1937-04-06

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I wish to direct the attention of the house to a telegram, typical of several, received from Mr. H. F. Hughes, secretary of the Farmers' Protective Association of Shaunavon. The message reads:
Officially informed seeding requirements cut nearly in half. Large representation farmers' meeting yesterday passed unanimous resolution that farmers of district refuse to seed an acre of crop until government agrees to give sufficient to every farmer to put in his crop.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think the hon. gentleman should present his question immediately, without reading the telegram.


Thomas Miller Bell: I wanted to ask if the government would reconsider the matter.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: We shall consider the hon. gentleman's question.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 31, consideration in committee of Bill No. 80, to assist in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress-Mr. Rogers-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Chairman, I should like to give the committee some information based on returns that I have received with regard to an investigation into the situation of settlers in some new parishes of Temiscouata county. I desire to make but very few comments in this connection, but it is important that hon. members should be informed as to the distress of these settlers, because the government is paying a share of the cost of direct relief, which is not given to all who need it and which many times is granted only for political considerations.
At St. Jean de la Lande, there is Madame Mastai Allaire, who has four children, three of whom are boys, the oldest thirty-two and the youngest thirteen. She has no more construction timber on her lot, and only a little fuel wood. She had eighteen animals, but she was obliged to sell them because she had

no money and no cedar on her lot to build fences. She has one cow and no horse, no pigs, and no sheep, because they were sold. She has eight hens. I shall not read all her remarks but she does state that in that community one woman died of hunger and cold. She was sick and had to sleep on boards placed on nail kegs, because she had no bed.
There is Louis Bard of St. Jean de la Lande. He has nine children, five of whom are boys. The oldest is fifty-one and the youngest twenty-nine. He is an old gentleman. He has no construction timber, no fuel wood and no animals.
There is Auguste Belanger, who has six children, three of whom are boys. The eldest is nineteen and the youngest eight. He has no construction timber, and only ten acres of fuel wood. He has two animals, one cow and one horse, and eight hens. Usually he receives direct relief, but has not had it for three months.
Then, there is Cleophas Balduc of Lac Thibeault, who has two children, both of whom are boys. The older is one and a half years and the younger eight months. He has two thousand feet of construction timber and seven acres of fuel wood. He has two animals, one cow, one horse and eleven hens. He received direct relief.
Then there is Frank Boutin, a veteran of the great war. He has three children, two of whom are boys aged sixteen and fourteen. He has no construction timber and forty acres of fuel wood. He has two animals, a cow and a horse, and ten hens. He does not receive direct relief.
There is Alexandre Caron, of St. Jean de la Lande. He has four children, two of whom are boys. The older is aged ten and the younger two. He has no construction timber and twenty cords of fuel wood. He has one cow and six hens. He has neither ox nor horse to work his lot, and stated that he had not received direct relief for two months. His statement was that the settlers are in distress. They have no roads, no shelter for the winter and receive no assistance in that respect.
There is Emile Caron, of St. Jean de la Lande. He has six children, he has no construction timber and no fuel wood. He has one cow and receives direct relief.
There is Leon Durepos, of Lac Thibeault. He has four children, two of whom are boys, the older thirteen and the younger eight years. He has no construction timber and no fuel wood. He has no lot and no animals. He states that he is dying of hunger. Just imagine, here is a family of six people without any animals or timber. He does not receive any relief.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
Then there is Josephat Fecteau, St. Jean de la Lande. This man has ten children, seven of whom are boys, the oldest nineteen years and the youngest eighteen months. He has no construction timber and fifteen or twenty cords of fuel wood. He has two animals, one cow and one horse. He has no hens, no sheep or no pigs, and receives direct relief. His statement is that he lives on a lot not suitable for farming purposes, and does not see how he can live any longer with his family. He has to sow his seed on the rocks.
There is Maxime Garneau, of St. Jean de la Lande. This man has eight children, three of whom are boys, the oldest being seventeen years and the youngest seven. He has no construction timber and only a little fuel wood. He has seven animals, two cows and two oxen. In addition he has one pig and two sheep. He has twenty hens. Compared with some of the others, this man is rich, but he needs the relief that he receives.
Then, there is Joseph Gravel of St. Jean de la Lande. This man has five children, three of whom are boys, the oldest twenty-nine and the youngest twenty-three. He has no construction timber and only a little fuel wood. He has no animals and receives direct relief irregularly.
There is Madame Leon Leclerc, of Lac Thibeault. She has five children, the oldest ten years and the youngest eleven months. There is only one boy. She has no construction timber and no fuel wood. She has only one cow. Her statement is, " I am alone with my five children. We are very poor, and have not sufficient money to look after the family." She receives $16 per month.
There is Felix Morin, of Lac Thibeault. He has one child aged fifteen years. He has two thousand feet of construction timber and fifty cords of fuel wood. He has fifteen hens, and receives direct relief.
Joseph Pelletier, of St. Jean de la Lande, has two boys aged nine and seven years. He has no timber of any kind and only two animals, one cow and one pig. He has fourteen hens. Although ordinarily he receives direct relief, he did not get the last payment because he had received a cheque of $28.82 as a settler's premium. He owed that premium on the cow he had purchased. His statement is, " I need my relief for my family."
These are sad cases. As settlers some of these farmers receive a small amount of relief. They have to live on it, and can make no money in addition. If they make $4, $5 or $10 on the road they must lose their relief. If a settler buys a horse he has to transfer his colonization premiums, and the money he gets for working on the roads, or from any other source. If he sells some timber he gets
no more direct relief and then he cannot pay for bis animals. Suppose a farmer purchases a horse for $150, the current price. He transfers his settler's premium and anything he can get for his timber to the one who sells him the horse. Suppose that amounts to $100; that is given as a guarantee. Just because he has that money due to him he does not receive direct relief. When he cannot pay the balance of $50, the horse dealer comes and takes the horse away and the settler has nothing and is still unable to get direct relief. This is an absurd situation. I understand that they have tried to make some improvement but I do not see how it can be done. The whole responsibility rests with the provincial government and especially with Mr. Laforce. This man has been loaned by the Canadian National Railways to the Quebec department of colonization.
Mr. HEAPS:: What position does he occupy in the Quebec government?


Mr. POULIOT:: Deputy head of the
department of colonization. He is now the man in charge of the whole thing. Since he has been in charge there have been many more complaints from the settlers. I do not want to take up too much time so near to the end of the session, but I must say that when men, women and children are facing starvation and when we have the documents to prove these things, there should always be time to direct the attention of this country to the needs of these poor settlers.
Here is what I want to explain in order that I may not be misunderstood. Laforce is an ignorant settler from the back parishes of the county of Rimouski. He was appointed by Mr. Boulay, the former Conservative member for Rimouski, to a position in the immigration department of the Canadian National Railways. When it was decided that there would be less done in connection with immigration, he started a colonization branch. Both really go together and the first purpose was to make settlers of the immigrants. However, it did not work out, because most of the immigrants crossed the border or were deported or engaged in trade in the cities. Very few of them engaged in farming, especially in late years. Laforce secured an office in Montreal and he started to give lectures over the radio. He did not write these himself as he cannot write French correctly. His lectures were prepared for him by some highly paid scribes, but they were very badly delivered by himself over the radio. He had them transcribed and mailed copies to members of parliament and other people, all at great expense to the Canadian National Railways.
2602	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
All this was done, no-t to improve the condition of the settlers or to make any progress in a back to the land movement, but simply to justify the existence of Laforce's job. This man was in a position which was absolutely needless, and he had to justify his continuing in that position. He attempted to do this by giving lectures on how agriculture was conducted three thousand years ago and other things just as stupid. He was borrowed finally by the government of Quebec and now he is the deputy head of the department of colonization.
This man is largely responsible for the mistakes which have been made in the past by the Quebec government in placing these settlers on a bunch of rocks in the parish of St. Jean de la Lande which I have mentioned. I called this place the eternal city because it is built on seven hills. On each of these hills there are just a few shacks. On the main hill there are three or four buildings consisting of a small chapel, a small house for (he parish priest and a small building for a school. If a man wants to visit his neigh' our he has to go down a steep hill and then up another for a distance of at least a mile. The post office is located in the ravine. Mr. Hungerford, the president of the Canadian National Railways, admitted the other day in the railway and shipping committee that Laforce had " cooperated " with the Quebec government in connection with such colonization. Therefore he is one of those responsible for the misery and distress of these men.
I denounce him most bitterly. I asked for some information about him from the former government but I did not receive it. I was told that the Canadian National Railways considered that it was not in the public interest to give this information. I have no grudge against Laforce, but he is the man responsible for the misery of these men and women in my constituency who are dying of hunger. There is no excuse for that. If some man in an aeroplane is reported lost because of a fog the country goes to considerable expense to try to locate him. That is done to help just one man, but there are hundreds of people in the parishes of St. Jean de la Lande. and also at St. Elzear, Lejeune, Lac Thibeault and Auclair who are starving. There are others at many of the other new settlements which have been located in Temiscouata, Gaspe, Bonaventure and Rimouski.
It is a shame that these men should be made to suffer in order that this soft job for Laforce may be more or less justified. When he left the Canadian National Railways his

work was praised highly by his successor, Mr. Lanctot, who wanted to keep this soft job so he said that everything that Laforce had done was right and that he was a great Canadian. The federal government has no responsibility with regard to the establishment of these settlers; that rests entirely upon the colonization branch of the Canadian National Railways, but Laforce cooperated with the Quebec government in establishing these settlers on lands which were absolutely no good for farming. I am thankful to the minister for several reasons.


Mr. BENNETT:: That is mutual, doubtless.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have received more
satisfactory answers from the present Minister of Labour than I did from the last one, who if not dumb was very silent when I asked him about these matters. The present minister at least gives a polite reply and does his best to consider the distress of these settlers. He does not sidestep the issue at all. The minister is familiar with all I have said. After I have exposed to the committee the plight of these settlers I shall give the particulars of my investigation to the minister in order that he may take the matter up further. I thank the minister also for the kindness which he and his officers have shown in communicating with the Quebec government with regard to the distribution of relief to settlers. I thank him also for having sent Mr. Lafortune there to make a thorough investigation of the distribution of relief to those men and women; I am very anxious to see Mr. Lafortune's report. What I speak about are things with which I am thoroughly familiar.
Here is another case, that of Maxime Pelletier, St. Jean de la Lande. There are three children, two of them boys, the oldest child three years old, the youngest eleven months; two hundred cords of fuel wood, no construction wood. He has ten animals

he is rich; one cow, two sheep, seven hens. Think of that! He has asked relief for his baby. There is the case of Alcime Soucy, Lac Thibeault, Temiscouata county, eleven children, seven of them boys; the oldest child twenty-nine years, the youngest six years; no construction timber; fuel wood, two or three hundred cords. He has fifteen animals: two cows, two oxen, one horse, two pigs, eight sheep, twelve hens. This is a much better case than the others, but may I ask hon. members from any province whether they would regard men in their constituencies with that amount of live stock as being rich farmers?
Most of the settlers in the parishes which I have already mentioned have large families

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
and have no animals. The other day I referred to cases where babies were being fed, not with milk, but with the juice of pork and beans, or of beans only. Not only that, but in some cases the farmers have had to make soup with roots which they found in the woods. Is it surprising under such circumstances that game is destroyed? These men must live. They are suffering from hunger. Can we blame them for killing a deer or a moose or fishing during the closed season?
May I make it clear to the committee that I have not hand-picked these cases; I took them all from one parish. Others are just as bad. I am putting the whole docket before the minister, but before doing so I will keep it for two or three days, and I shall be pleased to show these returns to any hon. member in order to prove that nothing has been exaggerated.
In conclusion I ask the minister to take all possible means of checking abuses in the distribution of relief. Personally I am not in favour of direct relief, but in conditions of emergency, to prevent men, women and children from dying of hunger, the only thing to do is to assist them until better times arrive.
The suggestion made the other day by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Mac-phail) was a timely one, namely, to put farmers on good lands. A proper policy of colonization is very simple. First, the settler shall be selected, the land shall be selected, and people shall be put only on good farming lands, and also there should be good roads to reach their farms. Where a settler has no experience in farming he should be located between two experienced farmers, who will serve like two crutches to help him to stand up and face his country life and profit by their knowledge.
I thank all members of the committee for their kind attention, which is appreciated. I hope that action will be taken to the end that if we pay money to the Quebec government for distribution of relief the money shall reach the settler first. Also, the attention of the Quebec government should be drawn to the fact that Laforce is responsible for all the miseries of these good people and that he should not remain any longer as deputy head of the provincial department of colonization. Then, if possible, settlers who have been placed on rocky soil should be transferred to good lands, lands with good timber on them. Everyone must remember the experience of the old pioneers, who had no direct relief but who had timber on their lots and therefore did not need any relief; they had timber with which to build a house, a little stable, a shed
and so forth, and in winter they could make a little money by selling wood off their lot. At the present time many farmers are handicapped not only by rocky soil but by a total absence of merchantable timber. That is an absurd condition, for, as the hon. member for Grey-Bruce has said, there are plenty of suitable unoccupied lands throughout the country, and the right policy is to bring those settlers from their unfertile lands to good lands where they can live properly and bring up their families in the comfort which they have the right to enjoy.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I have listened with great attention ito the remarks of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), and I trust that during the few moments which I shall occupy I may enjoy the same measure of attention of hon. members that was given to him. I am going to offer once more what I consider to be a solution of the difficulties in which we are placed. I wish to talk very earnestly to the minister, and if only he and I talk this over I shall be quite satisfied.
There is a great danger that people will get to think that our troubles are clearing up. I believe that every member of this committee must realize that our troubles are not going to clear up. They will be improved, perhaps, by higher prices, but we are faced with a condition in which unemployment is here to stay. The hon. member for Temiscouata has been telling us of difficulties. Within the next few years there will be numbers of members who will rise in this house and tell of terrible difficulties which they can find no way of explaining.
May I draw to the minister's attention what has been taking place across the line, and which, I think, is fairly good evidence of what is going on here in a smaller way. He probably is fully aware of these things, but perhaps because of the anxieties of his office he has not had them drawn to his attention; for I know the minister is an exceedingly busy man, and very conscientious, and the commendation he received a few moments ago was not undeserved.
I noticed, in an article which appeared in the Saturday Evening Post on April 3. 1937, a statement to the effect that the United States will have during 1937 unemployed to the number of six and a half to seven and a half millions, even if the 1929 levels should return. I do not believe that very many members of this committee anticipate the return of prosperity greater than that which obtained in this land in 1929; consequently we can expect in Canada a condition somewhat similar to that which will exist during
2604	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
1937 in the United States, even though conditions improve to the 1929 level; and, according to this article, there will be eating the bread of unemployment in the United States twenty-five million people. That means one-fifth of the total population of the United States. Now, this is an exceedingly sobering consideration for every member of this committee.
Again, we find in the Saturday Evening Post of February 6, at page 22, evidence that goes to show that despite the extraordinary business recovery in the United States the employment of workers in private industry improved between October, 1935, and October, 1936, only 6-3 per cent, which indicates that not only in the agricultural areas will there be distress but in the industrial centres even when people are employed to the highest degree possible and where recovery is established. This I consider an extremely serious matter, for it probably shows what is happening in Canada as well. The Christian Science Monitor of March 29, at page 1, gives some interesting information. In the United States there is what is known as a works progress administration which is investigating conditions there. This organization has been working for fifteen months investigating 650 manufacturing plants as well as agriculture, mining, construction and transportation. At the end of that time it has reported to the United States that since 1929 so many people have been thrown out of employment by the development of machines -that is to say, they have become technologically unemployed-that in order to get back to work as many people proportionately as there were at work in 1929 it will be necessary for the United States to increase production twenty per cent. The question immediately arises: If that country does increase production twenty per cent where will it sell the goods? A similar condition also faces us.
In other words. Mr. Chairman, we are facing a situation the like of which has .never faced any people on this earth in all its history. To argue therefore from what has taken place in previous depressions that the same thing will happen in this depression is, I believe, simply to delude ourselves. It gives me great alarm for fear we shall spend too much time hoping that things will work out when I feel confident that they will not do so without a change of system. We are something like an army living in a land which once was fertile but has now fallen upon bad times. There is a tendency to dry up, so to speak. This army is standing at crossroads. Two roads branch off. One of these roads has three branches, one of which leads 
into an ocean, one into a morass, and one to a cliff over which we can be precipitated into a roaring torrent. The other road leads up over mountainous country to a plateau. It is difficult to travel but it offers a way out. Along the other road there is no way out, and that other road, that road from which there is no way out, is the road along which we are now travelling, when we try to make a system work that cannot work. The path up the hill to the higher plateau is the system of the newer economics.
There are many people who may laugh at the new economics to-day, but there will be very few ten years from now. I am going to [DOT]suggest once more, that the solution, the way out up the hill to the higher plateau, is the system of social credit. It is not a panacea, not an easy way out, but it is a way out, while no other system offers a way out at all.
Since coming here we have not talked very much about social credit, mainly because people have been so much prejudiced against it that, they will not listen long enough to realize what it is. Consequently we have advocated here and there only certain principles of it. I propose to set before this committee now, briefly, an outline of what social credit is, and how it will solve the difficulties if we adopt it as a perhaps difficult but a possible way out.
Social credit proposes first of all that there shall be national purchasing power which will work as money. This purchasing power is based directly upon the goods and services which the country is producing, which it now has and which it can produce with the equipment it now possesses. Many people and many newspapers throughout the country have said that we have advocated the making of tickets without reference to goods and services. That is a major fallacy; we do not propose that. What we say is this: You have the goods and services now in superabundance; you have industrial equipment such as no other nation on earth has to-day; you can produce faster [DOT] per capita in America-and I propose to bring evidence to prove this- than any other nation, and you are therefore justified in creating a great many tickets before you will have enough tickets to correspond to the goods and services that can be produced at your present productive capacity. We say, therefore, that you must create purchasing power nationally, and you will do this to finance public works and new industries, to increase production, to take care of policing and defence expenses, to take care of social services such as state medicine, pensions for the blind and the aged, motherhood, relief from drought and so on.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
Every member of this committee realizes, I know, that these things must be done; yet every member recognizes that we do not know where to find the money to finance them. There is not a heart in this chamber that was not touched by the stories which the hon. member for Temiscouata told us, and there is hardly a member who could not match them with stories just as sad. But you say, What can we do? I say, yes, that is the question. What can we do under the present system where every dollar we spend we must either borrow or secure from the people in taxation? We can do nothing. That is the pathetic part of it. A country as rich as this can do nothing. It is monstrous; it is unthinkable.
We social creditors say, therefore, that we must create purchasing power based upon the goods and services which we have and which we can produce, and then the more goods and services we can produce the more purchasing power we can have. After creating that purchasing power, social credit says that there must be a national dividend guaranteeing to every man, woman and child in the country food, clothing and shelter. This device will take care of the unemployed who are unavoidably unemployed. It will supplement the low incomes which at present the vast majority of the people receive and with which it is impossible for them to maintain a family at a decent standard of living. Besides that it will develop markets so that the industries we have will be able to sell their products. If you could put S40 a month into the hands of the families to whom the hon. member for Temiscouata was referring they would be of interest immediately to the manufacturers throughout this land; they would be potential buyers. They are not so now. And the industries lack markets while those people suffer want. Social credit says that the first thing the governments of any country to-day must do is to take care of their needy and develop their home markets; then their foreign markets will take care of themselves. Now that, I grant, is an utterly new conception. But have we not had sufficient proof here that we must have a new conception to deal with the situation which confronts us?
The third principle of social credit is what is called the just price.


Mr. ROGERS:: Will my hon. friend permit one question on the last point? Does he contend that if you increase the issue of paper purchasing power indefinitely you will at the same time get an indefinite increase or a proportionate increase in the goods and services produced in the community?


John Horne Blackmore: The question is a very sound and wise one. The answer is yes, to a surprising degree, as I shall show as I go on. I shall show that great authorities such as Professor G. D. H. Cole are of that opinion. Of course I would not say that the word " indefinite " should be used.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, I would not press that word.


John Horne Blackmore: But they will increase within reason. Money must be issued scientifically with an eye strictly on the facts of the situation. But granting that, a tremendous increase of purchasing power can be made and will result in additional production. I trust I have answered the minister's question satisfactorily. I shall be delighted to answer any question which any hon. member desires to ask me, for if this thing is false I want to know it and we all want to know it, but if it is true and sound then it is a matter which should engage our serious attention.
The just price, scientifically designed, not based on a hit or miss system, has two main applications. The first is a mechanism to allow the producer his cost of production plus a reasonable profit. Granted that the cost of production in various parts of the country is different, there would have to be an average struck. But certain it is that it is possible to arrive at the average cost of production, say for wheat, or for shoes or textiles or virtually anything. It is possible then to arrive at what should be a reasonable profit. Shall it be four per cent? A reasonable profit. The social credit principle of the just price allows for the cost of production plus a reasonable profit.	Manifestly if a
man is trying to produce under conditions which prevent his producing so that he can sell in competition with others who can do it much more cheaply, then that man will go out of business, as he does now. But there should be a price which will guarantee the average cost of production plus a profit, otherwise business cannot carry on. Everyone knows that.
The second application of the just price is one which people do not ordinarily understand. It is called the compensated price. It is a device whereby the government will lower the price to the consumer by paying a percentage of the retail price of an article as the retailer receives that price over the counter. It is another device by which the purchasing power of the people is increased. I have not time to go into this matter in detail.
These two aspects of the just price will prevent inflation. There are several reasons for
2606	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
that. You cannot have inflation without a rise in price. If you have determined a just price there will be no rise in the price. Furthermore you cannot have inflation unless money in circulation increases beyond the amount of goods and services available. Consequently if money is allowed as a compensation of the price, clearly that money is directly in proportion to the goods and services as they appear and go into consumption. The two devices together will prevent inflation, notwithstanding the increase in purchasing power.
May I earnestly bring to the minister's attention the fact that some very eminent men are coming to believe in the principles of social credit. I mention first Professor R. F. Irvine, for twenty-five years an orthodox professor of economies at Sydney university. Professor Irvine has recently published an article called Afterthoughts. In that article he uses these words, astonishing from an orthodox professor of economics, words to which every hon. member of this committee must give close attention if he is going to be other than reckless:
I believe that the principles put forward by C. H. Douglas are not only sound, but that they provide the only practical way of escape from the tragic fate which otherwise awaits the whole of western civilization. The reason that most economists have scouted the Douglas diagnosis is that it calls in question the most fundamental doctrines of the classical school, and the later schools which have grown out of it. The doctrine asserts that "supply creates its own demand."


Norman McLeod Rogers: Does he say anything about the Douglas prognosis?


John Horne Blackmore: Not in that article, but he discusses it in books which can be obtained. I should be glad to discuss the matter with the minister in general terms;
I can not here go into complete detail.
Another man who must be recognized as not being altogether foolish is Premier Savage of our sister state of New Zealand. Here are some words which Premier Savage uttered recently:
The government has been accused of having some sort of arrangement with the Douglas credit organization. What are the social crediters trying to do? They are trying to get for the people the things that the people produce, and who is better entitled to the things that they produce? There is room for difference of opinion as to methods, but there can be no room for difference of opinion in this; that unless the buying power of the people is sufficient to equate production we will never get out of the mudhole left by the last government. Unless the buying power is increased with increased production, what is the use of increasing production?

May I interpose a word to point out that that is the situation confronting the United States? If we cannot, they say, enable our people to buy the production that we are now turning into the market, what is the use of increasing that production twenty per cent?


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: May I suggest that that point of view is not limited to social credit.


John Horne Blackmore: Very good. We are not maintaining that the social credit people are the only ones who are seeing the light. My contention all through this speech is that eminent authorities throughout the world are coming to recognize that social credit principles show the only way out of the situation. Some of them have one of the social credit ideas and some another. The point is this: Social credit involves these principles.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I suggest that the converse is not quite true; these principles do not necessarily involve social credit.


John Horne Blackmore: I shall be glad to
deal with my hon. friend after I have finished with my speech. I have rather a long one to make, and I think all the material should be placed before the committee so I am going forward with it. I can say, however, that no social crediter since we have come here has taken the attitude that everyone else is wrong or that we should have no sympathy toward anyone else or that we should not cooperate. We are earnestly endeavouring to deal with the conditions as we find them, and we are trying to cooperate in every possible way with those who are attempting to discover a solution. Let me continue with this quotation:
Unless the people are prepared to pay a full economic price for New Zealand's total production, we will never get out of the difficulties we are in to-day. Curiosly enough, people who call themselves statesmen will discuss any subject but that, and that is a subject worth discussing.
It has been a doleful thing to us to sit in this house and watch what has gone on. WTe have discussed everything but a solution of the difficulty; from a real solution we shy clear, apparently thinking that must not be at all interesting.
The various principles of social credit are rapidly gaining recognition. Let me bring to the attention of the committee some quotations. That we are in an age of plenty and of unemployment is well indicated in this quotation from Howard Scott. Many things are said with regard to the technocrats be-

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
cause they are rather extreme in some cases, but that does not mean they may not have discovered a great deal of truth. At page 28 of his Introduction to Technocracy, published in 1933, Howard Scott says:
But by the application of technology we now have reached the point where more goods are produced by increasing the total amount of energy consumed and decreasing the energy per unit produced and the process automatically results in a decrease of the amount of human labour required.
It follows that under our present system if technology is extended into more fields of social activity, the rate of production tends to outstrip the rate of population growth and the rate of possible consumption growth, causing simultaneously an ever-increasing unemployment. This process is observable over the period of the last thirty years in every industry for which statistics are available and this includes every major industry on the North American continent.
Here is another statement, and this time I draw from Sir Arthur Salter, whom everyone must recognize as at least an honest thinker. This is from his recent book, World Trade and Its Future, published in 1936. I quote from page 70:
Incidentally it may be noted in connection with this figure that the United States Bureau of Agriculture has estimated that the United States can provide within its own boundaries food for a population of three hundred millions without any further improvement in the technical processes of food production.
The question arises: If they can do it why do they not do it? Here is another quotation in which I believe the minister will be interested. I have culled it from a speech given by Robert Cromie, at that time editor of the Vancouver Sun, before the Engineering Institute, at a board of trade luncheon in Vancouver, Wednesday, January 18, 1933. Here are some of his words:
How the world does things industrially can be visioned by the machinery it uses. Here is that w-orld picture:
Before I proceed may I direct "the attention of hon. members of this committee to the fact that this picture shows why the United States and Canada are going to be more troubled with unemployment than any other nation on earth.
Canada and the United States use about $23.60 worth of machinery per individual; England, about $11; Germany next with $9; agricultural France about $5; in Russia the figure would be about 60 cents; and China not over 40 cents per individual.
A moment's reflection upon these figures, Mr. Chairman, will show hon. members why Russia, for example, can find work for all her people. It will be noted that Russia has only 60 cents worth of machinery per individual,
while we have $23.60 worth. Is it not abundantly manifest that we are bound to have unemployment, though at the same time we have the machinery with which to produce so much more of everything that human beings can need?


Mr. WOOD:: Is that in relation to agricultural production?


John Horne Blackmore: No, as I understand it this is for all production.


George Ernest Wood: Was not the figure quoted for Germany rather small?


John Horne Blackmore: No, the figure for Germany was S9. I am sorry if I did not make it clear.
So much for that principle of social credit. It is one of the fundamentals of the social credit idea that you have more goods now than you have money to distribute, and you can produce more goods and services than you have money to distribute. Therefore you must increase your money, and you can increase that money to the extent to which you can distribute your goods, so you see the fundamental idea is corroborated by these authorities.
The next principle underlying social credit is that the abundance of goods and services actual and potential is the real basis of money. What is physically possible is financially possible. I am going to direct the attention of hon. members and of the minister in particular to a speech delivered by Hitler, appearing in The Christian Science Monitor of January 30, 1937, at page 5. Just a few words will serve to show the lines along which Hitler is thinking. We do not agree with Hitler, but beyond all question he is doing things, and so are the Germans. How are they doing them; where are they getting the money? That is indicated to some extent in this speech:
This working power is the real basis of all wealth. For the nation does not live from the fictitious value of money but rather from the actual production through which money itself gets value. This production is the real basis of our currency and not a bank or treasury full of gold.
Despite the reservations we may make with respect to Hitler's ideas, I believe he has discovered something which we have neglected.
Another fundamental principle of social credit is that you must distribute purchasing power and thereby increase production. This will answer the minister's question as to whether or not production would be increased by increasing purchasing power. Let me read what G. D. H. Cole has to say about this.


Mr. ISNOR:: Just before the hon. gentleman leaves that point in regard to the cost of
2608	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
production I should like to ask a question. If I remember rightly, he quoted a figure of $23.60 per person in connection with the use of machinery in Canada, as against S9 in Germany. What is his point? Is the difference due to mass production?


John Horne Blackmore: No, the point is that you can produce a great deal more per capita, and you will require less human labour. The result is that with increased production you will unavoidably have more unemployment.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Then you say that the population of a country does not enter into the cost of production at all?


John Horne Blackmore: That is a point which we ought to discuss in greater detail at some other time, because the question cannot be answered by yes or no. It is likely to bring difficulties. The principle I am laying down is perfectly sound, namely that our ability to produce in Canada and in the United States is greater than that of any other country. At the same time we are going to have that production with much less human work.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: If our production in Canada were greater, would the figure of $23.60 be reduced?


John Horne Blackmore: No, that has nothing to do with it. This has nothing to do with cost; it is the amount of machinery per capita. This is the amount of machinery the country possesses, per capita-the ploughs, the combines, and so on, making the country potentially richer and able to produce more. The hon. member sees that, does he not?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: No, but I am trying to learn. The hon. member asks us to study his problem. I am trying to arrive at his reason for using those figures in connection with production. He states, does he, that if we had more production the cost figure of $23.60 would not be lessened so far as Canada is concerned? My understanding has always been that the greater the production -the less the overhead.


John Horne Blackmore: I am sorry that again the hon. member and I are not on the same ground. I am attempting to point out the amount of machinery we have per capita; it is not the cost of production at all. Manifestly, if a man on his farm has to work his ground with shovels or cheap machinery he is at a tremendous disadvantage when in competition with a man operating a tractor and other full modern equipment-ploughs, harrows and that sort of thing. So that the people who are equipped with more machinery are more ready and better qualified to pro-

duce more. But whether they can produce it more cheaply is another matter.
My time is virtually over, I am afraid, and I shall have to pass to another matter; questions have taken up a great deal of my time. The minister asked whether by increasing the purchasing power we increase production. That is dealt with very well by Professor G. D. H. Cole in Principles of Economic Planning, published in 1935, and particularly at page 217. By the way may I add that Cole is university reader in economics at Oxford, and a prominent man in British economic thinking. He used these words:
Despite these and many other reactions which the reader can wurk out for himself, it does seem to me undeniable that the state, by creating new money without thereby creating new debt, can come near to bringing about the full use of the available productive resources and can, by recurrent infusions of additional money, keep these resources in use.
Recalling the machinery to which I referred a moment ago, we can see that only by new money can we keep the machinery functioning. The curse of our country is that we have so much machinery we can use only very little of it. Manifestly a very unsound condition is brought about by that fact. Here is another quotation from page 208 of Mr. Cole's book:
Let the state, it is urged, create more consuming power, and more production will speedily follow. I do not dispute this. I agree that, if the state makes a present of new money to consumers-not a credit advance, repayable later on, but a present-the effect will be to stimulate additional production;-
-which is significant in our case, and extremely important as it pertains to the social credit contention.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Provided your consumer
goes on being a producer.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, and provided he can go on being a consumer. The state should create more money. I have quotations which I shall not take time to read, because as most of my time has expired the chairman will be calling me to order in a minute or two. May I direct the attention of the committee to the fact, however, that Professor Cole, Irving Fisher, and Paul H. Douglas, professor of economics at the university of Chicago, are authorities for the declaration that the state creation of money is sound. In addition to that I have the fact that the state creation of money will not necessarily cause inflation when there are plenty of goods and services actually and potentially. To back that statement I have quotations from Cole and John Maynard Keynes.

. Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
The proposal to pay a dividend is sound. In support of that contention I have as authorities no less than Cole, Paul H. Douglas and Irving Fisher.
The belief that the Douglas just-price proposal will rescue from economic disaster both producers and consumers and will, at the same time, prevent inflation is also finding favour in the sight of prominent men.
I have quotations here from R. F. Irvine, professor of economics at Sydney university, Australia, indicating that state money can be so managed that it will not cause inflation.
In conclusion, if I may have a minute or two more, may I say that remembering the ghastly signs of breakdown everywhere in evidence both in Canada and in the United States, and remembering the unprecedented increase in production, both actual and potential, and at the same time the abounding resources of Canada, who can escape the conclusion that since 1900, and especially since 1920. Canada has emerged from an age of scarcity into an age of abundance? With an. impartial eye upon the amazing development of the machine, anyone must confess that unemployment would certainly seem to be here to stay, and even to increase. It must appear obvious, then, to any well informed and considerate observer, that there must be developed a new system of economics, one that will enable the government to get much more money without either greater debt or greater taxation, one that will enable the government to increase directly the amount of money in consumers' hands, one that will enable the government to exercise effective control over Canadian internal prices. I urge therefore upon the Minister of Labour and the government that they at once set about the task of introducing into Canada the principles of the new economics. They will find those principles embodied in the economic system commonly called social credit. Far and dangerously too long have British peoples been watching with worshipping eyes the setting sun. Let us turn our eyes now to the sunrise.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I say a few words with regard to what has been said by the hon. member (Mr. Blackmore) who has just spoken. I think I can agree with him when he says that we have in this country abundant natural resources and abundant equipment for developing them. Further than that, undoubtedly we have the labour available, both skilled and unskilled, for the development of those resources. Further, I think the hon. member is correct in urging that under our present system greater purchasing power is
essential. The question is how can this greater purchasing power be placed in the hands of the, people. Here is where I think I would have to differ from the hon. member. I do not propose at this late stage in the session to set forth the principles of socialism as contrasted with those to which we have just listened. We believe in the government controlling not merely the issuance of money but the actual resources and equipment of our great industries. When that is done, we contend we will find a solution.
Leaving that aside for the moment, I urge that even under our existing system we should have a work and wages program. I am going to speak for the moment in terms of the existing system, and hence in terms that will be considered to be very practicable. When I advance this proposal I realize that the minister will say immediately that we cannot afford a work and wages program. I think that was practically the attitude that he took last session. I do not think that is a tenable position.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I meant to say that we could not afford its ultimate consequences.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I surest that on the other hand we can not afford not to have it. We are dealing with the unemployed in a cheese-paring way. For example, we have had a farm scheme in the western provinces under which the farmer was paid $5 and the government paid So to the worker, or if he stayed until the spring S7.50 a month. Personally I think that for a certain class of unemployed that scheme is preferable to allowing them to roam the cities, as they are doing in this province. However, that wage is not at all adequate. It would prove more satisfactory, both to the worker and to the farmer, if it were raised to S10 or S15 a month. The farmer would then be able to get better service than he can possibly expect to get to-day. The amount of money involved in such a program would not beggar this country. It is quite possible for us to raise that amount of money.
I had hoped to refer in greater detail to a particular suggestion I had in mind, but I shall outline it briefly. I have in mind the possibilities of greater taxation on our mining properties. According to the Montreal Standard of March 13, the production of gold, nickel and copper for 1936 in Canada was as follows:
Gold	$ 76,910.000
Nickel	 43,471.000
Copper		38,665,000
and the total mineral pr duction amounted to $256,335,000.

2610	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress	'
Very large profits are being made out of our mineral production, and these profits are largely going into private hands. A certain amount comes to the government in the form of taxation, but I submit it is not enough. I see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has just entered the chamber. May I suggest that in his budget proposals he is busy in picking up coppers instead of the ten-dollar bills that are lying around ready to be picked up if he would only change his policy.


Mr. DUNNING:: And do what?


James Shaver Woodsworth: We were speaking of the revenue that might be obtained by taxation of our mineral properties. I was looking at the figures the other day for South Africa, and they are startling. I had not an opportunity to give these to the house during the budget debate, as there was no change in taxation. I do not want to go into the detail, but I would point out that in South Africa the mines are taxed from 15 to 50 per cent of their production, according to the richness of the ore.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This government promised that they would not impose any special taxation against the mines.


James Shaver Woodsworth: When did they
promise that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the budget speech.


James Shaver Woodsworth: They can change their policy, and I think they should.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend must not forget that there is also a provincial tax in this country which does not apply in South Africa.
Mr. WOODSW'ORTH: I know that.


Charles Avery Dunning: And the provinces own the minerals.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I know they do, but thjs government has the right to tax the profits.


Charles Avery Dunning: We do tax them 15 per cent.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If we followed the example of South Africa the richer mines would be taxed 50 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not think the leader of the opposition would follow you quite that far.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said the government promised they would not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am just suggesting sources of revenue. Perhaps it might be worth two or three minutes to put the following figures on the record:
Gross value
Company's fiscal year	of bullion
ending	produced
Hollinger, Dec. 31, 1936.. $14,530,414
Dome, Dec. 31, 1936	 7,315,168
McIntyre, March 31, 1936... 8,099,839
Lake Shore, June 30, 1936.. 16,361,530
Wright-Hargreaves, Aug. 31,	1936	7,595,231Teck-Hughes, Aug. 31, 1936..	..	4,777,666
Total taxes paid or provided for federal, provincial,
municipal	Net profit
and bullion for company's tax	fiscal year

During the four years 1933 to 1936 the Canadian tax for the Hollinger mine was $4,697,647. If the maximum South African tax had been applied it would have been $11,096,958, or an increase of $6,389,311.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is my hon. friend including the provincial taxes in this comparison?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, these include all taxes, federal and provincial. The total difference in the six mining properties that I have mentioned would have been $32,893,152. These are astounding figures; a friend did the computations for me, and I believe the figures are correct-at least I hope so. I am not suggesting that we should charge so much as South Africa does; I am just pointing to these mining properties and observing that if we

were really in earnest about this matter, and adopted policies similar to those which have been adopted elsewhere, we should have a very much larger revenue than we have at the present time.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is not forgetting that we tax the shareholders on the dividends received.


James Shaver Woodsworth: These are the total taxes-the corporation taxes.


Charles Avery Dunning: We then get the shareholders.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The shareholder used to get fifty per cent leeway for depletion, but now he gets twenty-five per cent.

Unemployment and
Agricultural Distress


Mr. WOODS WORTH:: 
Charles Avery Dunning: Before the hon. member leaves the mines, he is probably aware that the provinces concerned in mining matters, notably Ontario and Quebec, have at two successive dominion-provincial meetings requested the dominion to lessen its taxation in order to permit the provinces to impose more, for the reason that they were convinced that the industry, considered as a whole, could not bear more taxes. I give that just by way of information, not as argument, in order to illustrate the difficulties of a divided jurisdiction when the minerals are owned by the provinces.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not talking
about the ownership of the minerals. All along, as I think the minister will recognize, I have been talking about the profits that have been made.


Charles Avery Dunning: But the argument of the provinces is that we should get out of the way and let them tax their own resources.


Charles Stephen Booth: That may be, but
I would point out that the profits in the case of these few mines which I enumerated are sufficient to enable a much higher rate of taxation than prevails at present.


Charles Avery Dunning: The provinces do not
think so.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That may be. But it is being imposed elsewhere. In the meantime the unemployed remain a responsibility. We do not know quite where the limit of the responsibility is. It is certain that many of those who are unemployed were greatly needed all over the country a few years ago to develop our resources, and now they are thrown out through no fault of their own.
A moment ago, when the minister interrupted. I was about to say that over the week-end I happened to be in one of the smaller manufacturing cities of this province and I found that there were some hundreds of men who were systematically going in a group to each of the factories. At each they were refused work; there was in reality no work for them to do. They had even secured written statements from the managers of all the factories that there was not work in that city. That situation is more or less typical of the country generally. What are these men
Unemployment

and Agricultural Distress
to do? Some hundreds of them are living in a small city where there is no work in the factories, although in that particular city there is more industrial activity than in most of our urban centres. What are the men to do, and what are we to do with this class of people? I suggest to the minister that the only decent solution would be to arrange that these men be given work for which they are fitted-there is plenty of work to be done in this country-and at proper wages. That would solve the immediate problems of the men and their families, and a great deal would be done to supply this country with facilities which we need and which will be needed by our children after us. Canada is not very highly developed; there is plenty of work yet to be done. I am not suggesting that such work must take the form of post offices or armouries or docks; there are a great many other works to be undertaken and services to be provided. As somebody remarked the other day. there are educational facilities to be provided, school houses that should be built and towards the construction of which we could give assistance.
For those who are arriving at a working age-I have mentioned this privately to the minister, and I know he is not unsympathetic, though the suggestion has not yet been included in the government's program-there is the question of more technical training for our young people. In the past we have relied to a very considerable extent for our skilled artisans upon importations from abroad. In recent years immigration has largely ceased, and we are beginning to feel the need of skilled craftsmen. About twenty-five years ago I served on a provincial government commission on technical training, and we found in those days that in the more skilled industries it was the immigrants who were being employed-very largely Scotch and English immigrants. The children of these immigrants are not anything like equal in skill to their fathers. Although we have provided technical education to a limited degree we have not given practical technical training. I cannot see why these boys and girls could not be held in school for a year or two longer-we might hope that in another year or two the labour market would be less congested-even if we had to give them free tuition; and at the end of that time they would be better equipped to go out and do the work that will soon have to be done in Canada if we are to keep pace with the more progressive countries of the world.
There are many ways in which a constructive program may be worked out. I urge that until the government very definitely assumes

responsibility and just as definitely adopts a constructive program we are not going to get anywhere; we are going to drift. This brings me back to what the minister said a few minutes ago, that we could hardly afford the consequences which might result from a work and wages program. I suggest to him that we cannot afford the consequences that are going to result from the policy of drift which we have followed. We cannot afford to tolerate this policy. To-day in our cities families are huddled together in apartments, a family to a room. You have only to read the reports as they come from Toronto, from the province of Quebec, from Winnipeg, and from almost all of the larger cities-not biased or narrow reports but reports like that submitted by the lieutenant-governor of Ontario on housing conditions. There is no doubt there are wretched housing conditions and a great many municipalities to-day cannot afford to undertake a housing program. What are the practical results? Families huddled together, disease developing, immorality and demoralization of the home life, and such discouragement of the individual that we cannot hope that this generation will take the places that their fathers have filled. In view of such conditions this country cannot afford, for the sake of a few dollars or a few million dollars, to let this kind of policy go on very much longer.
The question of crime comes up. We can get additional estimates, if necessary, for increasing the police; we can get increased estimates for building bigger and better penitentiaries. That may be all very well, but surely it is better to use these tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to prevent these boys and girls from entering upon a criminal career. If we go on as we are now without providing for them real work at a remuneration that will encourage them to go forward I am sure we shall have to go in for a great deal more extensive, repressive measures than we have done in the past.
I do not know what more I can say. I wish that never again I had to talk on this subject in the house. For years and years it has seemed as if certain of us have had to come here and represent, or try to represent the unemployed. All I can do is to sum up matters in a few words. We have the resources in the country, and there is the need for constructive work in many different spheres; is there any reason why we cannot set our unemployed to work? As far as finance is concerned, I am quite sure that the money can be provided, and on the whole it would be a great deal more economical, even if we had to increase taxation, than to permit

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
this state of affairs to continue until we have to face the inevitable result of these hundreds of thousands of unemployed and their children becoming so demoralized as to threaten the standard of living of those who to-day are at work, and also the welfare of the community at large. I do urge the minister to give us now a definite statement of policy. I hope it will disclose a constructive program for -the coming year.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: A year ago when a similar bill was before us I suggested that the minister should adopt the policy which the opposition proposed in 1927 for the alleviation of unemployment and distress in the rural districts. The federal government should get some value for the expenditures it is making. On that occasion I pointed out to the minister the policy that was being followed in the United States. The minister is making agreements with the provinces, and -that may be all right; but why should we not have some definite plan such as they have in the United States when money is handed over to a minor government authority for relief purposes? I have here the papers showing some of the agreements with the provinces, and in my opinion there is not a fair distribution of the money that is paid out. I suggest that there should be some standard plan when this government hands money over to the provinces. Let the government stipulate in its agreements with the provinces that a certain proportion of the funds provided shall go to municipal undertakings which will give employment where today there is great distress. Let some of the money be spent on rural schools, public buildings, health programs and hospitals. If that were done the object of the bill would be attained, for it would relieve unemployment and alleviate agricultural distress.
I have looked carefully into the votes which the minister has presented to the house, the main estimates and the supplementaries, and I find that the very same places provided for in the main estimates are taken care of in the supplementary and the additional supplementary estimates. Some places get all, and other places none. This policy is absolutely unfair. My own city gets nothing. I do not see the necessity of Toronto paying one cent for a breakwater there. It is a federal responsibility entirely since 1867 because the island itself is the breakwater. This is the first government since confederation that has ever sought to ask the city to pay for a breakwater there, and I suggest that no worse step could have been taken than the agreement in that connection as in all other places breakwaters are paid in full by the
federal power. The government is doing nothing to improve matters in connection with level crossings. What does the railway commission say about the condition at Jones avenue? It was said by the railway commission to be ithe most dangerous level crossing in Canada, in the centre of an industrial district. And we can get nothing. I just ask for fair play. I hope the minister in making these agreements with the provinces will say he is through with the road program. What is the good of $800,000 for roads at White River in northern Ontario in the depth of winter when the cities and towns needed relief works more and when many were starving, and all that money wasted? Let this be an off year for those road votes. Let the money go now for municipal relief works only. The provinces get a cash subsidy; let them go on with that. Last year the municipal institutions got only pin money; this year let us have fair play-equal rights to all and special privileges to none. Let us apply the principles of confederation each for all and all for each in these votes. Let something be done for the municipalities, which are starved for money for public works and cannot put up buildings, although the school children down the province are in portable buildings, not only in the urban centres but in the rural districts.


George Ernest Wood: The purpose of this bill is said to be to assist in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress. A great deal has been said about unemployment in industrial centres, but little in regard to agricultural distress. I am inclined to think that Canada's main difficulty is due to agricultural distress, for Canada is largely an agricultural community. Our first care, therefore, should be for that industry for the carrying on of which nature and circumstances have particularly endowed us. I think if we devoted a little more thought and energy to agricultural distress, and relieved the agriculturists of some of their taxes and obligations, the farmers would have more purchasing power to buy the things that should be produced by the unemployed in the cities.
I would say to the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) that I have always listened with interest to any outline of this scheme of social credit, but I have to admit that I do not quite understand it. It may be that I have not the ability to comprehend the hon. member's ideas, or it may be that he does not explain them so that I can understand. I do understand this, that wealth is not money but goods; he and I are on common ground as far as that is concerned. He
2614	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
suggests that the government create money; as a farmer I incline to the view that if money is to be created and handed out by governments I would be reluctant to continue providing food and services for people. I have never been able to see how you can give people something for nothing. It might be done for a time, but it could not be continued. I believe there would be many who would feel as I might if we started to pay a social dividend-I would be inclined to let someone else milk my cows and care for them.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Does the hon. member
not think there are people who get something for nothing now?


George Ernest Wood: Yes, I do. I admit there are those who are always looking for something for nothing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And getting it.


George Ernest Wood: As long as human nature is what it is, there will always be some of those. But the fact that we are giving old age pensions and mothers' allowances and many things, $112,000,000 in Canada for unemployment relief for people in need-it may be through no fault of their own-indicates that down deep in the human breast there is the desire to help the unfortunate.


John Horne Blackmore: If the hon. member were receiving $25 a month would he milk his cows in an effort to get more?


George Ernest Wood: I would say yes, for I rather enjoy milking cows and caring for live stock. But I do not think that really has to do with the question.


John Horne Blackmore: The point is that this dividend is only for food, clothing, shelter and bare necessities, and people will always work to get something more. That means you run your farm just the same.


George Ernest Wood: All right; I accept the hon. member's view. I think we are again on common ground, that many people work for the enjoyment of it and would far rather be doing something than doing nothing. But everyone who comes into the world and attains maturity has incurred a debt to society. It has been estimated that at twenty-one years of age the average person has cost all the way from $10,000 to $20,000. He is indebted to his parents and to the state for his education and his maintenance and many privileges which he enjoys. Now social credit proposes to pledge his credit by a further $25 a month when he is already in debt. In my view that is going at things in the wrong way. Has anything of any consequence ever been produced except as a result of effort and self-denial?
IMr. Wood.]


John Horne Blackmore: Will my hon. friend permit another question?


George Ernest Wood: Well, I am not a skilled parliamentarian-


John Horne Blackmore: Nor am I.


George Ernest Wood: I think the hon. member is trying to put me off my track. I was saying you are then going to increase the obligation of that individual and continue to advance him credit when he is already in debt to society.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


George Ernest Wood: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose for the noon recess I was discussing the theory of social credit, its unsoundness in relation to practical economics, and my belief that it hardly provides a solution to present day problems. As a farmer, representing a class that includes perhaps half the population of the country, I should like to direct attention to what I believe is the difficulty that has created the present state of affairs. The national wealth of Canada produced in 1936 was $4,520,000,000, and of that total production the primary industries, including agriculture, forestry, fisheries, trapping, mining and electric power production, accounted for $1,336,000,000. If we assume that half the population are engaged in the primary industries, which I believe is a fair estimate, it would mean that an amount of $273 per capita went to those engaged in the primary industries, while $547 per capita went to those engaged in the secondary industries.
Canada is an agricultural country, and it seems to me that we would go a long way towards solving our difficulties if we could create some sort of influence that would get more people on the land. Our national wealth is not boundless; it has quite definite limits. Our total national wealth is estimated at between $2,300 and $2,400 per capita. As against this we have federal, provincial and municipal, direct and indirect gross debts totalling $650 per capita. When you deduct that amount from the total wealth per capita it will be seen that, divided into social dividends, our reserve would not last very long, which is another indication that the social credit argument is hardly practicable on a sound economic basis.
As I have indicated, on a per capita basis a person engaged in secondary industry received twice as much of our new wealth as was received by a person engaged in primary industry. The farmer is at the base of our economic structure. The burden of taxation is

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
shifted from one class of society to another until it can go no further, and as a result the agriculturist has become nothing more than a financial conscript who, in order to retain his position, in self-defence will be forced to protect himself in some way or he will be reduced to peasantry or serfdom. The farmer is the slave of the furrow; profits or no profits, he continues his work in order to feed the various parasites of society, and he is forced also to carry the burden of the helpless mass of half fed and wholly unemployed people. Sometimes I think we farmers have been so busy scratching for a living for ourselves and for the nation that we have not had proper time to think, but if we do not give these questions serious consideration we will meet with disaster and will perish. After all, every dollar of taxation, whether paid by the millionaire, the professional man or even the legalized chiseller, results from the labour of those engaged in the primary industries where the nation's wealth is created.
I should like to direct attention also to the fact that the farmers are the first citizens of the nation. The wealth of the country is founded upon the land; milk, beef and wheat do not grow upon city pavements. The farmer is practically the sole source of life, progress and social regeneration. In many respects the farmer is a socialist; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) I think, is quite correct. The farmer cooperates with his fellows in many of the activities of life, particularly at threshing time. That threshing does not end when his crop is harvested, however; he is thrashed into paying all the taxes and all the interest, feeding all the parasites, looking after the unemployed-in fact, into paying the policemen needed to control them-paying all salaries of the civil servants, the judiciary, the army and all those salaried people who tell us how we should carry on, without thinking how much our income has fallen, how mortgages have multiplied and how poor we really are. The farmer's income is so low because the price offered for his goods is the amount that is left after deducting the cost of all these services. With that reduced purchasing power he goes out to buy the things he needs, and even there, concealed in the purchase price of every commodity he buys, he has to contribute to the cost of these services.
A great deal has been said about unemployment, but very little has been said about the forgotten taxpayer. I know that in the rural sections of my own constituency many young men are endeavouring to pay for their farms and raise their little families, but they are assessed a tax to provide for the unemployed.
These young men are trying to assume their obligations as Canadian citizens and carry their own burdens. Canada is an agricultural country. Why should we have so many unemployed in the cities while there are so many farms vacant? That is the situation even in the part of the country where I live, located between two great industrial centres where, it has been said, by virtue of the fact that the home market is available, there should be a demand for the products of the farm. The fact of the matter is that in the county of Brant you can buy farms located in the neighbourhood of those great industrial centres for less than the cost of the buildings on the farms. I appreciate what has been said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with regard to slum clearance, but it does seem very unfortunate that people should prefer to live under slum conditions in the cities, where they enjoy the benefits of special privilege, instead of going out into God's open spaces. I think the solution of our problems rests in giving those on the land a greater reward for the products of their labours, and in unloading from them some of the burdens of society they have been carrying. Every man, I care not what position he holds in life or in what community he lives, should make his contribution toward the preservation of society. About a hundred years ago, when the corn laws were repealed, John Bright said something to this effect: No country, however wealthy it may be, can afford to have quartered upon its resources an element of society that fails to discharge its duties. I believe that is just as true to-day as it was then.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, we must be prepared to make personal sacrifices if we are to get along. In many ways I think we have lost the qualities of thrift we once possessed. Some of our friends opposite may distort what we claim to be the meaning of thrift, but after all nothing is accomplished without a certain measure of self-denial. You have to work to produce goods and services before you can obtain money, social dividends or anything else. To-day there seems to be a disposition to regard as a menace to society a man who has been frugal and who has accumulated a little bit of wealth, when as a matter of fact these are the men who have taken life seriously. The reason that has been advanced as to why some men have accumulated wealth is this: Those who through lack of thrift have allowed the opportunity to slip through their fingers are to a large degree responsible for and have contributed to the condition whereby great masses of
2616	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
wealth are found in a few hands. There is a great deal to be said for that argument. There are people who through no fault of their own are in unfortunate circumstances. They have lost their property because of conditions for which they have not been responsible. At the same time I believe there are people who are wealthy not by choice but because wealth has been thrust upon them. One element of society may be just as responsible as the other for the condition of affairs. After all, so long as Canada is inhabited by ordinary humans we will make mistakes. We always have, and sometimes they prove to be lighthouses on the rocks of disaster which help to prevent us from following a bad example.
I do not believe any government, no matter how capable, can legislate to a point where we shall be prevented from making financial mistakes. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre put a very pertinent question to the Minister of Labour, and asked for an answer. Well, that is an easy way out of the difficulty. I believe it would be much better to offer some practical solution.


An hon. MEMBER:: He did.


George Ernest Wood: It would be better to offer some workable solution which would produce results. We hear about the many virtues of socialism, but we must ask ourselves if it would work out. I am afraid it would be something like the argument in favour of protection: it sounds good, but it does not work out.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Why are you keeping it, then?


George Ernest Wood: Possibly I am as good a socialist as hon. members who are interrupting me. I believe however that there can be a sound application of economic policies which will bring about a satisfactory condition of affairs. Remember this: I may believe in an equal distribution of wealth, but I do not believe in a compulsory distribution of it. I do say that the law which protects man in the enjoyment of his great possessions should first of all see to it that the labour responsible for the creation of wealth should be amply protected. That is my view.
About forty years ago some of our statesmen discussed the possibility of introducing a system whereby thrift would be encouraged. That movement was in connection with the development of the old age annuities. I believe the government should encourage people to plan for their own future. If we want all the privileges enjoyed by the society about which we boast, if we want
[Mr. Wood.l
privileges as a nation, then it is important that we assume responsibilities in connection therewith. Sir Richard Cartwright said in 1907:
No true Canadian, and no honest workman that I know of, would desire to be dependent on charity, whether of the state or an individual, if only opportunity is given him to make provision for himself by his own energy and self-denial.
Then he went on to say:
I may add, too, that it is well even for us to remember that in the old times-we have the lesson of history to teach us-the Roman people never lost their liberty till the people were fed by the state.
I have no sympathy with the class of maudlin philanthropists who would reward the idle sensualist at the expense of the honest, frugal and industrious. And if hon. gentlemen think that this is too hard a saying I may remind them that there was once a great saint who was also a great philosopher who lived about two thousand years ago, and who has left his views on the subject on record in the memorable saying, "If a man will not work neither let him eat."
I am inclined to take the view that society has come to the point where deep down in the human breast it would prefer to err on the side of charity. I do not know that I should care to subscribe wholly to what was suggested by that saint, because I should prefer to err on the side of generosity.
Canadians are individualists. They want the right to earn their own livings, and we ought to give them that privilege without hampering them by any system of special privilege. After all, five million capitalists in Canada own over two billion dollars' worth of life insurance. They have an equity in that of $440 per policyholder. In six years we have paid out about a billion dollars of premiums to beneficiaries, and 75 per cent of that was paid to living policyholders. Under the present condition of mind of the Canadian people I believe our friends across the way would do well to associate themselves with an endeavour to help the government develop a policy along sound economic lines, rather than an endeavour to wave a magic wand in an effort to get something for nothing.
There is one suggestion I should like to make to the minister, and it has to do with practical undertakings, namely, reforestation and water conservation. Water conservation schemes have been promoted by the larger industrial centres to protect the health of their people. I believe much thought and attention could be given to that subject, and particularly a consideration of smaller schemes whereby through the preservation of some of the smaller streams bodies of water could be

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
preserved and, at the proper time, used for stock. These works could be carried out without a great deal of expense. They would offer opportunities to engage labour and would increase the national wealth. Last year my attention was drawn, as a consequence of the dry summer, to many streams which had dried up. Many farmers rely upon those streams and when the water disappeared they were forced to drive their stock many miles. I have in my own mind a stream which irrigates about half of one of the townships in Brant county. I am satisfied that a small expenditure would be sufficient to give the desired results. The road could be used as a dam; could be a proper cement construction to raise the gate and let the waters out, and in that way and at small cost a steady stream of water would be permitted to flow through the township.
When the minister is considering the larger scheme of water conservation I would ask him to direct his attention to the possible development of smaller ones which would serve to water stock and help to prevent disease. We are spending large sums of money through the health of animals branch for the protection of live stock. One farmer may drive his stock to his neighbour's farm, and as a rule the neighbour is generous enough to share his water supply. There is a tendency however to spread disease. There are a number of farmers in my own community whose herds have been infected due to their sharing their water with other herds. I ask the minister to give some consideration to this practical suggestion.


Mr. H. G. CLARKE (Rosedale):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer briefly to an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail of this morning, referring to a Toronto member who is seeking to have a larger proportion of money spent in the city of Toronto than is spent in the city of Ottawa. This editorial goes on to condemn the member for soliciting a greater amount of money for the larger city. As far as size is concerned, there is no comparison. The matter I referred to was public works expenditures. I stated that the whole of Ontario was receiving a very small amount in comparison to the amount spent in the city of Ottawa.
As we all know, it is these public enterprises that furnish employment. I was making my plea for the city of Toronto on account of the great number of unemployed in that city. Just previous to coming down here this afternoon I interviewed a couple of men who had tried to see the Minister of Labour (Mi. Rogers) with reference to the unemployed of Toronto. They told me they had stated their case but they did not think they would
receive much consideration as Toronto was not getting its share of public expenditures. The Toronto Globe and Mail claims to be an independent paper, but apparently it is ready and willing to condemn its own city and the member from that section of the country who makes an appeal for larger expenditures for the unemployed. I think this paper has showed itself to be a party organ in condemning a Conservative member.
There is one further observation I should like to make in connection with the unemployed of Toronto. During the Christmas rush in the post office at Toronto three hundred men were brought in from outside points for temporary employment. I received the names and addresses of these temporary employees only after some considerable time. Toronto was cheated out of employment for three hundred of her unemployed. I think this matter should be considered by the Department of Labour. The different sections of the country should take care of their own unemployed and not send them to other centres. I should like to go into this matter in greater detail at a later time, and possibly I shall do so when the post office estimates are before the committee. I ask the minister seriously to consider this matter and give the Toronto unemployed some consideration.
In conclusion may I say I could speak at much greater length on this subject but I shall not do so because I am desirous of facilitating the business of the house and assisting the government in its desire for an early prorogation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take up very much of the time of the committee, but I should like to refer to one or two points covered by this bill. I wish to refer particularly to the statements which have been made by certain hon. gentlemen opposite, particularly the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Wood) and one of the hon. members from New Brunswick, who constantly make reference to the amount of money the poor taxpayer is paying to people who are getting something for nothing. These gentlemen do not tell the taxpayer about the money he is paying for people who get a lot for nothing. For every dollar paid to keep people on relief, several dollars go to the bondholder for interest. He is getting something for nothing. Right across this country there are people at the present time who are making exorbitant profits from the exploitation of our natural resources, and from gambling in the farmers' wheat and in the livelihood of the people of Canada. Millions of dollars are being made and very little service is being received in return.
2618	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
Like similar legislation which we have had before, this bill again throws upon the municipalities and the provincial governments the responsibility of looking after these unfortunate people in our rural and urban areas. While grants have been provided by the federal government, I should like to point out to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) that the results of such a policy have been unfortunate in the extreme. We are simply playing a magnificent game of "pass the buck." Again and again I have had occasion to meet provincial and municipal groups, such as councillors, reeves and so on, who are harassed in their endeavours to look after the people in their particular districts. The story is always the same, but one must listen to it with sympathy because it is the truth. They say: "We can do nothing; you must go to the provincial government, because they supply the money. Not only does the provincial government supply the money, but they issue the strictest regulations as to how that money is to be spent and they audit our books to see that the money is spent in the way they specify. While we have complete sympathy with this case which you are bringing to our attention, we can do nothing about it." And if you go to the provincial government the answer is almost identical:	"It is true that
these people need looking after; it is true that this case is deserving, but the money comes from the federal government, and we are only given so much money and we can spend it in only a certain way, and consequently nothing can be done." Then you come to this house and the Minister of Labour says with a bland and pleasant smile, "But the administration of this thing is entirely in the hands of the provinces and the municipalities, and the only responsibility of the federal government is to provide the grant." Who is responsible? Well, nobody knows; it is the best game of "pig-in-a-poke" that I ever saw played. You play "hide-and-go-seek" across the Dominion of Canada and still you cannot find to whom you should go in a case of absolute need, because the responsibility is not laid at anybody's door in any particular case.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will my hon. friend allow me? I should not like to charge him with exaggeration, but is it not true and within his knowledge that there is a joint responsibility in this matter? So far as administration is concerned, administration is a matter for the municipality under the direction of the provincial government, and that is where the administrative responsibility properly should

lie. So far as the financial responsibility is concerned, that is divided between the dominion, the province and the municipality.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, but I also remember that the Minister of Labour's leader told us from the public platform and on the radio before the last election that unemployment was a matter of national responsibility.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Quite: which means, as I take it, that there is an obligation resting upon the various governmental agencies set up within our national constitution, including the dominion, the province, and the municipality.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Which means, summed
up, absolutely nothing, in view of the fact that you are taking no direct responsibility but merely indirect responsibility. In order to illustrate to the Minister of Labour exactly what I mean, let me quote from last Saturday's issue of the Regina Leader-Post, from a speech made by Mr. Omer Demers, Liberal member of the legislature for Shell-brook :
Omer Demers, Liberal member for Shell-brook, speaking in the budget debate in the legislature Friday, demanded an audit of relief expenditures in the drouth area during the past four or five years, and the saddling of drouth relief accounts upon the federal government.
While supporting the government's budget motion, he nevertheless spoke critically of the government policy in several spheres of activity, and called for the refunding of the public debts of the province at lower rates of interest. He was critical, also, of the government's road policy in the north.
I will omit that, because it is not of any great interest to this committee.
He was critical, too, of the relief policy in the north, describing it as "entirely unsatisfactory."
He favoured a works program to include road projects and drainage schemes. He considered the federal government had not given the measure of cooperation that it should have given to the provincial government. He was glad to learn that the federal government had apparently assumed responsibility for relief in the drouth area, and he believed this would ease the financial situation in the province.
He spoke in favour of having an audit made to determine what proportion of the money spent in the four or five years should be taken care of by the federal government. This, he contended, "would assist a great deal in clearing the picture for us."
He was critical of the suggestion contained in a news dispatch that the federal government was going to pay the province a special subsidy providing the province did not undertake any refunding of its public debt. He was equally critical of the Bank of Canada telling the province that the people "should dig into their pockets for an extra $2,000,00b" if they wanted any assistance. He thought the government was

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
better able to judge whether the people could pay any more taxes. "This is the kind of thing that will drive people from the Liberal party, he said.


Mr. DUPUIS:: The report is from what paper?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Regina Leader-Post. Every hon. member of the committee except the hon. member who asked the question is familiar with this orthodox member of the Sifton press.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: That is a smart remark.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am glad the hon. member for Melfort recognizes it as a smart remark.


Malcolm McLean: Well, we so
seldom hear one from the hon. member's corner of the chamber.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A Liberal member, speaking in the Saskatchewan legislature, pointed out that the reason the provincial government has not done what it ought to do is that it has not had the proper cooperation from the federal government. Here in the federal house we are informed that the reason we have not been able to do more is that we would have to work through provincial administrations. Nobody is to blame; everybody is to blame. The buck is passed to the provinces by the municipal authorities, who proceed to pass it on to the federal authorities, who pass it back to the provincial authorities.
May I point out again that the present system of handling relief has resulted not only in a system of passing the buck but also of overlapping and maladministration. I have in my hand schedule A which was included in the drought area relief memorandum of agreement entered into on September 10, 1936. It is an agreement between the dominion government, represented by the Minister of Labour, and the provincial government of Saskatchewan, represented by Hon. R. J. M. Parker, the minister of municipal affairs. I refer to schedule A because it shows the absurd situation which existed last fall in the province of Saskatchewan. At that time we had in circulation three maps of the province: one marked off the drought area and the marginal area and the so-called good areas from the provincial government's point of view; another marked off those areas from the federal government's point of view; a third map marked off those areas with reference to the debt cancellation scheme into which all three governing bodies had entered. These maps were different. Apparently the people who drew them up did not agree as to
which areas were drought areas, which were marginal areas, and which were good areas, with the result that in this schedule we find the following: The drought areas were to include the following municipalities: Nos. 1 to 22, 31 to 40, 42 to 52, 66 to 82, 106 to 112, 136 to 142. 166 to 172, 229 to 232, 260 to 262, 289 to 292, 319 to 322, 350 to 353, 380 to 383, 409 to 411 inclusive. But it was found necessary to add, with retroactive effect from September 1, the following: Fillmore, No. 96; Sutton, No. 103; Bushville, No. 348*; Grandview, No. 349; Reford, No. 379; Cut Knife, No. 439; Hillsdale, No. 440; Antler, No. 61; Moose Mountain, 63. And there were also added, effective from October 15, Wellington, No. 97, and Turrell, No. 101. Why? Because it was found that the federal map did not conform at all to the realities of the situation. I remember when it was first brought out that the line came half a mile south of the town of Cedoux, Sask., which meant that the people south of the line were to get certain consideration, the people on the north of the line were not. As a matter of fact the people north of the line were in a worse condition than those south of it. In that area were people who had horses and cows and chickens and were without a forkful of feed for them. It was only by making very strong representations to the provincial and federal governments that some adjustments were later made on behalf of these people. Here you have the absurd situation that there are three different maps, each marking out entirely^ different areas, purporting to show what constitutes the drought area. Because of this lack of centralization a great deal of suffering was entailed until the necessary adjustments were made.
Let us take another example of the results of administering relief through several different bodies. A short time ago I asked the Minister of Labour about the payment of the men who had entered into the farm placement scheme. He told me at that time that^ he could not give me any information m view of the fact that the matter was being administered by the provincial authorities. Let me say at this point that I know of several men who have not yet been paid. But a majority of the men in Saskatchewan who participated in the farm placement scheme received their December and January cheques, with which to buy winter clothing, on March 18. When the winter is almost over they get money to purchase their winter clothing for use in December and January.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There was a clothing allowance as well.
2620	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They received it, Mr. Chairman, on the 18th day of March, when the winter was almost over, when the need of warm clothing had long passed, and if they had been dependent on the cheques they would never have survived to need any clothing.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is my hon. friend speaking of the clothing allowance or the monthly allowance, the wage allowance?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am speaking of both. I say that they received no cheques until March 18.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is the hon. gentleman saying that they received no clothing allowance?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am saying that they received no money from the government under this scheme until March IS. The result was that either these men were unable to do outdoor work, or they were dependent upon the farmer for whom they were working and who had to make advances to them. I am not so much laying this at the door of the Minister of Labour as pointing out the futulity of trying to do anything of this sort efficiently by operating through a number of organizations that are not directly correlated.
Different members have said a good deal about the demoralizing effect of relief and have suggested that, as one journalist so absurdly puts it, we are simply enabling certain people to live on public sucker No. 1. Well, the federal government, supplying as it does the money to the provinces, must accept responsibility for the way in which the relief is administered. In Saskatchewan last fall a schedule was sent out to the respective municipalities indicating how much a family of a certain size would receive. On the basis of the size of the family that schedule was computed and what was provided was a bare subsistence. But that was not all. There was then sent out a list of deductions stating the amount that was to be deducted from each family, depending upon what they were able to get otherwise. So that the man who milked cows or took the trouble to raise chickens or pigs, or who went out and hand-picked fifty acres to get a little bit of seed together, was faced with certain deductions. When I hear men talk about the demoralizing influence upon people of getting something for nothing I wonder what they can be thinking about this. Here was a direct penalty imposed upon the man who tried to do something to help himself and a direct premium placed upon improvidence, as the system operated in 
Saskatchewan. Since the federal government is choosing this particular way of taking care of the needy it must accept responsibility for the manner in which the relief is being administered in the province from which I come.
I, for one, do not feel that we, as members of this parliament, can go back to our respective constituencies with a very easy mind; I know I cannot. It seems to me that the sum total of work that we have done since we came here on January 14 has been to increase our own indemnities and get ready to go to a coronation. I protest against the indecent haste with which we are trying to conduct the business of the country in these last few days of the session. It would seem to be far more important to enable a group of gentlemen to get their bags packed to leave for the coronation than to pass legislation providing constructive measures that will assure the people that some effort will be made to bring about proper adjustments in the social system.
I have come across a statement in a paper printed in this city, the Social Forum, published by the Catholic Social Study Conference.


Vincent Dupuis: Do you believe it?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I believe it. I know the gentleman who edits it. Rev. Father S. Sullivan, a Christian gentleman of high standing. I wonder if my hon. friend believes it-I hope he does; he ought to. I am not going to quote this as something directed to the Minister of Labour; I read it only because it struck me as something touching my own conscience, and I am sure it must affect others:-
Two Pairs of Shoes.
The heart of every Canadian must thrill with pride at the thought of the coronation gift which will be sent from Canada-a pair of sandals, studded with diamonds and rubies, valued at $16,000.
(It is really bad taste to mention at the same time little Olga's shapeless, almost soleless shoes. Olga, the child of Hungarian immigrants, trudges the Montreal streets in the zero weather, her small, frost-bitten feet half-shod. Her father is unemployed. There are five in the family. It will be six weeks before the next relief clothing allowance will provide shoes; foreigners in Montreal are not eligible for organized charity.)
The $16,000 sandals will be worn perhaps once.
(Two dollars would buy Olga a new pair of shoes. In the meantime she walks half-barefooted in the cold.)
Canadians may well be proud of such a fittingly splendid tribute to a new reign.


Mr. DENTON MASSEY (Greenwood):: After the peripatetic discussion we have had on this bill, I am sure the minister will not

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
object if I return to the bill itself. I do not think I shall be accused of " indecent haste " if I make my remarks as brief as possible.
After perusing the bill I consider it rather an innocuous document, designed to put an air of verisimilitude on what at least approaches a blank cheque. In the special supplementary estimates, we find an item, No. 312, of $19,500,000, being grants in aid to the provinces. I presume that money will be administered under this bill. There are in the main estimates other grants to the provinces. This method of administering relief has certainly proved itself completely unsatisfactory. I fully sympathize with the minister in his feeling that it is necessary to introduce this bill to assist, as the bill itself says, in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress. That is the minister's authority to make these grants in aid to the provinces. But, after all, we are leaving it to the provinces to apply the money, for there is nothing specific in the bill stipulating the particular way in which the money is to be used. The government simply hands the money to the provinces and they apply it as they see fit.
Though, perhaps, every hon. member will not agree with me in this, the fact is that in Ontario we fully realize that there is a completely unreliable administration in Queen's Park. That has been demonstrated over and over again. It is an administration that feels that repudiation can rest on the shaky foundation of political expediency, and we can have no assurance from that government that moneys granted by this federal government will be used to the best purpose. The minister will say, as has been said over and over again, that, after all, our hands are tied by the British North America Act and that we can go only so far and do only so much. Perhaps that is right. Yesterday we listened to a stirring speech from the Minister of Justice in which he said, as he rose to the height of his oratory, that the British North America Act must be amended. The hon. gentleman and his colleagues have the opportunity to make these necessary changes, so that we can overcome such blind legislation as this Bill No. 80 now before the committee. On February 1 last there was fully debated in this house a resolution introduced by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and during the course of that debate we listened with a good deal of interest to the Minister of Justice, as he referred to what had been done already in making plans for the amendment of the British North America Act. Without taking time to quote what the minister said, sufficient be it to say that he
tried to leave the impression with the house that there were at least some plans going forward actively towards that object. The Minister of Justice was followed that evening by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), and during the course of his remarks he said, as reported at page 445 of Hansard:
That question,-
That is the amendment of the British North America Act.
-as was pointed out by the Minister of Justice this afternoon, can be determined only by consultation and cooperation between the dominion and the provinces, and it lias already been brought to the attention of this house that such consultation and such cooperation are now in progress.
I am wondering, as are those of us on this side of the house, yes and probably every hon. member, just what progress has been made so far towards " cooperation," let alone amendment of the British North America Act. How are we progressing along the road to achievement of this highly desirable and much discussed cooperation? We realize that not so many weeks ago there was an effort on the part of those representing various provinces, gathered together in solemn concatenation, to come to some conclusion in regard to this much mooted cooperation. A year ago there foregathered in this capital city of Canada the leaders of the governments in the various provinces of the dominion. What has been the result to date of all that has been done? We have heard so much about the cooperation that is to be achieved and the results that are to be obtained that it seems to us now, as we come to the dying moments of the second session of this parliament, that this much mooted cooperation does not exist at all. During the course of the election campaign of 1935 on a certain night never to be forgotten by some in the city of Toronto, there foregathered " these upstanding Canadian gentlemen," as they were introduced, the Liberal premiers of the provinces of Canada. And how all the Liberals swelled with pride as these eminent gentlemen took the time which was supposed to be reserved for the would-be Prime Minister, leaving him none whatsoever. It was a very stirring occasion. But to what end? What has happened since? Where is this cooperation?
Here is Bill No. 80 which provides that money be given to the provinces and that they will apply that money as they see fit. I have read the bill carefully and I cannot see that there is anything specific in it. Look for example at section 4, line 35:
The governor in council may also enter into agreements with corporations, partnerships or individuals engaged in industry respecting the expansion of industrial employment.
2622	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
What does that mean? How is it to be applied? It is left to the provinces; one province to apply it one way, another another way, and another perhaps not at all. This cooperation of which we have heard so much apparently does not exist. What does it mean as far as the industrial worker or the farmer is concerned? What end is being served by this bill or these grants in aid? The minister gives the money to the provinces; it goes out of his hands. How is he going to say:	This
money has been granted by the federal government, and you are to apply it in this particular way? He cannot.
Once again it seems to me that this bill demonstrates the prime and basic need for amendment of the British North America Act. I am convinced that as we come to the special supplementary estimates under the Department of Labour, and consider items 308 to 312, there will be much discussion as to the advisability of those votes under the present situation. I do not propose to discuss now the National Employment Commission, or the youth committee of that commission, but it must be in our minds as we are considering this bill that this employment commission has been operating at a cost, up to March 3, of $87,418; it will continue to operate at a cost of many hundreds of thousands of dollars according to the supplementary estimates, and surely something must have been done. But what? Many of us will be curious to find out if we can what has been done. But at the moment we have this bill before us for action, and we are supposed to pass upon it; we sit here in committee of the whole and later as the House of Commons to pass on to the provincial governments large sums of money, saying to them: Now go ahead and do what you like with it; we hope you will do it in the right way-


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is not quite a correct statement of what happens. Actually the bill provides authority under which agreements are entered into between the dominion government and a particular provincial government, having to do with the construction of certain works or the provision of direct relief as the case may be. Nothing, as far as I am aware, is excluded from the possible operation of those agreements, affecting unemployment and relief. Under this bill we may enter into agreements with provincial governments to take almost any action that may be required to deal with unemployment and relief. We are limited however by the appropriations to which my hon. friend has referred. That is the financial limitation upon what the government undertakes under this bill.


Denton Massey: The minister says "agreements which 'may' be entered into."


Norman McLeod Rogers: They always have been; there has never been any difficulty.


Denton Massey: Well, it has always stopped raining, but it "may" rain at the wrong time. "Agreements which may be or will be entered into." But does the minister tell this committee that the use to which the money is to be put is still under his control when the money is paid?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The agreements have to
be carried out according to their terms.


Denton Massey: That is, the province agrees that a certain work will be done, that certain moneys will be appropriated for this and that purpose, giving the minister absolute detail of what shall be done?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As far as works are concerned, that is correct.


Denton Massey: As far as public works are
concerned. Then how about section 4, line 35:
The governor in council may also enter into agreements with corporations, partnerships or individuals engaged in industry respecting the expansion of industrial employment.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Only the railway agreements of last year have been entered into under that clause.


Denton Massey: But the province may
say to the minister: We would like to appropriate out of our grant so many thousand dollars for the purpose of apprenticeship.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No.


Denton Massey: Then may I ask what that paragraph means?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am somewhat at a disadvantage, because we have not actually reached that clause; we are discussing generally the whole problem. However I do not want to raise that as an objection. The clause referred to simply gives us power to enter into agreements with corporations, partnerships or individuals as the case may be. That is, those agreements would not have to be through provincial governments at all. But as a matter of fact the agreements in general have been entered into with provincial governments. There is one exception: the agreements entered into with the railway companies for the special maintenance work.


Denton Massey: Does the same apply to municipalities?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No agreements have been
entered into with municipalities.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Denton Massey: Does this bill cover agreements that may be entered into with municipalities?	#


Norman McLeod Rogers: Municipal works are
covered by the agreements with the provinces.


Denton Massey: Is there an intermediate step between the municipal and federal government through the province?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Absolutely.


Denton Massey: In other words the municipalities apply to the provinces which in turn apply to the federal government?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Denton Massey: Then the minister himself does not deal directly with the municipalities?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is correct.


Denton Massey: The minister does not go directly to the municipality?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is true.


Denton Massey: Then let us take a practical case, the city of X, in which there are grade crossings or some other works with which it is desired to proceed. This municipality must go to the provincial government, Y, which comes to the federal government. It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that here is another rung to be climbed in a rickety political ladder. After all, if the municipality is predominantly of one political colour while the provincial government is of the opposite political colour, there are difficulties in the way in accordance with the dictates of human nature, such as have been manifest in the province of Ontario in particular in the last three years.
Once again I should like to direct the attention of this committee to the fact that when those of us who come from the city of Toronto rise to our feet and speak for that city we are greeted with smiles of derision, or whatever it may be, by other hon. members of this house who do not come from that city. On this I speak with no small degree of indignation; hon. members are forgetting that within that municipality there are more unemployed than in any other area of similar size in Canada. What would be said of those of us representing constituencies within that area if we did not rise in our places and do our very best for those in our city who are unemployed and suffering? Other hon. members of this house do not hesitate to rise in their places and make long speeches with regard to the beauties of their municipalities and constituencies, the needs of their constituents and so on, but as soon as one of the members from Toronto rises to
do the same thing for those whom he represents, it is the old story of "Toronto is in again."


Vincent Dupuis: Did the hon. member protest between 1930 and 1935?


Denton Massey: One cannot protest from the gallery, but since 1935 I have protested from the place where I now stand.


Vincent Dupuis: Political expediency.


Denton Massey: "Political expediency"
nothing! Perhaps the hon. member has become so steeped in that sort of thing himself that he finds it hard to realize that one may rise in his place and speak with sincerity and honesty for the good of his constituents. I object to that phrase.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that to us it seems very necessary that full consideration be given the problems such as we have to face in the constituency which I have the honour to represent and which I have already mentioned. Within the constituency of Greenwood, as I have stated in this house already, there are works which could be and should be carried forward in the interests of public safety, in the interests of those who live within that constituency and of those within the city as a whole, such as the grade crossings at Jones avenue, Woodbine avenue and Greenwood avenue, and other works I have already mentioned. So it is with no small degree of earnestness that I speak on the principle of this bill, in view of the fact that the municipalities are faced with the necessity of having to go to the provincial government first and then through that government to the federal government in order to receive the aid which is so necessary in order that undertakings may be carried forward.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I urge that not only the Minister of Labour, who has already spoken on the question of the amendment of the British North America Act; not only the Minister of Justice, who has dealt with that subject so earnestly, but all the members of this government should realize that this whole question of unemployment relief is not a matter to be met only by grants in aid, or a matter that will be solved by increasing employment. They must realize that within this dominion we are faced with a continuing problem of unemployment that no general improvement in conditions is going to cure. The whole problem goes far deeper than the mere question of taking care of the situation which now exists. The emergency has passed; we now have with us a certain body of unemployed, a certain body of unemployable and a certain body of people
2624	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
at present engaged in occupations to which they are not at all suited. So there must be a readjustment and a realignment brought about before we shall have within this country the peace and prosperity we would and should enjoy. The British North America Act must be amended! Accordingly with all the earnestness with which I am capable I urge that this government should give wider and broader, deeper and fuller consideration not only to the detail of the case at hand but to the whole great problem that we must face within this dominion, the problem which is set forth in the title of this bill, " the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress."


Mr. R. A. PELLETIER (Peace River):: Mr. Chairman, in rising I should like to thank you very much for finally having noticed that I have the floor.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. That is a reflection on the chair, and the hon. member must withdraw it.


René-Antoine Pelletier: It was just by way of offering my thanks, Mr. Chairman.


Frederick George Sanderson: I have no intention of getting into an argument with the hon. member, but I have not been unfair to him in any way, and I ask him to withdraw his remarks as a reflection on the chair.


René-Antoine Pelletier: 2626	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
There is however something else which could be done. I believe the Minister of Labour would not have the heart to refuse to do something for the people in that part of western Canada. For many years we have been asking for an outlet to the Pacific coast. Year after year the request has been made. Now we are asking for the building of a project which would give us a highway outlet to the Pacific coast. That could be done by linking the Peace River with the already established gravel highway in British Columbia at a point called Hansard. The distance to be covered is approximately one hundred and thirty-two miles, and I have photographs to show the type of land through which the highway would run. I have made inquiries in the matter and I have found that the idea of attempting to fulfil the promise by building a coast outlet was allegedly begun last year through certain grants. They have attempted to provide a coast outlet by building a road which will go six hundred miles around the north side of the Peace River block and give no direct outlet to the people of the Peace River district. I suggest that it is quite possible to build a highway which will meet the needs of the people. Many of the farmers living in that particular area have no desire to have to go round by the mining districts in northern British Columbia in order to get to the interior of British Columbia. I know that the assistance which it is proposed to give to mining development will not meet the needs of the people of the Peace River country. I urge the minister to consider the providing of a direct outlet to the Pacific coast by means of a highway to connect from the Alberta boundary, to enter British Columbia at Hansard.
It might be said that I am trying to help the province of Alberta solve its unemployment problem, but I would point out that it will be necessary to build only fourteen or fifteen miles of highway within the province of Alberta. I feel quite sure that if the governments of British Columbia and Ottawa will give their cooperation, the government of Alberta will be ready to do likewise. Of course there are many champions of the north who do not live there. There is the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) who is often quite busy sending press dispatches and telegrams stating that the coast outlet is nearing a point where it is receiving some definite attention. There are other people who should be ready to give all the assistance possible to the Peace River country. I refer particularly to the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Turgeon). He should be fighting for a coast outlet that will

be a coast outlet rather than a highway six hundred miles long.
I have had occasion to speak to many prominent persons in the city of Edmonton, and all of them favour the development of the north. By developing the north you will develop the city of Edmonton. I urge the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. McKinnon) to insist that the promises which have been made so often to the people in the Peace River country be fulfilled.
In conclusion I should like to summarize the contention which I have placed before the minister to-day. It is a recognized fact that through no fault of their own there are people in the Peace River country who are unemployed. Many are suffering agricultural distress because of crop failures and other conditions over which they had no control. These people deserve just as much consideration as the people anywhere else. It is recognized that assistance to the Peace River country is long overdue. This assistance has been promised time and time again, not simply by way of a highway 132 miles long but by way of a railway outlet to the Pacific coast. I ask the minister to consider the building of a highway outlet.
The people in this part of the country see large sums being provided in the estimates for other districts and they are astonished at the little consideration they are receiving. I should like to invite the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to visit the Peace River district this summer to see what a country that is not dried out looks like. I am sure he will realize, as have those who have seen it, that it is Canada's last great west. I pick out at random one item in the estimates providing $500,000 for improvements on the Richelieu river, and there are many others. There are 70,000 people in the Peace River country at the present time and they are receiving no consideration. Nowhere else in Canada is there to be found a group of 70,000 people receiving so little attention. In order to alleviate unemployment and distress I ask the Minister of Labour to act through the medium of the employment commission and complete this project as early as possible this coming year.


Mr. TURGEON:: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to answer the hon. member's chastisement of myself in connection with an outlet from the Peace River to the coast. Let me say with great respect to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) that my actions, however feeble and however disliked they may be by the hon. member, will speak louder in the Peace River than the words of the young hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat.

Unemployment and
Agricultural Distress
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre)Mr. Chairman, it would appear that under this section of the bill practically everything with reference to unemployment relief can be referred to. It is with considerable regret that I have to place before this committee my very strong objection to the manner in which unemployment relief is being paid for at the present time and has been paid for ever since the depression started. Roughly speaking, the cost of unemployment relief is on a one-third, one-third and one-third basis. I am opposed to that basis now, and I was opposed to it when it was first started. It seems to me that unemployment relief is a national matter. Most people have been saying that for many years. But instead of its being dealt with as a national matter, it is being treated as a municipal matter.
The policy of forcing two-thirds of the expenditure necessary in connection with unemployment relief upon the direct taxation field is, in. my opinion, wrong. When more than half of that two-thirds is registered against real estate, it becomes much worse. I know the conditions that prevail in Manitoba better than those that prevail in other parts of the country. There are very few municipalities in Manitoba that are solvent to-day. There are insolvent communities in Ontario and it would appear that most of the municipalities of western Canada are insolvent. I would not be surprised if an examination into the matter showed that the policy of forcing such expenditures upon the direct taxation field was actually at the root of a great deal of the trouble in the province of Alberta.
We have two kinds of governments; one, the federal, having the right to get its money from any source by either direct or indirect taxation; the other, the provincial, which can levy for its needs only by way of direct taxation. Then there are the creatures of the province, the various municipalities, which may also levy by direct taxation but only in a very narrow field. I suppose that most cities derive ninety-five per cent of their revenue from directly taxing real estate. Most of them have a business tax which is in another way, perhaps, a tax on real estate, though usually it is not so regarded, or spoken of; in any event it supplies only a small proportion of city revenues.
So far as unemployment is caused by any government policy it results from national rather^ than provincial policies. The thought of legislation with respect to trade and commerce, the tariff, and immigration reminds one at once that in these and similar spheres where the dominion government is supreme the policies in relation thereto can be responsible
31111-166}
for unemployment in so far as that evil can be attributed to the action of any government. I am not asserting that at all times government policies have been the cause of unemployment. But I do say that the responsibility is upon no government if it is not upon the federal government. That being so, and the provincial government not being responsible, it is, I should think, indubitable that the responsibility is not that of the municipalities. I wish to read to the committee an excerpt from Toronto Saturday Night, the issue of January 16, because I think it sets forth this proposition about as clearly as it can be done:
We fail to see that the costs arising from a nation-wide state of abnormal unemployment Have any connection with municipal finance whatever, or that they ought to be imposed upon the municipal treasuries. Responsibility
ita<? that tIley kave *)een 80 imposed is difficult to apportion between the provincial and federal governments under our (in this respect unfortunate) dual sovereignty system-but we incline to feel that the major part of it must rest with the dominion, as having more responsibility for general business conditions, and more elastic sources of revenue for dealing with abnormal needs.
in an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press of March IS there is a quotation from the report of the bureau of municipal research, of Toronto which runs as follows:
Direct unemployment relief is a more logical complete charge against federal and provincial authorities than the mothers' allowances and *ld .fge Pe"sl""s. . Unemployment, as far afiects the employable, is not a matter with the causes of which local authorities can grapple. The causes are not local, nor can local authorities deal with them constructively industrial communities not only have a heavy initial incidence of unemployment, but the unemployed tend to gravitate to them in spite ol all provisions and regulations to the contrary. Inc more efficient the local organization, the more this is apt to be the case.
It seems to me that those two articles tell fully the truth, although I am not sure that I would agree with the last sentence in the second quotation:
The more efficient the local organization, the-more this is apt to be the case.
But in the main it seems to me that these-articles clearly set forth the truth in regard to this problem. The municipalities of Canada, and particularly those of western Canada, are being loaded down with relief expenditures which are not merely inequitable but are far beyond their power to bear. The federal government, with its broader base of taxation and its more elastic sources of revenue, takes the smallest share of the load, roughly about one part in three. But when it comes to loading about one half of the re-
IS	COMMONS
Unemployment and. Agricultural Distress
maining two thirds upon the municipalities -I am thinking particularly of the cities and towns-the situation is made very much worse.
It is not to be wondered at that we cannot initiate by private enterprise building programs in the cities when every day real estate is being confiscated by the high taxation necessitated through the load which has been cast upon the cities and towns in the manner I have described. Recently _ there have been running in the newspapers in my own city a number of stories and editorials concerning slum conditions in Winnipeg. I doubt whether you will find in any new country slums as bad as we have in some of our cities. It is the greatest indictment of civilization in this new world that slum conditions of that sort should exist. Literally hundreds of people are packed, in some of our cities, into no larger a number of houses than one could count on the fingers of one hand. We need a housing program. It would be better if we could get it through private initiative, but that is impossible while the tax load upon real estate is as heavy as it is at present, and the load is what it is because we have placed on our cities and towns a burden which they cannot bear.
I wrote to a number of cities to ask for certain information with regard to their unemployment problem and particularly with relation to the costs they had to meet and how they are meeting them. Some of the cities did not reply in such a way that their information is usable at the moment. I have had only one reply from an eastern city, namely London, Ontario, and the information is not complete. I note, however, that that city, which I suppose contains fifty or sixty thousand people, has a property assessment value of eighty-three millions of dollars and its expenditure for relief is between $600,000 and $700,000 per annum. Calgary, with an assessment roll of $57,500,000, has had to pay out over this depression period about $3,100,000 in direct relief alone. In Saskatoon, which has supplied me with more information than the others did, in the seven year period there has been an expenditure of $2,300,000, and of that the city itself had to pay $1,200,000, or a little over fifty-two per cent. I am not sure whether administration costs in connection with relief are in that figure but I should think they would be, because I realize that they have never been directly loaded with fifty-two per cent, and that share must be built up by including certain expenditures that are necessarily incidental to unemployment relief.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I should think that that is so.


Mr. MAYBANK:: 
Frederick George Sanderson: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Ralph Maybank: I shall conclude this sentence.


Frederick George Sanderson: With the unanimous consent of the committee.


Ralph Maybank: Better than that, I
suggest, would be to have the dominion government withdraw from the position it has so far taken, that it cannot deal with any municipality. If the government would take that step, examine the position in which many cities find themselves, and then take steps to remedy the situation, that would be the best solution of all. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the committee for permitting me to conclude.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Works and undertakings.
Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: When speaking on the resolution last week the minister gave the figure of 50,000 I think, with respect to the increase in employment. On that occasion I asked if that figure included the increase in farm placements, and the minister said that when we came to this clause in the bill he would give me an answer. Before he replies, this afternoon the hon. member for Weybum referred to the fact that the monthly payments have not been coming through as promptly as might be desired, and I have here a letter from a person in Saskatchewan asking me to bring to the attention of the minister a situation involving the unemployed and the farmers who have given them homes during the winter. The understanding was that the employer was to receive $5 monthly and the employed $5 monthly, with a bonus of $2.50 per month to the man if he remained until March 31. Many of the men have been working for four months, the writer states, and have not received a cent as yet. The farmer in many cases has to supply them with clothing, boots and shoes, and so on; also he has to supply -them with spending money. My correspondent states that the government has not been living up to its part of the agreement, and that he took the matter up with the local member, with no results.
I mention that to support the argument advanced by the hon. member for Wey-burn. I have had several letters of that kind; one dated March 18, stating that the man employed by this farmer had not received anything so far. This is a serious situa-
2632	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
tion, because if the farmers are supplying these men with clothing, and they are not receiving their cheques until March, the farmers may be left holding the bag.
I had intended asking some questions on other sections, but possibly this would be the proper time to ask with respect to increases in employment. If these increases include farm placements, then the showing the minister was trying to make the other evening would not be so good. If it takes in increases in farm placements in Saskatchewan, certainly it would not look so good. Would the minister give the figures for 193435, 1935-36, and 1936-37 with respect to farm placements in Saskatchewan?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I would judge the hon.
member was not in the house when I gave complete figures of those on direct relief and those in receipt of indirect relief. Those figures are found at page 2359 of Hansard. I believe that supplies all the information the hon. member wanted. In those figures comparisons are established between this year and last year with respect to direct relief recipients, and also those who received any form of relief, including those under the farm placement plan.
The hon. member has asked with respect to delay in payments to be made to men placed under the farm employment plan. May I say that a number of complaints did come to me in connection with the matter. As the hon. member will understand, the administration of the plan is with the provincial government; it could scarcely be otherwise, and it does not differ in that respect from farm placement plans of earlier years. However, the number placed, running as it did into some thirty thousand in Saskatchewan, placed a heavy pressure upon the relief administration of the provincial government, and possibly it was not able to meet that pressure as well as it had met that brought about by the smaller numbers placed in previous years. Then there were double payments to make, the payment to the farmer as well as that to the man. I understand that in connection with many of the placements there was an exchange of correspondence consisting of at least eight letters.
As the hon. member is perhaps aware, special precautions were taken to see that the men were fit to go on the farms, and that there was need for them. They were actually on the farms before they were paid. Probably we would have been under condemnation, and justly so, if some of these precautions had not been taken. We have sought to expedite payments. I am informed that last month,
IMr. E. E. Perley.]
where regulations were complied with, payments were going forward regularly.


Ernest Edward Perley: What is the growth in numbers?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I will have the figures
in a minute. The hon. member wants the figures for farm placements in Saskatchewan in succeeding years?


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall take the month of January, which would be about typical. In January 1933 there were 5,497; January 1934, 9,445; January 1935, 5,339; January 1936, 6.236; and January 1937, 26,400. Those are the figures for the succeeding years for Saskatchewan.
Mr. O'NEILL: There is one point I should like to direct to the attention of the minister. Several of these projects in British Columbia have been let out on contract. I understand the contracts call for relief labour only as applying to those who are not key men. The contractors work with gasoline shovels, big trucks, and other heavy equipment and claim that the operators of these machines are key men. Only a small percentage could be classified as relief labour. In a district where work was being carried on, there were a large number of young married farmers who, on account of unfavourable climatic conditions in that year, did not have good crops and lived in the expectation that when the program of work was undertaken they would receive employment. But they were denied that employment because they were not on relief. In other words, we have placed a premium on relief. If a man was on relief, whether through necessity or otherwise, he was given employment. But if he refrained from going on relief he was not given employment, because the regulations stipulated that fifty per cent of the men must be taken from the ranks of relief labour.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Fifty per cent only.
Mr. O'NEILL:	Yes, but the other fifty
per cent were key men.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Not entirely.
Mr. O'NEILL: But there were cases of that kind, although I grant the minister that it may not have been the rule. I should like it understood that I am not trying to blame him; I am simply calling his attention to a condition which existed last year and which should be rectified this year. I am not complaining; I am merely calling the attention of the committee to a condition which actually existed.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Norman McLeod Rogers: The complaint may be justified, but I am drawing attention to the fact that the stipulation was for fifty per cent only.
Mr. O'NEILL:	I am calling the minister's
attention to the condition which existed in the hope that he may look into the situation before next year and have that condition eliminated.


Mr. BARBER:: The criticism I have to
offer is similar to that of the hon. member for Kamloops. I believe the practice in administering the problem of relief, a practice confirmed at this session, whereby the selection is made chiefly from the unemployed list, is driving more and more to unemployment. Many instances of that kind have come to my attention. I have in mind a man who had been working on some provincial undertaking, to which a fifty per cent contribution was made by this government, and who while working suffered an injury. For a time he was under workmen's compensation, but as soon as he recovered sufficiently he went back to get his job. The foreman said to him "You cannot come back to work until you go down and get a relief card." That man had a wife and five children. His reply was "I do not want to go on relief; I am fighting to keep off it." Finally he had to go down and get a relief card before he could get on the job. I think the policy of the government should be to give work to those men who are on the verge of going on relief and who have done their utmost to keep off the relief rolls. I think it is in the interests of the country to keep as many as possible off relief. Receiving employment on these works should not depend upon a man being on the relief rolls.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I ought to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill) and the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber). In drafting the agreements last year we had in mind the point which has just been raised; that is, we did not wish to discriminate against the unemployed who had been able to keep off relief. At the same time we felt that if we were making these large expenditures ostensibly for relief purposes, they should reduce the relief rolls. Therefore, we made it a stipulation that at least fifty per cent of those employed on these projects should be taken from the relief rolls. In order to prevent a man going on relief in order to secure employment we stipulated that the names should be taken from the relief rolls as they existed on a particular date, or that they should be taken from the rolls as they existed when the agreement
came into effect. There was no inducement during the period when these projects were under way for a man to go on relief in order to secure work. It is conceivable that certain mistakes may have been made, or certain abuses may have arisen, but on the other hand we have had such a measure of success that during the past year there has been definite evidence, which we did not have before, that some sixty per cent of those actually employed upon the projects were taken from the relief rolls. To that extent the financial burden upon the nearby municipalities was reduced.


Ernest Edward Perley: On looking up page 2359 of Hansard I find that the information given there does not answer my question. I asked the minister if the increase in farm placements as shown by the figures he has just given, 20,168 for the month of January, 1937 over the month of January, 1936, was included in the increase of 50,000 in employment which the minister gave when speaking on the resolution.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The figure given was 56,000. That was really a decrease in unemployment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was 500,000 as against
556,000.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I would not say that those figures were included in the estimate of the bureau. The figures as to farm placements were included in the totals which I placed upon Hansard. I gave the totals on relief, both direct and indirect, for this year and last year.


Ernest Edward Perley: They were not included in the increase in employment?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No, because that is only an estimate by the bureau of statistics based upon a number of factors, including returns made by trade unions, employment indices and one or two other factors, which I think my hon. friend will find mentioned in the previous debate. That is an estimate of unemployment made by the bureau of statistics; it goes beyond those who are on relief.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It starts with the census of 1931.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the minister mean that those men taken care of under the farm placement scheme are still included in those who are on relief?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The first comparative totals I gave covered those in receipt of direct relief. They are not included in that. Then I gave two other totals which included the farm placements and those in receipt of indirect relief.
2634	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was a third column headed "Other Relief."


Mr. MacNEIL:: Could the minister give the total disbursements from the federal treasury during the past fiscal year for direct relief, relief projects, relief in the drought area and projects for single unemployed?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The hon. member will understand that the books for the past year are not closed and that there are some accounts still to be paid. The total disbursements for relief purposes up to date by the federal government amount to 841,820,966.85.


Charles Grant MacNeil: A statement attributed to the minister appeared in the daily press to the effect that he intended to reduce the grants in aid to the provinces. If that is his intention, I should like to know upon what basis or upon what survey such a reduction is to take place.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The figure I have just given covers all forms of relief and not only grants in aid. The statement I made with regard to our policy in connection with grants in aid to the provinces was to the effect that it might be anticipated that there would be a reduction during the coming year. The precise degree of the reduction is now receiving consideration. I am not at all sure that any formula can be devised for the apportionment of dominion grants in aid among the provinces which would wholly remove any possibility of fair criticism. I imagine that if my hon. friend has reflected upon that matter himself, he will agree with me. You cannot take population as the sole index in apportioning the grants in aid, as that would ignore the real relief situation. You cannot necessarily take the numbers on relief, as that would tend to penalize the provinces that have tried to keep their relief rolls down. You cannot take relief expenditures as the sole criterion for the apportionment of grants in aid among the provinces. That, in turn, would tend to place a premium upon laxity of administration and would perhaps favour those provinces which have maintained a higher relief scale than others. In making an apportionment of grants in aid among the provinces, we shall try to keep in mind the various factors involved:	I should like to
stress this point. In the apportionment of these grants in aid among the provinces we are dealing with one aspect of a rather delicately balanced financial relationship between the dominion and the provinces. It is rather difficult to know w'here the problem of social services ends and the problem of relief begins. Obviously they are very closely related. As the whole, problem of social ser-
vices raises the question of dominion and provincial jurisdiction in an acute manner at the present time, so also does this question of relief, and particularly of the distribution of the dominion grant in aid among various provinces where relief is being paid.
I find that I gave in error to my hon. friend the figure for 1935 of the total paid for relief purposes. I now have the figures for 1936. Perhaps it would be to the advantage of the committee if I placed them upon Hansard:
Grants in aid	$25,997,702	28Other forms of relief.. ..	9,457,506	51Total	
35,455,208	79
That is on the basis of accounts received up to this time.


Mr. D. A. McNIVEN:: (Regina City): This section authorizes the minister and the governor general in council to enter into arrangements with the provinces, and presumably precludes any arrangement with or recognition of a municipality. The section is very much the same as that in last year's bill, and it is therefore proper to assume that the arrangements entered into with the provinces will be similar in terms to those entered into last year. The contract that was entered into with the province of Saskatchewan last year did not afford any relief to the unemployment problem in our urban centres. I do not wish to be understood as criticizing the expenditure of the money that was spent in Saskatchewan or the disbursements on the road construction work which was agreed upon. I admit that the construction of roads offers an indirect benefit to every urban centre inasmuch as it facilitates communication, ingress and egress to and from those urban centres. But it does not relieve our unemployment problem. That problem in its urban aspects is common to every city and town in our province. I think it is accentuated in the territory south of the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and is at its worst, I believe, in the city of Regina. May I ask that the minister when dealing with the provinces will keep in mind that it is federal money which is being distributed, that it is a federal problem we are undertaking to correct, and that that problem can be corrected only if some portion of the moneys voted is used for the relief of unemployment in the urban centres?
Last year the money which was used in Saskatchewan was applied to road construction, and by another contract which was entered into, it was provided that employment should be had in those districts where the work was undertaken, and that fifty per

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
cent of such employment must be taken off the recognized relief rolls. Last summer I wired to the minister pointing out that situation, and received a sympathetic reply from him-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Donald Alexander McNiven: -indicating that it was his belief and his hope that the moneys so voted and so used would assist in relieving the unemployment problem in the urban centres. I am relying upon the sympathetic note in his wire for the minister to see to it in entering into the contracts this year that there shall be a recognition of the situation in the urban centres and that definite provision will be made to alleviate our problem there.
For example, take the use of trucks. In the first place it was intended that relief recipients should provide the trucks. But if a man had a truck he could not get on relief; therefore it was not possible to get from relief recipients the trucks necessary to do the work.
It was also provided, at least it was insisted, that trucks on these jobs should be driven by relief recipients. Many owners took their trucks off the work and came to me, stating that they would not permit relief recipients to drive them. They pointed out that a truck was worth three thousand dollars, and that an inexperienced driver who failed to exercise the necessary care and caution with such a valuable piece of mechanism could do five hundred or a thousand dollars' worth of damage to it in a comparatively short time. Consequently contractors found it exceedingly difficult to provide the necessary haulage.
The situation may be best illustrated by a reference to the problem as it exists in Regina. There it is two-fold. In the first place, General Motors Corporation started a plant in Regina in 1928; it was completed in that year, and by the spring of 1929, 1,130 men were employed in the factory. It closed on June 2, reopened four months later for a month or six weeks, and has not turned a wheel since. The company's present employment in Regina is one watchman. Those 1,100 men, brought into Regina from all parts of the country, were left definitely on our doorstep and constitute a substantial part of our relief problem. One of these families that came in had thirteen children.
The second part of our relief problem results from migration to the city from the dried out areas in the rural parts of Saskatchewan and other places. The proportions of that migration are very substantial, and it has increased both our population and our relief problem.
One man who came from a district not far from where the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) lives brought eighteen children with him.


Ernest Edward Perley: Good for him.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Hon.
members will understand that such a situation repeated very often will in itself create a problem.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It would be the exception, I take it.


Donald Alexander McNiven: At the present time we have 2,500 families on relief, or 15,000 individuals out of a population of 63,000. Existing school accommodation and hospitalization are crowded to their capacity; to-day there is not a vacant house in which one would want to live in the city, and there is an increasing number of houses being occupied by good, honest, reputable people in which probably none of us would care to live. The city urgently needs two hundred houses, and 1,300 should be erected; houses of four rooms, but not to accommodate the family that came to us from Qu'Appelle. A recent census showed twenty-seven persons living in nine rooms, and I think the minister will agree that such a situation should not continue but should be remedied at the earliest possible moment.
There are certain municipal works that could be undertaken as relief measures, or alternatively the government could assist in financing them. The leader of the opposition speaking on this subject a few days ago said that the former government had assisted the city of Winnipeg in the completion of its sewage disposal works as a relief venture. For the past two years Regina has been in need of a new sewage disposal plant, and it has come to the point where the city health authorities are afraid that because of the present condition an epidemic may break out. The plant is located within a very short distance of the mounted police barracks, within a quarter of a mile of the industrial school, and on the banks of a creek that flows through the surrounding country; and the city has been threatened with injunction proceedings by the residents in the territory between the city and the point where the creek flows into the Qu'Appelle river. That is one work that could and must be undertaken. It would provide definite relief for at least a part of the unemployed.
There are also such works as the gravelling of streets, grade crossings and a number of other things that could be undertaken. The city council has considered this problem in great detail. Committees of citizens have considered it from every angle and their con-
2636	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
elusions, together with an estimate of the cost, representations as to the need for this work, and particulars of the problem that faces us have been forwarded to the National Employment Commission. I do hope that the minister, before completing any agreement with Saskatchewan, will find out from the National Employment Commission what consideration they have given to these requests and the suggestions that have been made; and if consideration has not been given, that he will require that august body to take the matter seriously under advisement.
I wish to discuss now a matter I have already taken up with the Minister of Labour. In 1919 a grant of $10,000,000 was made for technical education, to be disbursed over a period of ten years. Saskatchewan did not come within its purview as soon as some of the other provinces did. I then represented Regina in the local legislature, and I interviewed the present Minister of Finance and the present Minister of Agriculture who were respectively at that time Premier and Minister of Highways in the Saskatchewan government. They were not anxious to have Saskatchewan accept any liability under the terms of that act. They pointed out definitely that it provided for a service which Saskatchewan did not require and could not afford, and that just so soon as the ten year period was up the dominion government would leave the problem on the doorstep of the municipality or of the province and financial difficulty would follow. Everything those two gentlemen said to me on that occasion has come true. By an act passed in 1929 the term of the original act was extended, and by another act it was extended in 1934; but the whole $10,000,000 has now been expended, and in this time of stress and strain I understand that it is the intention of the government to leave the problem of technical education directly at the door of the provincial government and the municipalities.
A great deal has been said about the education of youth and the training of young people, and at a time when it seems possible to do so little for the young men and women of the present day it does strike me as a retrograde step for us to withdraw our support of technical education. Some may wonder why the province or the municipality does not accept that responsibility. There are three technical schools in Saskatchewan, located in Regina, Moose Jaw and Saskatoon. The student body is enrolled from the whole of the surrounding country, and for several years now these institutions have been giving a much needed service. It is true they charge a fee, but last year there were 140 students in the Regina institution alone who paid no

fee, and who were given instruction and the necessary training in some trade or business or airt to enable them to take a job when the opportunity comes along. They were placed in a better position to earn a livelihood than if these facilities were not available.
The question may be asked: Why does not the province assume that responsibility? I am not going to enlarge upon the disasters that have beset us during the last few years, but in this session of the legislature, in addition to all the taxation that has been imposed upon the people of Saskatchewan for the maintenance of the public and high school and university systems, a two per cent sales tax has been passed designed for the betterment of education, to raise $1,500,000 which will be earmarked for this purpose.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar some time ago referred to the deplorable condition that teachers find themselves in

arrears of salaries amounting to $1,000,000. The government has recognized these arrears as an obligation to be taken care of, and this year a plan is provided whereby the arrears will be liquidated over a four year period and a percentage paid each year. The express intention of the government to discontinue the grants to technical schools will mean increased taxation, amounting in our city alone to something like $14,000. That does not seem a great deal, but the result will be that the citizens of Regina will have to pay that sum or there will be a curtailment in the service rendered, a reduction in the number of subjects taught and in the number of teachers employed. I would ask the minister under this bill and out of these moneys to give serious consideration to continuance of the grants to the technical schools of the province so as to enable them to give the service that they have given in years gone by. Let us at least make that contribution towards improving conditions for the young people, whose only prospect of betterment in life is through the training which they get in their youth.
There is another matter which I think the minister might well take into consideration. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre referred to it briefly. No federal government and no provincial government has recognized any plan for the provision of medical service of any kind. In southern Saskatchewan the situation is such that the doctors have moved out of the territory. Many doctors did not during the course of a year collect enough in actual cash to pay for the gasoline required to run their cars. Doctors have given service for as long as possible and then in selfdefence have moved to some other district.

Banking and Commerce
There are large areas entirely without medical service. That reflects again upon the situation in the cities, where patients are brought in for medical treatment and hospitalization. True, the bills are charged against the municipalities, but the municipalities cannot pay, and year after year the citizens of our larger centres are paying in increased taxation for the deficits of the municipally owned hospitals. In Regina the city itself provides medical attention and dental and optical service, drugs and such other medical assistance as is required, and neither the province nor the dominion makes any contribution towards those expenditures. That is an additional reason why I ask the minister to take into consideration some public undertaking in the urban centres to relieve our unemployment problem.
This or a similar bill has been before this house each year now for about six years, and the basis has always been that the problem of relief and unemployment is a municipal problem, and that where it is not a municipal problem it is a provincial problem, and the federal government assumes responsibility only when it becomes a national calamity. Then the question arises, at what point does it become a national calamity? It seems to me that the time has arrived and perhaps long before this, when we should regard this problem as a more or less permanent one. In saying that I am not advocating any defeatist philosophy. I realize that unemployment has decreased some 6-6 per cent, but it still remains a very substantial problem. If instead of enacting these bills from year to year and providing for contributions to unemployment relief, some basis could be arrived at so that the municipalities would know for some time ahead what they could expect in the way of assistance should the problem reach certain proportions, they would be in a much better position than at present. People in our urban centres will not invest in homes, will not engage in any housing scheme, will not take any part in the home improvement plan. I had word just this morning that there has not been a single loan approved under the Dominion Housing Act in Saskatchewan. I assure the minister that it is not because of lack of effort on the part of the citizens in making the plan known. The reason is the uncertainty as to what is going to happen; that is, are the urban centres to be required to assume 20 per cent or 30 per cent of relief costs or are they going to have to pay the whole of that cost, and what will it amount to in the way of increased taxation?
A short time ago I heard the hon. member for Greenwood make some caustic comment about Queen's park. I do not desire to enter into a discussion of Ontario politics, but I think we all recognize that the government at Queen's park in the short term of two years has been the first provincial government in Canada to balance its budget.


Denton Massey: Taking the money from the people and then giving it back.


Donald Alexander McNiven: They not only balanced their budget but to an almost unprecedented amount, something over $7,000,000, and at the same time announced a reduction in the debt of some $26,000,000.


Mr. SPENCE :: It is all rot.


Donald Alexander McNiven: But included in their budget is the sum of $17,000,000 collected from succession duties. May I remind the committee that $17,000,000 from succession duties is a greater sum than was ever collected in Saskatchewan from any source or from all sources.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



BANKING AND COMMERCE

James Gray Turgeon: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request the unanimous consent of the house to revert to the order of motions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It depends on the purpose of the hon. gentleman.


James Gray Turgeon: It is for the purpose of presenting, on behalf of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore), the fifth report of the standing committee on banking and commerce.
On the order for motions:
Mr. TURGEON presented the fifth report of the standing committee on banking and commerce, as follows:
That the following private bills, reported upon' to-day by the standing committee on banking and commerce, without amendment, be placed upon the orders of the day for consideration this day in committee of the whole and for third reading:
Bill No. 91, respecting the Premier Trust Company-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's).
Bill No. 95, to incorporate The Canadian Mercantile Insurance Company.-Mr. Fontaine.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before that is proceeded with, someone should move the adoption of the report that has just been read.
Elections and Franchise


Jean-François Pouliot: I object to the way the motion is drafted. It should be amended. These bills cannot be submitted for consideration in committee of the whole and for third reading; they must be considered by the committee and given third reading later.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not quite follow the proceedings, Mr. Speaker; did you declare the motion carried in regard to the adoption of the report which was read?


Walter Edward Foster: That was simply a report of the committee, reporting upon these bills.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then this motion to put these bills on the order paper for consideration certainly cannot include third reading, which must be for the house to determine.


James Gray Turgeon: Then perhaps the words "and for third reading'' might be deleted.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am delighted to see that the right hon. leader of the opposition agrees with me.
Motion as amended agreed to.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



ELECTIONS AND FRANCHISE


Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current):: 26.	That a penalty clause be inserted in the act for employers who refuse to grant, or who interfere in any way with the granting of, two additional hours to their employees for voting.
27.	That the use of the official stamp be discontinued, and a printed impression from an electro or printers block be substituted therefor, on the back of the ballot paper.
28. That candidates' agents shall not be allowed to vote on a transfer certificate until after they have subscribed to both the oath in form 17, and form 22.
29.	That flags, bunting and loud speakers on cars and trucks and other vehicles should be prohibited on election day.
30. That candidates' agents should, to a reasonable extent, be permitted by law to absent themselves from, and to return to, the polling station at which they are acting.
31.	That after the words "shall publish" in section 63, subsection 5 of the act, the words "in the form prescribed by the Chief Electoral Officer," should be inserted.
32.	That the statement of the poll in form 31 and the certificate of the votes polled in form 32 should be prepared on similar forms, preferably form 31.
33.	That the letter "W" should not be used in the description of women's names on the list of electors.
Owing to the shortness of the session, your committee has been unable to complete its study of the methods used to effect redistribution of electoral districts in Canada and other countries, and the evidence at present before it does not warrant a final report thereon. Your committee therefore suggests that this subject be further considered during the next session of parliament.
Your committee wishes to express its appreciation of the assistance and advice received at all times from the Chief Electoral Officer and the Dominion Franchise Commissioner, as well as from the counsel to the committee. Mr. Butcher has made an exhaustive study of all phases of franchise, election and redistribution legislation of other parts of the empire and of other countries, the laws of which might afford information valuable to the committee. The result of his study will be found in the minutes of proceedings and evidence. Your committee therefore endorses the action of the government in furnishing counsel.
Your committee further recommends that the evidence taken, together with an index, be printed as an appendix to the Journals of the House. A copy of the minutes of proceedings and evidence taken by the committee is attached hereto.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 44, for -the relief of Clara Emily Taylor Elkin.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Yetta Ginsburg. [DOT]-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Marguerite Emily Coombe Low.-Mr. Jacobs.

Bill No. 47, for the relief Mary May Rowell Thom.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Eva Josephine Millicent Good Ross.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Eva Schiller Lightstone.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Grace Ellen Doris Newman.-Mr. Lennard.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Ruth Jessica Kimpton Shiells.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Gretna Golden Laird Rankin.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Frank Horace Wood.-Mr. Sinclair.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Edith Mary Bowers-Hill O'Hagan.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Isobel Jean Herbert Fleming Johnson.-Mr. White.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Emilie Letsch-Rutishauser.-Mr. MacMillan.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Miriam Silver-man.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Alice Hickman Inge.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Muriel Beatrice Brown Gray.

Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Joseph Gedeon Emilien Tanguay.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Mabel Marjorie Powter Johnston.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Norah Clara Simson Warden.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Evelyn Mc-Caughan McBride.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Marie Liette Fortier Mickles.-Mr. White.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Cecile Snyder Rashback.

Mr. Betts.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 91, respecting the Premier Trust Company.-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's).
Bill No. 95, to incorporate The Canadian Mercantile Insurance Company.-Mr. Fontaine.
Mr. STEWART:: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the two bills that were placed on the order paper to-day for third reading are included in the motion for the third reading of the bills you have just enumerated? There was an objection to the third reading.


Walter Edward Foster: They will stand for third reading.

Railway Act-Rates on Grain



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) moved the second reading of Bill No. 16, to amend the Railway Act (rates on grain).
Walter Edward Foster: Is the bill opposed? If it is, it cannot be proceeded with.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: We cannot say whether it is opposed until we know what the hon. member has to say.


Walter Edward Foster: Let the hon. gentleman proceed; if there is opposition the bill will have to stand.


Mr. REID:: I am not unaware of the lateness of the session, but owing to the importance of this bill to the people of British Columbia I intend to proceed with it so as to bring before the house not only the serious conditions affecting particularly the farmers of that province, but also the gross injustice which we in British Columbia have suffered almost from the time the railways were built, in the present discrimination against us in the matter of rates.
What we are asking for in this bill, which has been before the house on at least five occasions, is not a special favour, but simply that the freight rates on all grain and mill feeds westward shall be on the same basis aa the rates eastward. I repeat, British Columbia is not asking for any special favour. Many members seem to have got the idea that this is what the province has been looking for and now expects, and at various times when the bill has been before the house statements have also been made to the effect that this is not the proper place in which to debate the freight rates question.
Parliament dealt with this matter in 1925 because in that year the railway act was amended in connection with rates, only it failed to give to the west and British Columbia the same consideration as was given the east, and which the east has enjoyed ever since the railways were built. It is not my intention to weary the house with comparisons, but as I develop the argument it will be necessary for me to make at least some brief comparisons so that hon. members who are not already conversant with the situation will get some idea of the discriminations.
When the Crowsnest pass rates were put into effect on grain and mill feeds from Crowsnest pass to Fort William, grain was simply designated grain; there was in the
act no such thing as a rate for grain used domestically, and a rate for grain when exported. It has been stated during various arguments that the rate was put into effect to develop export trade. If I had time I could go into the figures, but I realize the shortness of the time at my disposal. I could prove to the house that when the Crowsnest pass rates were put into effect there was very little or no grain moving out of Canada. We were not then in the position we have been in during the past number of years.
It has also been stated that the export rate on grain via British Columbia is on a like basis with that eastward via Fort William, but even a cursory glance at the rates and distances shows that such is not the case. For example, from Calgary to Vancouver, a distance of 642 miles, we are charged a rate of 20 cents for export. For a distance of 1,242 miles eastward, the rate is 26 cents. That works out at 1-962 cents per one hundred miles per bushel. I quote the rate per one hundred miles because one hundred miles is considered one day's run on the railway. As against that figure, the rate from Calgary to Fort William is 1-254 cents per one hundred miles per bushel. Or the ton-mile rate works out at -654 going westward, against -418 to Fort William.
We in British Columbia are paying an average of from 30 to 80 per cent higher rates than the eastern provinces are enjoying andi have enjoyed, for many years. Take, for example, the rate from Montreal to Saint John, 487 miles, the rate being 22 cents, whereas for a like distance to Vancouver it is 36^ cents or 65-9 per cent greater. From Toronto to Saint John, 809-5 miles, the rate is 35 cents as against a rate for a like distance to Vancouver or New Westminster of 46 cents, or 31-4 per cent greater. One could go right along the line comparing rates east and west, which would show very plainly that we in British Columbia are being heavily penalized.
With regard to the argument used by the railways before the board of railway commissioners that the rates fixed for export were to develop trade, it would interest hon. members to know that there are some eastward export rates which are higher than the domestic rate, which proves that the farmers and the people of the east are getting their grain requirements at a considerable freight reduction and at far lower rates than we in British Columbia obtain. I shall give only one or two comparisons.

Railway Act-Rates on Grain

From Fort William to Montreal the distance is 995 miles; the export rate is 24 cents, and the domestic rate only 20 cents. Compare that with what we in British Columbia are up against, where for a distance of 642 miles we are charged 20 cents as an export rate, and 41 cents domestic. It is true that a temporary rate was put into effect on feed grain, but not on mill feeds. But even that temporary rate is considerably higher than what the east enjoys. Again, take the rate Winnipeg to Montreal, 1,414 miles by Canadian National; the export rate is 38 cents as against 34 cents domestic.
The railways have always argued that the rate is what the traffic will bear. If that rule were applied in British Columbia, the rates would have to be cut considerably, because to-day farmers are paying S47 per ton for wheat, while eggs only bring 18 cents a dozen wholesale. The railways have lost considerable revenues by not reducing the rates to British Columbia. I have before me some very interesting figures showing the loss of revenue suffered now by the railways compared with their revenue in 1928. In that year British Columbia was shipping about 400 carloads of eggs, and the revenue to the railways was in that year 8278,000. But last year practically no such revenue accrued^ to the railways for carrying eggs, because prices of eggs and chickens have been so low most of the poultry men had gone completely out of business.
Another argument used by the railways, and I think the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) has also used it, is that Canada has the lowest freight rates in the world. It is unfair to compare rates across the line and here; but if such comparisons are to be made I have some here which are very interesting. If one takes a similar distance going westward from a point in the western states one finds that grain and mill feeds are carried in the United States at somewhat less than the domestic rates in British Columbia. For instance, from Cobourg to Seattle, 921 miles, grains of all grades from No. 1 down, and mill feeds as well, are carried at 41i cents. In 1934 the average freight rate per ton mile in Canada was -975 whereas in the United States it was -978. In 1935 the average freight rate in Canada, taking the long haul and short haul, was -972 per ton mile, whereas in the United States it was -988. I venture to say, however, that one cause for the United States figure being a little higher is that wages in the states are at least 15 per cent higher than in Canada.
If one had time to go into the intricacies of our freight rate structure he would find that for short hauls in Canada the rates are far

higher than in the United States. But the only rule we have and the only comparison we can make, which is not a fair one, is to take the long haul rate, add it to the short haul rate, and that gave an average in 1931 of -972 in Canada as against -988 in the United States. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that where the railways are losing the most money, with very little being said about it, is on their passenger traffic. It is interesting to note that passenger rates have gone down but the cost of maintaining and operating passenger equipment has remained practically the same, and as the passenger traffic decreases, the tendency of the railways is to increase freight rates in order to help carry the burden. I say it would be well for the railway companies to ask themselves how long this freight rate structure can last, and how long freight can carry the load of the passenger traffic.
It might be of interest to note the drop in passenger revenue, which in 1923 amounted to
839.285.000	for the Canadian National and
838.050.000	for the Canadian Pacific. In 1926 that dropped to just over 838,000,000 for the Canadian National, and to 835,811,000 for the Canadian Pacific; in 1935 the passenger revenue on the Canadian National had dropped to 816,645,000, a loss of over $22,000,000, and to
815.031.000	on the Canadian Pacific, a loss of some $23,000,000. In spite of this, passenger fares were reduced. The railways were built principally for freight service, and unless the railway companies go after freight and give the service that the motor trucks are willing to give and are giving, I can see no great future for them in carrying freight, unless it be in the long hauls of commodities such as wheat and lumber.
I would suggest to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) that he take note of this drop in passenger revenue, because if it keeps going down I believe the railway companies might be inclined to increase their freight rates in order to make up the deficiency. Freight is now carrying all the burden it can carry. To-day the public are motor minded, and in freight motor truck minded, not solely because we have motor trucks and motor cars, but because the motor truck is out to give service at a reasonable price. The trucking companies can quote rates immediately, when one asks how much it will cost to haul a ton of freight from one point to another. There is not the red tape that is still found in the railways, who sometimes tell us that they will have to send to Winnipeg or Montreal in order to find out what the rate will be. Yes, the railways have always had to be protected against themselves. When the express companies brought their system into

_____________Combines Investigation Act



UNEMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
operation, they had to do so against the wishes of the heads of the railway companies. Later on the Pullman company had to put in sleepers, and still later, when refrigerator cars were required, the packers had to develop them instead of the railways. Then when the interurban electric lines began to run side by side with the railway lines, the railway companies did nothing; they just sat back as though the old horse and buggy days still prevailed, hoping that the people would still continue to patronize the railways. If one wants to ship a calf by railway he is charged just as much as for a bull weighing two thousand pounds. The public have lost confidence in the railways, and the railways must do something in order to win back that confidence.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that the hour for bills has about expired, and as I would like to hear what the Minister of Transport has to say I will reserve any further remarks until the matter comes up again.
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this bill has been discussed in this house at some length on several occasions. I believe the matter first developed in 1926, when an application was made by certain grain interests on the west coast for the imposition of the Crowsnest rate on grain from the prairie province to Vancouver for export. The decision of the board, I think in 1928, granted that application as far as export grain was concerned. Subsequently an appeal was taken on behalf of the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, and an application was made to the board to have that export rate apply to domestic movements of grain from the prairies to British Columbia. This application was denied by the board and an appeal was taken to the governor in council. By private arrangement between the railways and the provinces, in which the government of the day acted as intermediary, voluntary action was taken whereby the rate on feed grains was lowered by about half the difference between the domestic and export rates.
The purpose of this bill, as I understand it, is to have the export rate apply to the movement of all grains, that is, domestic grains of milling grade, as well as to feed grains. In the history of rate making in Canada a distinction always has been drawn between the movement of commodities for export and the movement of commodities for domestic consumption.


Walter Edward Foster: The hour for private and public bills having expired the house will revert to the business under consideration before six o'clock.
31111-167}



PROVISION FOR ALLEVIATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT AND AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 80, to assist in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress-Mr. Rogers-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Norman McLeod Rogers: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour) moved the third reading of Bill No. 41, to amend and consolidate the Combines Investigation Act and Amending Act.
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, were it not so near the close of the session it would be deemed expedient on the motion for third reading to move certain amendments in order to emphasize objections we have made to certain details of the bill. True, when the bill was before committee of the whole house we pointed out a number of very serious objections, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) agreed to certain modifications which will certainly improve the bill.
Nevertheless, as the bill now stands, it is unprecedented in the legislative history of this parliament. It provides for a wider' scope for investigations than has been provided by any previous legislation. In fact, if one goes to the very essential features of the bill he finds it provides for the investigation of any business whatsoever in Canada, whether or not it is alleged to be a combine within the provisions of the criminal code. It may be used to investigate any business whatsoever, although it is admitted that it is not within the legislative competence of this parliament to enact legislation concerning investigations of this nature, except in regard to subject matters which are within the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, or matters necessarily incidental to subject matters which are within the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament.
This bill in the condition in which it appears for third reading may be used solely for purposes of intimidation, and wide scope is given the commissioner for the exercise of his discretion. Under those circumstances I think there should be certain qualifications for the

Combines Investigation Act
office of commissioner, and I have so suggested. But this bill provides for no qualifications whatsoever, although the commissioner has more extensive powers than any judge of any superior court in any province of Canada.
Then again I suggest that in connection with all investigations with regard to preliminary and, subsequently, more widely extended inquiries, the minister's consent should be necessary. We should not leave to a commissioner, for whom no qualifications are prescribed in the act, the sole discretion for continuing these proceedings, except with the consent of the minister who should accept full responsibility for investigations of this kind.
Then, under section 7 the government have taken power by order in council to enlarge the scope and application of the act, and to authorize investigation into other matters which are not provided for by the express terms of the act. I have also pointed out that in subsection 1 of section 2 there should be certain amendments, to which the minister has declined to consent.
Under the circumstances it would be only a waste of time to make a motion at this time to refer the bill or any sections of it back to a committee of the whole house. Having expressed our position generally and in detail, and with sufficient clearness so that our position from time to time was obvious and understood, I have no further objection to the third reading of the bill, on division.


Walter Edward Foster: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Richard Bedford Bennett: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the third time and passed.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 80, to assist in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress-Mr. Rogers-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 3-Works and undertakings.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to make any observations now with respect to a matter which was mentioned this afternoon, but had intended to say a few words when the estimates were before the house. I refer to the question of technical education. I trust it may be possible for the minister in determining what assistance should be given to the various communities, at the

request of the provinces, to make some provision for technical education in the western provinces. I need hardly remind him of the commission which sat so long and of the report which was made under the direction of the late Doctor Robertson, and of the aid that has been given from time to time to various schools in the country to promote and improve the technical education of our young men and women. I had proposed when the estimates were under consideration to urge upon the minister the desirability of taking this suggestion into consideration when dealing with the question of how he might assist the municipalities and communities and particularly the young people of the country.
There is one other question I should like again to bring to the attention of the minister, and that is with respect to assistance to municipalities. Every day brings me communications from some of the municipalities complaining that they have not received that assistance which they conceive the demands made upon their taxing ability should warrant-or do warrant; I will go that far. It is quite clear that the theory upon which relief is granted is sometimes misunderstood in this country. The first person to whom one turns for assistance in time of difficulty is one's immediate neighbour. So we have the community responsible, in the first instance. The nearby community is responsible in the first instance for assistance to those who require food, clothing or shelter. When it is unable to give them adequate support, they turn next to the institution which has been created as a body corporate to deal with matters of that kind, namely, the municipality. When the municipality is unable to deal with the matter, it turns to the province which created it and asks for support and assistance. But the provinces were not created by the dominion, and having regard to the contentions which are ever made by them as to their sovereign rights, it is an entirely different thing for a municipality to turn to the province to which it owes its life and origin, and, on the other hand, for a province to turn to the dominion to which it does not owe its life and origin, and with which it claims almost equal powers under the constitution. Having regard to the recent decisions of the privy council, it is quite clear that the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces can do much to nullify the exercise of the powers of the national assembly which we know as parliament.
During our regime we did endeavour to promote the idea that if a municipality desired assistance from the dominion, they should urge their claim upon the province. This

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
afternoon the hon. member for Regina 'City (Mr. McNiven) stated that the claims of Regina had been urged before the employment commission. Obviously that commission had nothing in the world to do with it. It was a matter that should have been urged upon the provincial government; and they could have made such representations as '.the national character of the present economic condition might have warranted the dominion considering. I do suggest to the minister that it is desirable to have it clearly understood, from a statement by himself, that if the municipalities in the various provinces desire to have the dominion consider the merits of their claims, they should press them upon the attention of the provincial authorities, so that when grants in aid are being made it might be possible for the minister to impose as a condition of a grant to a province that a certain defined portion of the moneys thus granted shall be utilized within the various municipalities; and if thought desirable they might be named.
That is how it came about that certain classes of work were undertaken in Winnipeg, Calgary, Regina and Edmonton. There just occurs to me at the moment, for instance, the bridge across the river at Saskatoon, as well as the bridge further up the river outside the city. These are illustrations of the same principle. If it is clearly established that the municipalities are pressing their claims upon the provinces in the terms that were mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank), then the provinces will be more likely to present the claims of the municipalities to the minister when the grants in aid are being made, and regard could be had to the enormous, ever-increasing and almost intolerable burden that is being placed upon the municipalities by the number of people who have come in from various outlying sections to live within their boundaries. If this burden is continued it means certain municipal bankruptcy.
If the provinces are not aware of the fact, it is time they knew that in pressing for grants in aid there should be a clear indication from the government that a certain portion, whether in percentage or amount, of the money thus granted should be utilized by the province in grants to the municipalities to enable them to discharge the functions which devolve upon them by reason of their being charged with the exercise of those functions by the legislature of the province to which they belong. The municipality in exercising power exercises it by reason of a grant made by the legislature. If the government of a province would urge that, I am quite satisfied
the minister would find himself in a position where he could earmark for specific purposes portions of the grants in aid for the benefit of the municipalities, which are bearing an almost intolerable burden.
I think this was pressed upon the minister by the meeting of mayors held in this city the other day. I know it is unnecessary for me to state again that the situation has really become intolerable. Whether it be the oldest and richest city, or the youngest and the one with the least resources, the position is the same. I mention these two matters at this time. I had intended to mention them later on, but these remarks will obviate my having to make any further observations along these lines when the estimates are under consideration.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the leader of the opposition for directing attention to this difficulty which confronts the municipalities at this time. I might say to the committee that it was precisely this difficulty which led the dominion government more than a year ago to increase the grants in aid to the provinces on the explicit understanding that the increases would be passed on to the municipalities so far as possible. At that time I realized that a strong argument might be made upon the opposite ground that perhaps we were affording relief where such a measure of relief was not needed. The mayors' conference of December, 1935, emphasized most strongly the fact that unless some measure of that kind was adopted we would have widespread municipal bankruptcy in Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Unfortunately they did not all do it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Unfortunately some of the provinces did not carry out the entire undertaking. The leader of the opposition will understand that we could not indicate precisely the apportionment of that increase in grants in aid among the municipalities. The apportionment in the past has always been left to the provincial government. However, we made it as clear as possible in the order in council that the increase should be passed on to the municipalities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think at times we were able to confirm in the order in council the arrangements made between the province and the municipalities.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not aware of any case where that has been done, except with respect to works projects. At the present moment I am speaking of grants in aid. As
2646	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
to the further question of a works program during the coming year, the leader of the opposition will be aware that this matter is dealt with by a separate item in the supplementary estimates. I was impressed by what I learned from various mayors who attended the conference here some weeks ago as to the pressing nature of their problem in providing work for their unemployed. I would not have the committee believe that in the program of last year we were at all indifferent to that consideration. I would stress the fact that in our agreements with the various provinces we made the definite stipulation that at least fifty per cent of those engaged on the joint works projects should be taken from the relief rolls. Even though much of the highway work was not actually within the larger municipalities, much of it was adjacent thereto, and it did bring about a considerable reduction in the relief rolls of many towns and cities throughout the dominion.
I believe there is much force in the suggestion that a certain part of the money made available for joint works should be earmarked for the municipalities. This has been urged upon the Department of Labour from different angles. I have it in mind that a very useful means of carrying out that object would be the setting apart of a certain sum in each province for the improvement of playgrounds and recreational facilities in some of the larger cities and towns. I think I can assure the committee that when we engage in our negotiations with the provinces we will have that purpose very much in mind.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister for some information in connection with subsection 2 of section 3. This is substantially the same provisions as appeared in chapter 15 of the statutes of 1936. This subsection reads:
In the execution of any such work or undertaking provision shall be made, so far as it may be in the opinion of the governor in council practicable and consistent with reasonable efficiency and economy to do so, for the employment of persons who being available and competent are necessarily and properly in receipt of relief-
Now here are the words to which I wish to direct attention:
. . . and registered with the employment service of Canada for employment in the province in which such work or undertaking is to be performed.
The words to which I have drawn particular attention are not in the statute of last year.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is true.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think it is very desirable that those on relief rolls should be given work on these unemployment schemes of relief work; but I should like to know what is the significance in adding the words I have referred to. Does it restrict the number of those who are available for employment on works of this kind? Take, for instance, such a municipality as the minister has referred to in which relief works are being carried on, or where relief works are being carried on adjacent to that municipality-road work, we will say. Are those on the relief rolls of the municipality available for employment on those works, or must they also be registered with the employment service of Canada? And how do they get registered with the employment service in order to be available for employment on these relief works?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The purpose of adding this phrase is, I think, quite evident to my hon. friend. We desire that all able bodied persons on relief should, where possible, register at some branch employment service of Canada. But if, in the case he has instanced, there should not be an office of the employment service in the municipality where the work is being done or in the municipality which is nearest to the district where the work is being done, it would not be necessary that those working on that project should be registered with the employment service of Canada. Obviously that would be either physically impossible or physically inconvenient. I should think that the controlling words would be those above:
... so far as it may be in the opinion of the governor in council practicable and consistent with reasonable efficiency and economy to do so, for the employment of persons who being available and competent are necessarily and properly in receipt of relief and registered with the employment service of Canada for employment in the province in which such work or undertaking is to be performed.
Certainly we have no desire to discriminate against those on relief who do not have an opportunity to register with the employment service of Canada.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: 
Norman McLeod Rogers: This clause of the bill determines the action which will be taken under agreements with the provinces for the construction of joint projects. I think it is very desirable that where the work is being done either in a city or close to a city where there is a branch of the employment service, all those on relief in that particular community should register at the employment bureau for work. That being the case, no difficulty whatsoever would arise. Where the work is being done in a town or in a country district where there is not an employment bureau, it is, I think, quite clear from the wording of the clause that those who are on relief and otherwise available for this work would not be penalized by reason of the fact that they had not registered at the employment bureau. I am quite sure that a proper construction of the clause would be that it is where the governor in council determines that it is practicable and consistent with reasonable efficiency and economy to do so, that we require those working on these projects to be registered at the employment service of Canada. Certainly that is the intention, and it will be worked out in that way in the agreement.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am afraid that the language that has been chosen to express what the minister has just outlined is a little unfortunate, and that it enables and invites an interpretation quite the opposite of what the minister has stated. It seems to me that as this section stands, unless one is registered with the employment service of Canada he may not be available for work on these projects; he may not be able to claim the right of employment.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But will not be excluded.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should have thought it would be better to have left it as it was before-"being available and competent." Surely a man is available if he is on the relief roll of a town or municipality, without registration in the employment service of Canada. I do not want to press the matter too far, but I do wish it to be distinctly understood in the administration of this act that a deserving person on relief shall not be precluded from securing employment simply because of the fact that he is noit registered with the employment service of Canada. I do not know what object there is in putting that in there at all if that is not a final and an essential qualification.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have tried to make it clear that it is quite the reverse of our purpose to exclude any one from an opportunity
to accept employment on these works projects because he has not registered at an employment office. At the same time we do feel it desirable that where employment offices exist, those on relief should register at those offices for employment. I believe that the importance of that consideration is recognized in all parts of the country; that is to say, that all of those who are able bodied and on relief should register at an employment office if they have an opportunity to do so. Certainly, where there is not an employment office in the city where the work is being done, or near the place where the project is being constructed, there is no intention at all to require that they shall be registered before they axe eligible for employment on works projects. I might say that we have dealt essentially in the same way with this in past years in the agreements which we have had with the provinces. I do not agree that the clause as it stands is restrictive in character.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should like to ask the minister what provision there is for securing registration at these employment offices. Is it purely the act of the party desiring employment? Is any effort being made to secure registration of those who require employment?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is, I think, no question as to the facilities offered by the employment offices for registration of those who are unemployed and on relief. As a matter of fact, since the offices were opened this year, the chief purpose has been to secure employment for those registered at such offices. We wish to see that so far as possible that function is carried out efficiently.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How many offices are there, say, in the province of Ontario, to which an applicant might apply for registration?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am sorry I have not before me the departmental estimate book. I should judge that there would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of twenty-five or thirty such offices in the province of Ontario.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That just emphasizes the point-twenty-five or thirty offices in the whole province of Ontario which are available for registration by those on relief who desire to secure employment. I think the minister will see at once the inconvenience-


Norman McLeod Rogers: But it is not required.
Mr. STEWART The minister says it is not,
but as I read this section, that is a necessary
2648	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
qualification. I do not know how it will be administered, but as the section reads, that is required; you must be registered at an employment office.


Charles Avery Dunning: So far as practicable.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is not the controlling part of the subsection. Subsection 2 reads:
In the execution of any such work or undertaking provision shall be made, so far as it may be in the opinion of the governor in council practicable and consistent with reasonable efficiency and economy to do so, for the employment of persons who being available and competent are necessarily and properly in receipt of relief-
That is where it ends. Those are exactly the words that were in the section of last year.
-and registered with the employment service of Canada . . .
It is a further qualification; in addition to being available and competent they must be registered.


Charles Avery Dunning: So far as it is practicable and consistent with reasonable efficiency and economy.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Reasonable efficiency and economy has nothing to do with registration. That provision is applicable to something else, and not at all to registration.


Denton Massey: Did I understand the
minister to say that it was the intention or the hope of the government to do work in the municipalities in connection with the playgrounds? If that work can be carried on, why cannot work be done in slum clearance?


Norman McLeod Rogers: We work within the limitations of the appropriations made by parliament. I pointed out that there would be general approval throughout the country, at least in my opinion, if expenditures made within the municipalities for relief works were used for the purpose of improving playgrounds and recreational facilities. I do not doubt at all that some other useful purpose might be found for such expenditures, but I do doubt very much whether any expenditure would be so generally useful across Canada as the type I have indicated. It does not exclude slum clearance as a very useful means of relieving unemployment, and also of improving social conditions in Canada. I do not think, however, that the point arises under the section which is before the committee. It is entirely a matter of agreement with the provinces.


Denton Massey: I was interested in the minister's statement and I gathered from what he said that perhaps he had something in the

back of his mind which he had not made quite clear and that possibly some arrangement could be made, the principle of which would be applicable to the improvement of playgrounds; and I assumed that if that worthy work could be done satisfactorily, slum clearance and other matters of vital importance that we have been discussing, and the responsibility for which we were told rested with the municipalities might also be undertaken by federal grants.


Mr. LOCKHART:: With regard to the point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Stewart), in the case of municipalities just outside the larger cities like Toronto, where the rural population is considerably greater than elsewhere, how will the employment of men be handled where the employment service is not in operation?


Norman McLeod Rogers: In such a case employment is very often made through the local relief officer, so far as the percentage of workers taken off the relief roll is concerned. I think there is an obvious advantage, where a group of workers are engaged on these joint projects, that in such cases one should go to the relief officer who has knowledge of the needs and, to some extent, of the physical fitness of those who are on the relief roll in the municipality.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: That brings us back
to the point raised a few minutes ago. I have in mind two or three townships in the vicinity of the city where I reside. There is no employment service there, and there is nothing that will enable men to be brought in, because they must be registered with the employment commission.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I tried to make it clear that, at any rate in my own opinion, that is not mandatory. It is only in so far as the governor in council believes it to be practicable and consistent with reasonable efficiency and economy. There is that restriction on the unemployed on relief and on those registered with the employment service of Canada. As a matter of fact, in past years we have usually dealt with this question under our agreements with the provinces. The agreements have generally stipulated that where the employment bureau did exist, those taken for employment should be registered at the local office of the employment service.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: That would entirely
bar a borderline case.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Not at all, because under the agreements only fifty per cent of those who are working on these projects are required to be taken from the relief rolls, and

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
that leaves the other fifty per cent entirely free from any restriction. Both the provinces and we desire that these relief works shall give employment, in the first instance, to the unemployed on relief, and then to the unemployed who are not on relief. I do not think there is anything in the section before us, and certainly nothing is contemplated in the agreements which we shall make with the provinces, that will have the restrictive effect which my hon. friend seems to fear.


Mr. LENNARD:: My experience has been that in the public undertakings carried on in the vicinity of my home, it does not matter very much whether a man is properly registered or not. I know from experience that when men have applied to the foreman on certain public undertakings they have been told that they must procure a written recommendation from the local member, and that, of course, in our neighbourhood means a member of the local house. Men have applied to me and I have told them there is not much use my giving them a recommendation, though I have done so, but in no instance has it secured them the required employment. I know from experience that men in the county of Wentworth, when applying for positions on these public undertakings, have to get a written recommendation from the Liberal representative.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That would be all the more reason why my hon. friend should approve the suggestion that where practicable the employment service should be utilized. As he well knows, the agreements provide that there shall be no discrimination by reason of race, religion or political affiliation, and whenever complaint is received of discrimination on any of these grounds an inspector of the department is sent to make an investigation. When the report bears out the complaint we bring it at once to the attention of the party responsible for the violation of the agreement, and I am bound to say that generally the difficulty has been rectified.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I understand that the federal government has contributed towards the construction of highway No. 8 from Hamilton to Niagara Falls. Is that right?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I believe that is one of the projects included in the joint relief program with Ontario during the past year.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I agree entirely with
what the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard) said, that it was absolutely impossible for a man to get a job on that work-


Norman McLeod Rogers: Apparently there is nothing in our list of projects to indicate that that particular highway was included in our joint works program. I shall be glad to make further inquiry, and give the information when the estimates are before the committee. At present I can only say that apparently it was not in the program, therefore, it would be entirely a provincial project and beyond the control of the Department of Labour.


John Horne Blackmore: Is any of this registration with the employment service of Canada going on now?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I believe registration with the employment bureau is going on continuously. Many municipalities and some provinces require that all those receiving relief shall register with the employment service. They require that as some evidence that those receiving relief are willing to work. When work is offered through the employment service and men do not take it, that is taken as just cause for removing them from the relief roll.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Agreements with provinces.
Mr. ESLING:: I understood the minister to say this afternoon that no agreements had been entered into with the provinces. In that respect this bill is apparently different from that of last year, because in British Columbia there were fifteen specific highway projects to which the federal government contributed about $1,500,000.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If I may correct my hon. friend, the limit of our contribution under the joint works program for British Columbia was $750,000; that is half of the $1,500,000.


William Kemble Esling: Then the $1,500,000 covered the entire program, the fifteen specific projects to which a federal grant was allocated. But the peculiar thing was that although there was this federal grant, and although a specific agreement covering these fifteen projects was signed on July 9, it was impossible for the federal members from British Columbia to get any information about it. It was stated from the department that this information could not be given out until the agreements were tabled, and of course the agreements could not be tabled until this year. The result was that from time to time there appeared in the local press the statement that the provincial government was proceeding with this and that piece of work, and the federal government got no credit whatever for its contribution. There now comes a press
2650	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
dispatch from Victoria again placing the onus on the federal government, by stating that highway work in British Columbia this year will be considerably curtailed and limited to one million dollars, because the federal government is cutting down its grant to half a million dollars for highways, and its grant for trails to mines, and so on, to a great extent; so that only $300,000 can be expended. Now it may be that the agreements of last year are to be continued. If so, I would ask the minister to what extent there can be assistance to municipalities, as all this money was allocated to specific grants for highways.
I wonder whether hon. members will not admit that we are just going around in a circle. During the past five or six years I think the expenditures of federal, provincial and municipal governments for relief amounted to nearly three quarters of a billion dollars; and an outstanding feature of the whole program has been the accumulation of statistics-so many statistics are gathered that it makes one dizzy. The National Employment Commission suggested the home improvement plan, probably the most effective measure yet put forward for the relief of unemployment. But to-day the situation, unfortunately, is that men are not disposed to take employment when they can get it, because of the uncertainty and insecurity of such employment. If they take it they have to forego relief, and they feel that such a long time must elapse between the loss of a temporary job and the time that they can again secure relief that it is really a hindrance to their accepting employment. I wonder whether the minister would not suggest to the employment commission a more radical step.
The hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Mc-Niven) this afternoon suggested that during the period of all these expenditures, unemployment had decreased by nearly 7 per cent. The minister, I believe, places the figure at about 13 per cent. But that is neither here nor there, because every year there are coming into the labour market between 200,000 and 300,000 young people. It appears to me that this thing is likely to go on forever, and if it does what is going to be the result? Would the minister consider a proposal that the National Employment Commission suggest a conference of all employers of labour, with the idea of bringing about a five-day working week? You cannot create work when there is no work, and I think the government has seen the difficulty of making work. I believe that the five-day week is the only solution. It is not a matter of to-day only, but of the days to come. In my district we have a good example

of the efficacy of that movement. There some
6,000	men in one industry have voluntarily accepted a five-day week, and in that way 1,000 more men are given profitable employment and continuous pay, and are quite content. I do say to the minister that it is a plan at least worth trying, and he might suggest to the employment commission that they bring together the heads of industry who, after conferring with their employees, eventually may come to look upon the five-day week as the only solution for this problem.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I thank the hon. gentleman for his suggestion, and I agree with him to this extent, that I feel very strongly that the time is coming soon, if it has not come already, when industry in this country will have to recognize a very definite responsibility if this country is going to be able to utilize to the fullest extent its potential working population.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Conditions of financial assistance.
Ernest Edward Perley: It seems to me this is a very important clause, under which this government has power to check up on a provincial government with respect to the work and relief given. I think the minister should outline what supervision or audit is employed in conducting these checks. There is no question but that there are many glaring examples of abuse in connection with relief. I have in my hand a report dealing with an outstanding case. It concerns a certain Julius Sampson of Bromhead, rural municipality No.
7.	This report which was tabled in the provincial legislature quite recently, indicates that this man received relief during last October, November, December, January and February. During the month of October he received $100 for food, coal and clothing, and during the months of November, December, January and February he received cash relief for food. In 1936 this same Julius Sampson received $2,611.65 for the rental of equipment for road machinery on project No. 35K, and during the months of October and November he was also foreman on this project drawing $6 per day from the provincial government. The return states that he did not receive cash from the highway department during October and received only a small amount during February, and that most of the money paid for the rental of machinery was assigned to his creditors. Relief has been discontinued, of course, and the municipality of Bromhead is making an effort to collect relief advances made to this man this winter.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
This may be an outstanding case, but I think the minister should outline to the committee the system that is employed in checking these matters and the system of auditing that will be adopted under this section. Under the old practice that was in vogue, a very careful audit was made in every case, and there were never any glaring abuses such as the one to which I have referred. I think this committee should have a very clear outline of the supervision the minister intends to maintain.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The Department of Labour has a resident auditor in the province of Saskatchewan, and when any complaints are received, investigations are made as I have indicated. The resident auditor is there also to audit the accounts of the province with respect to relief expenditures and the statements which are submitted by the province to the unemployment relief branch of the Department of Labour here. Subsequently these are audited by the Auditor General for Canada. I am bound to say, however, that the audit conducted by the auditor general is a somewhat belated effort, not due to any fault on his part, but due rather, to the physical difficulty of conducting an audit over the entire dominion. It has this result, that sometimes we find claims for refunds going back to agreements of two or three years ago. In addition, these refunds raise difficulties as between the governments concerned, and in many cases they can be settled satisfactorily only by something in the nature of an arbitration. These outstanding claims as between the governments concerned run into very considerable amounts. We also have in each province a dominion representative, who is charged with the responsibility of seeing to it that the terms of our agreements with the provinces are observed, and who is supposed to bring to the attention of the Department of Labour in Ottawa any apparent violations of those agreements.
I agree entirely with my hon. friend that this question of financial control is of the utmost importance. In connection with the administration of drought relief in the prairie provinces during the past year I believe we have somewhat improved the financial control in connection with the distribution of relief. Through an extension of that system under the comptroller of the treasury we hope the control may be more effective during the coming year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Norman McLeod Rogers: It is inexcusable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is. I tell the minister frankly that when I saw it, I could not credit it.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my right hon. friend will permit me, I can assure him that what he says in regard to difficulties with respect to certification being the cause of the holding up is entirely correct; but it is also correct to say that there were numerous cases in the past, as there must be in such a widespread system, whoever is administering it, of abuses, I cannot say identical with the case mentioned, but which must be the subject of adjustment before payments can be made. As my right hon. friend says, final adjustment with several of the provinces is still incomplete because of the inability to produce the kind of evidence-


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I mentioned just now.


Charles Avery Dunning: May I assure my right hon. friend this case is not unique at all, in the sense of it being a single case-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh yes, it is.


Charles Avery Dunning: -or showing an outrageous condition. In the examination of the accounts for the past number of years difficulties of that kind have arisen. I do
2652	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
not blame any particular provincial government or any particular political party in control, or anything of that sort. But nevertheless there have been abuses; there is no doubt about that. We cannot pay out dominion funds until proper certification is received, and of course in such a case no money could be paid out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it has been.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely, our share has been paid.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Excuse me; this is for 1936. I want to make a statement. The Minister of Finance says that this is only one of many cases of a similar character, but the provision which we made with respect to audit enabled us to deduct any of these amounts from any moneys which might be paid to the provinces, and I assume there has been no change made. Is that so? There is no change?


Charles Avery Dunning: Correct. '


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then it is perfectly obvious that the provinces must realize that they are going to find themselves short of money to which otherwise they would be entitled, because they have pledged their credit to the authenticity of accounts which are not supported by adequate vouchers. That is the story. As I understand it, we have made our payments.


Charles Avery Dunning: In all cases, if my right hon. friend will permit me, subject to audit. Payment was made through the years to enable people to get their money, but the final adjustment with the province, which is the crux of the matter-


Richard Bedford Bennett: How do you spell that word? Is it c-r-o-o-k-s?


Charles Avery Dunning: I can assure my right hon. friend that during his administration there were no more and no less crooks in the matter than there are to-day. The administration of this problem covers hundreds of thousands of people, and I can tell my right hon. friend that there are very careful investigations with respect to cases which are not sufficiently well authenticated, which do not bear evidence of being in proper form, or for which there are not adequate vouchers.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It might be useful if I were to place on Hansard the refunds which

have resulted through the audits in various
provinces, and	also refunds	resulting from
other inquiries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would be helpful.		
Mr. ROGERS	: These are	the figures:
		Refunds
	.Refunds	resulting from
	resulting from	other inquiries
Province	Auditor	provincial
General's audits action, etc.		
Prince Edward		
Island	. $ 7,112 84	$ 5.157 67Nova Scotia. . .	. 17,686 80	40,715 87New Brunswick.	. 7,505 80	2,687 10Quebec	. 211,120 23	173,028 58Ontario	. 51,552 06	166,788 69Manitoba	. 25,807 88	66,543 66Saskatchewan. .	. 33,817 87	316,994 76Alberta	. 55,670 76	52,989 44British Columbia	. 38,635 82	21,324 27$448,910 06	$846,230 04


Richard Bedford Bennett: I assume that by "other inquiries" you mean those made by officials that the various governments have placed in the provinces to check and safeguard the federal interest?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
On the preamble.
Denton Massey: Mr. Chairman, I crave the patience of the committee for a minute. This afternoon the minister said that when we reached section 4 he would explain what he had in mind in connection with the last four lines of the section. Unfortunately I was called out of the chamber for a few minutes during which section 4 was passed. I should like to have an answer to questions I asked the minister this afternoon, and would he be good enough to make a statement now?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am bound to say that for the moment I had forgotten the hon. member had asked a question on the point. I do not know that it would be possible or wise to indicate at this stage, before the committee, what is contemplated under that particular part of the section. The hon. member will note that it is the governor in council who may enter into agreements with corporations, partnerships or individuals engaged in industry respecting the expansion of industrial employment. I cannot speak for the governor in council in that regard. The words are here in order that the dominion government may, if it so desires, enter into agreements with corporations, partnerships or individuals, in addition, to the agreements which normally

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
are entered into with the provincial governments. The same words were in the previous bill. This is not a new departure. This particular part of the section may not be utilized.


Denton Massey: Was it utilized last year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Only in connection with
the agreements with the railways for special maintenance work.


Denton Massey: Was that work done under section 4?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Denton Massey: Would it be possible for
an individual corporation or company to deal directly with a province under this section? If, for example, a company wished to set up a system of apprenticeships, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the company should assist by paying a third, the province by paying a third, and the dominion by paying a third. Some such arrangement would be possible under this section.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is not barred or in any
way excluded by the section.


Denton Massey: Then, approaches can be
made to the provinces, with reasonable expectation of success, for the setting up of systems of apprenticeships in a particular corporation or group of corporations?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, it could be done under this section of the act.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In answer to the hon.
member for Vancouver North in reference to the total amount paid by the federal government in the past fiscal year, the minister mentioned a figure between $35,000,000 and $36,000,000. Did it include the drought area?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No. I am glad the hon.
member raised the point. The figure I gave included the normal payment for direct relief and special relief projects.


Mr. WALSH:: It was suggested last year in the house and again this year, and it has also been suggested by the chairman of the National Employment Commission, that our present means of dealing with the unemployment problem is more or less of a-I was going to say haphazard arrangement. At any rate the present policy is not of a permanent character. Does the minister contemplate his being able some time during the course of the next session at the latest to -bring before the house some policy of a more permanent nature to meet the unemployment conditions prevalent in Canada to-day?
Hon. members have stated that unemployment is here and will remain. It is a permanent condition which we must face. Speaking
at Montreal, the chairman of the National Employment Commission made the same statement. Has the minister in contemplation measures which are going to meet these conditions more permanently than the measure we have now before us, and those to which we have been giving consideration in the past? I ask this seriously to see if there is not something in contemplation upon which the youth of the land can build some hope for the immediate future.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Mr. Chairman, I can assure my hon. friend that all phases of this problem are continually before the government, and particularly before the Minister of Labour. They have also received the attention of the National Employment Commission. There are those who hold the view expressed by my hon. friend that unemployment will be a continuing problem. I have no doubt that in one sense unemployment has always been a problem in this and other countries. That is, if you take any given period of a year you could find a certain proportion of our people unemployed. I imagine this is due partly to climatic conditions and partly to the dynamic character of the development of this country. This has caused an exceptional amount of casual employment.
It may be desirable that we should set up in this country some means of dealing with this casual employment, at least some means of reducing the social effects of this casual employment which have become so apparent in the last few years. I am bound to tell my hon. friend that I am not in position at this moment to announce a definite policy of the kind which he has in view. My own opinion is that a great deal is going to depend upon what happens in western Canada during the coming year. I am not going to suggest for a moment that our policy should depend upon a hazard, but I do suggest to my hon. friend that perhaps we will not know the measure of the problem which he has in mind until we know the effect which a normal crop will have in reducing unemployment and relief in western Canada. The more I have looked into the problem of the western provinces the more I am convinced that even the unemployment that exists in the cities in that part of Canada is the result in a very large measure of the drought situation which has persisted over a period of five or six years. It is not essentially an industrial unemployment problem. However, it is a problem of~whieh this or any other government must take serious account.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Coronation Oath-Mr. Church

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
['I think hon. members will appreciate that in making sure offensive material is kept off the air, the radio corpora-\n\nImmigration Act Amendment\ntion has a difficult task. I am sure they fulfil that task as well as they can. They have not always succeeded in preventing controversial or even indecent matters coming out, but I believe every day they are setting up a check on programs which will have the effect of arriving more nearly at the desired result.\nMotion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.\nDEPARTMENT OP PENSIONS AND NATIONAL [DOT] HEALTH\nVeterans Assistance Commission Act, $400,000.\nItem stands.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Dunning the house adjourned at 11.05 pan.\nWednesday, April 7, 1937']
Thomas Langton Church: 

Hon. J. EARL LAWSON (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have in mind a matter which I believe to be of sufficiently serious import to be brought to the attention of the members of this house, and I do so on this occasion because it is probably the last opportunity there may be this session on a motion to go into supply. I refer to the censorship which is being imposed in Canada by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or some of its officials.
In order to make clear to the members of this house the situation I have in mind, and the extent to which it has gone, I have procured an exact copy of an address-a sermon, really-which the Reverend Mr. Zeid-man of Toronto proposed to deliver over the radio, and I have also in that memorandum or submission made to the radio commission of his address the exact deletions which were made by the censor. I do not propose to read to the House of Commons this entire sermon, but I do propose, because I must of necessity do so in order that hon. members may appreciate the extent to which this censorship is going, to read passages therefrom, including those which have been deleted, in order to give a continuity to th'e picture which I am trying to place before this house.
Possibly I should say in the very beginning, Mr. Speaker, that having read this carefully, if I were the censor I might have deleted one word in this entire address because I think it possible that as the result of the use of that word it might have been inferred that it was making an attack upon the religion advocated by some one or more denominations in this country.
The subject of the sermon was, "Christ our only Mediator." I am going to read a portion from the beginning of the sermon. When I come to words which are exact quotations from the Bible I am going to use the word "quote" preceding them and the word "unquote" at the end of the quotation in order that hon. members may distinguish as I read, and as I come to each portion which was deleted by the censor I will plainly so indicate to the house.

The proposed address was as follows:
To-day, I want to speak of Christ as the only mediator between God and man. In Paul's first epistle to Timothy, chapter 2, verse 5, we read:
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus."
Webster's dictionary defines the word "mediator" as "One who interposes between parties at variance, to reconcile them."
Christ is just that kind of mediator between ourselves and God, from whom the sinner is estranged. God reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ. The mediatorship of Christ is about the most precious and most consoling doctrine in Christianity. The sinner is brought to the Father, covered with the cloak of righteousness wrapped about him -with Christ's own hand. There is none so sinful and none so low but Christ can lift him up to the highest virtues and holiness. And just as the most humble citizen in the British Empire has the right of appeal to the throne, so the most humble sinner has the right and privilege to go directly to Christ and God.
Now, the following passages were deleted from this sermon-and I call attention to the word "heathen," because it is the one which I said I would have deleted:
In heathen religions there are found whole hierarchies of priests, witch-doctors and magicians, wrho act as intermediaries between the people and their deity. Not so, however, in Protestantism. The Bible not only teaches us to have recourse to God Himself, but most strongly exhorts that there is provision made for us through Christ Jesus, and that we must avail ourselves of this, the only free channel of grace, that flows to us directly from the throne of God.
The deletions continue:
The passage in first Timothy, chapter 2, verse 5, is very important and the whole of our belief in a merciful and forgiving God hinges upon it. Notice the emphasis: "for there is one God," the emphatic one as opposed to the erroneous pagan polytheism; and notice again: "and one mediator, the man Christ Jesus"-the man Christ Jesus again emphasized, for already heresies had begun to creep in, which suggested the worshipping of angels and other personalities, as mediators between the Christian and God. Against this heresy, we are clearly warned in Colossians, chapter 2, verse 18: "Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind."
There end the censor's deletions with respect to that passage. I can assure my hon. friends that the others will be much shorter. I had to read that much to get the tenor of the sermon.


Vincent Dupuis: May I ask a question?


James Earl Lawson: I should prefer if my hon. friend would not ask questions until I have finished. When I have finished I shall be glad to answer questions to the best of my ability.

Broadcasting Censorship-Mr. Lawson


Vincent Dupuis: I was wondering whether the hon. member had consulted the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth).


James Earl Lawson: I have not consulted anyone. I start this second reference with the deletion by the censor because it is unnecessary to read the preceding one. The following was deleted:
There is another point that I wish to emphasize, and that is that in the Old Testament we find that intercessors were always active participators, human beings, and alive.
There ends the censor's deletion in that passage. I read on what is not censored:
There is no record of Moses invoking help of Abraham; nor does Elisha invoke the aid of his predecessor Elijah; nor do any of the apostles fall back on or ask the intercession or aid of the prophets or patriarchs that went before them. Therefore it is not without significance that in Hebrew's, chapter 7, verse 25 we read: "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth"-
These words are striken out, notice: "he ever liveth":
"-to make intercession for them."
Then the following is deleted:
There is not the slightest indication in the New Testament anywhere, to show that the primitive disciples or apostles had any recourse to any human being living or dead, or to any spirit or angel, apart from their Lord and Master Jesus Christ.
The censor also strikes out the following:
The basic and fundamental idea of Hebrew and Christian worship was complete and absolute submission to God, and to Him alone. Jesus himself emphasized that by saying, "You cannot serve two masters."
I have one other very short passage which I wish to read and which was deleted by the censor. I read it in order to give the connection.
The late Cardinal Lepicier wrote a devotional book in 1924 named "Go to Joseph, Our Unfail/-ing Protector." Go to Joseph-but let it be remembered that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ never said "go" to anyone. He always said, "come." "Come unto me," w'as the great keynote in the ministry of Christ. "He that cometh to me, and heareth my sayings," said Jesus.
The quotation I have just given, starting off with "the late Cardinal Lepicier wrote" is deleted by the censor; that whole paragraph is deleted. The censor's deletions continue:
The prophets of the Old Testament called the people to their God and not to their great men, "Seek ye the Lord while He may be found; call ye upon Him while He is near." Call ye upon Him, not upon Moses, not upon Elijah, not upon Abraham, but upon Him, the Most High God.
Likewise the apostles and evangelists called men and women to Christ, and to Him alone. They did not preach, Go to Joseph, or go to Hanna, or go to Sara, or go to angels, or go to the martyrs, or go to the saints, living or dead, no matter how good or how great these people may have been. But their message rang out-Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you. Simon Peter asked Jesus, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life."
It was necessary for me to read these passages in order to give this house a picture of the censorship which apparently is being carried out by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or some of its employees. One naturally inquires what justification there can be for the prohibition of a sermon of that nature. When inquiry was made of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation a letter under the signature of the general manager was written on January 13, to the Reverend Mr. Zeidman, in which the general manager quotes a regulation of the broadcasting corporation. That regulation reads:
"No broadcast may contain any attack on any religious faith, creed or sect."
Now I, for one, entirely agree that attacks over the radio should not be permitted on any religious sect or creed. But I think that most hon. members will agree with me that one should not be accused of attacking some other person's religion so long as in proper language one advocates that religion which is his own. Certainly I can see no justification for any censor striking out from any address an actual quotation from the bible. It seems to me that the question that this house has to consider is: Are we going to permit an autocracy to rule that no man may use the radio in this supposedly free country to advocate his religious beliefs, if such beliefs differ from the doctrines of some other denomination? I realize that censorship at best is a dangerous instrument to put in the hands of any one man, but when it is put in the hands, as is alleged by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, of an individual manager in each individual station across Canada, one begins to have some comprehension of the complete lack of uniformity in censorship that we are going to have. It seems to me that the responsibility for censorship should be clear; and if it is exercised, the public are entitled to know by whom, and for what reason.
That brings me back to the letter written by the general manager of the corporation to the Reverend Mr. Zeidman. In that letter he says:
A regulation governing religious broadcasts was passed at the last meeting of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

2658	COMMONS
Broadcasting Censorship-Mr. Lawson
And then he quoted the regulation which I have already quoted. I happen to have the privilege of knowing at least two of the gentlemen constituting the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and I cannot believe that those two men at least, although I have never spoken to them concerning the subject matter, could have endorsed such a censorship as I have outlined or could ever have intended that the regulation passed was 'to have the effect indicated.
Then I read again from this letter:
The responsibility for the application of the regulation rests with the station.
That is the statement of the general manager of the broadcasting corporation. Could any man reading that letter draw any other conclusion than that the general manager desired to convey the impression that the censorship of the Reverend Mr. Zeidman's address in this case had been done by the station manager? Well, I have reason to doubt that statement of the general manager. I am informed by the gentleman most concerned that he was telephoned by the secretary of station CFRB in Toronto concerning the deletions in his address of January 10, and that it was suggested that he call at their office, which he did. And when the Reverend Mr. Zeidman arrived, there on the desk was the manuscript of his address, with the censor's deletions bracketed in pencil, and with the different items numbered for the purpose of reference; and the statement was there made to the Reverend Mr. Zeidman that his manuscript had been sent to Ottawa and that this was the way it came back. Now I ask: Can the public have any faith in the censorship in view of those circumstances? If we are to have a censorship, then let us have a central board of censors, and not create across this country a series of little czars of the air.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask the hon. member to place all Mr. Murray's letter on Hansard?


James Earl Lawson: I shall be glad to. Letter from the general manager of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to Reverend Morris Zeidman, dated Ottawa, January 13, 1937: Dear Mr. Zeidman:
Thank you for your telegram of the 10th instant regarding your broadcast over CFRB. As this station has no doubt informed you, a regulation governing religious broadcasts was passed at the last meeting of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. This regulation reads as follows:
"No broadcast may contain an attack on
any religious faith, creed or sect."

Its terms appear to be quite clear and unmistakable and the only objective of the same is to stop religious strife over the air. The responsibility for the application of the regulation rests with the station and I am sure that you will do your utmost to so arrange your broadcast as to enable the station to fully comply with the regulation.
I had some other aspects of this situation with which I wished to deal, but the time is passing. I want to make it clear that I am not raising this question because of one isolated incident. I have taken the trouble to run down the details of one incident, but I have learned, although I have no accurate knowledge except that I know the fact to be true, that another minister has been refused the right to make an address on the air without his sermon being emasculated somewhat as this one was; and only as late as February 15 I read in the Toronto Telegram that the broadcasting corporation prohibited a Doctor Hutton, who is the medical officer of health for the city of Brantford and president of the Eugenic Society of Canada, from broadcasting an address on eugenics because in the course of that address he advocated the voluntary sterilization of feeble minded people in this country.


Ernest Lapointe: What does my hon. friend mean by voluntary sterilization?


James Earl Lawson: With the consent and
approval of the properly constituted guardian, in case of their being a guardian, of the person if he is of so feeble a mind as to have been declared a lunatic under the Lunacy Act of the province of Ontario.


Ernest Lapointe: Voluntary by proxy.


James Earl Lawson: Well, many of our acts
are voluntary by proxy or by law. I want to make it clear that I am not trying to .advocate what I want; but I am trying to bring to the attention of parliament a situation which I consider serious for this country.
Let me say with respect to Doctor Hutton's address that he and his organization and the cause which he is advocating have been approved by many eminent medical men and surgeons, including the present Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. Furthermore, what is the sense of prohibiting that address being delivered over the radio when I can sit in a railroad train and read it verbatim in the newspapers? It may be necessary to have a regulation prohibiting an attack on any religious faith, but surely the censorship should be exercised in a spirit of charity and tolerance.

Broadcasting Censorship-Mr. Howe


Charles Avery Dunning: That should be the spirit of the sermons also.


James Earl Lawson: I quite agree, but the difficulty of setting up a board competent to say arbitrarily what a man should or should not be permitted to say in a sermon is so great that it does seem to me that unless there is some direct attack which is likely to stir up religious strife in this country, it should not be prohibited by the censor.


Vincent Dupuis: To the mind of the hon.
gentleman was that not a direct attack on one denomination?


James Earl Lawson: I can only say to my hon. friend, Mr. Speaker, that I am not a theologian ; I have never been a student of theology. I only know this, that the sermon which I read was preaching straight protestantism, though I might not have used some of the same words if I were preaching that doctrine I believe that every man should have the right of free choice. Surely because a man wishes to advocate what he believes, he should not be prohibited from doing so merely because he happens to be in disagreement with some other denomination.


Charles Avery Dunning: Describing others as
heathens?


James Earl Lawson: In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) will remember that I said in the very beginning-


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not referring to my hon. friend but to the sermon itself.


James Earl Lawson: Then the censor or the board might very reasonably have cut out the word "heathen"; it might have cut out other words without any complaint from me, but when it cuts out whole passages which are direct quotations from the bible it is going to hear from me every time. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, and I beg my hon. friend opposite to believe me; in dealing with this matter I have no rancour in my heart or bigotry in my mind.
. Mr. DUPUIS: Then why not choose something else on which to blame the censorship?


James Earl Lawson: If possible, I want to avoid the development of a spirit in this country which has caused more grief throughout the world in the last fifteen years than anything else. It is the spirit that permeates that type of censorship which, in my opinion, is responsible for communism in Russia, fascism in Italy, nazi-ism in Germany, and the civil war in Spain, and we want none of it in
Canada. But it is creeping in. Many may not agree with me, but it is the same spirit that prompts that sort of censorship that recently prompted the so-called padlock law in the province of Quebec and the amendment to the securities act in the province of Ontario. There is nothing I can do about legislation passed in the provinces, but I can do something about those corporations which are the creatures of this parliament. I urge that the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation take into very serious consideration the establishment of some central board of censorship, so far as possible an unbiased and non-partisan board, so that if we are to have censorship it may be reduced to a minimum and be uniform throughout Canada.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I have only this to say, that unless the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, or failing that board the government, takes some effective action to deal with this situation before the next session of this parliament, I shall take such steps at the next session as may be open to me as a member of this house to meet the conditions as they may then exist.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Parliament in drafting the Canadian Broadcasting Act made this proviso:
The corporation may make regulations to control the character of any and all programs broadcast by corporation or private stations.
Obviously it is the duty of the broadcasting corporation to determine the character of the programs, and I think the first test of the suitability of a program must be whether it gives offence to any part of the population. Surely radio is not designed for the purpose of giving offence, whatever other purpose it may have.
In judging whether or not a program will give offence, the corporation must also take into consideration the type of listeners, who range from young children of five years or younger to people of mature years; and the programs sent out must be suitable for children as well as for adults. Probably the most troublesome form of broadcasts to supervise is religious broadcasts. During the time I have been responsible for the conduct of the radio, all the great disputes have centred around religious broadcasts. In my experience they have not only involved a broadcast in which a clergyman or a priest was preaching to his own people, but the dispute has always concerned sermons in which one religion was attacked by an exponent of another; and on occasions of this kind there can be no doubt

Broadcasting Censorship-Mr. Howe
that offence has been given, judging by the scores and hundreds of letters that reach my office.
In the case referred to to-night we have a Protestant, Mr. Zeidman, and I dare say a fairly recent convert to the Protestant faith, who during a series of broadcasts has made statements very offensive to those of the Roman Catholic faith. He is being answered currently by Father Lamphier, a Roman Catholic priest, who is making statements very offensive to Protestants.


James Earl Lawson: Is it this man the minister is referring to?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, Reverend Mr. Zeidman in one case. So many protests have been received in both these cases that the officers of the broadcasting corporation are using great care in censoring any broadcast by either of these gentlemen, and quite rightly so. When you get a portion of the population very much stirred up by a particular broadcast which great numbers find offensive, it is the duty of the radio corporation to make sure that the offence is not repeated. Therefore every broadcast by Reverend Mr. Zeidman and every broadcast by Father Lamphier is censored in Ottawa before it is allowed to go on the air. I cannot conceive that a man interested in disseminating his own religious belief would find it necessary to make utterances offensive to those of any other faith. I cannot see the purpose of that.


James Earl Lawson: We are all agreed on that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no great hardship involved when a man is not allowed to say something over the radio that is questionable. If there is any question about it, why should he say it? It is not necessary. If Reverend Mr. Zeidman wished to speak to people of his own faith he did not need to use words offensive to those of another faith; and so with Father Lamphier.
That is the position that is being taken. This is not the first sermon that has been put on the air by Reverend Mr. Zeidman. These things do not arise until criticism is received in very considerable volume, and we have had that criticism here. We had another case in New Brunswick, I think, that stirred this house greatly; a certain Baptist clergyman preached sermons which were very offensive to Roman Catholics. There was so much controversy in the house over the matter that I had two judges of the supreme court listen to a broad-

cast by this man in order to give me an opinion, and they said they did not know whether the man was a religious bigot but they felt sure he was mentally imbalanced. Surely the public must be protected against that sort of broadcast; I do not think there is any quarrel between my hon. friend and myself in matters of that kind.
We come now to the matter of sterilization and the use of contraceptives. I ask my hon. friend in all-


James Earl Lawson: Do not confuse the issue.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The two run parallel; they are both subjects of great controversy.


James Earl Lawson: If the minister would permit me: The speech to be delivered by Doctor Hutton in no way referred to or had reference to birth control-nothing of any kind.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does the hon. member think that is a proper subject to discuss before seven-year-old children? Would you approve of the same person addressing a class of five or six year old children in the school? Those are the people to whom he would be talking over the radio. The greatest radio users are children between five and ten years. If the hon. member wants to say that sterilization-compulsory, voluntary, or any other kind-is a proper subject for children between the ages of five and ten years, then I will admit that our radio corporation are exercising improper control.


James Earl Lawson: I should be permitted to answer. On the other hand, I anticipate that the same radio control will be exercised by the parents in the homes as is exercised with respect to newspapers or other publications.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is entirely
mistaken as to the duties of parents in the homes. It is the duty of the radio corporation to make sure that nothing goes over the radio which is offensive to five year old children or to fifty year old members.


James Earl Lawson: I can only say that some of the jokes told' over the air are offensive to children of that age.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Mr. Sage! Mr. Sage!


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think hon. members will appreciate that in making sure offensive material is kept off the air, the radio corpora-

Immigration Act Amendment
tion has a difficult task. I am sure they fulfil that task as well as they can. They have not always succeeded in preventing controversial or even indecent matters coming out, but I believe every day they are setting up a check on programs which will have the effect of arriving more nearly at the desired result.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OP PENSIONS AND NATIONAL [DOT] HEALTH
Veterans Assistance Commission Act, $400,000.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Dunning the house adjourned at 11.05 pan.
Wednesday, April 7, 1937