1936-04-20

[Stage Direction]
harbour yard and additional new equipment mentioned in answer to question 3. It was not intended that this substation would produce electricity. Its intended use was transforming and converting current received from the power company for use on the harbour.
3.	The harbour yard facilities have been extended but the electric substation has not been built. The commissioners purchased electrical equipment for this substation in the years 1027, 1928 and 1929 and they still have some of it in storage and the balance of this equipment has been installed and is in use in the temporary substation in the shed at the harbour yard.
4.	The anticipated increase in harbour operations and in power consumed on which the project was based did not materialize, consequently it was found unnecessary to erect the electric substation. The equipment already installed in the temporary substation in shed at harbour yard is of sufficient capacity to supply present needs in the area served by this substation.

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

Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1 In what year was the expropriation of St. Redempteur vestry-board, Notre Dame street east, Montreal, carried out, and at what cost?
2.	Was the objective of this expropriation
to acquire a site for the erection of a power house plant there, which would have produced the electricity needed by the harbour commission?	.	. c
3.	Is the government aware that in view ot the erection of this power house plant, electric material amounting to many thousands of dollars was purchased, and that the Montreal harbour is still in possession of most of this electric material?
4.	What are the reasons which prevented this project being put into execution?


Mr. HOWE:: The following information has been supplied by the harbour commissioners of Montreal.	_
1.	This property was not expropriated.
Purchased in 1929. Area 122,140 square feet. Price:	land, 8305,350; buildings, $25,000;
total, $330,350.
2.	No. The object of the purchase was for extension of the harbour yard and erection of an electric substation to house equipment already installed temporarily in a shed at the
[Thfl Speaker.]


Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Since what date has the railway line between Montreal and Granby been electrified?
2.	What has been the financial result of its operations for each year?
3.	By whom is the electric energy supplied to this line, and what is the price of each horse power supplied?
4.	Does the government intend to abandon using electricity as the motive power for this line ?
5.	What is the length of the said line?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	The Montreal and southern counties railway always has been an electric line. It was extended to Granby in 1916.
2.	Operating results, including interest on notes, also profit and loss, have been as follows since the Canadian National management took over from the Grand Trunk:
Year
1923		deficit..! 77,434 81
1924	"	..	39,449	881925	"	..	51,207	741926	profit.. 3,264 821927	deficit..	14,235 241928	"	..	43,343	951929	"	..	12,346	001930	"	..	35,901	801931	"	..	166,217	711932	"	..	259,082	091933	"	..	162,483	631934	"	..	189,348 941935	"	..	196,800	95
3.	Montreal, Light, Heat and Power Consolidated. Average price per k.w.h. for suburban and interurban services for the year 1935 was 1-157 cents.
_ 4. The Canadian National has no present intention of abandoning the use of electricity as motive power for this line.
5.	47-5 miles.


PENSION TRIBUNAL
Mr. PATTERSON:: 1.	In what year was the Pension Tribunal created ?
2.	Who were the members of this tribunal?
3.	What salary did each receive?
4.	What was the total expense?
5.	Why was the board abolished?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	1930.
2 and 3.	Name	Salary
Morrison, Dr. Thos. (chairman).. $7,000
McDonald, Brig.-Gen. H. F	 6,000
Thompson, Major C. C	 6,000
Gagnon, Col. J. T. E	 6,000
MacLeod, Lt.-Col. N. P	 6,000
MacKenzie, Col. L. H	 6,000
Grover, Capt. J. 1	 6,000
Turner, Lt.-Gen. Sir R. E. W.... 6,000
Warde, Capt. L	 6,000
McKay, Capt. J. F	 6,000
Peck, Col. C. W	 6,000
MacKenzie, Capt. E. C	 6,000
4.	$895,347.45.
5. The tribunal was abolished on the coming into force of chapter 45, 1933, an act to amend the Pension Act.


OTTAWA-HAWKESBURY RAILWAY
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1. Has the government decided to, or does it intend to, dispose of the railway line between the city of Ottawa and L'Orignal, or the city of Hawkesbury?
Questions
2.	What is the distance between these two
cities ?
3.	Has the government ever had the intention of electrifying this line, and did any companies ever offer to electrify it?
4.	Was it ever suggested to the government that the result obtained on the Montreal-Granby line was possible on this Ottawa-Hawkesbury line?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	The Canadian National has an application before the Board of Railway Commissioners for the abandonment of operation of the line from Hurdman on the outskirts of Ottawa to Hawkesbury. The matter is, therefore, sub judice.
_ 2- The distance between Ottawa Union station and Hawkesbury is 59 miles.
3.	The Canadian National never had any intention to electrify this line, and neither the management nor the government know of any offer to electrify it.
4.	The financial result of the operation of the Montreal-Granby line being a heavy annual deficit, it has not heretofore been suggested as a model for the operation of the Ottawa-Hawkesbury section.


ENLISTMENTS IN DEFENCE AND POLICE FORCES
Mr. BARBER:: 1. How	many	applications	have been
received, and how many accepted, for enlistment in the Canadian defence forces for each of the years. 1933, 1934, 1935, under the following headings: (a) permanent forces; (b) air force; (c) navy?
2. How many	applications	have been
received, and how many accepted, for enlistment in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for each of the years 1933, 1934 and 1935?


Mr. RINFRET:: . (a) Permanent active militia	1933	1934	1935Applications received	1,548	3,106Applications accepted.. ..	181	736(b) Royal Canadian Air Force	(permanent)	Applications received	2,529	2,892Applications accepted.. ..	82	170(c) Royal Canadian Navy	Applications received.. ..	
591	454	469Applications accepted.. ..	58	91Applications received.. ..	
4,385	2,384	2,561Accepted for enlistment..	253	287
1950
Questions


IMMIGRATION
Mr. JEAN:: 1.	How many immigrants, classified by nationalities, entered Canada, each month, from January 1, 1935, to April 1, 1936, and at what ports were they admitted?
2.	How many of such immigrants entered
Canada under the general provisions of the Immigration Act?	_
3.	How many were admitted under special permits and what is their nationality?
i.	How many immigrants, who became naturalized British subjects in other countries, entered Canada during the same period, and what was their country of origin?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	It is impossible to supply the information required by nationalities, but in the statement marked "A" the total immigration is given by racial origin and months of arrival for the period January 1, 1935, to February 29, 1936. (Figures for March, 1936 not compiled). The racial origin in most cases indicates nationality.
Statement "B" shows arrivals by (1) ocean ports; (2) boundary ports. It is not possible from the Immigration statistics to supply a statement that will show the racial origins by ports of entry.
2 and 3. Immigration statistics do not take account of whether admission was granted on compliance with the general regulations or was granted by a special order in council.
4.	No information available.


STATEMENT &quot;A&quot;
[Stage Direction]
Immigration to Canada, by months, showing racial origin for the period January 1, 1935, to February 29, 1936
1935	1936	TotalsJan.	Feb.	Mar.	April	May	June	July	Aug.	Sept.	Oct.	Nov.	Dec.	Jan.	Feb.	Albanian	1	1Arabian	2	2Armenian	2	1	2	2	7Belgian	3	9	22	12	7	5	5	7	6	12	8	4	i	2	103Bohemian	1	1	1	2	1	1	1	8British-	English	149	144	174	309	282	333	274	329	367	314	247	167	H0	120	3,349Irish	45	40	48	75	77	94	82	113	99	101	76	45	38	34	967Scotch	53	46	91	126	126	102	87	140	140	116	92	85	50	44	1,298Welsh	8	2	6	5	11	13	10	9	5	4	6	9	5	3	961	4	1	1	2	1	3	g	Croatian	9	7	19	12	20	14	10	17	15	9	16	10	9	24	1912	3	12	15	9	5	32	10	6	12	5	2	2	115Dutch	4	7	8	12	15	7	26	28	13	36	ii	5	3	5	1801	5	3	1	3	1	3	4	4	1	1	27Esthonian	1	2	36	5	2	7	2	6	5	10	7	1	13	2	5	71French	49	63	38	62	57	83	79	131	82	91	70	35	40	52	932German	39	55	60	59	54	83	67	83	59	54	56	56	33	28	786Greek	2	5	1	3	3	7	7	7	13	12	2	5	5	3	75Hebrew	38	21	19	24	60	32	83	107	114	86	107	112	41	64	908Italian	25	26	31	29	33	33	27	65	35	35	36	17	17	39	4483	12	8	3	5	17	7	6	2	4	3	9	796	25	17	8	2	2	21	4	20	8	6	12	3	1342	i	32	5	1	3	2	1	2	1	4	2	2	6	31Magyar	20	23	33	28	32	55	36	22	31	32	20	12	12	23	3791	13	2	1	2	2	3	3	3	4	3	2	281	2Polish	16	14	58	55	56	22	40	52	31	42	40	21	18	13	4782	1	1	1	1	2	g5	4	8	1	3	7	3	2	7	2	1	6	4	53Russian	16	2	3	4	12	19	27	4	2	5	i	4	9	2	110Ruthenian	33	37	71	42	36	19	41	52	34	38	39	41	19	22	524Scandinavian-	Danish	1	*	3	5	1	13	4	2	10	5	6	1	3	1	581	1	]	1	2	4	1	12Norwegian	3	5	10	7	13	23	20	7	5	4	14	11	4	5	131Swedish	4	7	15	16	5	11	17	5	18	4	11	4	4	121
Questions
STATEMENT' 'A''-Concluded
Immigration to Canada, by months, showing racial origin for the period January 1, 1935, to February 29, 1936
Jan.
Serbian. Slovak.. Spanish.
Swiss___
Syrian..
Totals.
Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec
1
2
568
1
1
789
19
5
964
46
17
1,020
52
8
1,061
30
1,050
70
	i
1,324
1,160
69
....4'
1,160
12
2
706
Jan.
499
Feb.
23
	
550
Totals
450
56
12,326

[Stage Direction]
Immigration to Canada, by months, from January 1, 1935 to February 29, 1936
1935	1936	TotalsJan.	Feb.	Mar.	April	May	June	July	Aug.	Sept.	Oct.	Nov.	Dec.	Jan.	Feb.	Via ocean ports-	161	182	312	144	54	81	101	89	23	59	96	192	140	224	1,85815	8	17	15	33	24	29	35	14	44	13	10	8	2052	2	1	1	1	1	84	6	2	2	2	3	1	1	1	222	i	4	5	4	6	13	8	3	4	4	1	2	57Quebec	6	7	13	234	360	331	338	464	434	417	288	9	4	20	2,9257	3	12New York	40	56	109	90	57	63	57	93	138	63	54	117	67	56	1,066Vancouver	5	10	25	12	22	21	23	21	14	10	13	11	10	11	2083	2	10	8	1	1	10	3	3	10	2	531	11	6	7	11	30	5	1	3	75
Totals		245	271	472	517	524	536	556	721	676	602	507	359	236	327	6,549
Via border ports from the United															
States	323	288	317	447	496	525	494	603	484	558	409	347	263	223	5,777Total Immigration	568	559	789	964	1,020	1,061	1,050	1,324	1,160	1,160	916	706	499	550	12,3261952	COMMONS
Questions

Questions

Mr. LACROIX (Quebec-Montmoreney):: How many letters did Mr. C. N. Dorion, ex-member for Quebec-Montmoreney write to the public departments at Ottawa from August 1, 1930. to October 14, 1935, in which he charged political partisanship to secure the dismissal of government employees: (1) Post Office Department; (2) Department of Marine, including the marine agencies at Quebec and Sorel; (3) the harbour commission of Quebec?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Mr. C. N. Dorion, former member for Quebec-Montmoreney, wrote to the Post Office Department in twelve cases charging political partisanship on the part of government employees.
2.	Twenty-six. (This numlber represents charges against twenty-one people).
3.	Nil.


QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION
Édouard Lacroix: How many employees of the harbour commission of Quebec were dismissed between August 1, 1930, and October 14, 1935?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Three hundred and eighty, exclusive of men working on the contract at Wolfe's Cove terminals and who were supplied by the Quebec harbour commissioners. In August, 1930, the average number employed on this contract was 774. By September 17, 1930, the force had been reduced to 106. Staff was then gradually increased to 726 by September 30. By October 15 this number had been increased to 1,246.


JOSEPH DORION
Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	Was Mr. Joseph Dorion, carpenter and joiner of Charlesbourg, Quebec county, an employee of the Marine department at Quebec?
2.	If so, since when?
3.	Has he been dismissed?
4.	If so, for what reasons?
5.	Has he been replaced?
6.	If so, by whom?
7.	Upon whose recommendation?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	September 15, 1930.
3.	Yes.
4.	Political partisanship.
5.	Yes.
6.	Cleop'has Rainville.
7.	Mr. W. Lacroix, M.P.


J. A. MATHIEU
Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	Who replaced J. A. Mathieu as postmaster of Montmorency village?
2.	For what reason was Mr. Mathieu
dismissed ?
3.	Upon whose recommendation?
4.	Was an official inquiry held before Mr. Mathieu was retired?
5.	If not, why?
6.	Is not the department obliged to hold an inquiry before dismissing such an officer?


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: 1.	Arthur Girard.
2.	The post office was moved to a location closer to the larger portion of the population and to more spacious and better equipped quarters.
3.	Wilfrid Lacroix, M.P.
4.	5 and 6. Reports were obtained from the district director of postal services, Quebec.


ROSAIRE BLOUIN
Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	Was Rosaire Blouin employed as a signal
man at St. Jean. lie d'Orleans?
2.	If so. by whom was he recommended for the position?
3.	Is he still so employed?
4.	Has he been discharged?
5.	If so, for what reason?
6.	Upon whose request?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	He was employed as signal agent.
2.	C. N. Dorion, ex-M.P.
3.	4, 5 acd 6. This is a seasonal position and his services were dispensed with at the close of navigation.


GEORGE PREMONT
Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	Was George Premont of St. Jean, lie d'Orleans employed as signal man at that place?
2.	If so, by whom was he recommended for the position?
3.	Is he still so employed?
4.	Have his services been dispensed with?
5.	If so, for what reason?
6.	Who recommended his dismissal?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	He was employed as signal agent.
2.	C. N. Dorion, ex-M.P.
3.	4, 5 and 6. This is a seasonal position and his services were dispensed with at the close of navigation.


RICHMOND HILL PUBLIC BUILDING SITE
Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	Did the government purchase land in the village of Richmond Hill for the purpose of constructing a public building thereon?
2.	If so, on what date and from whom was the said land purchased?
3.	On what street does the land face, how much frontage is there on said street, and what is the depth of said land?
4.	What price was paid for the said land?
5.	Was this land inspected and valued by any official of the department before the purchase was completed?
6.	If so, by whom?
Questions

7.	If this land was not valued by an official of the department, then who made the valuation for the government?
8.	Who acted as solicitor for the government on the purchase of the said land?
9.	Was any commission paid to any person on the purchase of this land?
10.	If so, to whom and how much was the said commission?
11.	If no commission was paid, was any sum paid for services and to whom?
12.	If so, what was the total amount paid for his services and disbursements?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) August 14, 1935; (b) W. A. Duncan.
3.	(a) Property situated on southwest corner of Yonge street and Centre street west;
(b)	49 feet 6 inches frontage on Yonge street;
(c)	144 feet 6 inches depth on Centre street.
4.	$8,000.
5.	Yes.
6.	Supervising architect, Department of Public Works, Toronto.
7.	Answered by No. 6.
8.	Clifford Case, K.C., Toronto.
9.	No commission paid by department.
10.	Answered by No. 9.
11 and 12. $108.05 paid to solicitor for professional services and disbursements.


QUEBEC CITY WHARF
Mr. LACROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):: What distance from (1) Battlefield park at Quebec, and (2) the residence of the lieutenant governor, is the only wharf available for lease in the port of Quebec?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If this question refers to the southward bearing section of the quay wall at west end of Wolfe's Cove terminals, and storage area 800 feet by 600 feet adjacent westerly thereto, the distances to such wharf area are:
(1) 700 feet from edge of park area; 1,300 feet from battlefield memorial; 2,400 feet from museum and 3,000 feet from observatory in park.
(2 ) 2,500 feet from residence of lieutenant governor.


RELIEF CAMP NO. 42
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	Who are the contractors at present supplying vegetables at relief camp No. 42?
2.	Is the contractor, whose contract was cancelled last year at camps 42 and 37, still supplying vegetables either in his own name or in the name of any other contractor?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Mr. John Marshall, Kingston, Ontario.
2.	Yes (Mr. John Marshall), in his own name under a new contract; vide the answer to No. 1.


TRANSFER OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES TO BANK OF CANADA
Mr. PURDY:: 1.	How many employees have been transferred from the Department of Finance to the Bank of Canada?
2.	What were the total annual salaries of these employees?
3.	Have any further employees been engaged by the Department of Finance to perform any portion of the work carried on by those transferred to the Bank of Canada?
4.	If so, what is the number of the employees so engaged and the annual total of their salaries ?
5.	What is the estimated annual saving in operating expenses to the Department of Finance apart from salaries brought about by the creation of the Bank of Canada?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1. 111.
2.	$178,200.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by 3.
5.	$500,000 to $550,000. This does not take into consideration the fact that when the Bank of Canada commenced operations the dominion government, under the terms of the Bank of Canada Act, transferred to the Bank of Canada $115,013,638.82 5-year 3 per cent securities representing that portion of the dominion note issue then outstanding and assumed by the Bank of Canada, not covered by gold and silver.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MUTCH:: 1.	Are there any audits originating in western Canada and not carried out by the office of the auditor general?
2.	If so, how many outside auditors were so employed in 1935?
3.	Who were they?
4.	How much did they severally receive?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Return tabled herewith.


LEGAL TENDER-ASSETS OF CHARTERED BANKS
Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	What is the total amount of legal tender in existence in Canada according to the last figures in the hands of the government?
2.	How much of same was in the form (a) Bank of Canada notes; (b) metal coins?
3.	What was the total amount of notes of chartered banks outstanding according to the last returns of the said banks to the government?
4.	What was the total of the deposits with the chartered banks at this time?

Questions as Orders jor Returns
5.	What were the total assets of Canadian chartered banks in 1929 and in 1935, and how much of same in each case were in the form of (a) Dominion of Canada securities; (b) provincial securities; (c) municipal securities;
(d)	securities for loans to corporations and private individuals?


Mr. DUNNING:: Return tabled herewith.


BANK OF CANADA
Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	How many shares of the Bank of Canada are held respectively by those in various occupations in each of the provinces of Canada according to the last return of shareholders made pursuant to section 35 of the Bank of Canada Act?
2.	Is the operation of section 25 (1) of the Bank of Canada Act suspended at the present time?
3.	If so, for how long a period has the operation of said section been suspended?
CURRENCY AND	CREDIT-INCOME	TAX-


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES AND LOANS -PUBLIC DEBT
Mr. McGEER:: 1.	What amounts of the following coins have been minted, issued and are now in circulation?
(a)	lc. copper or bronze coins.
(b)	other bronze or copper coins.
(c)	5c. nickel coins.
(d)	5c. silver coins.
(e)	10c. silver coins.
(f)	25c. silver coins.
(g)	50c. silver coins.
(h)	$1 silver coins.
(i)	other coins.
2.	On January 1, 1936:
(a)	What were the denominations and the amount of each denomination of Bank of Canada currency, bills or notes issued and in circulation?
(b)	What were the denominations and amounts of each denomination of currency, bills or notes issued by each of the chartered banks of Canada and in circulation?
(c)	What was the value of the gold bullion, silver bullion, gold coin, silver coin, pounds (sterling), American dollar (divided as to silver coins, silver certificates, federal reserve notes, other American currency)-other foreign exchange, other coin and currency held by (1) The Bank of Canada; (2) Each of the Canadian chartered banks?
3.	(a) Have Canadian silver dollars ever been minted and issued in Canada; if so, what was the amount issued, the dates of issue and the purposes of the issue?
(b)	What was the actual quantity in grains of silver contained in each silver dollar minted and issued to commemorate the golden jubilee of our late, lamented and beloved sovereign King George V?
(c)	What did the silver contained in each of the said dollars cost the government?
(d)	What was the value of the silver contained in each of the said dollars at the time of the minting thereof?
(e)	What was the cost of minting and issuing each silver dollar?
(f)	How were such dollars put in circulation?
(g)	Were any of the said dollars used as currency to pay any of the expenses or obligations of the government?
(h)	What is the total amount of silver produced in Canada for each of the years 1926 to 1935, inclusive?
(i)	What amount of such silver produced
in Canada was acquired by the government, the Bank of Canada or other agency representative of the public interest, and at what price for each of the years 1926 to 1935, inclusive?	.	.
(j)	What amount of silver bullion is now held in reserve by the government and the Bank of Canada?
(k)	How was such silver acquired and how was the price paid, fixed or arrived at?
(l)	What was used to pay for the silver so acquired?
4.	What amount of gold -was produced in
Canada for each of the years 1926 to 1935, inclusive?	.
5.	What corporation or agency acquires gold from Canadian gold mining operations?
6. What was the price paid per ounce for such gold and how was the price fixed or arrived at?
7.	Under what authority was the gold purchased, the price fixed or otherwise arrived at?
8.	How is such gold paid for and what is used as the medium of exchange employed in transferring gold from producer to the purchasing agency or other authority?
9.	When gold is transferred from Canada to United States, what is received in exchange for said gold and how is the price fixed or otherwise arrived at?
10.	At the time of the incorporation of the Bank of Canada what amount of gold was held by or on behalf of the government?
11.	Was such gold transferred to the Bank of Canada, and if so, what was received in exchange for the said gold?
12.	At the time of the incorporation of the Bank of Canada, what was the total amount of gold bullion and coin held by the chartered banks of Canada?
13.	What did the said chartered banks receive for the said gold, and what medium of exchange was employed to effect the transfer?
14.	As of January 1, 1936, what was the amount-
(a)	Of gold and silver bullion held by the Bank of Canada?
(b)	Of Canadian coined currency and foreign exchange held by the Bank of Canada?
(c)	Of gold and silver bullion held by each of the chartered banks of Canada?
(d)	Of foreign exchange held by each of the chartered banks of Canada?
(e)	Of Bank of Canada notes held by each of the chartered banks of Canada?
(f)	Of chartered bank note currency held by each of the chartered banks of Canada?
(g)	What was the total volume of monetary transactions consummated in Canada by checks transferring bank deposits for the years 1929 to 1935. inclusive?
15.	What was the total amount borrowed on account of public debt during years 1914 to 1930. inclusive?
16.	What was the average rate of interest paid on account of such borrowings?
17.	What amount of bonds issued in respect of such borrowings were exempt from taxation?
Motions for Papers

18.	What was the total amount of interest paid on account of public debt by the government for the years 1914 to 1935, inclusive, segregated as follows:
(a)	by the dominion government
(b)	by the governments of the provinces
(c)	by the municipalities and other local governing bodies?
19.	What was the value of the coal imported from the United States to Canada in 1935?
20.	What was the value of the gold exported from Canada to the United States in 1935?
21.	What was the total amount of income assessed by the dominion against individuals for income tax purposes in 1929 to 1935, inclusive?
22.	What was the ordinary expenditure of government in Canada during years 1929 to 1935, inclusive, segregated as follows:
(a)	Dominion government
(b)	Provincial governments
(c)	Municipalities and other local governments?
23.	What amounts were expended, loaned and guaranteed by the dominion government during each of the years 1930 to 1935, inclusive, on account of depression conditions, showing: the provinces, municipalities, corporations and others receiving the same, and the amount received by such provinces, municipalities, coi-porations and others?
24.	What was the increase in the public debt for each of the years 1930 to 1935, inclusive, showing:
(a) Bonds issued and sold, giving date of issue, amount, rate of interest and date of repayment.
(b)	Amount of bonds sold to or hypothecated in Canadian banks, trust companies, other companies;
(c)	Treasury certificates issued showing date of issue, amount, rate of interest and date of repayment;
(d)	Bank and other borrowings in addition to the above mentioned?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. WERMENLINGER:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, letters and other documents respecting the dismissal of Mr. Joseph Dorion, carpenter and joiner, formerly employed by the Department of Marine at Quebec, and covering the period from October 1, 1935, to date.



J. A. MATHIEU

Edgard Jules Wermenlinger: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents in the possession of the Post Office Department with reference to the dismissal of Mr. J. A. Mathieu, postmaster of Montmorency village, county of Quebee-Mont-morency, and extending over the period from October 1, 1935, to date.



ROSAIRE BLOUIN

Edgard Jules Wermenlinger: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents in the possession of the Department of Marine with reference to the dismissal of Rosaire Blouin, signal man at St. Jean, He d'Orleans, and covering the period from October 1, 1935, to date.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say that this man was not dismissed. A signal man is a seasonal appointment. This man worked the season and was automatically retired at the end. There is no correspondence in connection with the matter.



GEORGE PREMONT

Edgard Jules Wermenlinger: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents with reference to the dismissal of George Premont from the position of signal man at St. Jean, lie d'Orleans, and covering the period from October 1, 1935, to date.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The remarks made in the previous instance apply to the case of this man. He was in exactly the same position.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Perhaps before the orders of the day are proceeded with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) would state whether he is now in a position to tell us what new business we may expect to see on the order paper during the present session.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I thank my right hon. friend for immediately asking this question, but if he will permit me I shall answer it a little later in the week.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, April 8, consideration in committee of Bill No. 19, to assist in the relief of unemployment, the promoting of agricultural settlement and rehabilitation, and in the development, conservation and improvement of certain natural and other resources-Mr. Rogers-Mr. McPhee in the chair.

Unemployment
On section 3, subsection 2-Works and undertakings.
Mr. HEAPS:: Will the government observe the fair wage regulations of the various provinces in carrying out these public undertakings?
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): In connection with works carried on jointly by the dominion and the provinces the practice has been to require that those employed shall receive such fair and reasonable wages as are paid in the province in which the work is done.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am glad to know that the government will observe the fair wage regulations of the various provinces in which public works are to be undertaken. Has the minister any idea as to what public works are likely to be undertaken during the coming year to relieve the unemployment situation now prevailing?


Mr. ROGERS:: In advance of the submission to the house of the special supplementary estimates I am afraid it would be impossible for me to give an undertaking as to the amount which will be available for this purpose. As has already been announced, special supplementary estimates will be placed before the house very shortly.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think we should have
some idea as to the amount of money the government is going to provide. A few days before the recess I understood the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to say that there would be 875,000,000 available for relief ourposes. I assume that that amount would include all forms of relief for the ensuing fiscal year. It will cover direct relief, that is the providing of food, clothing and shelter for those unable to obtain employment; it will cover assistance to the various provinces, assistance to the drought areas, and such public works as may be undertaken. I think at this time we should have some idea as to the amount that will be available for public works. I was pleased to learn that $75,000,000 would be available, but on second thought
Province
Nova Scotia.. .. New Brunswick..
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan.. .
Alberta	
British Columbia
this does not look quite so good. If only
810,000,000 is to be available for public works, it will be totally inadequate to cope with the existing relief situation.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I understand fully the
interest of my hon. friend in the provisions to be made for public works during the coming fiscal year, but I am sure he has been in this house long enough to understand that I cannot give a statement as to the amount that will be available for this purpose. Special supplementary estimates will be brought down very shortly.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Perhaps the minister could
tell the committee how many unemployed it is expected will be absorbed into useful employment during the ensuing year.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am afraid I could not
do more than express a hope. Naturally we do hope, and very strongly, that through public works construction and such reemployment as may be available in industry there will be a substantial reduction in the numbers of those now on the relief rolls.


Mr. STIRLING:: Could the minister indicate to what extent the men in the dominion relief camps are passing into useful employment? Only to-day I noticed in a newspaper from British Columbia that forty-six from one of the neighbouring relief camps had been taken on by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for improvement works at Revelstoke. I should like to know if the minister has any knowledge as to the extent to which that sort of thing is going on throughout Canada.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have the information
requested by my hon. friend and I think it might be useful if I placed it on Hansard in tabular form. These figures relate to the strength of the unemployment relief camps, by provinces and as of various dates.


Grote Stirling: Those are the dominion
government relief camps?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, those conducted by
the Department of National Defence in collaboration with the Department of Labour. These returns come in fortnightly:
29/2/36	15/3/36	31/3/36	15/4/36537	504	478	3911.115	1.057	931	8012,774	2,717	2.583	2.4195.386	5.206	4.905	4.4471,319	1.298	1.204	1.1911.311	1.266	1.184	1.0872.128	1.963	1.669	1.4425,806	5.431	5,029	4,26120,376	19,442	17,983	16,039
Unemployment

Thus it will be seen that in every province, without exception, there has been a steady diminution in the numbers in the relief camps.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: The minister has
given the number of men in the camps, but that does not give us very much of an idea of the number of unemployed. On Friday last, in my own city of Winnipeg, I visited the dining halls where the unemployed are being fed. There were 4,200 men in the Princess street hall, where they are looking after those who are more or less resident in the city. In the Water street hall there were 800 men, composed very largely of transients, for whom they care for only two or three days at a time. In the two halls, therefore, there were 5,000 people. That has nothing whatever to do with the camps, but those were single, homeless, unemployed men. I should like to ask the minister what is going to be done with them within the next few weeks. I understood him to say that about 10,000 men from the camps across the country were supposed to go to work on the railways. There are 5,000 single, unemployed men, or half the number mentioned by the minister, in that one city alone. What are we going to do with them? What does the department propose? What provision is it proposed to make for this very large number of men?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The situation in Winnipeg, of course, had been drawn to my attention previously. In Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton and Vancouver we have a very considerable number of single unemployed men who were not taken into t'he relief camps during the winter months and who, generally, have been supplied with food and shelter at hostels maintained by the various provincial governments. So far as the work on the railways is concerned, it is confined in the first instance, as has been announced already, to those who are now in relief camps, for reasons which I think commended themselves to this house. So far as other alternative employment is concerned, we shall do everything possible, with the cooperation of the employment bureaux, to see that these other single homeless men are placed as soon as possible.
I may say to my hon. friend that information has also come to me within the last week or so that in certain parts of western Canada there has been a shortage of farm labour, and that some farmers are finding it exceedingly difficult to obtain assistance at this time. If that be the case, as I understand it is, there would seem to be some employment now offering for single homeless men who are in

these various hostels. I am not in a position to say that this work is sufficiently attractive to induce them to leave the hostels at this time, but my information is that a very considerable amount of work is now available on the farms of western Canada.


Mr. CHURCH:: This particular subsection is nothing less than coercion as far as the unemployed are concerned, and I am surprised that the Minister of Labour would bring forward such a proposition. As you know, Mr. Chairman, many of the people on relief in the larger cities are skilled workers, bricklayers, carpenters, and so on. I am surprised at the minister, if he is a real labour man, proposing such a coercive bill as the one now before us. This business of relief was all right during the darker days of the depression, but now the first of May is only about ten days away, and many of these people who are in receipt of relief were hoping to get back to work at union or prevailing rates, in construction work and in other lines, on the first of next month. I doubt whether this bill is legal, as a matter of fact, because it refers to the "general interest of Canada" and there is no such legal phrase. We may be sure that the house of philology, the other chamber, will change that to "the general advantage of Canada."
On behalf of the industrial workers of the country I wish to object to the principle of this and every other subsection of this clause. If the government of the day would study the problem a little more, as it has been studied in other countries, they would not go about it in this way. I have here the report of the Senate of the United States of 1927 on unemployment. Senator Couzens was chairman, and I believe this bill was largely copied from the United States bill having to do with the same question. In that country they grant money to the larger municipalities. Why should this question continue to be made a political football in the various provinces? Some of the provinces are bankrupt; one has announced that it wants to get rid of relief altogether and turn it back to the dominion. Where are the funds for this bill to come from? They will come from the earnings of the industrial workers of Ontario and Quebec very largely, and my proposition is this: These agreements wdth regard to relief should be made directly with the larger municipalities. Why deal with a third party when that third party does not handle relief at all but merely passes on the money? Here we have A, B and C, A the dominion, B the province and C the municipality, and B should be eliminated and wTe should deal direct

Unemployment
with the municipalities. If the federal government is conscientious and consistent about this matter of the municipalities and the provinces why do they not turn over the relief funds in the larger centres of population directly to the municipalities? In the larger centres like Toronto and Hamilton they run these things free from politics. This is giving labour the greatest black eye it will ever get. This is a coercion bill. The government has no right to coerce a citizen who has never been on relief before and compel him if he works to take relief rates not union rates. I and the other Toronto members represent an industrial riding in which sixty-five per cent of the people own their own homes. Many of these men never knew what it was to be on relief until this depression came with its disturbance of the industrial equilibrium, but they have been forced on relief, and the loan sharks have got hold of some of them. Are we going to allow the relief officer who handles this fund to say to a worker, "You will either take this job at the wages offered or go off relief altogether," Thus forcing him to take a mere pittance? The province should never come into this matter. This clause means that the railways have been made the favourites of this parliament; they are to be handed a large sum for equipment. Why should the railways get a hand-out like that, and the municipalities not get a cent? If these are to be public works, proper consideration should be given to the question of how these relief rates are going to interfere permanently with the wage scales of the skilled workers who have been driven to take relief through no fault of their own.
I would like to help the government on this employment question, but there has been so much red tape about the whole thing; it is largely a conglomeration of words; the metaphysical language of the minister in almost every address has beclouded the whole question. With the first of May only ten days away I do not know what is going to become of the unemployed in Toronto and Hamilton and other cites of Ontario. Toronto is a solvent municipality; it can pay one hundred cents on the dollar and can borrow money at the lowest rate in the dominion. It is not only looking after its own relief but is contributing $83,000,000 to the federal treasury this year. I say on behalf of the workers there that this is not a fair deal to industrial workers who have never been on relief before. It is very unfair to leave this in the hands of the provinces and the large corporations without any protection to the workers. What is the labour department for? As I understand it
the labour department should be up and doing to protect the worker.
I protest against the principle involved in this bill. It is against the liberty of the subject. It is a coercion bill; it is going to force the skilled workers who should earn seven or eight dollars a day to take $1.35 or whatever the province may say, and some of the provinces are bankrupt and cannot pay their way.


Mr. McGEER:: Why is there no provision here to permit the governor in council to deal with municipalities, or are they included?


Norman McLeod Rogers: In the past, without exception, I think, the dominion government have dealt with the municipalities through the provinces.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Where municipalities are bankrupt, as some of them are, it is taking an extraordinary position to lend to private corporations such as the railways, and yet take no power to assist the municipalities where large numbers of unemployed are now concentrated. It also misses an opportunity to work out a practical scheme of cooperation between the dominion, the provincial and the municipal governments, whereby as supplementary to public works there could be incorporated plans of social service as permanent measures for eliminating certain types of extremely persistent and difficult unemployment. At the mayors' conference the men who probably are closer to the unemployment relief problem than any others thought it would be advisable to have a much greater measure of cooperation than has . existed in the past between the three political executives that now govern the people of Canada. Speaking from a practical point of view and from some practical experience, I believe that one cause of failure in both the British and the American recovery programs is the fact that they refused to recognize the municipal governments as channels through which measures of unemployment relief could be established on a permanent basis. The situation in Vancouver is not a bit different from what it is in any other city in the dominion. In Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec, Windsor or Winnipeg you find an ever increasing accumulation of persistent unemployment that cannot be relieved by work on railways or by what are commonly called public works. We are not at the end of the depression, although this is the seventh year of it, and to leave out the municipalities and carry on as we have in the past, dealing through the provinces and refusing to recognize the muni-
Unemployment

cipal governments as having an immediate relation with the dominion government, is a serious and fundamental barrier to success in the unemployment relief program.
I do not know how far the government feel that the municipalities can carry the burden of the unemployable. There are two phases of that particular branch of the problem which must be considered. The first is that the municipalities, as such are not able to meet the ordinary needs of the people. The social service problems which have been developed as a part of the functions of municipal government are far beyond the revenue powers of municipal administration. But more than that, out of the existing depression a large number of people have developed into unemployable public charges, and this condition has brought the totals up to far greater numbers than were ever contemplated when the assumption was established that, through levies on its own taxpayers, the municipal government should maintain those in destitution who were resident within a city. I know that the problem of health service in many cities has been carried on only because in a spirit of charity medical doctors have given professional services for which they have not been paid. If there is to be no cooperation between the dominion government and municipal governments throughout the dominion, then it does seem to me that municipal governments are facing a very serious position, and one which they should not have to continue to face. I do not suppose it is the intention of the government to throw into a condition of destitution and starvation those who are now dependent upon municipalities, and if through the municipalities and out of. the limited funds to be made available by parliament some arrangement is not made now for the care of these people it will practically mean receiverships for municipalities from one end of Canada to the other. The real problem comes down to this: When men in municipal governments are faced with the choice of paying interest on their bonds and meeting their debt charges, or appropriating their available funds to taking care of the destitute in their respective areas, they are going to choose on the side of humanity. That means default; it means receiverships, and, has already meant receiverships in two hundred and fifty-three municipalities across the dominion. The situation is not one to be blinked at; it is not one the responsibility for which-may be ignored, and it does not seem to me that the bill anticipates the action which must be taken on this problem before the year is out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I do not think he is justified in saying that there is no cooperation between the dominion and the municipalities. I should like to remind him that in the past winter the present administration increased by seventy-five per cent for four months the grants to the provinces to be passed on to the municipalities.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: But it was not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It should have been, if it was not.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That action was in the nature of cooperation between the dominion government and the municipalities while preserving the relationship which Under our constitutional requirements all governments are bound to recognize.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I believe every municipality in Canada appreciates what the government did in that regard, and the admonition to the provinces to pass on the benefits of the increased grant, but notwithstanding that admonition, some of the provinces did not pass it on. I do not think any of them passed on the full amount. I know that while in British Columbia the province was fairly generous with the municipalities, at the same time it pointed out that as a provincial government their load was far more than they could carry. Of course the natural tendency of the provincial government is to balance its budget and let municipal governments take care of themselves. Already we have two hundred and fifty-three municipalities in default, and we are now threatened with a situation in Montreal, Windsor, Calgary, Moose Jaw, Victoria and other cities which is going to spread. Whether under the constitution or under the practice which has grown out of it, the fact remains that each municipal government is a definite part of the political executive of the dominion. The municipalities are administering the affairs of more than half the total population of the dominion and have under their jurisdiction an enormous portion of the total accumulated wealth of the Canadian people. That whole structure is in jeopardy.
But more than that, and quite apart from the financial angle, does the government think that in connection with the problems of education, the advancement of health measures, the development of effective superannuation allowances, mothers' pensions and a great many other social services, which are now part and parcel of our administrative

Unemployment
activity, there is no opportunity for the federal government to associate with municipal governments in opening up a permanent channel through which destitution can be alleviated and employment developed. Because that, I take it, is to be one of the plans of permanent employment relief to be developed. If the dominion government cannot enter into arrangements with the municipal governments, how can that be worked out?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I answer my hon. friend at once by directing his attention to what has been done by the Dominion government in connection with old age pensions. In this one particular, not to mention others, the federal government has granted large sums for an all important social service carried on in the provinces and w'hich immediately benefits the municipalities, but has had to do so having regard to restrictions as to procedure imposed upon it. Where the federal government has made grants in aid in connection with old age pensions the grants have been to the provinces. It is only by that method, subject to such supervision as the dominion and provincial governments working together may have arranged, that dominion funds have been distributed to the municipalities.


Mr. BROOKS:: The minister gave some
figures in connection with the different provinces, and I notice that the figure for New Brunswick is out of proportion with the figures for the other maritime provinces. Is it not a fact that the camp at Fredericton, New Brunswick, serves the maritime provinces, and that a great many included in the New Brunswick figure should be credited to Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The figures for New Brunswick, running across the columns, are as follows: On February 29 the figure stood at 1,115; on March 15 it was 1,057; on March 31, 931, and on April 4, 801. In New Brunswick, as in the other provinces, there was during that period a steady decrease in the populations of relief camps.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister did not get
my point. There is a camp at Fredericton, New Brunswick, which serves the maritime provinces, and I should like to know if in that camp there were not a number of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island single men. If so, were those men kept separate in the figures?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The figure for New Brunswick seems greater than it should be.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am sorry I did not
understand the question when it was first asked. These are the figures from the relief camps in all the provinces, and they do not take account of provincial origin of camp populations.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Then the figure would include the maritime provinces?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to have a
minute, so that the minister may make clear beyond peradventure what is meant by subsection 1 of section 3. We have heard many members of the government state that it is proposed that parliament shall be asked to appropriate sums of money for specific purposes. This section indicates, however, that -not for specific purposes at all, but out of a lump sum-appropriations may be made by the governor in council, and not by parliament. So that this much talked of parliamentary control vanishes; all we have left is that parliament votes one or ten millions as the case may be, and out of that, moneys are paid under agreements made by the governor in council, which is the practice that was so much condemned in the past. The only parliamentary control is with respect to the voting of the sum of money out of which these various works are to be undertaken.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the effective control. When parliament appropriates public moneys it knows what it is doing, but when the governor in council takes money out of the public treasury without any previous appropriation by parliament, parliament does not know what the government is doing. The result is as we now know to our cost-, that millions of dollars have had to be accounted for when there is no longer possibility of any control, at the end of the year with respect to which parliament had no previous knowledge whatever. I think my right hon. friend laboured this point at great length just before the recess and was effectively answered at that time; moreover, the subsection passed before the recess. My right hon. friend sometimes accuses me of having an obsession, but I think this is becoming an obsession with him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is no obsession. I am simply pointing out that there is no appropriation by this parliament of moneys for specific undertakings.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There will be.


Abraham Albert Heaps: A little while ago the
Minister of Labour spoke of a certain amount of farm labour being required in the west,.
Unemployment

and said that there were no men who would accept the work. The minister may not have given to the committee all the facts which are in his possession. I wonder if he knows the working conditions that were offered on these farms in the west. He said that work was offering.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I said that I was so informed.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will the minister state the conditions under which these men were asked to work on the farms, and also how many positions were available?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not that specific information here, Mr. Chairman, nor did I say that I had it when I gave my answer to my hon. friend. I simply said that information had come to me, as it has come to me from several sources, that there were opportunities for farm work in western Canada and that some employment offices were finding it difficult to obtain men to take these positions which were offered. That is all the information I have at the present time. I am quite sure I could secure by wire confirmation of that statement if my hon. friend desires to obtain it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The statement made by the minister may be quite correct so far as it goes, but at the same time a statement of that kind may be given publicity throughout the country and may create an entirely erroneous impression. I have some idea of the kind of farm work that may have been offered and refused, and if these positions have been turned down there may be a reason for it. Secondly, the minister has given us no idea of the number of such positions offered. I do know that there are not many such positions being offered at the present time, by fanners to men who want to go on the farm. If there were, I am quite sure that a large number of men would be only too glad to accept work if the conditions were at all what they ought to be.
I have one other question, in connection with the railway work. I understand that an agreement is about to be or has been consummated between the government and the railways to provide work. When is that agreement to come before the house?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think just before the house adjourned a similar question was put to me, and I explained in answer that the agreement with the railways would follow upon the passage of the bill now before the house; in other words, that the agreement would be signed in accordance with the terms of the provisions of this bill.
fMr. Heaps.]


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will the house not have any say as to the agreement?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Quite so, as provided in section 4, subsection 2:
No agreement entered into under the provisions of this section shall be binding upon the dominion until approved by resolution of the House of Commons.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Can the minister give the committee an idea when the work on the railways will commence?


Norman McLeod Rogers: We are informed that the work will commence very shortly. The railways are prepared to take men from the camps as soon as they have an opportunity of using them upon the deferred maintenance project.


Mr. POOLE:: In reference to the demand for farm labour which the minister mentioned, has he any idea what wages were being paid?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not that information before me. I agree that it is material. I am quite sure that my hon. friend (Mr. Poole) and also the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) will acquit me of any intention to suggest that men in hostels were unwilling to accept farm labour at any wage that might offer. That was obviously not my intention. I merely did make the observation, when it was pointed out that there were several thousands of unemployed single homeless men in Winnipeg and other centres, across this dominion, that there was also information that there was a demand for farm help in western Canada. It did seem to me that the second observation was at least relevant to the first.
Mr. PO'OLE: Does the minister know how many men have been laid off the railways in the last thirty days? I understand that some have been laid off, and I was wondering whether it was in anticipation of the government's new policy that those who would normally be railway employees are relief recipients.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not sure that I have got the entire purport of my hon. friend's question, but if he implies that the railways in anticipation of this deferred maintenance work are dismissing permanent employees I think he is entirely misinformed, because we had a distinct understanding with the railway companies that the work contemplated for the men in relief camps shall be in excess of the normal maintenance of way work which would have been undertaken in any event by the railways during the coming summer.

Unemployment


Mr. DOUGLAS:: I have two questions to ask of the minister. I drew to his attention prior to the recess the fact that there are men right across Canada who are dependent on maintenance of way work for their livelihood. Is the minister prepared to make a categorical statement that the government will see to it that these men are not replaced by men taken out of relief camps? Is the government prepared to state that it is taking definite steps to guarantee that those now employed on maintenance of way work will not be replaced by men from the relief camps?


Norman McLeod Rogers: My impression was that I had answered that question a moment ago. So far as the railway companies are concerned, in our conversations with them respecting this plan of having men from the relief camps offered deferred maintenance work, it was understood distinctly that this work, which will be assisted by the government, will be in addition to the normal maintenance of way work which would have been undertaken in any event by the railways during the coming summer. Therefore it cannot be urged that what is now being done will interfere with the normal amount of employment of those who formerly were employed by the railway companies on maintenance of way work.


Eric Joseph Poole: There was a public works program some years ago in connection with which a similar arrangement was made, and in anticipation of that works program, in some of the cities of the west regular employees were laid off and placed on a relief basis.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I can assure my hon. friend that officials of the Department of Labour will be in close touch with the entire project and we shall make every effort to see that no one is prejudiced and that no one suffers unreasonably as a result of the work offered.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My other question was
with respect to the demand for farm labour. There is some demand for farm labour in some parts of the prairie provinces, particularly in southern Saskatchewan, but the men are being offered between eight and ten dollars a month. It simply means that the average young man would not have sufficient money to pay for the shoes and gloves he would wear out. This does not offer any counterattraction to the amount of money paid in the camps, nor is it a counter-attraction to railway construction work that may turn up in the future. It is not the fault of the agricultural population, for they cannot afford 12739-125
to pay more. Does the Department of Labour propose any scheme by which it may subsidize the farmer in order to help him to hire labour? If it is proposed to subsidize railways or corporations and to cooperate with them to enable them to hire extra help, is there any method whereby the agricultural population can be similarly assisted?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is a proposal which
has received some consideration in the past and will no doubt deserve consideration in the future. In the early experience of the farm placement scheme the dominion government contributed $5 a month which was paid to the man and the provincial government contributed $5 which was paid to the farmer. Subsequently that was abandoned and, in the last two years certainly, the dominion government has paid $5 to the man and the farmer has been content to receive that man's assistance in return for board and lodging. That applied only during the winter months in connection with the farm placement scheme. There is not under immediate consideration any plan by which the dominion government or, I assume, the provincial governments, will subsidize farmers for the employment of farm labour at this season of the year. I admit it is a direction which may profitably be explored.


Mr. LEADER:: The minister said that
farmers were satisfied to receive the services of the man. That is true but only to a limited extent. I know for a fact that many farmers would be mighty glad to have a man on their farms in the winter months repairing buildings, harness and machinery and fattening some extra cattle, but they cannot afford to pay him; rather, they cannot afford to board him. Some time ago in this house I advanced a scheme to pay the man $10 a month to work on the farm and to subsidize the farmer to the same extent, and then it would be allowing only $20 a month to maintain the man on the farm. It is a fact, and hon. members know it, that under the present scheme it costs the taxpayers over $50 a month to keep these single unemployed men in the relief camps. I suggest to the government that our unemployment problem is not likely to be solved by next winter and we shall have to follow the same course we are following now and keep these men on the land. The government should consider very seriously the policy of bonusing the farmers for keeping these men on the farms, because I believe that by that policy the relief camps could be emptied. It is worthy of consideration and I believe the minister is considering that very proposal in a favourable light.

Unemployment


Mr. HOWDEN:: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister in this connection certain facts of which I have become aware. At Transcona, where the Canadian National has its shops, there occurred recently a layoff of about 300 men. These men had been occupied largely in the building of refrigerator cars through an appropriation made last year of $15,000,000, which was to be expended in the railway shops throughout the country, and I assume that the reason these men are being laid off now is that this appropriation has been expended. During the Easter recess I attended a meeting at Transcona, where there is prevalent among the men the feeling that the laying off of these regular men at the present time is not a very seeming attitude on the part of the government. These regular employees were getting as a matter of fact only eighteen days a month, and the feeling is that they should not be laid off while money is being spent to put to work single men who have been in the camps. Every man should have his turn; there is no doubt about that. But in laying off a regular employee who has a family you lay off several individuals and put them on relief, whereas in the relief camps only single individuals without dependents are involved. I was not able to give an explanation and was on the verge of wiring the minister but I decided to wait until I got to Ottawa and could see him personally. Now that the matter is before the house it is perhaps not amiss to bring up this question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member used an expression which I do not think is justified. He spoke about the government laying off men from the railways. I am sure he did so inadvertently.


Mr. STEWART:: We used to hear that every day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, it is unfortunately true that the government gets the blame for pretty nearly everything, but in this particular case the government is wholly innocent. The government had nothing to do with laying off men.


John Power Howden: The government is getting the blame for it just the same. The Canadian National is a government road and it is felt by these men that the government could use its influence to see that the work is carried on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is on the order paper notice of a bill which it is believed will give the government a little more authority as well as responsibility in these matters. I hope the house will be responsive in its support of the measure.


Thomas Langton Church: According to the present wording of subsection 2 there will be shut out from employment on relief works in Ontario a good many young men who are not on relief. I have received a letter from a commercial traveller who has been through New Ontario, having visited seven or eight of the leading centres where relief works are being carried out, and he complains that the men who are engaged on relief works are mainly from the continent of Europe and it is impossible for young Canadians to get jobs there. The young Canadian leaves the large city and goes to that part of the country and there he finds that under the provincial regulations he is not qualified for relief work because he is not on relief. The other day at Kirkland Lake eight young Canadians were locked up as vagrants-young fellows born in Ontario- their only crime being that they could not get work. It is all very well for the minister to put in this bill all this language about the employment of persons available and competent. Those men who come from Europe are always available in New Ontario not only for government road works but in the mines. People of this class are catered to because they take lower wages and if they are injured they say nothing about it. The summer is coming and young Canadians are looking for work. Many of their fathers are on relief; they do not like to hang around the house when there is not enough food to go round, and the result is that they "ride the rods" on our heavily subsidized railway. Then they are haled before the magistrate and, without having a chance to defend themselves, without a lawyer, they are landed in some gaol in New Ontario. I think the minister should make it possible for these young men to get work, but according to the present wording of this provision this class of young Canadians will be shut out, as they are not now on relief. If they apply for work in northern Ontario they are promptly locked up. Where is the magna charta? The trouble is there are too many catch phrases in this bill and not enough common sense. No practical way has been provided of getting people off relief and the dole as is being done in many other countries. I have studied this situation for many years and in 1927 I tried to get the government of the day to do the very thing they are proposing to do to-day.
Summer is coming on and many of these young people will be leaving high school. I am referring largely to the high school population. These young men do not want to keep on studying; they want to go up north and do something to develop new Ontario, but when they go there they are

Unemployment
locked up and given eight days by some magistrate on a charge of vagrancy. That particular section of the vagrancy law with reference to not having visible means of support or who himself lives without employment, should be stricken out. These young men were trying to get a job on relief work being carried out by the provincial government with the assistance of the dominion government. In the case of federal works in cities the requirement is that there shall be a year's residence, but some of these people who have been given jobs have not been in the country that long. They are able to beat the regulations and get work when our own Canadians cannot get it. Some restriction should be imposed on the granting of relief to the provinces to the end that young people leaving school who want to work shall not be discriminated against because of the language used in this section.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not want to lay unnecessary emphasis upon the farm labour question, but I do want to urge upon the minister the need of immediate action. Thousands of farmers on the prairies will be going on the land in the course of the next few weeks. They will not be needing help next winter; they will be needing it now, this summer and this fall. Some scheme should be evolved under which these men could be placed on the land and their wages supplemented by the government. This would be good policy from the standpoint of the morale of the men and the farmers, and it would also save considerable money. Some time ago I quoted from a sessional paper to show that the average cost of keeping men in the relief camps was $50.70 per man per month. This shows that these camps have not been a financial success. Because of the heavy overhead the cost per month per man varied all the way from $18.20 to $233.30. I know there were conditions present to explain that high figure, but the average figure of S50.70 is too high. Many of these men could be placed on farms so that they could take their normal places in the community. I urge upon the minister that he consider this point very seriously.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. McPhee):: Shall the subsection carry?


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I want an answer to my question.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I understand my hon. friend was inquiring as to agreements made by the dominion government for relief purposes?


Gerald Grattan McGeer: We have heard about the railway agreement; I should like to know what other agreements are in contemplation.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The normal agreements will be those with the provinces. That has always been the case in the past. There is a contingent provision in a later section for agreements with corporations, partnerships or individuals. I have no hesitation in saying that under this bill the normal type of agreement in the future, as in the past, will be agreements with the provinces.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: From time to time as
emergencies arose the provinces made application to the dominion government and presented proposals. I have in mind one with reference to the city of Winnipeg covering the construction of an auditorium and a sewage system involving some $4,000,000. The government considered that proposal and then joined with the provincial government in carrying it out. That was done from time to time. Under this peculiarly worded section, unless all these agreements are consummated before parliament rises, no such agreement could be made to meet an emergency which might arise next winter. There seems to me to be unwarranted optimism on the part of the government that there will be no emergency arising next year; I think there will be more need for emergency activities next year than there was last year. Subsection 2 of section 4 is an omnibus provision which covers the whole section. It covers not only agreements made with corporations and partnerships but also those made with the provinces. Under this subsection no agreement made between a province and the dominion shall be binding upon the dominion until approved by resolution of the House of Commons. If financial assistance is needed for a provincial or municipal enterprise, there is no question that it would come under this section 4, and if the government wished to place all responsibility on the provincial and municipal authorities it could say that parliament had tied its hands, that it could not do anything until parliament convened again. The government could say that a resolution of parliament would be necessary before it could spend dominion government money on a program of relief.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Under an agreement.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: If that is the alternative,
then the dominion government must be prepared to assume the whole responsibility should the provincial and municipal authorities find themselves unable to take care of
Unemployment

the unemployment situation. Surely there is no necessity of tying down to a resolution of parliament the power of the dominion government to meet an emergency. Surely we must have learned something from what has taken place in the Argentine, in Australia, in Great Britain and in the United States as to how this problem can be worked out. The problem is far from solved in Great Britain to-day, and they are proceeding along exploratory channels. If parliament passes this section, the government of the day will be placed in the position of being able to say that it cannot do anything because parliament has tied its hands. The government can say that it is placed in the position of being unable to assume a general load because parliament has not voted enough money. This section 4 will place the government in a condition of impotency if the amount appropriated is a small one and is arrived at on the assumption that the provinces and cities can carry this load. Speaking as one who knows of the limitations of municipal financing in Canada, I can tell you that they cannot continue to carry the load they have been carrying in the past. In the United States, in Great Britain and in Australia that has been recognized, and national governments are moving to assume larger proportions of the burden. It may be, of course, that they are all wrong; it may be that in some miraculous way we in Canada are going to escape this horrible and appalling scourge of unemployment, and of course if that happens it does not matter what is in the bill, but I do not think there is any reason for any such conclusion. On the contrary, on every hand evidence indicates that the problem of unemployment is definitely intensifying and becoming more persistent and more emergent. With all due respect to the desire of the government to have parliament in control I am afraid that this section is going to reduce the power of the government to function.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend if it is his idea that the unemployment problem is going to be solved by removing the control of parliament? Is that what he is advocating?


Gerald Grattan McGeer: No, but I do say that
parliament should be able to impose responsibilities on the government and should be able to give the government power to carry out aid fulfil those responsibilities. I quite agree that probably it would not be wise to give the government blank cheque spending power, bi t I do not think the dominion government is following the precedent established by other
1 Mr. McGeer.3
governments, either in Great Britain or the United States, in tying down to such detail work parliament's obligation to resolve on each specific agreement. How in the world is this parliament going to settle down, for instance, and discuss every resolution that might be necessary in order to consummate agreements to be entered into with an organization such as the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in the United States, for instance? How in the world does this government contemplate entering into agreements with corporations, partnerships and individuals that are going to improve the unemployment situation? That is properly the work of an organization such as the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in the United States. Is this parliament going to discuss and resolve upon details of administration of that kind? It must do so if it complies with this section. From time to time our problems of unemployment relief, as I have said, may be relieved or become intensified, but this section contemplates that the whole program of unemployment relief that is to be prosecuted, so far as it depends upon agreements or arrangements with private enterprise or with provincial and municipal governments, must be resolved upon and consummated before this parliament rises; otherwise there is no provision for carrying on.
I think that would be a very happy situation if the government were prepared to say, "Here is our plan of unemployment relief. We propose to do this and that, and to do it in this certain way." But parliament is asked to blindly tie the hands of the government without having the least intimation of the actual administrative program of unemployment relief. All we have heard so far is a vague indication that the government cannot spend money except under certain very specific limitations, and we have heard also that in some way, by arrangement with the railways, some ten thousand men are to be given work at twenty-five cents an hour. Well, is that the government's unemployment program? Personally I am sure it is not; I think there must be many other things in contemplation which may become the subject of agreements. Then is it neoessary to have each of these agreements resolved upon by parliament? I hardly think there is any justification for any such restriction. Surely if parliament gives the government broad power to carry on public works, to act in cooperation with the railways or with the provincial governments or in other ways in order to work out this unemployment problem, we need not sit here considering the details of every contract to be entered into.

Unemployment


Mr. MacNICOL:: Are we on section 4 or section 5?


George Washington McPhee: We are on subsection 2 of section 3.


Mr. FAIR:: Is any provision being made to get the men out of the relief camps and into the different parts of the west where there is a demand for farm labour?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Representatives of the Department of Labour and the Department of Immigration have been canvassing the relief camps for farm labour, and with some measure of success as indicated by the figures I presented to the house a short time ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the camp population now?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The total as of February 29 was 20,376. The latest figure, for April 15, is 16,039, showing a reduction of more than 4,300 in that period.


Robert Fair: I returned from the west this morning and in my part of the country, as far as I can find out, nothing has been done to provide farm help. We know from experience, and since the opening of the session evidence has been produced here, that farm help cannot get from the relief centres to the farms without some assistance, and we also know that when they do get on the farms they are not paid enough to encourage them to make any definite attempt to secure this work. I believe they are being paid more in the camps than they are offered for farm work. Some men of whom I have knowledge are working for $5 to $10 a month, and I think in fairness to the farmers and to the farm workers something definite should be done right away.
As far as the farmers are concerned I do not see how they are going to pay any higher wages than they have been paying, when you consider what they have been receiving for their products during the past six years. A few weeks ago a bill was passed under which I believe the farmers have been chiselled, if
1	might use that word, out of some of the money they should have had. I am referring now to the 1930 equalization bill.


George Washington McPhee: May I point out that we are dealing with subsection
2	of section 3 of this bill?


Robert Fair: That is all very fine, Mr. Chairman, but I want to point out that the farmers cannot put in their crops without hired help. Hired help cannot walk from the relief centres to the jobs, and I think it is up to this parliament to get busy and do something that will
get the help to these jobs. The farmers are expected to pay their debts, but without help they cannot put in their crops, and I think it is up to this government to do something for those people.


Mr. STEVENS:: I had been waiting until we came to section 4 before offering one or two observations, but the discussion has opened up in such a manner that I think it necessary to say something at this stage.
Before the Easter recess we passed Bill No. 14, by which parliament authorized the setting up of a council; and I think I am interpreting the policy of the government correctly when I say that the object of setting up that council was to relieve the government of much detail and to secure the cooperation of experienced persons in entering into agreements and so forth.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A national employment commission, not a council.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, I stand corrected in that-a national employment commission. When that bill was under discussion I pointed out that there would be difficulty in securing action through that commission because of a section which provided for funds to be voted by parliament, and limiting it to that. I indicated then that it might well be that works that would be proposed could not be proceeded with imtil after the next session of parliament. That position was somewhat questioned by the government, I believe by the Prime Minister himself, as being a bit unreasonable. Now in this Bill No. 19 we have passed subsection 1 of section 3 which empowers the government to authorize the execution of certain works and undertakings which the government may consider to be in the general interest of the country. Then this subsection that we are dealing with provides that in such works unemployed persons may be engaged. All of this is very good provided it can be made effective. But as the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) has pointed out, in the subsequent section all these agreements are made subject to approval:
No agreement entered into under the provisions of this section shall be binding upon the dominion until approved by resolution of the House of Commons.
We have this situation: a commission has been set up which cannot possibly get into action for some months, and then, whether it is done by the commission or by the minister, when certain works and things that would be helpful are decided upon, none of these can become effective until approved by parliament. If we are sincerely desirous of making
Unemployment

a contribution, to the relief of unemployment by this process of agreements with the provinces and with corporations, partnerships and individuals, we must make it possible for the commission and the government to act this year, this summer, immediately, or whenever these matters come to a head. Otherwise parliament will be making itself ridiculous, authorizing the making of agreements and then tying the hands of the government. So that while it may 'be more or less _ out of order to refer at this point to subsection 2 of section 4, we must anticipate these matters as we proceed. I think the government should be prepared to amend that subsection, and if they would indicate now an intention to do so it would remove the questions in my mind as to the usefulness of the preceding section of the bill. I suggest to the minister-or to the Prime Minister; it seems to me it is a question of the policy of the government- that if the government desire to attack vigorously this problem, every measure we pass should be founded upon that determination. I think the minister is quite sincere in his desire to cope with this question, and he has my entire sympathy in view of the complex and harassing nature of it; but I am bound to say that for some time past I have recognized that this will tie our hands, and I would remind the minister of my observations in connection with Bill No. 14, which apply as well to this bill.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We did not get
definite answers on two points with respect to which I think the minister should give some information. First, with regard to the movement of men from the camps to the farms, is the dominion government prepared to provide them with free transportation, or is the government going to allow them to ride the freight trains? If so, will the police be called upon to protect the property of the railroads, and at what point? These men have no money; they have to get to the farms either with the help of the dominion government or by getting free rides on the railways. Has the government any policy on that point?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It has been the practice in the past, when those in camps are going to employment, to make provision for their transportation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Always has been.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That has always been so.


James Shaver Woodsworth: And it will be in the future?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Oh, yes; but I cannot give my hon. friend the assurance that all who have left the camps in this period to which I referred a while ago have left to go to employment.


Grote Stirling: They certainly have not.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think there is at least a reasonable assumption that a very considerable number of those who have left the camps in the last two months have gone to farms, but there is no way of confirming that assumption.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is the government prepared to do anything towards assisting these men to get either from the camps or from the cities where they are now unemployed to places where there is employment?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Precisely; we are doing it now.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Giving them free transportation?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, and not only that; we have had officials of the Department of Labour in constant contact with the camps during the past two months, and representatives particularly qualified to employ farm labour have been active in that regard.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think the minister quite caught my idea. I am speaking of men who have left the camps. A man gets stranded in Winnipeg or Vancouver and wants to go to work in Saskatchewan; is there any way he can get his transportation passage paid to that work?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Not if he has left the camp voluntarily, unless he is going to a place of employment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It seems to me there is a link missing there. As the minister informed us, there are only about 16,000 men now in the camps; many have been let out in the last few weeks, and these men are milling back and forth from town to town, being practically forced out of each town after two days.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend will permit me, he is assuming that all these men are now unemployed. I suggest that that is not a reasonable assumption.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am speaking
about men who are unemployed. I go back to the situation I mentioned before the recess. There are in my own city 5,000 unemployed men. Out of that number 800 who were eating that day were transients. The

Unemployment
policy of our cities is to shift those men on after two days. That is being done in Ottawa; we feed them a couple of days and then tell them to get out-anywhere, we don't care where, but "get out." Then when they get to the next town they may feed them for a day or two, and then the order is, "get out. ' It seems to me at some point that chain has to be broken. Those men have to be located at some point where there is work.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Has my hon. friend any suggestion in that regard?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes; I think there ought to be some definite policy under which, if there is work available, men wmuld be given free transportation from the point they are now being kept on relief to the point where work would be supplied. I suggest there should be a registry, and that in some way this aimless going from place to place be stopped. That is one thing that ought to be included, and I hope the minister will give it serious consideration. Then there is another point concerning which my colleague did not receive a very clear answer from the minister. Is there any guarantee that the men who are going to work on the farms will get as high wages as those being placed in the railway camps?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The answer is perfectly clear: the government has no control over wages being paid by farmers to those who accept employment on farms.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But the government has control over the wages to be paid to the men in the railway camps. Surely if it has control over the wages paid to men on the railways it could have control over those paid to men on the farms. If the farmers cannot pay, then it would seem as reasonable to subsidize the farmer as it is to subsidize the railway companies. If we insist upon a wage in the railway camps for one group of men, and permit others to go to the farms and receive smaller wages-not so much because the farmer will not pay it, but because he cannot-there is bound to be no end of trouble.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has always been so.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The hon. member must be aware that there is a variety of wage scales in different occupations. I know of no way by which one could assure a complete parity of wage scales maintained in various occupations.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But surely the minister knows that there is a fairly standard wage which is supposed to be paid by the farmer. I believe in the past we have subsidized the farmer to the extent of five dollars; I think that is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the winter time.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The provinces made a contribution for some time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is an arrangement as between the dominion and the provinces. But my point is that if we can subsidize them to the extent of five dollars, and find that that amount is not sufficient, could we not subsidize to the extent of fifteen dollars, or whatever is necessary, so as to bring the wage up to a reasonable standard, or at least to the rate paid in the railway camps? I cannot see any reason why men in the railway camps should be subsidized to a greater extent than men working for farmers. I do not see why there should be a difference between those two sets of wages.


Norman McLeod Rogers: So far as the railway work is concerned, it is not a subsidy at all. I believe it was made clear some time ago that the government is cooperating with the railways in making the work available during the present year, and we adopted that scheme as one means of closing the relief camps, being strongly of the view that relief camps must be closed, and further of the view that if they are closed we must seek to find some alternative employment for the men now in the camps.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the minister
mean to say the government is giving no money to the railways?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No, certainly not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The railways are
undertaking the whole cost?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No, there is no suggestion of that at all. I said the government is entering into a cooperative scheme with the railway companies, the full terms of which, as I said earlier to-day, will be placed before the house in due course. But the government is assisting the railways, and the railways are thus entering into a wage relationship with the men who will do the work.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not worrying about the exact form of the assistance. The minister admits the government is assisting the railways.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, certainly.
Unemployment


James Shaver Woodsworth: And my point is
that if it assists the railways, and if through that assistance the railways are able to employ a number of these men, I cannot see why the government could not assist the farmers and help them at least to equal the wage paid by the railways, or the current wage.


Norman McLeod Rogers: At the time the relief camp policy was announced it was made clear that in the neighbourhood of 20,000 men were in the camps. As I said a minute ago we felt we could not close the camps without affording the men in them an opportunity for alternative employment. One direction in which alternative employment could be secured-and it seemed to us a constructive direction-was in connection with deferred maintenance work on the railway systems of Canada. That would make provision for 10,000 men. We have determined to make every effort to secure alternative employment for the remaining 10,000 up until the camps close. In the meantime we increased allowances in such a way as to give^ these men at least some stake for industrial reestablishment when on July 1 they leave the camps. Those two elements of the policy appeared to be complementary, one to the other. We are now making and shall continue to make every effort to secure alternative employment for the men in the camps.


Eric Joseph Poole: I understand that at the
present time the approximate cost of maintaining a man in a camp is about $50. Surely it would be cheaper to subsidize agriculture to the extent of $15 rather than maintain the men in camps at a cost of $50.


Grote Stirling: Does the minister corroborate the figure of $50, which has been given so frequently?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No. I was going to say
that our advice, which I believe is accurate, is that the total cost is $1.28 per day.


Mr. LAWSON:: Including the new wage
scale?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That was prior to the new wage scale.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does that include all
expenses of the camp?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Sessional paper 102B
signed by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Mines, in answer to my question asked during the present session, places the figure at $50.70. A list of 162 camps is given, and there are figures showing the cost per

month per man in each camp. Those figures, signed as I have indicated, are on file. Either they are in error or the statement by the minister is in error. Certainly the two do not jibe.


Eric Joseph Poole: The average cost of maintaining a man in a camp in Alberta is $42.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Undoubtedly there is a
variation in the costs as between one district and another.


Eric Joseph Poole: That is the point I make.
I am asking the minister if it would not be more economical and more satisfactory to assist agriculture by subsidizing the wage to the extent of $15 rather than to maintain these men at $42.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, certainly; I would not contradict that. That is one reason why we are seeking to close the relief camps as soon as possible. We felt that they did not provide an economical or otherwise satisfactory method of providing relief to single homeless men.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Is there any intention on the part of the government to give that subsidy to the farmers so that they may offer employment?


Norman McLeod Rogers: In the past there has been provision for a farm placement scheme.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the winter.


Norman McLeod Rogers: And in the future there will be provision for a farm placement scheme. In the past however it has applied only during the winter months. At this time I am not in a position to say whether it will be continued in the summer months. All I can say is we are fully cognizant of the importance of the agricultural situation, as it has been discussed by various members this afternoon, and I can assure the committee that the observations made will receive careful consideration. In the past the farm placement scheme has applied only in the winter months when it was particularly desirable to secure food and shelter for single homeless men. To my knowledge there has been no extension of the scheme to that period of the year when under normal circumstances the farmers employ help for seeding and harvesting operations.


Mr. TUCKER:: There is one point that has been worrying me ever since the government brought down its program concerning unemployment. Presumably we are making plans to provide work for these unemployed single men until parliament meets again next year. In the past the single homeless unemployed

Unemployment
have been provided for in these camps; otherwise they would have been absolutely without food and shelter unless they were looked after by the municipalities. Now what is worrying me is this: When fall and the cold weather comes and we have just as many unemployed as we have right now, as it is possible we will, what does the government intend to do with those who were looked after last year and the year before in these camps? The largest single unemployed camp in Canada is in Rosthern constituency, at Dundurn, and I know young people who have been very glad to get food and shelter there year after year. Perhaps they have not been entirely sat.sfied but at all events the camp has looked after them. Now we are going to close these camps, and they are to stay closed. What will be done to look after these people next winter?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The provision made for at least a large number of those in the relief camps through their employment on deferred maintenance work on the railways ought to . enable them to provide for themselves during the coming winter, particularly if they are able to defer the expenditure of a portion of that money until the winter months. I am assuming that they have five or six months' employment on the railways. They are single men, and I say that ought to suffice to carry them through the winter months, certainly in a far more satisfactory way than they could have provided for themselves under any alternative form of relief employment.


Walter Adam Tucker: Is there any provision being made to hold back part of their pay so that they will have something for the winter months?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is provision for deferred pay so far as camp workers are concerned. It is probably beyond our competence to ensure that there'shall be deferred pay so far as the railway work is concerned.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Could the minister give us any idea how much a month these boys will be able to make on the railways?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am really not in a position to give that information in advance of the submission to the house of the agreement. All I can assure my hon. friend is this, that they will receive the prevailing wages for extra gang work done by the railways.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did the minister mention twenty-five cents an hour?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No, I did not make that statement.


Eric Joseph Poole: But the policy of the government next fall will be determined by the rate of wages that prevails, and if we do not know what the rate of wages is to be we cannot properly decide upon a policy. If it is just going to be a subsistence allowance, there is no use in calling it wages. It may amount to only about twenty cents a day, which is what they were getting in the camps.


John Horne Blackmore: There is another
grievous matter which we must look into with great care. When these boys go out on the railway maintenance work, is their clothing to be provided for them, or have they to buy it out of what they earn? What about their board and other matters of that kind? If they are not going to receive enough per month on their railway job to provide them with the necessities of life and allow them to save up enough to go through next winter, provide themselves with a room in town and their board and all that sort of thing, we cannot blame any intelligent young man for being filled with grave anxiety at the prospect of going out. I know from personal experience that many times the boys are taken in by propositions of this kind. They will go out with a construction gang, and then they will find that more than half their income is eaten up by their board and clothing and the like. They then are docked for the days they are unable to work, and when they get through with the job they find that they are simply out. If there is no guarantee whatsoever that when this railway work is over they are going back to relief camps, or no guarantee to ensure them of some sort of security during the winter months, they will face the future with grave apprehension.
So far as farm work is concerned, the information thus far elicited gives no guarantee for their future at all. If they are going to get $15 a month on the farm and have their employment cut off about the middle of October when farm work finishes, and have no idea of what they are going to do or where they are going to go for the winter, I cannot blame these young men for being filled with alarm. It is easy enough for us to talk about these things here, but when we see the actual situation the boys will face, it is really heartbreaking.
There is another question I would ask in connection with transients. I have come in contact with cases which have brought this matter vividly to my attention. Is there any provision now whereby a transient can go into some office and register himself as a seeker after employment? The condition as brought to our attention by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) is most deplorable.

Unemployment
If when boys without any money are out on the road or in the city seeking work as earnestly as anyone could, they then can be taken up and punished; that is a criminal thing for any government to tolerate. It is simply dreadful. It fills the boys with bitterness. I have seen boys in the last few weeks in that condition. Unless some arrangement is made to protect them it is simply terrible. Has the government a registration bureau, for example, at which the young man can report when he is seeking employment? I should like to contribute this little bit, Mr. Chairman, in kindness to and sympathy for the minister. I should like to know whether these matters have been looked into in detail, so that next fall and winter the boys will not be stranded and suffering from one end of this country to the other.


Norman McLeod Rogers: So far as transients are
concerned, perhaps my hon. friend is aware that in most of the large towns and cities there is an employment office at which transients can register for employment at any time they desire. I am not aware of any criminal proceedings taken against transients, of which the hon. gentleman has spoken. I could only explain it upon the ground of some other charge than the mere fact that they were going from place to place to seek work. Certainly no prosecutions have been carried forward under any policy sanctioned by this or any other government of Canada. It is conceivable that some transients may fall within the general designation of vagrants.


James Shaver Woodsworth: They are being
picked un right along for vagrancy, trespassing, and so on.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where?


James Shaver Woodsworth: All over the country.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am still not satisfied,
Mr. Chairman. The suggestion is made that ten thousand men will get work on the railways. There was more than twice that number, speaking from memory, in the unemployment camps last winter. We are going to put ten thousand to work on the railways. We do not know how much they will receive, or how much they will be able to save. It is very likely that, not having had any money for some time, they will spend a little bit more than absolutely necessary, like everybody else. But suppose they do save a little; what about the other ten thousand who are not given this work? Suppose, further, some of those who are given the work spend what they earn; what is going to happen to them next winter? That is what is worrying me. The unemployment camps are not an ideal way of 
looking after these men, but they were good enough to induce single unemployed men to go to them and get food and shelter from the cold weather we have in this country. I want to know what the government intends to do to take the place of these camps next winter, to look after people who have no money to look after themselves. Has the government any plans for looking after these men? H the government has none at the present time, will the government agree that if the camps are not reopened these men will be looked after in some way, perhaps by making grants to farmers to provide for them? Will the government give consideration to this problem? I am satisfied that, as surely as I am standing here, there will be a problem this coming winter if no provision is made for looking after these people. If no provision is made for them and they are thrown on the cities and the cities cannot look after them we shall have riots; there will be a good deal of trouble. If the government has no plans, does it intend to work out plans to look after these men? I have had some experience with young people and I know what it will mean for these 10.000 men who are going to be employed on the railways. How long will they be able to keep themselves in the winter out of what they have been able to save from what they make on the railways? It seems to me that we should have some assurance that when the camps are closed something will be done to take their place next year if necessary.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have already explained that in the past the government has made good use of farm placement schemes for single homeless men during the winter months, and I have already made the statement that we have it in mind to extend the facilities for farm placement during the coming year. My hon. friend has misgivings as to what will happen to these 10,000 men who will accept employment on the railways during the summer months. I may say that I share his concern for these men though I do not at the moment share his misgivings as to their position during the coming winter. It would be utterly beyond the power of this government to guarantee the employment of these men any more than it can guarantee the employment of any section of the population. We cannot do that; it would be wholly unreasonable for my hon. friend to expect that. I can assure him, however, that during the summer months we shall have the situation under review and if next winter a condition arises that necessitates further care being given to those men who are deserving of it they will receive it.

Unemployment


Eric Joseph Poole: While it may be beyond the power of this government to provide employment, it is not beyond the power of the government to take care of the men. The average wage on the railways will be thirty-five cents an hour, and on -the assumption that the men are employed for six months they will get $400, out of which they must provide for everything, and in addition must keep themselves during the other six months of the year. That is what we are up against.
I am not very much concerned whether the government finds employment for the people next winter. If the minister has in mind such schemes as we have had in the past, for instance, giving farm help $5 a month, then I believe this is a reflection on the intelligence of the government. Such a scheme has been tried and found wanting, and it is something which should be resisted by every red-blooded Canadian, because after all it is getting back to feudalism. It is not progress; it is going backwards when you give a man a pittance of $5 a month to work on a farm. So long as the government concentrates its attention on employment, very little will be done; it should concentrate its attention on providing a living for the people of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend suggest that the government should not seek to find measures for providing employment for the unemployed?


Eric Joseph Poole: I do not think that is the problem which confronts us. Employment itself is not virtuous; employment is only a means to production; that is all. We have the goods and that is why people are not employed. What we need to do is to monetize the goods, and to do so without putting Canada into debt we must utilize the national credit.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government's policy is to endeavour to find employment for men who are unemployed. If my hon. friend's view is that such is not the right policy I regret that we have to differ with him as to what is wisest. Certainly, however, with respect to the question of unemployment in Canada today, the government is of the view that its first duty, the first obligation of the state, is to endeavour to assist those who are unemployed to find profitable employment.


Eric Joseph Poole: What would be the purpose of employment? Would it be because employment is a necessity or would it be to provide wages?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Eric Joseph Poole: That is all right, but I do not think the hon. gentleman who interrupts has scratched below the economic surface. Some believe that people live to work; we do not.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Eric Joseph Poole: The only purpose of work is to produce, and in this country we have the goods but we have not the purchasing power.
I understand the difficulties that the government faces in this transitional period, but I would ask the Prime Minister this question: He speaks of providing employment, and I am trying to get his point of view. Is it because employment in itself is virtuous? Is it because it is absolutely necessary?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The policy of the government is to endeavour to help men to obtain employment in order that they may earn an honest living. If any man is not prepared to work with that object in view the state should not recognize any further obligation towards him. But so long as a man is willing and ready to work it is at times such as the present clearly a duty of the state to help him to find means of getting profitable employment which will enable him to make an honest living for himself and to provide for others who may be dependent upon him.
Mr. PO'OLE: Provided he was willing and ready to work and work was not there, what would the government do then?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have answered that question; I have pointed out that such is the position many are now in. In the country there are, unfortunately, thousands of men who are out of work and who are ready and willing to work if they can find employment. While they are unable to get work the state up to the present has been supplying relief, but every man in whom there is true manhood will prefer work to relief. What the government of the day is seeking to do is, therefore, to provide means whereby those who are unemployed will be enabled to find work.


Eric Joseph Poole: May I ask another question. I know it is quite a long story but I would ask the Prime Minister this question: Why is it that people cannot find work now? Is it not because we can produce without those who are now unemployed? Is that not true?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think anyone can produce without working and I do not think anyone can hope to live at the expense of the state without working. It is
Unemployment

a deplorable condition of mind if anyone ever comes to the point where he hopes he will get through life without working. Work is not dishonourable; it is the absence of the desire to work that is dishonourable.


Eric Joseph Poole: Why are so many people unemployed?


Mr. REID:: The hon. gentleman made an erroneous statement in regard to the unemployed. It is not true that the men get only twenty cents a day. That is a glib statement which is made throughout the country, and it is false. They get more than twenty cents a day; they get their food and clothing. I would not make any statement as false as that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to get an answer to the question I asked. Earlier in the debate I made the statement that the average cost per man per month in total for the camps was $50.70, and the minister called that figure in question and gave another. There is a discrepancy between the figures and I should like to have it cleared up, because after all the only thing we can go by is the information we received in sessional papers. I have before me sessional paper No. 102B giving answers to certain questions I asked on February 26. I asked how many were in relief camps during the years 1935 and 1934 and the answer was that in 1935 there were 75,082 and in 1934, 83,307. Then I asked for the total cost of operating these camps during 1935 and 1934. For 1935 the cost was given as $8,084,059 and for 1934, $7,462,280. The next question I asked was the cost per person per month to operate each camp during 1935 and il934. These are the answers given in the sessional paper:
1935	 $50 70 per month per man
1934	 $41 52 per month per man
I did not ask for them, but the minister was courteous enough to give a list of the 162 relief camps with the cost per month per man during the years 1934 and 1935. I am quite prepared to read this list to the committee. It shows that the average cost per month per man varied all the way from $17.20 to $233.30. I know that these amounts include huge overheads and other contributing factors which make for high costs in certain camps and lower costs in other camps, but I object to the minister saying that the figure which I quoted from a sessional paper is not correct.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will my hon. friend permit me to correct him? He made his statement some time ago and I think later on in the

debate a question was asked as to the cost per day per man, which I gave as $1.28. It is quite true that there appears to be a discrepancy, but I assure my hon. friend that there is nothing sinister in that. I shall be very glad indeed to look into the matter and it may very well be that the explanation lies in the different methods of computing the cost per day per man.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the explanation is in the cost of the tools, implements and materials used in some of these camps in connection with rather large undertakings. I have in mind the undertaking at Lac Seul. I have a clear recollection that the average cost of the camps never exceeded $43.


Grote Stirling: I believe the highest figure was $39.80.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the return was brought down I made some inquiry but I was not able to get any definite information. I think the minister will find that this includes the cost of heavy machinery used at Lac Seul and also the cost of some of the material.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be glad to look into the figures and correct any misunderstanding.


Mr. DOLTGLAS:: I think the explanation of the leader of the opposition will cover the point. In order that it may not be thought that I was trying to put too high a figure on record, I should like to quote from the sessional paper as follows:
On the basis of all expenditures made including expenditures for equipment, transportation, camp construction, provisions, supervision, allowances, medical care and hospitalization and construction materials but making no deduction for the equipment and usable goods, and materials on hand, the average cost per man month was-*
(a)	1935..
(b)	1934..


Walter Adam Tucker: The minister stated that in order to look after this problem as it should be looked after it might be necessary to give some consideration to the extension of the farm placement scheme. I am in entire accord with this policy, as I agree with the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) when he states that if it is going to cost around $50 per month to look after these people in camps, they could be looked after for less much better and more satisfactorily in the farm homes of this country where they would not be segregated by themselves as they are in camps. This would be a much better policy in every way than placing these men in camps. I assume that such a

Unemployment
scheme would be the result of agreements between the dominion and the provinces and as I understand it, under subsection 2 of section 4, no such agreement would be valid until it had been approved by resolution of this House of Commons. I should like to know whether the government intends to make agreements with the provinces to take care of this problem which will probably become acute before parliament meets again. Will the government take care of this matter by making the necessary agreements with all the provinces and having those agreements approved by parliament before we prorogue? Are we going to be sure that these people will be looked after or are we going to have to say after prorogation, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer), that our hands are tied? From what the minister said, I take it that this matter is going to be dealt with, but I should like to know whether he is quite satisfied that subsection 2 of section 4 will not prevent us from dealing with it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Under the terms of this bill when it is passed agreement will be made with the several provinces, and I would anticipate no difficulty in inserting in the agreement a provision for a farm placement scheme in a particular province. I may say that at the present time all the provinces have not adopted a farm placement scheme; it has been adopted only by the three prairie provinces.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: On behalf of the city of Vancouver I took this matter up with the provincial government in Victoria, and I was informed that they could do nothing with reference to their association with municipal problems until such time as they could find out what could be done with the dominion government. They were not prepared to entertain any proposal for cooperation between the provincial government and any municipality until they knew the policy of the dominion government. This means that at the moment we cannot deal with the provincial governments.
We are told that the camps are to be closed, and I am afraid that there can be very little real merit in the minister's suggestion that a few months' work on the railways will provide the unemployed who were in the camps with a sustenance allowance for the winter months. Even though a man had worked in the past, after working at these wages and being thrown out of employment he will find himself destitute. These men will crowd into the cities if there are no camps to go to. At the present time
we have something more than the mere unemployed and destitute to deal with; we have to deal with public opinion. On my return to Vancouver I was surprised1 to learn that the police in that city were trying to enforce the bylaws which prevented the holding of tag-days and that sort of thing. They arrested certain men and brought them before a magistrate. The magistrate said that these men were entitled to earn a living; that as far as he was concerned, sitting as a magistrate, he was not going to be a party to persecuting them and that he would not punish them. Public opinion was overwhelmingly in favour of that sentiment.
The problem of the municipalities is not merely that of taking care of the unemployed; it concerns the protecting of the life and property of the individual. Law enforcement falls upon the municipal administrators. If you are going to close these camps and not provide an adequate program of employment, there will develop in the cities, particularly in British Columbia in which there is during the winter months a heavy concentration of unemployed from all over the west, a situation which will prove to be of grave and serious concern for the peace, order and good government of these cities and the liberty and security of every individual in them. It was because of this that I asked the government what agreements they had in mind other than those with the railways. I assumed that under the latter part of subsection 1, of section 4, which provides for agreements with corporations, partnerships or individuals engaged in industry respecting the expansion of industrial employment, provision would be made for some program of employment being developed. However, I take it from the minister's answer that no such program is in contemplation; that the only agreements being considered are the general ones with the provinces providing for some contributory form of assistance. It may be laudable and advisable to close these relief camps, but I contend it is a desperate and dangerous thing to do if no adequate program of employment is developed in the meantime to carry these men through, not only the summer months but the winter months as well.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think I have assured the committee already that we shall take every possible means of ensuring that the employment of these men will continue as long as possible. I want to put to the committee and to my hon. friend the implication of the figures I gave a few moments ago. It was announced that the allowances in the relief camps would be increased to $15 per month
Unemployment

on February 29. The total as of that date is 20,376, while the last total is 16,039, so there has been a reduction of some 4,000 men, and that after the announcement that the wage allowance would be increased to $15 a month in addition to board and lodging. A reasonable inference from that surely would be that these men were going to their own homes; that they were going to some other employment which gave them a greater wage than $15 a month with board and lodging, or that they did not wish to remain in the camps and work as they were obliged to do under the new policy.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: As a matter of fact I
think anyone who is conversant with the relief camp situation knows exactly what happens every year. There is a large number of men, just about the number mentioned by the minister, who, as soon as spring comes and weather conditions make it possible, leave the camps. Most of them leave not to go to work but to roam about as adventurers and to "hit the road."


Norman McLeod Rogers: Does my hon. friend
think those men are proper charges for this or any other government, with regard to securing employment?


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I do not say that; I am
just mentioning the fact. As a matter of fact, in every year during which the camps have been in operation that very thing has taken place. If the minister will go to the foremen or to any of the men conversant with the problem he will find out the type of men who have left. They prefer to roam about the country rather than to continue in the camps, and if he will check up the statistics as to rod-riders during . this particular period he will see a proportionate increase in the number of men who are roaming about, picking up work indiscriminately here and there, wherever they can find it. This is no indication whatever that there is any improvement in the employment situation throughout the Dominion of Canada this year as against last year. I venture to suggest that if the minister will check up the statistics of last year he will find that just about the same number left the camps at this time, and I venture the further suggestion that he will find that in the main they were the same men. To suggest that this is any indication that the problem is not one that will have to be dealt with next winter or that the unemployment problem is moderating of its own accord is not in accordance with the facts, and no such conclusion is justified.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That was not my implication.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: The implication was that
these men left to go to better jobs, paying more than $15 a month, or that they went to their homes. No such conclusion is justified. Probably the men will not be getting as much money, nor will they be getting as good shelter or as much food as they were receiving in the camps, but they prefer to leave the camps and have the adventure of moving about the country. Speaking as one who knows something about this problem in Vancouver I think every member of this House of Commons must view the situation with the greatest concern if the government is to be tied down in meeting emergencies, as apparently this measure contemplates tying it down.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Perhaps, following this discussion, the minister might be good enough to inform the committee what would be the position of the government in case the appropriation was entirely exhausted and further sums were required. Would it be necessary to wait until parliament reconvened in order to vote these sums?_


Norman McLeod Rogers: I understand there is
statutory provision under which governor general's warrants may be issued to meet an emergency when it arises.


John Horne Blackmore: There is one other
thing I should like to see done; I should like to suggest that the minister assume the task of seeing that in every little community a place is provided where these people can register. Let it be the post office or some other place where, when the boys come in, they will not be insulted; plenty of them meet with insults when they come to town honestly looking for work.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be glad to look into that.


John Horne Blackmore: In that way the minister will know who are transients and who are not; it will not cost much and will be a wonderful help to the boys. Then I should like to make one other observation. If the amount of money the boys will be able to make on these railroad jobs is more than the amount they could make on farms, this will put the farmers at a disadvantage in getting help. I more than suspect that this is one reason why the farmers are having difficulty in getting these men to come to work for them, and inasmuch as I represent an agricultural constituency I am concerned about this. I should also like the minister to look into the matter of helping the farmers more.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.

Unemployment
On section 3, subsection 3-Contracts to be approved.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I have an amendment to move, inserting the words "to which the dominion government is contributing" after the word "undertaking" in the first line of this subsection.


George Washington McPhee: An
amendment has been moved also by the Minister of Pensions and National Health, that the words "dominion engineer" be struck out and the words "engineer in the service of the dominion government" be substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
On section 3, subsection 4-Minister may take action.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister made a most illuminating observation a moment ago, when he suggested that governor general's warrants might be the last recourse. What is the difference between a blank cheque and governor general's warrants?


Robert Fair: During the first two or three weeks of this session we sat here and listened to a great deal of sympathy being poured out by members from all over the country for the farmers of the west. As a farmer I sat here and listened to it, knowing from experience that sympathy does not do very much to fill empty stomachs or clothe naked bodies. I thought I would wait until the time came for something practical to be done, and that time has now arrived. In this section we find that the governor in council -may enter into agreements with corporations and others engaged in industry respecting the expansion of industrial employment-


John Ritchie MacNicol: What section are we
on? It seems to me that the discussion is going all over the lot.


Robert Fair: Section 4, subsection 1?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Section agreed to.
On section 4, subsection 1-Agreements with provinces.
Robert Fair: I was a little ahead; now I
guess I am on time. The argument I have already made should hold now. We find under this section that:
The governor in council may, subject as aforesaid, also enter into agreements with corporations, partnerships or individuals engaged in industry respecting the expansion of industrial employment.
We have been told that agriculture is the [DOT] back-bone of the country. We are making provision for the railroads to be improved, but a railroad improved without work to do is like a man all dressed up with nowhere to go. That condition exists to-day; there is not nearly enough traffic to keep the railroads busy, but we find them getting guarantees and the national railroads using up a lot of the taxes which agriculture is helping to pay. Agriculture is paying taxes directly and indirectly, helping Ontario and other provinces, Ontario in particular, to pay that forty-five per cent it was suggested here not long ago that Ontario pays, with which suggestion we do not for a moment agree. But I should like to see something done for agriculture. Agriculture is expected to pay its debts; it wants to pay its debts, provided it gets a square deal in comparison with other industries. Recently the farmers of the west who contributed to the stabilization of wheat prices were compelled to accept sixty cents a bushel, without interest, after waiting five years, while the average price for wheat in 1930 was 64-2 cents. Those who furnished that loan were paid interest; the railways got their money out of it; the elevators got theirs. So it is time something practical was done for agriculture.


Thomas Langton Church: I do not understand this
clause.


George Washington McPhee: There
is an amendment proposed to section 4. As moved by Mr. Gardiner it is:
That subsection 1 of clause 4 be amended by striking out all the words after the word "may" in line 17 on page 2 to the end of the sentence in line 21. and substituting therefor the following words:-
"By way of loan or advance out of the consolidated revenue fund or by way of guarantee. grant financial assistance to any province to enable the province to provide for any expenditures for direct relief or other relief measures, up to an amount not exceeding in the aggregate the total amount which may be otherwise payable to such province under any agreement entered into under the authority of this act."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, if the
previous part of the subsection remains there will be a conflict between the two, as will be seen. It is almost the same wording.


George Washington McPhee: The section as amended would read:
The governor in council may enter into agreements with any of the provinces respecting relief measures therein and providing for any payments on account of such relief measures to be made out of moneys appropriated for relief purposes by parliament for the fiscal year 1936-37, and where necessary the governor in council may by way of loan or advance out
Unemployment

of the consolidated revenue fund or by way of guarantee, grant financial assistance to any province to enable the province to provide for any expenditures for direct relief or other relief measures, up to an amount not exceeding in the aggregate the total amount which may be otherwise payable to such province under any agreement entered into under the authority of this act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The word "otherwise" makes it difficult to understand.


Thomas Langton Church: The words added make very little difference to what I have to say. This parliament is going to pay in any case, whether loan or guarantee. I wish to offer a suggestion to the government. In limiting these advances for these relief works to the provinces, making agreements with the provinces and then going on to make agreements with industries and even individuals, they pass over the main factor in the situation by not making direct loans to the municipalities. I suggest that after the word "province" in the second line of the section there should be added the words "or municipalities," say those over 50,000 or 100,000.
Now I wish to say something about the suburban worker. When these agreements are considered I hope the government will not overlook the condition of the suburban worker, who seems to have no friends in this house at all. The farms round the larger cities are taken over by speculators. It would cost very little for the government to make agreements with the larger municipalities, many of which own their own public utilities, light, power and transportation. The country owns the national railways. The government have made agreements with the railways; why can they not make agreements with the municipalities to develop suburban areas? The railways have had all kinds of hand-outs and they have failed to do anything for the suburban worker. See what is done in England for the suburban worker, in the city of London, and also in the large cities of the United States, with the steam suburban service and commutation tickets. In these relief construction works the federal power has the say.
Before this section carries I desire to draw the attention of the committee to these agreements with the provinces in their relation to the larger muncipalities of the country. I mean those of over one hundred thousand population that are solvent. In my opinion, this government should have the power to deal directly with them, similar to what they did in 1919 in the first housing legislation. Nearly all the money advanced under that was paid back by the solvent municipalities; and a similar arrangement could be made to
[The Chairman.]
take care of rehabilitation and the relief of unemployment, and the promotion of an agricultural settlement in its relation to the suburban worker and his rehabilitation. Under the proposed arrangement the federal parliament will supply credit for the whole thing. Some of the provinces are not in the financial position they should be.
The industrial worker in the city seems to be entirely forgotten. We find that one clause in the bill makes no provision for agreements with municipalities. We know that municipalities have been carrying a big load of relief costs. All municipalities across the country have been doing this, with the result that much of the load has been placed on real estate. I say that the present measure imposes charges on property, something which we have no right to do. If a war was being fought we would not ask the municipalities to shoulder the cost of maintaining our magnificent navy or army. But in the present instance we load the whole burden of relief on the freeholders. That is what we do when we have an industrial war. For three months this federal power has been sitting at Ottawa loading charges on real and personal property owners, and on agricultural communities as well. No wonder we are facing the condition described by the last speaker. I trust the rights of the property owner will be considered. The bill states that there will be provision for land settlement, agricultural development and rehabilitation, and indicates that there will be development, conservation and improvement along those lines. If that is the principle of the bill, then let us have a real conservation scheme.
What are they doing in the larger cities of the United States to-day? They are doing something for the suburban worker. He is enabled to get out to the country. He may use the railways and other services, and all because of a vast scheme of suburban conservation. Boston, Chicago and many other great. American cities are taking these people from their slum districts and placing them on two-acre or three-acre lots where they may grow enough to maintain them for some months. That is better than having the government make agreements with the provinces. The action taken by the cities in the United States is practical, and it is helping the suburban worker. It is helping those young men who are on the threshold of life to go out and get three-acre lots, and is better than having them live in slums. If we were to adopt that policy parliament could provide the money for tools and cash advances sufficient to help them for two or three years, if necessary, till they become independent.

Unemployment
That would be a step in the right direction. I am here to-day to plead the cause of the suburban worker, the man who has been forgotten. My hon. friends in the far corner of the chamber to my left sometimes plead the causes of different groups, but they have not yet seen fit to plead the cause of the suburban worker. Instead of having miles ind miles of waste land outside our cities I suggest that a policy such as I have described ;ould be adopted. If the municipalities had the power we are giving the provinces they would soon solve the difficulties of the industrial and surburban worker. The municipalities have had to pay for good roads, for power and for transportation for the benefit of the people, and they have been glad to do so. As I say, if under section 4 the government would make provision to help municipalities of 40,000, 50,000 or 100,000 people, they would be doing a great deal towards solving the problem of employment and kindred problems. The youth of the land would receive work.
May I point out that this action has been taken in Denmark and other countries and I am wondering why it cannot be done in Canada. The suburban dweller in England is being helped. We know that in Canada the railways have fallen down all along the line. If instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars in the duplication of our railways we had studied unemployment, as it was studied in the United States ten or fifteen years ago, we would be in a better position. We know that the Baltimore and Ohio railway postponed improvements until days of depression. If when our railways were spending money like water we had spent money in studying unemployment and familiarizing ourselves with the different phases of unemployment, we would be better off than we are to-day. Our socialist friends, who sometimes stand behind different causes, would do well to take up my suggestion. It would mean more work for the unemployed, would result in an improvement of land, and would be a source of revenue for railways and suburban services. I hope this feature of the matter will be considered in the agreement with the provinces as proposed in the bill. It would mean production for the consumers in the city and would give a home market for the small truck farmer and market gardener.
Montreal has had this commutation ticket service for many years, and I believe it is the only city in Canada which has had it. Further, I hope the minister, and through him the government, will consider with the provincial representatives the cancellation of
charters of shark loan companies which to a great extent have been responsible for the unfortunate conditions in which some people find themselves. When federal government authorities are discussing the matter with those of provincial governments I suggest that they should consider high mortgage rates, bank rates, insurance rates, and all matters of this kind which have helped to bring about unemployment in the various provinces.
The bill before us is said to be a conservation measure, and if that is so we want conservation all along the line. At the present time there are eight or ten government departments doing conservation work with the result that we have no conservation policy, except that which appears on paper, and it is not worth a snap of the finger. Hon. members will have read what was said last Friday by President Roosevelt of the United States upon the occasion of opening a large building. He spoke about the conservation of the lands and natural resources of a country, and of the duty of the hour for conservation.
This is a bill having to do with natural resources, and in it there is a proposal to make an agreement with the provinces. If we are going to have an agreement, then let us do something which will preserve the wealth of the products 'of our forests, soil, lakes and mines. Let us do something in a practical way.
A* I read section 4 I. find that there mav be agreements with corporations and with individuals. The government may make arrangements with individuals engaged in industry regarding the expansion of industrial employment. I should like to learn from the minister the exact meaning of the section. Does it mean that he may walk into an industry and compel it to take on more men than from an economic point of view would be practicable? Does the bill carry that meaning? Is it going to interfere with business or with the corporate direction of business? Is that what is proposed in the agreement with industries? If an agreement is to be made with a corporation, what kind of corporation will it be? Will the agreement be in restraint of trade? I say that if we are going to interfere with industry in that way we will create more unemployment.
In connection with the corporate direction of industry the statement is made that unemployment is a persistent factor in modern economic life. The industries and plants in Canada which can give regular employment to all of their employees, even in times of prosperity, are very few indeed. We shall

Unemployment

always have this type of unemployment with us. Unemployment is the price society has to pay for progress. Present figures indicate that in this country we shall always have a large number of unemployed. Despite the figures made available by the minister may I say to him that he would have difficulty in finding an industry which, under our semifree trade policy, can show an even distribution of production and employment throughout the whole year.
The public domain has been frittered away and the people of Canada should be conscious of the vast national domain and natural resources this country has. These should be the property of the people themselves and not that of any class or clique. This matter has been discussed for many years and all we have had is a lot of useless commissions that can serve nothing. The government should make Canada "conservation conscious," in due battle against the squandering of the public domain of resources and water power. The various departments handling this problem should be united into a large department so as to protect the birthright of the Canadian people. An agreement should be made with the provinces in this connection for joint action. I feel there is so much metaphysical language used in each section of this bill that it will get nowhere. It should be possible to have a standard form of agremeent that the governor in council could make with the municipalities in matters of reconstruction, rehabilitation, agricultural settlement of surimrban areas, in conjunction with the national railway, the provinces and the municipalities of the country.
It may be true that there are one or two industries where there is less fluctuation in employment than in others, but on the other hand agriculture and various types of construction are entirely at the mercy of the weather. The whole question to my mind is whether provision should not be made so that the minister could make an agreement with the municipalities or with the province with regard to the deadly level crossings, because motor car accidents at level crossings are doing more than the minister to create jobs. In Toronto so far this year there were 768 people wounded in motor car accidents, enough to fill up this chamber more than three times over. Why does not the government make an agreement with the municipalities and the provinces to do away with many of these deadly level crossings? Motor car accidents on the highways are a scandal.
I would also ask what the minister is going to do to help unemployment by lowering

mortgage interest rates and the rates the shark loan companies charge, yes, as much as seventy-five per cent, and that is being charged by companies incorporated under this parliament. If the minister would cancel some fifteen or twenty of these charters he would be doing something to help the poor industrial worker to save his home. Under subsection 3 are we to meet here in this house year after year to pass a resolution approving every little petty vote of money that has been spent under this bill, hold a postmortem like we do on the previous year's estimates? If that is the kind of agreement you are going to make, you are simply going round in a circle. Here is the first of May coming on and the unemployed are all looking for this parliament to do something to provide useful jobs, but what is parliament doing. I would answer that question by saying-nothing.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Ritchie MacNicol: The amendment, Mr. Chairman, refers to the first sentence of subsection 1, section 4?


George Washington McPhee: It deletes all the words after "may" in the first line of the section down to the end of line 21.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And it leaves in the words:
The governor in council may, subject as aforesaid, also enter into agreements with corporations, partnerships or individuals engaged in industry respecting the expansion of industrial employment.
I would like to say a few words on that sentence, but before doing so I wish to say that I was tremendously impressed by the remarks of my hon. friend from Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer). He speaks from experience and with practical knowledge of what the municipality is up against, and I must confess that that is what I find most lacking in the discussions in this house- practical suggestions made by men with practical knowledge of the subject under discussion.
When Bill No. 14 was going through this house we were told from time to time that the government looked forward to industry taking a big part in relieving unemployment by providing work in industry, and we were told that Bill No. 19 would also be operated, in conjunction with Bill No. 14, I assume, to provide employment in industry. I would ask the minister before this section carries to give the committee some indication of just what industry is expected to do under this clause and what assistance will be given

Unemployment
to industry to do what the minister hopes it will do in the way of providing employment. I have read in connection with this sentence the Glass bill that was introduced in the United States Congress, and I assume from this sentence in Bill No. 19 before us that the intention here is also to assist industry in a financial way in providing employment. I know something about industry. I know that the Liberal government which went out of office in 1930 and the Conservative government which followed it, after the commencement of the depression, invited industry to keep its men employed and give as much work as possible notwithstanding the fact that there was only limited sale for the products of industry at that time.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Ritchie MacNicol: When the committee rose at six o'clock I had begun to make a few remarks on the last sentence of subsection 1 of section 4. I was about to say that in niv opinion industry will go the limit in assisting the minister and the government in providing jobs wherever possible under what is expected from this bill. When the depression itself started I said that industry at that time had responded to the request of the two previous governments, and I believe it will respond to the request of this government to keep as many men employed as it possibly can. The industrialists accomplished this in the first instance by fixing up their plants. Anyone who makes a tour of the industrial institutions of Ontario to-day will find, what he would never have found to the same extent prior to the depression, that these concerns have been renovated from top to bottom and are in a state of thorough repair. Nearly all companies kept their men on for the purpose of carrying out that work, and I remember very well that they made up a great deal of stock; their storerooms were full of stock cf all kinds. At the moment there are certain lines of industry that are enjoying a fairly substantial amount of business and I do hope that their business will increase. I have no doubt that some of these industries will be able to take on men. But there are other lines that have impaired their capital structure by carrying out the program to which I have just referred. I know a number of these myself, and just how these companies will cooperate with the government I do not know. When the minister refers to the section again I should like to hear from him exactly what 12739-1261
he has in mind in connection with such firms There are other firms, some of them I regret to say very large, which have suffered severely as a result of the depression. I will not say that any government is to blame, for the depression has got past any question of any government being responsible for it, and it is our duty now as Canadians to help the government in every way we possibly can to pull the country out of the depression.
I do not care to mention the name of the particular plant I have in mind; it would not do any good to do so because the plant is in the hands of the liquidator. But in the last ten days, when making a survey of industrial plants, I visited a large plant that had formerly employed about a thousand men, and that plant is to-day in the hands of a receiver. I have already referred to the bill introduced in the United States by Senator Glass, I believe. I tried to find the bill during the dinner hour but I could not place my hands on it. The purpose of that bill was to try to keep in operation companies that could be kept going without any severe strain on the country, through financial assistance afforded them in the meanwhile. If the sentence in the section to which I have referred contemplates anything of this kind I believe a great deal of good will result from it, though of course I am not in a position to say where the government would get the money to do all that; that is a problem for the government. Certainly there are many companies-I know of many myself-which to-day are hanging on by their teeth, so to speak, and if this bill can give them some assistance so that they may continue in operation I believe a great deal of good could be done in that regard and employment provided.
In the United States they are having the same problem that we have to deal with. I forget the name of the congressman or the senator who recently introduced a bill for the purpose of assisting companies to bring their machinery up to date. Naturally during a depression machinery deteriorates to a great extent through lack of use for one tlrng and owing to age for another. If times improve the question we shall have to face is: Will our plants be in ample shape to comj ete with plants in the United States which, according to reports from that country, lave been re-equipped through government assistance and made efficient for world competition? If there is in this section anything that will help Canadian industry in that direction it will serve a twofold purpose: It will provide something for the companies that manufacture machinery and at the same time it will
Unemployment

equip the purchasing companies for competition with the rest of the world.
Anyone who is associated with industry knows that a great number of businesses in Canada, many of them old family concerns, have grown up from very small beginnings, having originated in small centres. I do not imply that they should not have originated in small centres; in fact I am one of those who believe the time has come when there should be a certain amount of decentralization. of spreading industries around more, as was the case long ago, in a number of smaller centres. That would be better for thousands of employees because it would give them an opportunity to cultivate small gardens, which would be of advantage to them during layoffs, and all companies are subject to layoffs, particularly in this country where climatic conditions affect industry to a greater extent than they do in the United States, for instance, where there is a wide diversity in climatic conditions, from our own boundary to Alabama. Decentralization would provide our workmen with something which they cannot now enjoy in large cities, namely, gardens and some ground on which to produce some of their own requirements. I have often wondered whether the time has not come for a survey of industry in Canada to see whether there are not many industries operating in positions in which they should not be located. If this section could be used for the re-allocation of industrial sites, I believe something could be done to assist Canadian industry in that regard. I am more or less groping round to find some means of assisting the minister because I know he is sincere and I believe every member of the house, man or woman, is genuinely desirous of helping Canadians to recover from this depression. It is away beyond politics. Anyone who tries to drag politics into it is not thinking along the right line. Perhaps the suggestions I have been offering are based on an erroneous interpretation of this section, but I think a reading of the section would bear them out.
I do not wish to make special reference to the tariff, but in the last five years particularly a great number of new lines have been introduced in the country, and that is an angle which the minister might explore-the introduction of new lines in Canadian industry. On more than one occasion I have suggested to industrialists that they manufacture this or that article which is now made in the United States and for which there is a considerable market in Canada, and it has been suggested to me that perhaps the government might feel, owing to the depression, that it would be good for employment-I do not say that

the government can find the money to do this-if it could see its way to assist industry in the manufacture of new lines. At the moment the industrialist has to bring in the blue-prints or the patterns. If he brings in the blue-prints he has to make the patterns here which involves a large initial investment There is on Van Horne street in my riding a plant now making eight or ten new lines, and the equipment necessary to make these new lines, consisting of patterns and so forth, represents a substantial investment or draw upon the capital of that company. I believe this is another angle that should be surveyed if industry is going to obtain any benefit from this section. As I understand it, the purpose of the section is to provide employment and if industry can provide more employment, the purpose of this section will be achieved.
I was interested in what the minister said about supplying work on the railroads, but I have not been able just to grasp what he has in mind. I am under the impression that there are many thousands of railroad employees now out of work. Why should not they be placed back to work on the railroads and the other men to whom the minister has referred placed somewhere else? In this regard I would refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader). I do not know enough about farming to speak as an expert, but I was impressed with what the hon. member said. If his argument is sound I should like representatives from other agricultural constituencies to support him or to comment upon his remarks. He contended that the government should take these men from the camps and place them on farms, paying the farmers $10 per month-if I am not correct I should like to be corrected-for the keep of the men and paying the men $10 per month as partial wages. If the hon. member's argument is sound, I can see where it would be good business to follow his suggestion. If you go around the province of Ontario you will see many barns requiring repairs; you will see the necessity for many ditches; you will see many fences in need of rebuilding and many fields in need of clearing. If these farms could be placed in better condition this would add to the national wealth of the country. In any event the money spent would not be lost. Additional employment would be provided in the secondary industries in the towns and cities which would supply the added requirements of the farmers.
I was tremendously impressed with the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) in connection with subsection 2. If this subsection is to terminate

Unemployment
the powers of this bill when the house rises, then I cannot see where we are going to get a great deal of good out of it. Speaking for myself, I would support a blank cheque or anything else which the minister might introduce in order to provide the necessary money to keep these things going after parliament prorogues. I do not believe in drawing the line so close that when the house rises the cabinet would be prevented from meeting an emergency. That should not be done particularly in times like these. I hesitate to say so, but I am not one of those who believe times are improving. I would dearly love to say that they are improving, but like the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, I have made some investigations. While conditions may not be getting much worse, they are not improving at such a rate as to provide employment for all our unemployed before next winter. Perhaps the Chairman already has before him an amendment to this section to give wider powers. If so, I shall be pleased to hear it.
Just in closing I should like to say that during the recess I attended a municipal meeting in Toronto at which it was stated that the Ontario government had notified all municipalities that a reduction of 7i per cent was to be made in the contribution of the provincial government, and I assume also in the contribution of the dominion government, towards relief. This will mean that the municipalities will not be able to carry on with the same degree of vigour they have exhibited in the past. Some measures will have to be taken to encourage employment. I want to place my position clearly before the committee. I am ready to support any sound action that this government will take to provide employment. I am also ready to support anything that will give them the necessary authority to carry on after this house rises. Along with every other hon. member, I have the desire to see this country get along with its business. I want to see employment provided for the people of Canada who have suffered for years through no fault of their own. I do not blame any government or any party for the depression and I am ready to support any reasonable measure that will relieve the distress of this country.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I wish to record my appreciation of the observations made by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol). I vish also to say that I am most grateful for die several constructive suggestions he has made. He has asked me particularly as to the implication in that part of section 4 of the bill which refers to assistance to corporations, partnerships or individuals engaged
in industry. I am sure he will understand that I cannot give him a definite answer as he would wish. With regard to the cooperation to be secured from industrial and commercial concerns, we shall have the guidance of the national employment commission. As was stated before, it is our intention to have as members of this commission some of the outstanding leaders of industrial and commercial life in this country and I believe, after conference with industrial groups, they will be in a position to advise the government as to what form of agreement would most probably effect the purpose we have in mind, namely, to increase the reemployment of those who are now on relief or who are unemployed.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is it the intention under this subsection to give these industrial establishments financial aid, the same as was provided for in the agreements between the railways and the government?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It will be noted that the
section reads:
The governor in council may, subject as aforesaid, also enter into agreements with corporations, partnerships or individuals engaged in industry respecting the expansion of industrial employment.
That is an inclusive clause. If on examination it appears wise to do so, it permits us to enter into agreements with industrial corporations, partnerships or individuals for the purpose of expanding employment. I think I can assure my hon. friend that before entering into any agreement of this kind we shall secure the best possible advice as to the results that would follow such a policy.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am trying to find out if
it is the intention of the government under this bill to give financial assistance, should it be found advisable to do so?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The power is here, if we desire to use it, to enter into agreements with industrial corporations for the purpose of expanding employment. The whole subject is one which requires careful examination. We believe it ought to be examined by such a body as a national employment commission, which will be in a position to explore the possibilities and give us the guidance we require in this direction.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But as yet the question has not been answered, as to whether it is the intention to give financial assistance to these corporations, assuming that the employment commission so advises.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Naturally it is the hope of the government that we may be able to secure the cooperation of industry in expand-
Unemployment

ing employment without at the same time giving direct financial assistance to industry. That would be, I am quite sure, the desire of my hon. friend. It is conceivable, however, that some form of financial assistance might be desirable and that, as a result of that assistance, we might provide further opportunities for employment. I think each proposal of that kind must be examined on its own merits, and in advance of an examination of the situation I cannot tell my hon. friend definitely whether or not the government will give assistance or financial aid to any particular industrial corporation. I simply point out to him that the power is here in case it should seem wise to utilize it, after an examination of the situation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Might I draw the attention of the minister to three words in this subsection which, I think, require some explanation. In the first part of subsection 1 of section 4 the governor in council is authorized to enter into agreements with the provinces. Then in the last four lines we have the power regarding agreements with corporations and so on, which reads:
The governor in council may, subject as aforesaid, also enter into agreements with corporations-
I assume that the words "subject as aforesaid" mean subject to the agreements made with the provinces.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend will permit me, I would say subject to the limitation involved by way of the appropriations made by parliament for relief purposes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not being a lawyer, I always hesitate to express a view on draftsmanship, because one is always open to rebuke for treading upon sacred ground, but might I express the opinion that these words might be interpreted as meaning subject to agreements having been entered into with the provinces, or in other words tying the hands of the federal government, in the assistance given by way of agreements with corporations, partnerships and so on, to whatever the provinces may have decided beforehand, in agreement with the federal government. Is there any necessity, or what is the necessity, for limiting the matter in that way? It may be said that my interpretation of this wording is wrong, but after these bills become statutes we are always told that they must be interpreted according to their wording, and I invite the minister to give consideration to that point. I may be entirely wrong, but it appears to me that if this bill passes as it is drafted, containing the words "the governor in council may, subject as aforesaid," which words, I 
submit, apply to the words, "also enter into agreements with corporations, partnerships or individuals engaged in industry respecting the expansion of industrial employment," it will work out in this way: The unemployment relief commission-I think that is the name of it-may find that it is desirable to do something along the line mentioned by the hon. member for Davenport a few moments ago. In fact that is already evidenced, because we are assisting the railways in this direction at the present time. I think that is a very good move, which probably will result in a substantial increase in employment. I think it will be recalled that the previous government entered into agreements with steel companies at Sault Ste. Marie and in Nova Scotia, and I believe also with the car construction companies; I am not quite certain, but I think I am right in that. These were all commendable efforts towards stimulating normal employment in industry; apparently these efforts have been more or less successful, and it may well be that other lines of activity may be entered into along that line.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has pointed out also that the word "corporation" might be interpreted to mean a municipal corporation. Of course I do not think that is intended here, but in my opinion there is no reason why the paragraph should not be enlarged to include municipalities. The only objection is that rather narrow adherence to the strictly constitutional line of dealing only with provinces. I know there is a strong school of thought which believes that we should deal only with the provinces. With the experience we have gained over a number of years I am not quite certain that we should limit ourselves in that way, but that is a matter of opinion and I respect the opinions of others holding that view though I am inclined to think that the dominion government could well afford to break away from that procedure, at least in the large cities and centres where unemployment is becoming or has become extremely acute and where the problem has attained a magnitude which is not the case in the ordinary municipality. So I think the federal government might well reserve to itself the right to enter into agreements with cities. However we shall leave that out of the question for the moment and limit ourselves to industrial corporations or public utilities. There may be certain public utilities with which agreements could be made, something in the nature of hydro electric development in new areas, for instance. I can vizualize that. I really believe that in the mining areas of northern Ontario and Quebec, which are developing so rapidly and

Unemployment
so marvellously, it might be advisable to encourage the establishment of hydro electric plants, which would be a form of cooperation that might be highly desirable from the standpoint of both employment and of providing cheap power, which is always an essential to employment.
As I indicated to the Prime Minister this afternoon, when we were discussing this matter, it may be that parliament is tying the hands of the government too much in this respect. I think the government might well consider securing to itself a little more freedom. In saying that I would say to the Prime Minister that I am not unmindful of his desire to preserve the ancient parliamentary practice of money votes and parliamentary control of such votes. That is a laudable desire, which I am not calling into question, but we cannot narrow it down too much. As I pointed out during the discussion of the previous bill some weeks ago, every session we pass estimates by which we authorize, through a comparatively small vote, the commencement of some work, and a contract is entered into with no knowledge of the full cost of the work. I venture to say that a check-up of the public works estimates for the last thirty years would show that every session some millions of dollars were contracted for beyond what was disclosed in the estimates, and on a narrow and technical interpretation this would be a violation of what the Prime Minister holds so dear. Yet it is never looked upon as such, and it would be nothing but ridiculous to regard it as a violation. So I say with all due respect that the government will find it utterly impossible to restrict itself to expenditures of such sums only as are specifically voted. In fact I am quite certain that when the vote comes down '.ve shall find that it is not so divided; there will be a certain latitude given. So if this bill is to be an effective measure of relief this summer, autumn and winter, before parliament reassembles at its next session, this section 4 ought to be amended. The words "subject as aforesaid" might well be eliminated, and subsection 2 ought to be amended. I am hoping the minister has given consideration to that since this afternoon and will suggest some amendment, because if these agreements with the provinces cannot be binding or effective until approved by resolution of the House of Commons it is obvious that nothing arranged with the provinces subsequently to the closing of parliament can be made operative until next session, which I think would be a very serious mistake. I am arguing this way not in a spirit of criticism, but rather, shall I say, to warn the minister
and the government that if the section passes in its present form they will find themselves with their hands tied in dealing with conditions regarding which the minister this afternoon, and in the debates on the other bill, prior to the Easter recess, pointed out that he was not able to tell exactly what they would be. I sympathize with him and recognize the reason for that position.
At the moment he cannot even tell us exactly how the railway agreement is to work. He will probably be able to do that before parliament prorogues, but in regard to these other matters it is impossible for him to say with any certainty how this is going to work. Consequently it is necessary that the government shall be free to make these agreements. The usual provision might be inserted, that within fifteen days after the house assembles all such orders shall be laid on the table; I see no harm in that. But for the government to tie their hands in the way section 4 ties them will leave them the victim of circumstances, and we should probably find, whether the government use this as an excuse-that I am certain is not their intention, nevertheless it would give colour to the suggestion or excuse that unfortunately they were unable to do these things because parliament had tied their hands. I appeal again to the Prime Minister to give consideration to this section; I suggest that it be amended now before the bill leaves the committee stage, so that it may be made an effective measure subject to the total vote of $75,000,000, which, I understand, will be divided into certain groups. For myself, I will gladly vote for the necessary supply to provide funds for taking care of any anticipated or possible agreement that the government may make, of the nature indicated in this section.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, if there is any possibility in the world of this section being misinterpreted in the manner suggested by my hon. friend, although he was careful to say he did not wish so to construe it himself, I should ask the committee at once to strike out any clause that is capable of such an interpretation. I am dealing now with subsection 2, of section 4, which reads:
No agreement entered into under the provisions of this section shall be binding upon the dominion until approved by resolution of the House of Commons.
That clause was inserted in order that the House of Commons might have complete control and at the same time complete knowledge of all expenditures likely to be made by the government in dealing with this
Unemployment

problem of the relief of unemployment and in providing employment. That is the sole motive behind and purpose of that clause.
Reference has been made to British legislation where power has been delegated. I have noticed that in most of their statutes not only is there the requirement of a resolution approving what has been done but such approval is not confined to the House of Commons which is as far as this section goes, the resolution must be approved by both houses of parliament, in that way preserving the authority which parliament as a whole has and ought to have over expenditures. From the discussion this afternoon it would appear that many hon. members are of the opinion that it will be construed that this clause has been inserted as an excuse for the government, in dealing with the provinces and municipalities, to say that its hands have been tied by parliament. I do not propose to have the government's motives in this respect misconstrued, and for that reason I am going to ask if the committee will consider the advisability of striking out the subsection.
May I say this further, however, that I have an additional reason for proposing that motion. It is that possibly the element of time has not been sufficiently taken into account with respect to the effect of this clause. Had it been possible for the government to prepare in midsummer for a session of parliament, or as I said the other day, had there been a general election in the month of April or May, as I think at the very latest should have been the case, and had the new government come into office immediately thereafter there would have been time to give consideration to many matters and to enter into agreements. But such has not been possible in the short period during which we have been in office. I was impressed this afternoon with the force of the remarks of one hon. member who said that in making agreements not only had the provinces to be taken into account by the dominion, but the municipalities and their affairs; that the provinces when they came to deal with the dominion might wish to have some wider knowledge than they have at the time, in respect to the needs of the municipalities and what they are prepared and in a position to do. I can see that if there is going to be that sort of obstacle it may be very difficult to get agreements completed before the session is over, particularly in view of the fact that while parliament is in session the minister's time is going to be much occupied in the house with matters pertaining to this and other legislation. There is also the further fact that within only the last few days par-
liament has enacted the measure with respect to the national employment commission. I am very happy to inform the house that we have been so fortunate as to secure as chairman of the national employment commission Mr. Arthur Purvis of Montreal, the president and managing director of Canadian Industries Limited. We have been discussing with Mr. Purvis matters relating to the work of the commission. We have also been in touch with other gentlemen who will be asked to become members of the commission, and we hope to be able to announce the entire personnel of the commission in a few days. But the fact that it was not possible to bring the entire commission into being until this late date-it obviously was not possible to do it sooner-may make it difficult for the government to get the benefit of the counsel and suggestions of the commission at as early a date as it would have wished. In these circumstances it may be that the government is unduly restricting itself in asking parliament to enact this clause. May I point out something unique in the criticism being offered: it is criticism not against the government but against the clause. The criticism is that the government is tying its own hands unduly; not that in the control of public expenditures it is seeking to get away from the House of Commons.
I hope that in another year circumstances will not be what they are to-day and that we may get back not only to a desire on the part of the government but to a desire on the part of the opposition and on the part of all hon. members to have as complete control of public expenditures by this house as may be possible, in connection with the question of the relief of the unemployed as well as with respect to all other questions. Perhaps I should add that there is this very important difference between what the government will be doing, asuming that subsection 2 is deleted, and what has been done under previous administrations:	We shall still be retaining
control by parliament over the expenditures involved by asking for appropriations of stated amounts for specific purposes. These purposes will include, among others expenditures to be made under agreements and in connection with all contemplated works and services. I referred previously, in a general way, to the total amount of the appropriations. When the estimates are brought down hon. members will see that the total appropriation, as the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce has said, is divided into various items which will embrace the government's program for the construction of works and for relief.

Unemployment
With that explanation I move:
That section 4 be amended by striking out the words "subject as aforesaid" in line twenty-two thereof, and that subsection 2 be stricken out.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I point out
a difficulty which would arise if the subsection were stricken out. I am in favour of allowing the government as great latitude as possible. I believe there is a great deal of merit in what has been said, namely that we have to be prepared for emergencies and that the government must be able to meet such emergencies. But if the subsection is stricken out this would mean that an agreement with a private corporation, a partnership or an individual may be entered into without any consent of parliament, and on the say-so of the commission. It has already been announced that the chairman of the commission is to be one of the big business men of Canada. The minister has announced that there are to be other big business men on the commission, but apparently labour is to be denied the right of being represented on it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will my hon. friend permit me to interrupt? He has no warrant whatsoever for that statement. As a matter of fact when the national employment commission bill was before the house I made it clear that the government recognized the claims of labour to representation on the commission and on the advisory committee. I should like the hon. member to correct his statement here and now.
An hon. MEMBER. Take it back.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am very glad
to hear the statement that labour has some claims. I wonder whether it will have any such representation as business has. Will there be any such numbers of labour people as there are business people?


An hon. MEMBER:: What about Mitchell?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not know whether Mitchell is included or not, and I am not very particular whether he is or not. He may have been a labour man-was a labour man-


An hon. MEMBER:: He is.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But he is not
nominated by labour. That is another matter.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will my hon. friend permit another question?


James Shaver Woodsworth: One more moment please, if I may have it. Since that name has been unfortunately drawn into the discussion I just wish to state that I have
nothing to say with regard to the appointment of Mr. Mitchell, if he is the man under consideration, but I do say this, that if labour is to be represented, then it should be by somebody who is more or less responsible to labour and nominated by labour, and not somebody who has been picked out simply because he has been connected with labour. That is another matter.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I wish to put this question to the hon. member:	Is it reasonable to
force the distinction which he appears to make between what he describes as business men and labour men? Is it reasonable to assume that business men are entirely lacking in a sense of social obligation? I feel that such a suggestion is wholly unwarranted, and I am confident it will be possible to find leaders of industry and commerce in Canada who have a full appreciation of the interests and problems of labour and who would have a sympathetic approach to the entire problem of unemployment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am surprised that the minister, of all men, should try to put words into my mouth. I neither said nor implied that business men were lacking in a sense of social responsibility. I do not think it is fair that the minister should seek to make me say anything of the kind. I might very well ask him if he thinks that all labour rnen are lacking in business experience or business ability.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Certainly not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: All right. I think some of them have business experience and business ability.


Norman McLeod Rogers: So do I.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I know perfectly well that when it comes to a matter of this kind there are many men prominent in the labour movement who are quite capable of dealing with unemployment, just as capable as are any business men. If there is unemployment to-day I would remind the committee that it has developed during the regime of business men. It is business that is responsible for the mess we are in to-day.


An hon. MEMBER:: Partly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is business that is responsible for the mess, because business has been in the saddle. I am not quite sure that even the biggest business men can do very much to get us out of the mess.
However I did not rise to say that. I rose to point out that the chairman and apparently a number of men on the commission-and
Unemployment

we do not know; we are talking in the dark, I suppose-we assume are to be business men, and that this is to be looked at as a business proposition. I say that if we are going to strike out subsection 2, the least that can be done would be to have inserted in so many words an understanding whereby in any agreement entered into with any corporation, partnership or individual, fair wage provisions would be maintained. That is the least that could be done.
Let us suppose by any stretch of the imagination an agreement were entered into with a textile company with regard to the employment of textile workers. What are the wages in textile factories to-day, which are being investigated by a commission? They are outrageously low. I am not at all sure that these business men on the commission could be entrusted with seeing that fair wages are paid to people absorbed into a textile industry. I can readily understand that the ground might be taken that as the people were unemployed, and are getting nothing to-day, any wage would be good enough for them. That would have the effect of putting them on a very low wage and depressing the whole wage scale.
I can recall that when the Liberal party held office some years ago the steel companies were under consideration, and assistance was being given by way of bonus. At that time we tried to have inserted a fair wage clause as a condition under which the steel companies might receive bonuses, but the government of that day, headed by the present Prime Minister, refused to insert such a clause. This was not a matter of provincial jurisdiction, because the federal government was free to state definitely the conditions under which. these bonuses and special grants could be given. I think the country ought to be protected, whether or not there is any protection of the rights of parliament, and it would not be too much to ask the Prime Minister, who proposes to withdraw the control of parliament-and I am not objecting to that-to insert in place of subsection 2 a safeguard for labour along the lines I have suggested. Perhaps the wording might be changed but this is what I scribbled down just a moment ago:
In any agreement entered into with any corporation, partnership or individual fair wage provisions must be maintained.
I think that is only fair to labour, and it is in line with the proposals which have been made from time to time by the Liberals in convention and scattered broadcast through-

out the country. I would like to see such a provision inserted so that the commission itself would know that it was bound by the action of parliament in that regard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think what my hon. friend has in mind is pretty completely covered by an existing act of parliament with respect to public moneys which are contributed. The provisions of the fair wage act, as I recall it, apply to works aided by grants of public funds. I think that legislation would be quite broad enough to cover what my hon. friend has in mind.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But we have been told again and again that the government has no control over private business, that the fair wage clause applies to particular government contracts but that it does not necessarily apply, for example, to materials produced entirely outside government shops or government contracts. We were told not so very long ago that it did not apply to Canadian National railway contracts, and to Canadian Pacific railway contracts, I believe. I do not think it is asking too much-especially when the Prime Minister says that this is government policy-to have a fair wage clause explicitly included in some such words as I have suggested. If the government will not accept that suggestion, I will move an amendment accordingly.


George Washington McPhee: There is an amendment now before the Chair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Speaking to the amendment and the observations made by the Prime Minister, may I direct his attention to the fact that under Bill No. 14 to which he has referred, it is provided that a commission may be appointed by the governor in council. He has now intimated to us this evening who the chairman of the commission is to be, without any order in council having been passed with respect to the matter because he intimated that the names of the others could not be given. Such a departure from parliamentary practice I have never heard of in my time, and if I had ever been guilty of it I would have been lectured by my right hon. friend for at least half an hour.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend surely does not assert that we have to pass an order in council before I may be permitted to tell the house who the chairman of a commission is to be?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Absolutely.

Unemployment


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is carrying order in council government beyond the limit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is parliamentary government, of which the right hon. gentleman talks so much. All one has to do is to look at the statute and see the provision with respect to the matter. It is an elementary rule of constitutional government that no information can be given to the house or anybody else about an appointment until such time as the governor general has given his approval to it. That is what Bill No. 14 says:
There shall be a commission to be called the national employment commission, consisting of not more than seven members who shall be appointed by the governor in council.
And until such time as his excellency gives assent to that appointment no appointment has been made. That is elementary.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not say that an appointment had been made. I said that we had been fortunate in securing Mr. Purvis' agreement to act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what was
said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, yes, it is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hansard will show. I
was careful to note what the right hon. gentleman said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have never
heard that the government is restricted by any constitutional or other reason from giving parliament any information which it may wish to give at any time.
.*5ome hon. MEMBERS:	Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When I hear these
embryo constitutional authorities saying "Hear hear," it does make one smile, because it is an elementary rule, as those who one day hope to be ministers of the crown will realize, that the government cannot give information as to what has transpired in the way of making an appointment until his excellency has given his approval. That is an elementary rule of constitutional government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Only in regard to appointments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I am
talking about. This commission is to be appointed by the governor in council, and until such time as the governor in council has acted, there is no commission. There was a great deal of difficulty in England in the last fifty years because of there having been a leak of information-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is no
leak; there is no appointment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -and one gentleman who was to be appointed to the bench was not appointed because of the notice that had appeared in the press that he was to be appointed. The sovereign did not give his approval because this was contrary to constitutional precedent. The right hon. gentleman has said that this house can be told that Mr. Purvis has agreed to act as chairman, but that is not the way in which it was put to this committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it was.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But if that is what he
intended to say, that he had communicated with Mr. Purvis and that Mr. Purvis had expressed his willingness to accept appointment at the hands of the government, that is another matter. But until such time as the recommendation is made to council, approved by council, and subsequently approved by His Excellency the Governor General, under the statute no appointment is made. There is no one thing about which governments have had more difficulty than that. It is so elementary that despite the remarks of the hon. gentleman immediately behind the Prime Minister all one has to do is to take the trouble to read Dicey or Anson on the constitution to see that there is no difficulty about the soundness of the proposition I have put before the committee. I know that if we attempted to say in this house that John Brown, K.C., has agreed to be appointed judge, this would be regarded as very unsound parliamentary practice, because until such time as the governor in council has given his approval there is no appointment, and this statute says that the appointment can be made only in that way.
Now with respect to the deletion of subsection 2, I pointed out on the second reading that the government would have to do so, and I think the Prime Minister is well advised to remove it because it is quite clear, as I then pointed out, that unless parliament were in session the provision might be of very little or doubtful value. The deletion of the subsection will still enable the purpose which the government by this legislation has in mind, to be accomplished, for when the estimates providing for the expenditures of $75,000,000 have been approved by this house, that is in effect giving approval, under the agreements which the governments are to make, to the expenditure of this sum within the classes of subjects for which the moneys are appropriated. So, as far as the government is concerned, it meets all the
Unemployment

requirements when provision is made for the appropriation of the moneys. It would not, however, meet the case of governor general's warrants, to which reference was made this afternoon. It might be desirable at this time, although perhaps I should do it in connection with the next clause, to point out that the next clause, which is not to be repealed when the act lapses on March 31 next, opens up a field which, I think, the right hon. gentleman would also wish to consider at some length before any final conclusion is arrived at.
I cannot think that the government would seriously decline to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. VVoodsworth) that where some contribution is made by the dominion to a province or an industry, an industry or corporation in this case, the fair wage clause should prevail. As a matter of fact, as the Minister of Labour will no doubt tell the committee, in the agreements made by the late administration such a clause was included in the agreement itself dealing with steel companies for the manufacture of rails ana other matters.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In the
agreement ?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, in the agreement
itself. That is my recollection because I had occasion to look into the agreement in connection with a matter that arose with one of the railways, and the clause was inserted that they should pay-I forget the exact words- the wages approved by the Department of Labour.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is covered
by the statute I referred to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the statute cover it where it is a mere contribution?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which statute is that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The statute to which I referred when speaking in reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, "An act respecting fair wages and hours of labour in relation to public works and contracts." The clause in particular is clause 5, which relates to agreements for works involving dominion aid, subsection 2 of which reads:
In every such agreement, there shall be inserted stipulations, in such form and terms as the governor in council may approve, designed to secure, so far as may be practicable, the observance, in the execution of the
[Mr. B.nnett.J
work contemplated, of the following conditions respecting fair wages and hours of work, that is to say, the condition respecting fair wages set forth in paragraph (a) of subsection 1 of section 3 of this act... .
Paragraph (a) sets forth the condition which governs fair wages in connection with government contracts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was the act of 1935.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The act was passed last year but as regards this particular feature it reenacted legislation in the fair wages act of 1930.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think that mere contribution was covered by the act of 1930, because that was one of the matters which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did strenuously press upon the attention of the government of that day. My recollection is that the statute of 1930 was amplified and extended so as to cover the particular case to which reference was made, namely, where contributions had been made. I am speaking subject to memory and my recollection may not be accurate, but I do recall that it was contended that the statute of 1930 was hardly wide enough, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre kept constantly pressing that point in connection with assistance to the railways and steel companies.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend will perhaps let me point out that this act does not come into effect until the first of May of this year. It will govern all agreements of the present government but my right hon. friend was careful to see that it would not necessarily have governed agreements made at the time he was in office.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were some contracts which did not contain this provision and which should have contained it, and the basis of the contracts having been without this provision, the first of May was fixed by the committee of the house as a reasonable date from which all future contracts should run, and therefore every contract which is made after the first of May next, and in connection with which contributions are made, will be subject to the provisions of that statute.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Then
the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre falls to the ground.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I remember the discussion that took place at the time, and I recall having got from one of the railways

Unemployment
a contract to look over. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) took some part in the discussion in connection with one contract; I cannot recall at the moment whether it was for rails or for work in the shops; I am not quite sure. At any rate, the act is quite clear so far as the hon. gentleman's point is concerned, and that eliminates any difficulty on that score. With the disappearance of subsection 2 and of the other words in the paragraph to which he refers, I should think there would be no further difficulty. But I could never see why the subsection was added in any event, in view of the fact that if this house gives its approval to the estimates and the agreements are within the estimates-and they must be or else they are ultra vires, for the amount involved would be more than the amount which parliament has appropriated -the government has approval and it is not necessary to have it a second time.
There is another point which I wish to discuss briefly, because we threshed this out to some extent on the second reading. If the language is not sufficiently clear-and I think it is-to enable the government, in making agreements, to deal with the problem to which attention was directed this afternoon, I think that without question it should be made so, for it will be recalled that the agricultural placement provisions under the act that expired on the last day of March were made as relief measures, and being made as relief measures under agreements with the provinces they fell within the purview of the language used in the statute itself. There is no question about that. If there is any doubt that this language is not sufficiently comprehensive to enable the government to deal with that problem in the agreements it makes, I suggest to the minister that such doubt should be removed. My own view is that the language is sufficiently broad as it stands.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As a relief measure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, purely as a relief measure, because it is only as a relief measure that the matter referred to by the hon. member for Rosthern and the hon. member for Portage la Prairie is to be dealt with. This measure expires on March 31, 1937, but section 5 does not expire, and as it stands the governor in council has a blank cheque to lend any sums of money to provinces without limitation and to renew them, to continue them and to do as he pleases for ten, fifteen, twenty or fifty years. I do not think that was in the mind of the government, but it is my duty to direct attention to it.


Eric Joseph Poole: Am I correct in assuming that this provides for a subsidy to be paid from the public treasury to any industry?


Norman McLeod Rogers: If I understand the hon. gentleman's question aright, he wishes to know whether under this section a subsidy could be paid to an industrial corporation for the purpose of extending employment.


Eric Joseph Poole: From the public treasury.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Provision is made under the section whereby that might be done.


Abraham Albert Heaps: A few minutes ago my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre raised the question of the fair wage clause or something of that kind which should go into this section, and it was contended by the Prime Minister that there is in effect at the present time such a clause that should be applied.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the first of May next.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes. But even apart from what may come into being on the first of May next, there was, I believe, in most of the government contracts a fair wage clause, and it is covered by the act that comes into effect on the first of May next. Even as regards contracts let in the past year or so by the late government there was great difficulty in having the fair wage act apply to those contracts. Not only was there difficulty by reason of the companies receiving contracts refusing to comply with the fair wage agreement, but there was difficulty on account of the difference of attitude among the various departments of the government itself. I have before me certain correspondence that took place between the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Labour in connection with a contract that was let for over $1,000,000 to one of the steel companies of the country, and the employees were anxious to know something about the fair wage clause that was inserted in the agreement. They wrote to the Minister of Railways and he passed the buck to the Minister of Labour; when it came to the Minister of Labour what did he write, in connection with contracts let by the Canadian National? He says:
The contract however was not between the dominion government and the corporation but, as Mr. Smart, Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, has informed you, was between the corporation and the Canadian National Railway Company. The contract, therefore, being between two private corporations, was not one in which the dominion government was a party.
The dominion, government supplied the funds, and the Canadian National is supposed to be a government railway; at any rate its
Unemployment

deficits are paid by the government; yet when it comes to enforcing the fair wage clause in a contract for goods that were being used by the Canadian National Railways we have here a letter, under the signature of the Minister of Labour, dated February 24, 1936, wherein he claims that the contract is between two private corporations.


Norman McLeod Rogers: On examination we found, as stated in that letter, that the fair wage clause applied to contracts entered into between the dominion government and any private industry or individual employer. It would not apply in the case of a contract between the Canadian National Railways and another industrial corporation or private employer. If I remember correctly, some dispute arose as to the terms under which labour was employed upon that work. If I have the particulars of the case clearly in mind, the Department of Labour called upon one of its own investigators to look into that situation. I would remind my hon. friend that the contract to which he refers was entered into about a year ago whereas the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act will not come into effective operation until May 1 of this year. Under that act as it now stands, if the dominion government makes a contribution to an industrial corporation, a province or a municipality, it provides for the insertion of a fair wage clause.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What redress have we when a private corporation does not observe that provision in the act which comes into effect on May 1?


Eric Joseph Poole: If a contract was sublet,
would the government still have control over the payment of fair wages? This has been done before, and I should like to know what will happen under this legislation.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The point raised by my hon. friend has been brought to my attention before. I think there are some grounds for believing that in certain cases those who obtain contracts from the dominion government let them out to subcontractors and in that way endeavour to escape the fair wage provision. I am sure hon. members will realize the great difficulty in getting continuous inspection of the conditions under which government contracts are performed. However, whenever a complaint is made a fair wage officer of the Department of Labour is sent to make an investigation. We try at all times to see that the fair wage clause is carried out faithfully by those who have contracts with the dominion government. I cannot say, as [Mr. Heaps.l
I would wish to be able to say, that the facilities for investigation are such as to ensure as satisfactory a compliance with the fair wage clause as I myself would desire.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the minister assert that under the act to come into effect on May 1 the fair wage provision and the provision for decent working conditions will be maintained, say in connection with a railway or a steel corporation or any other corporation receiving help from the government? Is that his interpretation of the act to come into force on May 1?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is my interpretation of it as I read it. It provides that whenever the dominion government makes a grant to a municipality or a province or in aid of the construction, remodelling, repair or demolition of any work, otherwise than for the government of Canada, the fair wage clause shall apply.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would that apply in the case of a factory undertaking?


Richard Bedford Bennett: When a grant in aid is made.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Section 5 of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act reads:
Whenever the grant or payment of any public moneys of Canada is authorized or made by way of contribution, subsidy, loan, advance or guarantee, for or in aid of the construction, remodelling, repair or demolition of any work, otherwise than for the government of Canada, the party intended to receive such grant or payment (whether the government of any province or any municipal or other body or any person or agency whatever) shall, unless the grant or payment is by statutory authority or by agreement with the government of Canada excepted from the operation of this section, be required to enter into an agreement with the government of Canada in which there shall be set forth the terms and conditions upon which such grant or payment is to be made.
It then goes on to state that in every such agreement there shall be inserted stipulations in such form and1 terms as the governor in council may approve.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Supposing there is no fair
wage legislation in any province in connection with a certain industry,, how is a fair wage to be determined if all wages are low? In that case the prevailing rate would not apply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It must always apply.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In the case of previous
agreements entered into between the Dominion of Canada and the provinces with respect to relief, certain clauses were inserted designed to provide for the payment of fair

Unemployment
wages. I have before me the agreement entered into between the dominion government and the province of Ontario which provides that the maximum number of hours of work per day for employees shall be eight, and that the rates of wages paid shall be fair and reasonable and shall be fixed by the province. Those are the conditions which were in the agreement entered into between the dominion government and the province of Ontario and they are to be found also in other agreements entered into between the dominon government and other provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have a hazy recollection that in consequence of claims made that contractors were endeavouring to avoid their responsibilities, a condition was inserted in some of the agreements that they should not sublet except on similar terms.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is in
the statute.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not the statute
before me.


Mr. QUELCH:: As agriculture is the basic
industry of Canada and as we shall have to depend upon this industry to absorb a large number of the unemployed in both winter and summer, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour what representation organized agriculture will have upon this commission.


Norman McLeod Rogers: When the national employment commisison bill was before the house I think it was suggested that agriculture had a definite interest in this entire problem, and attention was directed to the fact that a special organization was being set up to provide for rehabilitation in Saskatchewan, more particularly in the dried out areas of that province. If I remember correctly, I said that the government was of the view that agriculture did have a definite interest in the larger problem of unemployment and relief and that full consideration would be given to the claims of agriculture for representation, either on the commission or on the advisory committee. My hon. friend will understand that it is quite obvious that you cannot have representation of every distinct industry in this country upon a commission which consists of not more than seven members. However we are to have an advisory committee which will afford more general representation for the various branches of industry throughout the dominion that have a special relationship to the whole problem of unemployment and relief.


Mr. COLD WELL:: May I suggest to the
minister that on a commission of seven agriculture should be adequately represented. After all, agriculture is the basic industry of a very large portion, if not all, of the Dominion of Canada. I should also like to suggest that the membership of that commission should include a man thoroughly versed in soils and soil surveys. The dominion faces a problem in connection with the settlement of thousands of people upon land that is deficient in certain essentials in the northern part of the province to which the minister has just referred. I suggest that in the appointment of this commission a thorough investigation should be made into the qualifications of those persons who are to represent agriculture and the phases of agriculture that are of supreme importance in the rehabilitation of this industry.
I should like to ask the minister another question which is unrelated to the matter I have been discussing. I am unfamiliar with the act to which reference has been made. Does that act contain a penalty clause? I have in mind the fact that often in contracts let by public bodies and others, clauses are inserted which provide for the forfeiture of money in the event that the contracts are not properly performed. It seems to me that the difficulties in connection with these subcontracts and evasions of the fair wage clauses could be met by providing a penalty clause which would impose a penalty in proportion to the amount involved. For example, if the fair wage was thirty cents an hour and the subcontractor paid only twenty cents an hour, then I would say that a minimum penalty equivalent to the percentage by which the wage was deficient might well be imposed. In the case I have suggested it would be thirty per cent of the gross amount. It seems to me that a penalty clause of some such sort might meet the difficulty.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I find that the fair wage act which comes into operation on May 1 provides adequately for a fair wage clause in relation to subcontracts.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does it contain a penalty clause?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is no penalty clause contained in the act itself.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I should like to ask the minister how the officials of the Labour department arrive at what is a fair wage according to the act.


Norman McLeod Rogers: With respect to the construction of public buildings, the Department of Labour itself lays down schedules of wages
Unemployment

which apply in particular sections of the country. They are not always uniform; they are not necessarily uniform even in a single province. With respect to government contracts the practice has been to require payment of the current or prevailing wage in the place where the contract is being performed. That is obviously a matter of observation by the fair wage officers of the Department of Labour and, as I said before, if any complaints are made, a fair wage officer is immediately sent to the place where the complaint has been made in order to conduct the necessary examination. The contract is subject to the fair wage clause and is revocable if that clause is not carried out.


Angus MacInnis: I think that is the crucial point of our discussion. Where the workers on any particular work are organized in unions they have set wage rates. If they are fairly well organized in the particular district in which the work is being carried on, and if they have more men working under that rate than are working under lower rates in nonunion shops, then according to my experience this becomes the prevailing rate and consequently becomes the fair rate on that particular contract. But where there are no labour organizations; where, as in most parts of the Dominion of Canada, the workers are not allowed to organize-


Mr. DUPUIS:: Where is that?


Angus MacInnis: In the city of Montreal, all over Quebec, and in every other province of Canada.


Norman McLeod Rogers: By saying that they are not allowed to organize my hon. friend does not mean that the courts do not recognize the right of association?


Angus MacInnis: No; in this country the
employers do not have to refer the matter to the courts at all; they are sovereign in their particular industries. These people have no protection whatever and the prevailing rate does not mean anything, because as the minister has pointed out, the prevailing rate will be the rate at which the workers are employed in that particular district only. If the fair wage clauses in the contracts are to mean anything the dominion government must set minimum wages and working conditions that must be lived up to where decent rates of wages and working conditions do not prevail. Unless that is done the fair wage act will not mean anything in large sections of the country. I have been in almost continual correspondence with workers employed on government 
contracts who do not believe that the fair wage law is observed. I would suggest to the government that in order to give the greatest possible amount of assistance to those who need it, that is to those engaged in industry, and to see that government expenditures go out in wages to the greatest extent possible, some means should be adopted to ensure that fair wages really are paid under these contracts.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister was good
enough to explain the practice of the Department of Labour with respect to the fixing of wages on government contracts. As I understand the matter, each year that department reviews the schedules of wages for different parts of Canada, and I know it was the practice of that department to send those schedules to the Department of Public Works. Then, in the contracts for that year those schedules were embodied, and the contracts contained a provision that the contractor must keep this scale of wages posted on the job so that every employee might have access to it in order to learn whether or not it was being observed in his own case. From time to time complaints were made to the department that contractors failed to live up to the provisions of their contracts. The procedure then followed was to have an investigation ; payments to the contractor would be stopped until he could prove that he was carrying out his contract. In some cases after the work was completed and the contract terminated it was found that this provision had not been observed, and the money held back was retained. Thus the contractor was forced to make up any deficits to his employees before he received the final settlement. That is why May 1 was the date adopted in the act of last year, because the rates for the year had been set by the Department of Labour prior to that date, and had been embodied in some contracts. I should like the minister to tell me whether or not I am correct in my understanding of the operation of the act. If I am correct it seems to me that each labourer on the job has his remedy in his own hands, because the rate is posted there, and all he must do is make a complaint. In addition there is inspection from time to time by the Department of Labour on their own account, to see that the rates are lived up to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In connection with the
remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East I direct attention to the fact that in the statute passed last year there is provision

Unemployment
to meet the very situation to -which the hon. member has referred. I quote from the act:
... "fair wages" means such wages as are generally accepted as current for competent workmen in the district in which the work is being performed for the character or class of work in which such workmen are respectively engaged; but shall in all cases be such wages as are fair and reasonable.


Angus MacInnis: I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman who is going to decide whether or not the wages are fair and reasonable.
Mr. BENNETT;	The Department of
Labour.


Angus MacInnis: How is the Department
of Labour to come to a conclusion as to whether or not wages are fair and reasonable?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In connection with the
cost of living, for one thing.


Angus MacInnis: Do I understand the Minister of Labour to say that wherever the dominion government gives financial assistance after May 1, fair wages and working conditions wifi prevail?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I would say clearly that would be the policy of the dominion government as revealed in all the agreements with the provinces prior to this date. Apart from that being the policy of the government, I am advised that it is provided for in the act which comes into effect on May 1. I wish to thank the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) for having stated so clearly the relationship between the Department of Labour and the Department of Public Works in regard to the fair wage. He has stated the case accurately, and has done so with much more authority than I could have done.


Angus MacInnis: In reference to the question I asked about this act coming into force on May 1, a few weeks ago when the question of subsidies to steamships was before the house I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) made the statement that the government had no jurisdiction whatever and had no information as to wages and working conditions on those ships. Now will those subsidies come under this act?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I hardly feel that I should answer that question. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, I am sure, will take note of it and answer it.


Angus MacInnis: The government are giving the financial assistance, and if the Minister of Labour will not undertake to answer the question I suppose the Prime Minister can.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not the act before me at the moment and even if I had I think I should like to ask the opinion of the Department of Justice so as to be sure that my interpretation was correct.


Angus MacInnis: Then, what we have been told to-night is not correct, that it is going to apply where government assistance is to be given. It applies on one contract but may not on another.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have the statute; I will read it if the hon. gentleman desires:
An act respecting fair wages and hours of of labour in relation to public works and contracts.
5. (1) Wherever the grant or payment of any public moneys of Canada is authorized or made by way of contribution, subsidy, loan, advance or guarantee, for or in aid of the construction, remodelling, repair or demolition of any work, otherwise than for the government of Canada, the party intended to receive such grant or payment (whether the government of any province or any municipal or other body or any person or agency whatever) shall, unless the grant or payment is by statutory authority or by agreement with the government of Canada excepted from the operation of this section, be required to enter into an agreement with the government of Canada in which there shall be set forth the terms and conditions upon which such grant or payment is to be made.
(2) In every such agreement, there shall be inserted stipulations, in such form and terms as the governor in council may approve, designed to secure, so far as may be practicable, the observance, in the execution of the work contemplated, of the following conditions respecting fair wages and hours of work, that is to say, the condition respecting fair wages set forth in paragraph (a) of subsection 1 of section 3 of this act and the condition that the working hours of the persons employed in the execution of the work shall not exceed eight hours per day nor forty-four hours per week except in such special cases as the governor in council may otherwise provide or except in cases of emergency which may be approved by the minister.
The exception of course is the purchase and sale of goods, which is covered by provincial laws.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the minister enlighten us on this phrase, in regard to the government entering into agreements with corporations and partnerships? I know that when the agreements are brought down we shall get some details, but we ought to have some knowledge of the policy the government propose to follow. If they propose to assist industry we ought to know what criterion will be set up for choosing which industries and which corporations in those industries they will assist; we ought to know what general lines will be followed. If by voting for this measure we are approving such assistance we

Unemployment

ought to know what trend it will take, what industries it will affect and how the particular corporations, partnerships and individuals shall be selected by the government or by the national employment commission.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am in the judgment of the committee when I say that I dealt with that clause earlier in the evening. If my hon. friend will read Hansard to-morrow he will find the statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say a word to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) in reference to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act? I do not know what interpretation he drew from the reading of the section by the leader of the opposition, whether he regards the act as applying to subsidies, as a result of what he heard. Perhaps he can tell me.


Angus MacInnis: I take it that the act does not apply.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then that raises the whole question all over again. The minister told us a little while ago that the act applies to any undertaking that is subsidized by the government. There is no doubt whatever that the steamships are subsidized by the government; the very word "subsidy" that is used in the act is used. It might very well be that it was considered in the interest of employment that a new line of boats should be established between here and New Zealand or some other country, in which case, if I understand the Prime Minister aright, he takes it for granted that the act will not apply.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, my hon. friend is mistaken.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, will he not say whether or not in his judgment it applies?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall if my hon. friend will give me a chance. I raised the question particularly because I did not wish the hon. gentleman to be under any misunderstanding as to the application of the act, and did not want my hon. friend who has just spoken to say later that I was here and had heard what was read and acquiesced as to the act applying to subsidies to steamships. As I read it-and this was my idea in wishing to have an opinion of the justice department somewhere at hand-the act is confined to public works:
Whenever the grant or payment of any public moneys of Canada is authorized or made by way of contribution, subsidy, loan, advance or guarantee,-
Not for steamships, but-
-for or in aid of the construction, remodelling, repair or demolition of any work-


Richard Bedford Bennett: See the title of the act itself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The title of the act is:
An act respecting fair wages and hours of labour in relation to public works and contracts.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: Has the government determined what percentage the contribution from the national fund will be to the whole expenditure on this relief question? I ask that because the discussion of this bill opens up all kinds of holes in the whole fabric. We have the hon. member for Van-couvar-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) complaining that the municipalities are being swamped and *rendered bankrupt by the continued expenditure on relief. Heretofore the disposition of the government has been to consider these advances as advances merely, and not as accepting a definite responsibility in connection with unemployment. Now it is becoming increasingly obvious that we cannot have complete employment in Canada; that unemployment is on the increase, no matter what may be said to the contrary. If that be the case, as the federal government have the whole field of taxation in their control, and the provinces and municipalities have a very limited field of taxation, it must be apparent that the federal government must bear an increasing part of the load. Has the minister anything to say in that connection?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is not possible at this time to say what precise percentage of the entire relief expenditure in Canada will be borne this year or next year by the dominion government. The dominion government have tried to meet the situation upon the basis of recognizing an obligation which it shares with the provinces and municipalities, but only when the burden was beyond the municipality and then beyond the resources of the province. That is the position taken consistently during the past few years. It has appeared at times that contributions made by the dominion government should be increased, recognizing the growing burden upon municipalities and provinces. But it is not possible to say what will be the precise percentage of the entire burden which will be borne by the dominion government.


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin):: I do not wish the minister to repeat his answers unnecessarily, but I understand from his statement that the bill enables the government to give subsidi"*5 and contributions to industry. I understand further, although he did not say so, that it would enable them to give subsidies and contributions to agriculture, if the national em-

Unemployment
ployment commission would bring down a recommendation, which in turn would be placed before the government, the government in turn obtaining power from parliament. Under this bill I understand the government could give assistance in connection with wages on farms throughout the dominion. Is my understanding correct, if a recommendation is made by the national employment commission?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As a matter of fact, I
believe that according to the terms of the bill-


Percy John Rowe: You can give any power you like.


Norman McLeod Rogers: We are not forced even to wait for advice.


Percy John Rowe: A blank cheque, to do as you like.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Limited by an appropriation made by parliament.


Percy John Rowe: Limited by an
appropriation made by parliament, certainly.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Percy John Rowe: I believe the question of the hon. member for Weyburn was in order, and he did not receive an answer. He asked with reference to what industries would receive assistance, especially in view of the fact that while the Prime Minister has given us intimation this evening that even before his appointment by the governor in council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just a minute. May I interrupt my hon. friend, right there. He said "before his appointment by the governor in council."


Percy John Rowe: Those were your own words.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend states those are my own words. I happen to have my own words before me. I have a transcript of Hansard for which I sent, and which I shall give to the committee. Here are my words-and I give them to the leader of the opposition as well:
I am very happy to inform the house that we have been so fortunate as to secure as chairman of the national employment commission Mr. Arthur Purvis of Montreal, president and managing director of Canadian Industries Limited. We have been discussing with Mr. Purvis matters relating to the work of the commission. We have also been in touch with other gentlemen who will be asked to become members of the commission, and we hope to be able to announce the entire personnel of the commission in a few days.
Nowhere is there mention of any appointment having been made by the governor in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Secure the services"
means that or nothing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It does not mean that, and those words do not appear. There has been no appointment made; I repeat it. No appointment has been made but we have been fortunate to secure from Mr. Purvis his agreement to act as chairman of the commission, and he will be appointed in due course.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman read just now that "We have been so fortunate as to secure the services of Mr. Purvis."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Agreement to serve as chairman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statute says that he can be appointed only by the governor in council. Therefore his services can be secured only by the governor in council. And it is so elementary, that if it were otherwise there would be no question about it. If conditions were reversed I think I could hear the right hon. gentleman's ecstasies regarding the constitution. I think I hear his loud cry calling upon us to save us from destruction because we have announced a man's services have been secured before the governor in council has been consulted. When in England such a thing happened the sovereign in at least one case declined to be a party to it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The sovereign would not decline in this case, I assure my right hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no doubt. There again, that action is a great breach of the constitutional privilege of the sovereign. It is belittling the office of the governor general.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it is not. It is exalting the office by making it clear that the governor general may be expected to act on the advice of his ministers.


Percy John Rowe: I quite appreciate that even the sovereign power is doubtful when a party has a majority of 170.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the real power, the power of the people's representatives.


Percy John Rowe: In view of the division of opinion this afternoon and this evening I think he might even doubt that. However I might say that the Prime Minister
Unemployment

has only emphasized what I was about to say. While I appreciate the fact that he has taken the opportunity to read his remarks of this afternoon, what I proceeded to say was-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What the report shows I stated.
Mr. ROWE' (Dufferin): Yes, and I agree with the Prime Minister. I did not even disagree with him before he rose to speak; I merely proceeded to say that this afternoon the Prime Minister had named the man before the appointment was made by the governor in council, and the right hon. gentleman proceeded to read exactly what I said he had said.
While I have given the Prime Minister an opportunity more or less to agree with me, may I point out that the hon. member for Weybum did not receive an answer from the Minister of Labour. I think the government's policy might now be indicated, if they have any policy for the unemployed, and especially in view of the fact that, as the Prime Minister has said, he has already named the man he is going to appoint, a man who is one of the big interests in St. James street, Montreal, one of the largest industrialists in Canada. He is the man who is to solve the problems of the labouring men, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggested this afternoon. He is the man who controls many of the things agriculture has to buy, many of the things we have to buy in connection with new developments and resettlement of farmers. They cannot blow a stump out in Northern Ontario without buying the material from his corporation. He has been a director of some of the largest banks in Canada, and probably he understands the problems of those who are to-day walking the streets, hitch-hiking and riding the rods of our railway trains.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, oh.


Percy John Rowe: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre laughs; perhaps some day he might be riding the rods himself. May I suggest that there can be no doubt that agriculture is our great basic industry. My hon. friends opposite say that they are the saviours of agriculture, and yet at this time when unemployment is rife this great industry which offers more opportunity to absorb unemployed than any other industry in Canada it is given no consideration. I submit that agriculture could employ over 200,000 men, if subsidized as is indicated by the minister that industry may be. May I suggest that when the government proposes to name a large industrialist from St. James Street to head the employment commission it might
tMr. W. E. Rowe.]
save a place on the committee for a representative of the industry which offers the greatest opportunity to the unemployed. If we have 700,000 farms in Canada any hon. member in the chamber who is familiar with agriculture will agree that at least 200,000 of those farms could employ an extra man. At this season of the year that extra help would be welcomed. The minister has suggested that help is given in the winter time, and that it might be given next winter. I say that this is the season when the farmer requires help.
I should like to hear the minister answer the question asked by the hon. member for Weyburn as to what industries will receive contributions and subsidies, especially whether it is not the policy of the government to give consideration to the claims for reemployment in agriculture. The government might tell us if they are going to subsidize the furniture industry, or give it a contribution, since men engaged in that industry have been let out of employment since the signing of the Canada-United States agreement. They might also tell us if they are going to give some assistance to the steel manufacturers and to the farm implement manufacturers, or other industries that are threatened with difficulties because of the trade treaty. I can quite expect that the Minister of Trade and Commerce and some others might urge upon the government to give the furniture industry the first contribution, because we hear a great deal about it these days.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have no desire whatever
to avoid answering the question of my hon. friend from Weybum (Mr. Douglas). I merely suggested to him that the same question had been directed to me earlier in the evening when I think he was not in his seat, and that I was unable to extend the answer I gave at that time to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNieol).


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would like to correct the minister. I have not been absent from my seat, and I have been paying particular attention to what is being said. I have no wish to make the minister reiterate what he has said, because I can quite understand that he has been harassed ever a long day, but I think this is an important point, and if we are going to be asked to pass a bill by which the government may enter into agreements to assist industry we should know something of the industries which are to be assisted and what form of cooperation there will be. I think some general statement should be given to the committee on that point; if the minister has already covered it, I certainly did not hear it.

Unemployment


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think the answer I gave
was in these terms, that this particular clause gives power to enter into an agreement with an industrial corporation, partnership or individual for the purpose of expanding employment, that before entering into suc'h agreements the government would seek the guidance of the national employment commission, and in that connection I suggested to the committee that we felt it desirable and possible to secure as members of the commission leaders of industry and commerce from various parts of the dominion. Industry is a very broad term. It covers, as was suggested by my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Rowe, Simcoe), agriculture as well as manufacturing. It would1 be impossible in advance to indicate precisely those industries with which the governor in council may enter into agreements for the purpose of expanding employment. I do not think I can do more than to say, as I said before, that in this particular field where we hope to expand employment we shall seek the guidance of the commission.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I understand that there is
a motion that certain words be struck from this section. I want to say something on the section as amended.


George Washington McPhee: I have read the amendment that was proposed by Mr. Gardiner this afternoon, that all the words after the word "may" in line 17 to the end of line 21 be struck out.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Do I understand that subsection 2 is struck out?


George Washington McPhee: Yes.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I want to refer to another portion of section 4 as it now stands. There is a limitation here, which I think is twofold. First, the amount that can be advanced is not limited to the amount appropriated by parliament, but is limited to the amount which may be payable to any such province under any agreement entered into under the authority of this measure. That is a definite limitation, and I am inclined to think that the section dealing with the power of the government to advance loans to corporations, partnerships and individuals is also subject to that limitation because the Section reads "subject as aforesaid" in regard to loans to corporations.


George Washington McPhee: Those words have been struck out.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I want to deal with that
subject. Subsection 2 means that the agreements between the provinces and the dominion will have to be approved by a resolution of parliament before this session is over.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No; that subsection is
stricken out.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Then the agreement can
be entered into at any time, and it leaves it wide open for the province to enter into an agreement with the dominion government at any time?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As the clause is now, yes.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: As long as that is clear,
I am satisfied.


Robert Fair: I would like some definite
statement from the minister as to agricultural representation on the commission. We are all aware that agriculture supports half the population of Canada, and yet we have not been given any definite assurance that agriculture will be represented on the commission.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think my hon. friend is in order in asking questions about the personnel of the commission. That subject was properly before the house when we were considering the bill respecting the national employment commission, but I do not think his question is in order at the moment.


Robert Fair: It has been in order since the committee resumed at eight o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It has been
out of order, and we have been wasting time as a consequence.


Eric Joseph Poole: Can agreements be entered
into with municipal corporations as well as private corporations?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It has been stated quite
definitely that the dominion government proposes to deal with municipalities through the provincial governments. That has been the case in the past. This does not imply any lack of recognition of the problems of municipalities with respect to this whole question of relief, but even from an administrative standpoint I think it is highly desirable that we should continue to deal with municipalities through the provinces.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That raises one point. It
puts a municipal body of a large city such as Winnipeg, Vancouver or Toronto in a position inferior to that of a private corporation. Many cities now have their hydro electric systems, and a city may come forward with a proposal to extend its hydro system. Should it be placed in the position of having to go first to the provincial authorities, and
Unemployment

Through them deal with the federal authorities? Should it not have an opportunity of coming directly to the federal government to ask for the assistance it desires? I think that should be the procedure, and a good precedent for it was established in this house last year because under the Housing Act, which was passed last May, municipal bodies were given power to obtain loans from the national housing commission to be appointed. Now, if they can obtain money in that way for housing, I think the same procedure should obtain where a municipal body wishes assistance from the federal authorities for a legitimate .municipal undertaking.


Robert Fair: I would like to point out to
the Prime Minister that not fifteen minutes ago both he and the leader of the opposition were discussing the personnel of the commission, and if it is in order for them, it should be in order for me to do so.


George Washington McPhee: I have already ruled that it is out of order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I beg leave to
move that the following be added as subsection 2 of section 4:
In any agreement entered into with any corporation, partnership or individual, under the provisions of this section, fair wage provision and decent working conditions must be maintained.
I understand that there is a considerable difference in the interpretation of the act which is to come into force in May; that it may not apply to certain other industries, and I do not want to take any chances on a matter of this importance. As I said a little while ago, it may be that aid might be given to a steel corporation, or to a textile corporation, or to an oil company, or to the Canadian National Railways, or to the Canadian National railway hotels, and incidentally I wtas speaking the other evening of the low wages paid at the Chateau. I cannot see why that should not co-me under this provision. If we are to encourage tourist traffic by granting assistance to hotels, or anything of that kind, it seems to me that it is only fair that we should provide that a fair wage and decent living conditions should be maintained.


George Washington McPhee: Shall the amendment moved by Mr. Gardiner to section 4 be agreed to?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Washington McPhee: It is moved by Mr. Mackenzie King that the words "subject as aforesaid" in line 22 be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
IMr. Heaps.]
George Washington McPhee: It is moved by Mr. Mackenzie King that subsection 2 of section 4 be deleted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Washington McPhee: It is moved by Mr. Woodsworth:
That the following be added as subsection 2 of section 4:
"In any agreement entered into with any corporation, partnership or individual, under the provisions of this section, fair wage provision and decent working conditions must be maintained."
Shall the amendment carry?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think, from what I heard as I listened to the amendment, that its wording is grammatical, nor do I think its concluding words are appropriate to the earlier ones in the section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He moves it as subsection 2.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It says that in the agreement decent working conditions must be maintained. I do not wish to take exception to the language unnecessarily but you cannot maintain decent working conditions in an agreement; they must be maintained by operation of the conditions of the agreement.


James Shaver Woodsworth: "Provision be made for."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think those words appear in the amendment. However, during the evening it has been made abundantly plain that, with respect to all moneys which will be voted as contributions in aid, the provisions of the Act Respecting Fair Wages and Hours of Labour in relation to Public Works and Contracts will be carried out. We have before us a statute which is capable of interpretation beyond all doubt; we know what is involved in that act. I think that the committee ought to be satisfied to stand by its provisions. May I ask my hon. friend this question. Will he tell us now, so that we shall understand the full meaning of his amendment, exactly what he means by decent conditions? What is to be the standard? Who is to be the judge?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should think that the labour department, which is able to state what a fair wage is, ought to be able to say what decent conditions are; that could very well be arrived at. As regards the need for this, I think it was demonstrated by the Prime Minister himself when he told us a little while ago that the act which is to come ;nto force on the first of May would not apply to a great variety of undertakings but would

Unemployment
be simply for construction works. We want something that will be applied if we give aid to a factory or a workshop. I shall be glad to accept any emendation which the Prime Minister may offer as to form.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend
was arguing that the, government was tying its hands-I think those were the words he used-with respect to this legislation. Surely :n a matter of detail of this sort he ought to be prepared to trust the government.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Someone else used that phrase.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Someone else may have used that phrase, but my hon. friend did argue strongly that we should not restrict ourselves.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But I want the government to be forced to restrict itself when it comes to this kind of thing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government does not purpose to be forced to do anything.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is the government's option.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government intends to do all it possibly can to see that conditions will be fair, particularly in dealing with labour matters, and I think my hon. friend has every reason to know that he can trust the government in that regard without seeking, as he says, to force restrictions which may only serve to embarrass the government in the carrying-out of the legislation.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Surely the Prime Minister does not mean to say that the government thinks its hands will be tied if in making an agreement with a corporation or a partnership or an individual it puts in a fair wage clause.


Mr. FACTOR:: You might be excluding the operation of the fair wage act by including that clause.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think not. I am subject to any emendation which any legal gentleman thinks will clarify the wording, though I think the wording is fairly clear in its intent.


Eric Joseph Poole: Is provision being made for the payment of fair wages to men employed by a subcontractor?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is provided for.
Amendment (Mr. Woodsworth) negatived.
Subsection 1 as amended agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.

On section 5-Renewals of loans, advances or guarantees.


Mr. POULIOT:: I wonder whether the legislation referred to in this section is the blank cheque legislation. Is that blank cheque legislation renewed by this section?


Norman McLeod Rogers: My understanding of the section is that under the power here conferred the governor in council may renew or consolidate loans previously made to the provinces for relief purposes, but may not grant new loans for such purposes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, I know that, but the blank cheque legislation is not abolished; it survives. I wonder whether in virtue of that legislation the government will get some money from Newfoundland to which the previous government loaned quite a lot. Under the legislation referred to in this section the previous government loaned money to Newfoundland, and the government is now empowered to do something in virtue of that blank cheque legislation. Will the present government take steps to have that money refunded to this country?


Charles Avery Dunning: The treasury desired the insertion of this section in order to enable it to renew loans already existing which have been made to the provinces of Canada under the legislation named in this section, loans for which the dominion now holds treasury bills of the provinces concerned, twelve month bills which from time to time come up for renewal and which without this section the dominion could not renew but would have to endeavour to collect or allow the provinces to go into default with respect to the obligation. The intention is to enable the treasury to renew such loans but not to grant new loans under the legislation named in the section.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman; but as to loans, while it is all right to renew them, it would be much better to collect.


Charles Avery Dunning: I agree.


Jean-François Pouliot: Therefore, what I am asking the government is not about the renewal of loans but about the collection of the money loaned to Newfoundland. That is much more important to the exchequer of the country than the renewing of a loan.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Are there any loans, except the loans to the provinces, in connection with the acts mentioned in this section?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot recall all the guarantees that may be involved in connection with this power for renewal. There would be for instance the guarantee to the Canadian Pacific railway. The Canadian Pacific
Unemployment

railway has recently financed a bond issue and is paying off a loan which is guaranteed. Obviously that would not be renewed. I can remember the guarantees to the Algoma Steel and the Dominion Steel with respect to the production of steel rails. Under this section the dominion government would have power to renew. Obviously, when once a guarantee has been given the government of the day must be provided with the ordinary business facilities for renewing from time to time as the necessities of the case may properly require, for collecting or for having the guarantee discharge as the situation may permit. Of course, the intention of the section is to apply mainly to loans which have been made to provinces and secured, as I indicated a few moments ago, by twelve months' treasury bills of the provinces concerned. I can assure my hon. friend that it is the intention of the government to secure repayment wherever it is practicable to do so, whether the debtor be a province or a corporation or with respect to guarantees, to get. the obligation discharged at as early a date as possible by the party guaranteed. I doubt very much whether it would be advisable or desirable to say out of hand that all guarantees now existing should be cancelled forthwith. Therefore there is a necessity for some machinery whereby the government may have discretion with respect to the renewal of them.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just one more word about section 5. Some years ago we heard a lot about the legacy that came to the previous government in 1930, but the legacy that this government got from the previous government was not a blank cheque; it was a promissory note. The blank cheque turned into a promissory note which the country has to pay. In my humble view we have no lesson to learn from the opposition as to how this country should be governed. They should consider their own achievements. They were fine achievements-a promissory note! This section does not cover the whole amount of that promissory note. I do not know how it is to be paid, but I hope it will be paid some day. It is to the shame of the government of that day that such legislation has to be passed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On section 11-Duration of act.
Mr. GARDINER:: I should like to move an amendment to section 11, that after the word "expiration" in the last line of this section there should be inserted the words "of the aforesaid provisions."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was going to suggest that to except section 5 from the operation of the repealing provision* is not very sound. Would it not be better to enact section 5 as a separate act and provide that the act generally shall cease to exist on March 31, 1937, except as to section 5? With the amendment the section reads:
All the provisions of this act, except such as are contained in section five and in this section, shall expire on the thirty-first day of March, 1937, but any obligation or liability incurred or created under the authority of this act may be paid and discharged notwithstanding the expiration of the aforesaid provisions of this act on the said date.
I think that meets it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is taken from the act of last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those words meet that situation.


Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to ask the government if it is possible for hon. members to obtain copies of bills after they have passed both houses. It is quite easy to obtain one or two copies of bills before they are passed, but as soon as they become law it is impossible to obtain copies of the legislation with all amendments without paying something to the printing bureau. It seems to me that a member should be entitled to copies of the laws as soon as they become law. These should be available before they appear in the statute books.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I really think the language of the suggested amendment leaves much to be desired. The law officers of the crown are not here, but if they will look at the amendment they will see that the section reads "may be paid and discharged notwithstanding the expiration of the aforesaid provisions of this act." "Aforesaid provisions" would cover all preceding sections.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: What is the reason for terminating the act next year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The rule has been that relief acts shall be in force only for the year ending March 31. They have been formulated on that basis.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Why?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the end of the fiscal year. They were renewed from time to time before March 31 so that parliament might deal with the matter.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before this legislation
passes, may I remind the committee that I am still opposed to every enactment passed

Zhiemployment
during the last five years. The fact that it is renewed does not make it any better; it is all wrong.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: The purpose of this bill is to solve the unemployment situation. It deals not merely with destitution but it deals with the whole problem of the reestablishment of normal conditions. I think that one great mistake all governments have made in dealing with unemployment is to be found in the false belief that in some way this problem was going to disappear from year to year. Surely there is no one left who thinks that the continuation of that idea will help to solve this problem?
I should like to direct the attention of hon. members to some information I have just received from the office of the deputy provincial treasurer in Regina. These figures are more than illuminating. The entire debt of Saskatchewan is $183,000,000. The average rate of interest paid is 5-195 per cent. The annual charge for interest is $5,970,000. That is one of the provinces which has to borrow on treasury bills in order to meet the unemployment situation if it is to be met. Now let us have another look at the total amount expended on relief by that province from 1930 to 1935. That total amount was $86,689,000, of which about $27,000,000 was contributed by the dominion government, making the net relief expenditures of the province $59,270,000. Keeping that in mind, we find that the net borrowings of that province from the dominion government on treasury bills total $55,869,000 or just $4,000,000 less than the entire relief bill. As of March 31, 1936, the dominion government held treasury bills of that province to the extent of $55,869,000, made up as follows: capital account, $4,081,000; revenue account, $1,500,000; relief accountable advances, $8,897,000; others,
S41,290,000.	These are the round figures. If Saskatchewan is in that plight, what reason has the government for believing that in some way this relief commission which is going to solve the problem and practically assume full responsibility for advising the government on the whole program will be able to terminate its activities within the next year? What justification can there be for putting this commission to work under an act that is limited to one year? I think everyone in this committee will agree that this limitation is there because we have been treating the relief problem in Canada on a year to year basis, and have never had the courage to face it as a serious, persistent, permanent problem, characteristic of the economic, commercial and industrial activities of the
twentieth century. I am not criticizing the government for this, but in the light of what has taken place in other countries I am just a little inclined to think we are hopeful that the problem of unemployment is going to be more easily solved than will prove to be the case. No one is more anxious than I am to see that problem successfully dealt with, and I do not think the government is faced with any problem which it is more anxious to solve effectively and permanently.
The other day I drew the attention of hon. members to the deplorable financial condition of many of our municipalities. To-night I refer to the same point again, and I cite Saskatchewan as evidence of the fact that the provinces are in no better condition; in fact I think in some instances they are worse off than are the cities. Since we appear to be contemplating the disappearance of unemployment relief within another year it might be well to keep in mind the debt situation, not only of the municipalities but also of the provinces, the national government and private industry as well. According to the best figures I can secure from the statistical department-and these figures are not by any means complete but they are the best available-the net dominion debt is $2,846,000,000; the guaranteed debt is $1,136,000,000. The gross direct liabilities of the provinces totalled $1,541,000,000; indirect liabilities were $231,000,000. The total direct liabilities of the municipalities amounted to $1,500,000,000, which makes a total debt load of nearly $7,500,000,000 that has to be faced. I know it is very easy to generalize and it is comparatively easy to say that we have spent all that we can spend and that the time has come when that sort of thing must end, when we must reduce public expenditure and look to the liquidation of our debts. But let me point out that it is equally easy to say that unless we resort to inflation we must face repudiation. That is exactly what has happened in Alberta and what is going to happen in other provinces. British Columbia must default on the 15th of May in one of two ways; it must default by using its sinking fund or by allowing its maturing obligations to pass by. Let us assume that the province does appropriate its sinking fund, which belongs to the whole debt load; that amounts to a partial default. Now let me point out once more that there is more than one reason to believe that the government anticipates that this problem will disappear in a year. There is the amount appropriated, which must be on the assumption that provincial and municipal governments are going to be able to finance
Unemployment

their loads. If we must finance the entire cost of unemployment relief by borrowing, the situation looks very sorry.
Might I take just a few minutes now to review the experiences of some other countries, because I am now satisfied that in order to meet the problem of unemployment relief one of two policies must be followed. We must either resort to inflation or intensify the present policy of deflation.
Let us look at what has actually taken place in Great Britain, because surely there we might get some indication as to what policy we should best adopt. In 1925 the British Government launched a deflationary policy, and it ended in complete failure. In September, 1931, England faced a crisis that was inevitable under the deflationary policy that she was blindly following. Her national government, loaded with 840,000,000,000 of debt, finding that deflation had brought her to bankruptcy under the gold standard policy. What did she do? First, she abandoned the gold standard. She repudiated her gold debts in toto, suspended her war debt payments, and then proceeded to finance recovery. By doing what? By issuing Bank of England sterling bills as national currency. The first step taken in that regard was the creation of a $2,000,000,000 stabilization fund to give a security that a reserve of gold had failed to supply. It might be said that Great Britain has recovered notwithstanding that she has left the control of the Bank of England in private hands. But I venture to suggest that the hopeless bankruptcy of the English financiers dealing in international exchange which would have resulted had1 the gold standard obligations continued, gave to the British government power and opportunity to assert over the Bank of England a control which meant that the exchequer dictated the policy and the administrative action of the Bank of England, and that control has continued ever since.
Now, following that, what was her first step in recovery? She refunded her national debt at lower rates of interest. Then, having established a managed currency system, she proceeded to develop the regulation of her domestic and international trade. We have heard a great deal about what should not be done, but we have not heard so much about what has actually been done. Abandoning the shibboleths of free trade and avoiding the illusory promises of the tariff protectionists Great Britain set out to develop a new trade policy that might properly be described as an intelligent trade policy. She proposed to finance her trade and develop it by balancing exports and imports. How far did she go in that regard? She bargained with every

country that would bargain with her on the definite understanding that importations from that country would be governed by its purchases from Great Britain. But that is not all; she found that by setting up a definite system of managed international trade she had an additional security for her stabilization fund that soon made the pound sterling not convertible into gold more valuable than the pound sterling convertible into gold. How far did she then go in regulating domestic trade? She proceeded to rehabilitate home industry by offering suitable rewards wherever possible. She went further in many regards than even the United States have gone. Old fashioned industries were persuaded to scrap outmoded factories and to maintain fixed prices and wages. The resuscitation of the Lancashire cotton industry affords an example of what was undertaken and accomplished. There some ten million outmoded spindles a year were purchased and scrapped; inefficient industries were put on an efficient basis. No department of industrial endeavour was overlooked; coal, steel and shipbuilding industries were helped, and more than $10,000,000 was advanced as a subsidy to the merchant marine. The recovery of fuel oil from coal was undertaken, while plans for the development of electrical energy throughout the country were fully considered and are now under way.
In agriculture the government was not less active. For products such as milk, butter, cheese, eggs, poultry, potatoes, pigs and bacon, marketing boards have been set up to regulate production, distribution, competition and prices. In the case of hops a monopoly was established which gave the existing producers security by preventing any other producer from entering that field. Many other instances are available in which individual liberty and rights were sacrificed, controlled and regulated for national well-being. To induce the production of wheat a price of $1.40 a bushel was guaranteed for all home production, and farmers who had emigrated returned to England to farm at a profit after having gone broke in other countries.
A close examination of the activities of the British government indicates that in commerce, industry and agriculture, in fact in all lines of domestic and international trade, the government of Great Britain have followed a policy of regulation and control, supported by widely distributed and adequate subsidies and measures of financial assistance just as far reaching as the program followed by the Roosevelt administration. Sugar beet growers, milk producers, herring fishers, cattle and hog producers and many others have been definitely subsidized to induce production at home.

Unemployment
But that is not all. Anticipating the unemployment problem, as early as 1912 Great Britain passed her first unemployment insurance bill, and when the crisis came she proceeded to finance on a three way basis the bulk of unemployment relief due to the depression. She financed it, first, to alleviate destitution; next, to maintain consumers' buying power, and, third, to assist in maintaining an available supply of labour for industry. Outstanding in the recovery program is the immense housing activity that has been carried on since the close of the war. Since the armistice 2,700,000 houses have been built in Great Britain, enough to house the entire population of Canada. During the last four years a million houses have been built in England and in Wales. Some will say that they were not subsidized, but over half of those houses received some measure of assistance from national or local governments. Not content with this, the British government have now laid down a slum clearance program designed to eliminate slum conditions in every large city in Great Britain within a five year period. In the realm of education, health protection and social services generally the British government has given a definite lead. The national board of education is the first step towards the recognition of education not only as a national responsibility but as a great national opportunity. Education has been extended to include a vast scheme of physical training, and the playing fields of the public schools have now been established as part of the common schools of England. Health insurance, superannuation allowances and pensions have been extended and encouraged. AVage cuts made under the deflationist policy have been restored, and the civil service list, which was substantially reduced, has been restored and increased.
This vast program of recovery was developed and financed by men who faced the problem as a permanent one. It was financed in this way: The reduction in interest rates on the national debt made that field of investment less attractive to the private investor. By the system of financing the government with direct issues of Bank of England notes as national currency, and by treasury certificates and low rate short term loans, the opportunity for investment of private capital in national securities was further restricted. The British exchequer in cooperation with the Bank of England secured the active cooperation of the merchant banks, loan and trust companies, insurance companies, building societies, to the end that all capital was made available at rates of interest which made the circulation of money a practical problem of
administration well within the power of government. By repudiating deflation and resorting to a system of managed currency and planned economy Great Britain has proven that the control of inflation is within the administrative powers of modem government. By way of contrast may I point out that during the period the deflationists were in control in Great Britain the construction of the Queen Mary was delayed. The statement was made that the necessary money to carry out such a program could not be produced. But when there was a change of policy funds were found, with the result that the great vessel was completed and has been launched, demonstrating the powers of the people of Great Britain not only to rule the waves but to maintain the freedom of the seas.
No longer are the people of Great Britain distressed or downhearted. Under a policy of managed currency and controlled inflation, notwithstanding the jangling discords of Europe they are facing a threatening world with their old time courage and fortitude. When we want something to follow 1 think we might well look to the people of those islands, whose resources and opportunities are far less than ours. Surely w? can get inspiration from them. No sooner was the Queen Mary off the ways than the government announced a national defence program involving an expenditure of $1,500,000,000. In this program they are strengthening their navy, their air force, their army and every branch of their defence service. They are proceeding to establish all industry in Great Britain so that it may be readily converted to the service of national protection. They are not only assisting industry to serve the nation effectively but preparing an army of trained men and women who will be available to meet any emergency that may arise. True, they call this activity a program of national defence, but the fact remains that it will give employment to a vast army of men and women who, were it not for the program, would not be employed. They have made no mistake about the permanency of the problem, and they have not made the mistake of suggesting that the bills they pass be done away with in one year's time. I know many people will say that the condition in Great Britain is not analagous to that in Canada. But let us see what points in their general problem are similar to those in Canada.
Competent and unbiased authorities inform us that Great Britain's recovery since 1932 has put new heart into the nation. This year the registered unemployment is the lowest in five years. The index of general business activity has reached the 1929 level,
Unemployment

and for the last two years the budget has shown a surplus. Let those who say that the situation is not analagous consider what has taken place in the United States. May I point out that during the last five years we have as a nation spent $199,000,000 on unemployment relief. If we had undertaken to solve the problem on the same basis as was followed in the United States our proportionate expenditures when compared with those of that country, would be between $1,500,000,000 and $2,000,000,000. The fact is that we have spent comparatively nothing on unemployment relief, and that is why the situation is so disastrously acute to-day.
May I hurriedly draw the attention of the committee to the nature and extent of the problem we have to face, by placing before you the amounts appropriated by the U.S. congress, the channels through which such moneys have been spent, and the amounts of appropriated funds still to be expended in the Roosevelt recovery program at the end of February, 1936. The total appropriations for agriculture were $2,530,136,016.38, the sum of 8859,623,352.25 remaining unexpended. The agricultural appropriations of congress were administered through the agricultural adjustment administration, the commodity credit corporation, the federal farm mortgage corporation, the federal land banks, and through a reduction in interest rates on mortgages. The appropriations for relief amounted to $5,284,108,151.95, this sum being administered through the federal emergency relief administration, the federal surplus relief corporation, the civil works administration, the emergency conservation work, and the Department of Agriculture relief. Of that $5,284,108,151.95 only $170,654,098.40 remains unexpended. The public works appropriation by congress totals $5,479,848,495.89, and this amount included expenditures on the Boulder Dam project, loans and grants to states and municipalities, loans to railroads, expenditures on public highways, river and harbour work, rural electrification administration, works progress administration, and several other projects. Then, as an aid to home owners congress set aside $792,772,232.30, of which sum $338,552,597.29 remains unexpended. As a miscellaneous appropriation we have the sum of $4,215,495,418.39, of which $1,759,188,908.61 remains unexpended. The miscellaneous sum is administered through the export-import banks of Washington, the federal deposit insurance corporation, the administration for industrial recovery, the reconstruction finance corporation and the Tennessee valley authority.
The point I wish to make is that facing that problem, a problem common to all people on

the North American continent, the total amount appropriated by congress prior to February 29, 1936, is shown as $18,339,000,000, of which amount $6,009,413,350 remains unexpended. Notwithstanding the fact that over $6,009,413,350 remains unexpended the president asked and congress approved an expenditure in the present year of a further appropriation of $1,500,000,000.
In addition congress voted $2,300,000,000 to pay to the soldiers bonus. Making in all a total of $9,300,000,000 now available for the continuation of the recovery policy.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Has the hon. member the figures showing the numbers of unemployed in the United States during the period those expenditures were made?


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Yes, and that is exactly where I suggest the minister is failing to grasp the true significance of our problem.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Would the hon. member give the figures?


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I have not the figures with me, but I have followed them. The point I am dealing with is that while there were
13,000,000 unemployed in 1933, in 1936 the figure is placed below 9,000,000. But there is an unemployment of people and an unemployment of business. While the numbers actually destitute and unemployed are on relief and have been cared for, unemployment is business, which is just as serious, has been done away with in the United States.
I know there are many people who say that nothing has been accomplished in the United States, but an increase in the national debt of $8,000,000,000. For that reason I would like to draw the attention of the committee to some of the more important features of the Roosevelt scheme of managed currency. Under the gold policy inaugurated by the Roosevelt administration, one which was the very opposite of that proposed at the World economic conference in 1933, the gold reserves of the United States have been increased from $4,000,000,000 in 1933 to $10,000,000,000 in 1936.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A creditor nation.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Yes, a creditor nation, but a creditor nation which saw the wisdom of increasing the price of gold to $35 an ounce, so that debtor nations could pay their bills. That is exactly what has happened. And the silver policy-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Failure.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: My right hon. friend says "failure." Let us see about that. Silver was remonetized, and silver certificates were issued as full legal tender. The accumulation of silver reserves and silver certificates now in issue and

Unemployment
circulating as money show an increase of

I suppose it will be said that the spending program was a failure as well. Under the spending program of the national government, American bank deposits which had fallen to $38,000,000,000 in 1933 had risen to $45,000,000,000 in 1935, or an increase of $7,000,000,000. Thus, under Roosevelt's recovery policy, while the people of the United States may have an increase of $8,000,000,000 of debt, if you add the gold increases, silver reserve increases, silver certificates increases and bank deposits increases, you have $15,000,000,000 more money in the United States at the end of 1935 than existed in 1933, or a net increase of $7,000,000,000 in excess of the national debt incurred through the recovery program. Now, according to the gold standard theorists, who accept orthodox economic practice, this is the situation in the United States. With $10,000,000,000 of gold in reserve they can place $5,000,000,000 at the disposal of the treasury to use as a stabilization fund, an amount far in excess of what is needed. That leaves $5,000,000,000 available to support domestic currency. Now on the 25 per cent gold reserve basis established at the economic conference in 1933, $20,000,000,000 of full legal tender federal reserve notes may be issued. Under the federal reserve bank act every dollar of Federal Reserve notes is good for ten dollars bank credit. Therefore, under the managed currency system of Roosevelt that nation has managed its monetary power so that it can now support a bank deposit currency of $200,000,000,000, or an amount sufficient to pay off the national debt, the state debt, the municipal debt and corporate and individual debts, and still leave $22,000,000,000 in reserve.
Let us see what else has been done. In many respects, the managed currency and recovery policies of the Roosevelt administration are similar to those adopted in Great Britain; in some respects they went much further. The Roosevelt program may be summarized as follows:
The gold standard was abandoned.
The gold debts were repudiated.
The government established a monopoly on the ownership of gold. It then revalued the price of gold raising the value from $20 to $35 an once, a course which all other leading nations followed.
Silver was remonetized and the issue of silver certificates as full legal tender money was authorized.
All American currency was established on a legal tender basis.
The government established measures of control over the international movement of gold, silver, currency and credit.
The treasury, working in cooperation with the federal reserve bank, secured the effective cooperation of federal reserve member banks and other banking institutions, together with loan and trust companies, insurance and other financial corporations. Working together, they proceeded to bring order out of the chaos that had followed the collapse of the gold standard system.
National obligations were refunded at rates of interest averaging 2^ per cent.
Money was borrowed on short term for [DOT]Oil per cent, or less than the cost of printing and maintaining paper currency.
National currency, profits from monetary management and taxes were used to finance obligations incurred to alleviate destitution, to put people to work to restore business to normal and to balance the standard of living for all classes and throughout all sections of the nation.
The control of production prices, wages and competition was attempted.
Much was done to assist states, municipalities, home and farm owners, carrying unpayable interest bearing debts.
Banks, railway companies, industries, businesses and agriculturalists in trouble were assisted.
Public works and social services to relieve unemployment were inaugurated. Better housing and slum clearance were assisted and encouraged, and to-day congress is proceeding to go forward with the largest housing program ever undertaken by any nation in the world. True, the national income has not been restored to the 1929 level of nearly $90,000,000,000 but it has increased from $38,000,000,000 in 1933, to $55,000,000,000 in 1935, or an increase of $17,000,000,000. It is still rising and will go above $60,000,000,000 in 1936.
National wealth has been increased in the same period of time by over $125,000,000.
It is true that unemployment has not been eliminated, but it has been reduced from
13.000.000 to less than 9.000.000, and what is more important, it has been prevented from rising from 13.000.000 to figures that would have resulted in the complete destruction of the social and economic life of the American people.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Last year it was stated
that there were 20,000,000 people on relief.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: You could get statements from Wall street that would go higher than that, but I want to give you an unbiased opinion. You might get an even worse opinion from your friends in St. James street.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, they are all on the
other side now.
Unemployment


Gerald Grattan McGeer: It is therefore not surprising that above the howls of condemnation that the forces of entrenched greed are hurling at Roosevelt, who is humanity's foremost contemporary champion, those who care to may perceive sanctions of approval for the Roosevelt policy already being presented by unbiased recorders of historical facts.
In the April, 1936, issue of Current History, which I think everyone will admit is a nonpartisan journal, there is a leading article reviewing the Roosevelt recovery program. Among other things, this article says:
Most of what happened is well known. The important thing is how we came through it. True, we hear very little cheering and practically none from the great capitalists whose system was saved from possible destruction in those black days of March, 1933. Yet the National City Bank in its economic reports states that the year 1935 closed with business activity at the highest level in more than five years and with signs of recovery more widespread than at any time since the turn of the depression was reached in 1932.
Some industries making consumption goods are doing more business now than they did even in 1929. Some of the heavier industries such as the manufacturers of machine tools, steel ingots, pig iron foundry equipment and other classes of machinery have reached the highest level since 1930. Some mail order and chain store houses report greater sales than in 1929.
People say that Roosevelt has not accomplished anything, but I think that just as Jefferson freed the people of the British colonies in America from the slavery of irresponsible monarchy, and as Lincoln destroyed the slavery of evil and selfish monopoly that threatened his nation with disruption, Roosevelt has moved to free his people from the bondage of money power.
Basing my conclusions upon such facts, I believe that future generations will add the name of Franklin Delano Roosevelt to that illustrious galaxy that is now exclusively reserved for the names of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. Through his courageous and wholesome effort to complete the great work of establishing universal freedom launched in America by Jefferson and carried on by Lincoln, Roosevelt has carved for himself a permanent place in the history of human progress.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is my hon. friend a
Republican or a Democrat?


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Lloyd George, observing Roosevelt's war with high finance, took occasion to state:
The intrepidity with which he is fighting against the machinations of the established and arrogant priesthood of the golden calf is being watched with a thrill of admiration by those who, all the world over, have been

suffering from its thraldom. If he wins he will have rendered a service to mankind which will exceed that of Lincoln when he abolished a more limited slavery.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, April 21, 1936