufficient to take care of any possible traffic.
The objection was raised the other day that there was no traffic available. Well, there was no traffic available when the Canadian Pacific Railway was first initiated. There was no traffic available when both parties decided to build the Hudson Bay railway and to develop a port on the Hudson bay. We all wanted to develop any possibilities in Canada, and we took those methods of developing traffic. Many undertakings have been started without any present justification. The development of the St. Lawrence river from the ocean to Montreal was not undertaken when vessels were waiting in the gulf to go up to Montreal. The development of the wharves and other port facilities at Montreal were not undertaken jvhen the traffic was waiting in the harbour; those facilities were provided for the traffic that might develop later on.
[Mr Stewart.]
The same thing applies to the Richelieu river and the Chambly canal. There is no traffic at the present time because it is no longer profitable to use ships of only 250 tons. The traffic through the St. Lawrence canals when they were of the same size as the Chambly canal would compare very favourably with the traffic passing through the Chambly canal. To-day there is a great difference in the traffic through the two canal systems because the St. Lawrence canal's have been deepened to permit vessels of larger draft to go through. If the St. Lawrence canals bad been kept at the old depth of twelve feet, the present depth of the Chambly canal, there would be no traffic going through the St. Lawrence from the great- lakes to Montreal because it is not profitable to transport goods in vessels of only 250 tons.
I regret I have discussed this canal at this time because there is no necessity of this entering into the discussion. The vote which I am asking the committee to pass provides for a regulating dam between St. Johns and Chambly. This will be used more particularly for reclaiming low land's in the vicinity of St. Johns-Iberville and Missisquoi counties. It has been established by a report now in the Department of Public Works that a revenue of $500,000 per annum can be obtained from these low lands. These lands are so low that they cannot be cultivated at the present time. They are flooded every spring and as far back as 1900 requests were made to the department for the dredging of the Richelieu river in order to permit the water to flow off in the spring so that these lands might be cultivated. When the federal government started to dredge the Richelieu river an objection Was made by the United States. It was contended that this dredging would precipitate the flow of water in the Richelieu river and lower the level of lake Champlain. The Canadian government then submitted to the United States authorities a proposal for the building of a dam, which was approved. This dam would regulate the flow of water in the spring. When the water is high, the dam would be opened and the river having been dredged, would permit a more rapid flow of water and the lowlands in the vicinity of St, Johns-Iberville would not be flooded. When water is needed in the summer or fall for navigation purposes, the dam would be closed and the normal flow of water *would be permitted down the Richelieu river.
That is the proposal under consideration. Out of this vote of $500,000 to cover the building of the dam we want a few thousand dollars to be used for survey purposes to

National Harbours Board
determine the desirability of rebuilding the Chambly canal. My hon. friend mentioned an amount of $12,000,000 for this work, but the figure I mentioned the other day was $8,000,000. This figure was a mere guess on the part of the engineers. As there are no plans in the department for the rebuilding of this canal, no one can say definitely just what it will cost. I gave that figure the other day because I was pressed, but it represented a mere guess on the part of the engineers. If the government should decide to proceed with this rebuilding, the matter would come up next session or at another session. There would then be a vote placed before the committee, or possibly some other legislation would be introduced to provide for the reconstruction of the Chambly canal. I want it to be clearly understood that this amount is just to cover the building of a dam which has been contemplated as far back as 1900. After this explanation I feel that any apprehension which may have existed with regard to the rebuilding of this canal should disappear. If it is definitely decided to rebuild this canal, the house will have an opportunity to discuss the matter at a future session.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



CUSTOMS ACT AMENDMENT


Walter Edward Foster: I have the honour to
inform the house that a message has been received from the senate informing this house that the senate agrees to the amendment made by the House of Commons to the tenth amendment made by the senate to Bill No. 67, to amend the Customs Act (Canadian waters), without any amendment.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


Walter Edward Foster: I have the honour to
inform the house that a message has been received from the senate informing this house that the senate do insist upon its amendment to Bill No. 97, to Amend the Combines Investigation Act, for the reason that the amendment is necessary to accord witnesses the reasonable protection vouchsafed them in all British courts.



NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD


Walter Edward Foster: I have the honour to
inform the house that a message has been received from the senate informing this house that the senate do not insist upon its first, second and fifth amendments to Bill No. 17, respecting the National Harbours Board, to which the House of Commons have disagreed, and do substitute the following in lieu of its third amendment:
Page 6, lines 1 to 6 both inclusive. For subclause 2 of section 12 substitute the following:
"(2) Whenever, in the case of any works, tenders are required by this Act to be called, the board shall, after having given the tenderers reasonable notice of the time and place of the opening of the tenders, open them in public and thereafter submit them to the minister, who shall submit them to the governor in council and the contract for the work shall be awarded under the authority of the governor in council."


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, June 22, 1936