1937-03-29

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

Mr. McINTOSH:: 1.	What flag will Canada display as a distinct national emblem at the coronation ceremony of His Majesty King George VI, on May 12, 1937?
2.	Has Canada, a self-governing community within the British commonwealth of nations, a recognized distinctive national flag?
3.	Have Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the Irish Free State, all self-governing communities within the British commonwealth of nations, recognized distinctive national flags?
4.	Has India a national flag?
5.	What colonies, with or without some degree of representative government, have their own distinctive flags?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	It is proposed to display, as the Canadian standard, the Arms of Canada granted by royal proclamation dated November 21, 1921, with the royal crown at the staff.
2.	Canada has not a recognized distinctive national flag. The red ensign with the Arms of Canada in the fly is used on vessels of the Canadian mercantile marine. The blue ensign is used on vessels belonging to the dominion of Canada. By order in council of the 26th January, 1924, authority was given for the flying of the red ensign with the Arms of Canada in the fly on suitable occasions from all buildings owned or occupied by the Canadian government and situated outside Canada. This flag is flown from the high commissioner's office in London and the Canadian legations abroad.
3.	Yes.
4.	From the information available at present in the Department of External Affairs, no specific national flag has been laid down for India. As a matter of administrative practice the flag authorized for the viceroy is used as the distinctive flag of India. This flag is the union jack with, in the centre, a badge containing the Star of India and the Royal Crown. In addition, India makes use of the red and blue ensign with appropriate badge.
5.	All colonies have distinctive badges which are applied to the union jack. In addition they make use of the red and blue ensign with appropriate badge.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-ADDRESS BY MR. GLADSTONE MURRAY
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the attention of the government been called to an address delivered before the Canadian club at Montreal by Gladstone Murray, general manager of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, on Monday, March 22. reported at length in the Montreal Gazette of Tuesday, March 23, announcing the new national policy of the commission?
2.	Was he then speaking with the authority of the commission or of the government or of both?
3.	Will a copy of said address be laid on the table of the house?


Mr. HOWE:: 1. No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


EXPORTS OF CANADIAN HAY
Mr. LALONDE:: 1.	How many tons of Canadian hay were exported in each month of 1935 and 1936?
2.	To what countries was such hay exported?
3.	What is the average price paid per ton f.o.b. Canadian ports by foreign importers?
[Mr. Lalonde.J


Mr. ROGERS:: 1. and 2.
1. Exports of Hay from Canada by Countries (By Months-January-Deeember, 1935) (Tons of 2,000 pounds)
Countries
To United Kingdom	
Bermuda	
British Straits Settlements..
British Guiana	
British Honduras	
Barbados	
Jamaica	
Trinidad and Tobago	
Other Br. West Indies....
Hong Kong	
Newfoundland	
China	
Cuba	
St. Pierre and Miquelon.
Dutch East Indies	
United States	
Puerto Rico	
Total Domestic Exports.
January
68
303
9,149
10,008
February
89
19,263
19,417
March
192
31
18,799
19,711
April
4
1
38
8,168
8,430
May
1,452
6
1
19
2
4
9,717
11,971
June
3,954
6
1
5
2,536
7,279
July
4,986
10
1
14
14
490
6,175
August
3,233
10
253
9
3,852
September
1,826
7
10
93
2,943
October
1,668
9
1
5
6 10
1,321
450
240
3,984
November
3,850
7
1,354
1,250
186
7,154
December
1,632
7
31
5
1
103
47
3,233
2232	COMMONS
Questions
2. Exports of Hay from Canada by Countries (By Months-January-December, 1936)
(Tons of 2,000 pounds)
Countries	January	February	March	April	May	June	July	August	Septem- ber	October	Novem- ber	Decem- berTo United Kingdom	137	257	390	2,376	4,265	4 039	8,082	9,447	7,506	5,223	4,944Irish Free State	27	Bermuda	29	124	180	110	334	253	225	202	183	271	284	929British Straits Settlements....	6	8	1	1	6	5	7	11	18	9	17	9British Guiana	4	5	11	21	13	28British Honduras	1	1	Barbados	2	30	38	49	5	3	Jamaica	1	32	13	10	5	Trinidad and Tobago	3	3	16	2	3	2	3	3	2	Hong Kong	20	5	10	26	3	Newfoundland	261	126	322	100	368	201	311	438	783	791	292	486China	2	1	10	1	2	1	9	9	2	10	1	1Cuba	648	87	990	190	38	26	12	10	2	16	53	60	100	Panama	24	14	United States	379	600	1,039	522	507	593	1,951	6,565	12,503	11,147	13,319	21,469Hawaii	17Philippine Islands	3	Puerto Rico	28	30	40	12	53	39	117
Total Domestic Exports...	698	1,063	1,876	1,177	3,680	6,049	6,620	15,466	24,017	20,107	19,867	27,370
3. 1935 - $10.38 per ton. 1936 - $ 7.73 per ton.

Questions
Questions as Orders for Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	How much money has been expended by the federal government directly in the form of direct relief in the Peace river country, since October, 1935?
2.	How was this money spent?
3.	Has any money in any form, calculated to assist unemployment, been spent in the Peace river country since October 15, 1935?
4.	Has the government given any assistance to farmers in the Peace river country because of drought conditions, since October, 1935?
5.	What financial assistance, if any, has been given the citizens of the Peace river country in any form, since October 15, 1935?
6.	Has any grant been made by the federal government to the province of Alberta as a contribution to road work in the Peace river country?
7.	If so, how much, and when was it paid?
8.	Was any road building or road improving project within the Peace river country submitted to the federal government by the government of the province of Alberta?
9.	If so, was it approved or was any project approved?



FEDERAL LOANS TO WESTERN PROVINCES

Mr. PELLETIER:: What amounts have been loaned directly by the federal government or what loans backed by a federal guarantee have been made to: (1) the province of Alberta; (2) the province of Saskatchewan; (3) the province of Manitoba, since October 15, 1935?



INTERIOR DEPARTMENT STAFF

Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	How many of the 11 returned men under forty years of age on the lay-off list in the Interior department were on the staff at Ottawa, and what are their names?
2.	How many of said returned men were employed in provinces other than Ontario, and in what province or provinces?
3.	How many of these men were seasonal or part-time employees; what are their names, and what province do they come from?
4.	What are the names, the departments assigned to, the date of permanent appmntments of each of the 78 persons who received permanent appointments in the calendar year 1936 by the Civil Service Commission from the Department of Interior lay-off list?
5.	How many of the 78 permanent appointments made from the Interior department layoff list by the Civil Service Commission during the calendar year 1936 were holding temporary positions before being appointed to permanent positions?
6.	How many individuals are involved in the 69 temporary assignments made from the Department of Interior lay-off list by the Civil Service Commission during the calendar year 1936?
[Mr. Rogers.l
7.	How many individuals from the Interior department lay-off list lost their temporary positions during the calendar year 1936?
8.	What amount of money has been paid in each calendar year as superannuation to each of the 11 returned men under forty years of age on the lay-off list of the Interior department who have not been assigned to any position and are shown to have been superannuated?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. BROOKS:: For a copy of all payrolls showing money expended and to whom it was paid on certain undertakings made by the federal Department of Public Works at Bear River, Annapolis county, Nova Scotia, during the year 1936.



YOHO NATIONAL PARK MINING CLAIMS

Mr. NEILL:: For a copy of all correspondence, evidence, reports and agreements between the dominion government, or the Department of the Interior, and A. B. Trites et al., or Base Metals Mining Corporation Limited, relating to certain mining claims in the Yoho national park during the period between the 18th day of February, 1935, and present date.



KOOTENAY PARK MINING CLAIMS

Alan Webster Neill: For a copy of all correspondence, evidence, reports and other papers and documents, passing between any member or official of the government, and any other parties, relating to the staking, recording, assessment work, or in any other way, to the Albion group mining claims, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in Kootenay park, British Columbia, such return to cover the period from February 18, 1935, to date.



VERDUN, QUE., POSTMASTER

Mr. MASSEY (for Mr. Wermenlinger):: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, documents, reports of inquiry and judgment regarding the dismissal of Mr. J. Raymond, 5365 LaSalle boulevard, Verdun, Quebec, as postmaster of that city, and also concerning the removal of the said post office to a building located on Verdun avenue, in the same city.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-BRITISH COLUMBIA SERVICE

Mr. GREEN:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports, memoranda, and other documents passed between the dominion government or any department thereof and the government of the province of British Columbia or any department thereof relative to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police taking over the policing of the said province from the British Columbia police.

Mail Delivery on Good Friday



DOMINION ATLANTIC RAILWAY COMPANY

Mr. PURDY:: For a copy of order in council dated 6th August, 1914, and copy of agreement with the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company attached thereto, both documents being referred to in sessional paper 241.



LOANS TO WESTERN PROVINCES

René-Antoine Pelletier: For a copy of all orders in council passed since October 19, 1935, concerning the renewing, granting or authorizing of any loans to:	(a)
Alberta; (b) Saskatchewan, and (c) Manitoba.


Mr. DUNNING:: The copies of orders in
council mentioned in this motion are already in possession of the house, having been tabled from time to time, in accordance with the law; therefore there is no necessity for the motion.


Mr. SPEAKER:: 

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Wednesday, the 31st instant, and every sitting day thereafter until the end of the session, the house shall meet at 11 o'clock m the morning, and that in addition to the usual intermission at 6 o'clock p.m., there shall be an intermission every day from one to three o'clock p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order, "Government Notices of Motions":
The Prime Minister-In committee of the whole

The following resolution:
Resolved,-That it is expedient to introduce a measure to confirm and sanction a certain convention between Canada and the United States of America for the preservation of the halibut fishery of the northern Pacific ocean and Bering sea, signed at Ottawa on the 30th day of January, 1937, and to provide for the carrying out of the provisions thereof.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Stand.


Mr. BENNETT:: Might we not put it
through a stage?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not the bill with me. My right hon. friend will notice that there is a bill founded on the resolution. If it is agreeable to the house to pass the resolution, the bill can be brought in later. The convention is attached to the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Inasmuch as the expediency or inexpediency of the measure cannot be considered until such time as it is before the house, I have suggested, without prejudice to our position or that of any hon. member, that the resolution might go through committee stage and the bill be introduced and given first reading. The bill would then be printed and hon. members would be aware of its contents.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The bill is not ready; therefore the motion had better stand.
Motion stands.



MAIL DELIVERY ON GOOD FRIDAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott). A few days ago an order was issued from Ottawa providing for only morning postal delivery on Good Friday. Why was the order rescinded on Thursday, March 25, and a full, regular daily service carried out on Good Friday?


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Postmaster General):: I shall make inquiries and give the hon. member an answer to his question Has he any particular place in mind?


Frank Exton Lennard: I know of two places, Toronto and Hamilton.
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln) : Further to the question asked of the Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott) by the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard), I should like to ask the Postmaster General to inquire into what took place at the post office in St. Catharines. I was home over the week-end and I was told that some of the men had arranged for an outing on the following afternoon; it was only at five o'clock on Thursday that they received the message that they would have to work on Good Friday.



TRADE AND INDUSTRY COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. II. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are proceeded with I should like to ask a question based on a number of letters received from merchants throughout Canada. Is it the intention of the government at a very early date
[Stage Direction]
New Westminster Penitentiary
to appoint a public prosecutor as provided by the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The matter is under consideration.



NEW WESTMINSTER PENITENTIARY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, on March 24, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) drew my attention to an unusual occurrence in connection with the administration of the penitentiary at New Westminster. His statement was to the effect that some person or persons had broken into the penitentiary, over the high wall surrounding that institution, and had got away with some valuable material.
The facts are that veterinary supplies of the organization valued at $24 were stolen from the piggery during the night of March 16,
1937.	The piggery is a detached building outside of the penitentiary walls, situated on the reserve about two hundred yards to the west of the southwest gate. The drugs referred to are used for inoculation purposes and were not considered as being articles likely to be stolen. However, necessary steps are being taken to prevent a similar occurrence in the future.



PRIVILEGE-MR. GLEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) referred to some statements which I had made as reported on page 2097 of Hansard. I was referring to remarks made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross), as reported on page 1872 of Hansard. The hon. member said:
We in western Canada do not want any dole; we never did want any-
Mr. Spence: You are taking a lot of it.
I was protesting against that remark and, as reported on page 2097 of Hansard, I said:
That remark was made in reply to the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross).
It is clear, therefore, that the reference was to the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) and not to the hon. member for Greenwood. I am glad to make this correction and to take this opportunity of repeating my protest against the words used by the hon. member for Parkdale.



PRIVILEGE-MR. COLDWELL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I should like to correct a statement appearing in Hansard. I have received the following message from Mr. E. M. Culliton of Regina, Saskatchewan:
Hansard of March eleventh reports you as stating, "The same paper reported a protest meeting at Mossbank at which the Liberal M.L.A. for Gravelbourg, Mr. E. M. Culliton, indulged in strong criticism of the government's action." I attended meeting but did not criticize the actions of the government or of the wheat board regardless of report.
I am glad to make this correction.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last I inquired of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) regarding a return which had been ordered by the house some time ago. The minister was indefinite in his reply. He said:
It deals with a delicate legal situation, and it is necessary to obtain very complete legal advice before we answer the question.
As the session is approaching rapidly to a close, I should like to ask the minister whether he can indicate-if he cannot do it to-day, to-morrow will be all right-what the attitude of the government is with regard to this return. It has been ordered by the house and I am therefore entitled to it. Of course there are certain reservations which are recognized by the house. I should like to have an indication as to whether or not I am to get this return.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) :: I shall follow up the matter and try to make a statement to my hon. friend.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved the third reading of Bill No. 12, to provide for revision of the accounting set-up of the Canadian National railway system.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I desire to restate as clearly as possible our objections to this measure as it now stands. I laid down what I conceived to be a sound principle, that is, that the balance sheet of the Canadian National Railways should show every item constituting the assets and liabilities of

C.N.R.-Accounting
that institution. Since we were last here I have looked up the great standard works upon the subject, and I find that according to them a balance sheet should give a true and correct statement of the position of the enterprise to which it refers, indicating clearly its assets and liabilities. I am particularly anxious that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) should be here because I cannot think that with his scrupulous regard for money votes and matters that affect accounting he can give the approval of his governmental majority to the enactment of the measure now before this house, a measure which does not comply with the definition of balance sheet which I have just given.
Several reasons were given why certain changes should be made. The first referred to certain misconceptions, but this is no longer heard of because the misconceptions can be explained away. In the memorandum which he read to the special committee, the minister dealt with what he conceived to be duplication. That argument has also gone by the board; for there can be no such thing as duplication if the accounts of the country indicate that borrowings have been made, and the accounts of the company or institution to which the money is lent indicate the receipt of that money. Finally, the minister made this statement in his closing remarks:
Canada's financial structure as a whole is of first importance to the people of Canada. Nothing should be allowed to continue that would in any way weaken the position that Canada at present holds in the financial world. The people of Canada are rightly entitled to know what is their true financial position at all times and to have access to information that will enable them to understand the situation and to judge therefrom what their real responsibilities are. This being so, the elimination of duplication is of vital importance.
That statement involves an exact negation of the measure now before the house. As a Tesult of the changes that have been made in the balance sheet of the railways, the particulars which are essential if the people of Canada are to understand the true position of their enterprise have disappeared. As the minister points out, it is highly important for the credit of this country that those who read may understand exactly the position. The measure now before the house indicates that, notwithstanding the consolidated audit act or any other act referring to matters of this kind, we are to deal with the accounts of the railway in a given way. The balance sheets which have been offered from time to time by the auditors of the Canadian National railway system clearly indicated the exact position of the enterprise and the amount of money the *Canadian people had put into it. I suggested
the other day two or three reasons why it is important that this information should always be made available in the accounts of the railway; let me briefly review them.
First, this is a public utility owned and operated by the people of Canada through an instrumentality which they themselves created, and it is essential for the purpose of determining whether or not we have administered it as successfully and as well as we should that they should know exactly what it has cost us to maintain it in its present position. Second, the question of freight rates is affected. In the past the question of rates largely has been directed to the consideration of what the traffic would bear for the purpose of making some return on the capital investment. Third, the question of wages and salaries and emoluments paid to those who administer the property is very peculiarly affected. For instance, it has been held from time to time that in certain conditions we were not able to pay as much as we might have liked to pay because the wherewithal was not being earned. It was then a question of closing up the enterprise or operating it on a scale of payments to those engaged in it which were not as generous as they otherwise might be. These are only some of the reasons which to the average man make it important that the accounts of the railway should contain a true statement of the situation.
During the progress of the discussion, both in committee and in the house, I think it was clearly indicated by all parties and by every individual that statements of value applied to shares and stocks of the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Northern which were fictitious and admittedly incorrect should be eliminated, and the balance sheet proposes to do that. But it does not stop there. In the annual report of the Canadian National Railways for the year 1936 we have on page 8 the assets, and on page 9 the liabilities of the road: the profit and loss deficit is stated to be $904,655,718.05, and the assets are given as $2,300,368,968.75. It therefore follows that the liabilities as shown on page 9 amount to the large sum of $3,205,024,686.80. Those figures are under the certificate of the auditors. The new set-up as indicated by the minister will be found in the appendix to the bill before the house, on pages 14 and 14A. As a result of the operation which has now been performed upon this balance sheet we have total assets of $2,037,597,996.72; in other words the assets have been cut down by $262,770,972.03. The arbitrary cutting down by $262,000,000 of the cost of the property is an operation which should not, in my judgment,
C.N.R.-Accounting

being later. It is to be an organization with five trustees who are to be permanent civil servants, deputy ministers and the like, and they are to hold these securities and be the company. The company is to issue five million shares which are to represent securities, advances and claims on which an arbitrary value of $270,000,000 is fixed.
I suggest once more, with all the force at my command, and certainly with no party consideration in my mind and from no partisan point of view, that we do not transfer these securities to anyone; they are now vested in the crown and the crown should continue to hold them. Instead, we should vest the title to them in the Minister of Finance, in whom, as a matter of fact, the title to most of them is now vested. The question of value to be placed upon them is a matter of argument, and in my opinion it should be argued from another angle, from which it has been already discussed. Leaving that aside, however, I plead with the minister to simplify this whole matter and not let the Canadian people, looking at the balance sheet of this enterprise hereafter, read any statement about one million shares of no par value stock of the Canadian National Railway Company and five million shares of no par value capital stock issued by Securities Trust, a company which is to come into being for the purpose of preserving priorities which would never be disturbed unless we transferred those priorities to them. They are, as they always have been, unchanged, untouched; they remain in the name of the Minister of Finance, representing the proprietor's equity in this enterprise. Surely that is fair. Why call into being an enterprise for the purpose of holding something that we now own? Why vest in a third person, a new entity, property that is now ours? It represents our equity as proprietors to-day, and we are proposing to turn it over to somebody else and have the balance sheet hereafter talk about one million shares and five million shares.
I know what would be said about that if it were done by a private enterprise; if a private corporation tried to do the same thing there is no question about what would be done. The language of the courts is clear on that point. But here we are disturbing priorities and equities for the purpose of preserving them and we are getting back to the same position in which we were before by the use of the words "proprietor's equity"; for to-day they are vested in the minister or the government. I am not sure whether they are all vested in the name of the Minister of Finance.


Charles Avery Dunning: Practically all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: C.N.R.-Accounting

madvert upon the motives that lie behind the action, but merely to present the situation as it stands on the record. I urge upon the government with all the power at my command that they reconsider before it is too late a plan which, as no one can deny, will have the effect I have just indicated upon the minds of those who are vitally concerned with all that affects the well-being of the enterprise they own and control and in which they have invested so many hundreds of millions of dollars.


Mr. W. A. WALSH (Mount Royal):: I hope that the members of this house will not consider it presumption on my part to take part in the debate on third reading of this bill. I do so only because of the importance of the question and because I endeavoured to take an active part in the discussion when this bill was before the railway committee. I want to consolidate the arguments I presented before the committee in opposition to certain clauses of the bill, and for that reason I deem it necessary to take part in the debate.
Some of the issues that have been raised by this bill might be expressed in the following way: whether there is any reasonable justification for the claim that the debts in question really represent mere bookkeeping entries, figures that never should have been on the railway balance sheet, that they do not mean anything and are unfair; whether the general public are being given an honest and proper description of the obligations from which the railway is to be relieved; whether the real intentions of the proposers of the bill in seeking to effect these changes are being frankly and clearly stated to the public; whether the Canadian National accounts are to present a fair and reasonable picture of the results of operations or whether only a partial and incomplete portrayal is to be given the public; whether that adoption of these proposals will lessen the financial drain on the government or whether they will encourage a repetition of past extravagances. In short-


Mr. YOUNG:: May I ask the hon. gentleman from what he is reading?


William Allen Walsh: I am just giving a summary of what I propose to discuss during the next few minutes-in short, whether the proposals are in the public interest or are merely an expedient in order to improve the apparent results of the operations of the Canadian National. These were the features of this bill that presented themselves to my mind as I read the various reports on railway matters that have been presented to this house on previous occasions, and I think these features

crystallize the substance of the opposition to the various details appearing in this bill.
We could show at the present moment exactly how the financial responsibility of the Canadian National was built up. We could show that when the railway was first taken over an obligation was assumed of roughly $1,329,000,000. We could go further and show that most of the branch line and other railway construction carried on before the lines were taken over took place from 1900 to 1910. We could show that the greatest extravagances indulged in by the railway took place during the years from 1921 to 1929. It is not necessary to go into these details, which no doubt already have been presented to the house; I am sure hon. members who are at all interested in the railway problem are as familiar with them as I am. This afternoon we could also discuss the arrangements that were made from 1917 to 1920 which brought into being the Canadian National Railways as such. Whether we agree or disagree with what was done during those years is a matter of very little importance, in that it is now an accomplished fact, and we are faced with something far more serious than a discussion of the whys and wherefores of the taking over of these various lines and consolidating them into one system known as the Canadian National Railways.
We could also go back, Mr. Speaker, and discuss the various features of the Drayton-Acworth report, laying particular emphasis, of course, on the optimism therein expressed. We could also discuss the extravagances that were indulged in under the management of Sir Henry Thornton. When I make that statement I do not desire to detract in the least from the good work that Sir Henry did in connection with the Canadian National railway system. I quite realize that Sir Henry Thornton was one of the greatest railway men we ever had in this country. I appreciate the fact that he did a great deal of good work in consolidating and welding the various sections of the road into a unit, and that he improved the morale of the employees so that they appreciated the fact that they were working for a great national system. Despite all those good attributes that he possessed, however, and despite all that he did, I do feel that he put the Canadian National system into a debt position which is very largely responsible for the condition with which we are confronted to-day, and which makes it necessary to introduce some kind of bill in order to bring some sort of order out of the financial chaos that exists in connection with that railway. I need mention only one particular item that

C .N.R.-Accounting
is still a matter for discussion. I refer to the large and elaborate hotel in the city of Vancouver, which is not yet open, and which I understand in its unfinished condition is costing this country upwards of $50,000 a year in taxes paid to the city of Vancouver for which not one cent of return is received by the system. That is one example of the many that could be quoted in this connection.
The Duff report brought before the people of Canada three main features of the nailway difficulty and emphasized them so that we in Canada had a better understanding of them than we had before. The outstanding findings of that report could be condensed into three statements. Canada did not have a population commensurate with its railway development-with that I think we all agree. Canada could ill afford the extravagances incident to bringing the Canadian National property to the standard achieved under the regime of Sir Henry Thornton-with that I think most of us would be in agreement. It should be clearly understood that substantial sums invested in the Canadian National system must be regarded as lost-with that some are in agreement and some are in distinct disagreement.
In connection with this bill and the new financial set-up of the Canadian National, I have in my hand a booklet, from which I do not propose to read, which contains two reports made by officials of the Canadian National railways, recommending new financial set-ups. One report is dated June 20, 1933, and the other April 10, 1934, both preceding the Touche report of 1935. In comparing these two recommendations with the Touche report I noticed that they were almost identical in their statements, differing only to a very slight degree. I want to make this suggestion, and it is on this premise that I want to carry on my discussion a little later: What we have before us in this bill in the nature of recommendations is in reality the recommendations of the very officers of the Canadian National who helped put the system in the chaotic financial condition that exists at the present time, and that the minister is endeavouring to remedy by means of this legislation. We could analyse the Touche report very carefully, but I do not wish to take the time of the house to do so because its contents are well known. They make certain recommendations, and I am firmly convinced that those recommendations are made on faulty premises. In order further to substantiate my opinion in that respect I suggest that the poorest kind of argument one could use to substantiate his claim is to
set up prospective criticisms or suggestions and then proceed to argue against them. In other words, it is the practice of setting up straw men and then knocking them down. That is almost as weak a method as the often referred to argumentum ad hominem, which very few in political life use, and which is not recommended as a fair and reasonable method of supporting a cause which you consider' just. For these reasons I lose confidence in the Touche report and the recommendations contained therein.
One of the first provisions of the bill is the abandonment of certain claims against the Canadian National Railway Company, and a revision of the accounting set-up of the Canadian National railway system. Where no actual cash is concerned I believe all hon. members can be in complete harmony. Where the minister is seeking to wipe off the books of the Canadian National Railways and the Dominion of Canada items which do not represent cash that has been put into the railways by the Canadian people, we can all agree with his procedure. But I am sure that very few hon. members can agree with the suggestion that we take out of the balance sheet of the railways sums of money which represent actual cash paid into that railway by the people of Canada.
The second proposal in the bill is the setting up of a securities trust corporation for the purpose of preserving the priority rights of the dominion, and for its protection against future contingencies in respect of potential interest and other savings. I was going to deal with that point at length, but my right hon. leader has already done so, and to such advantage that it is not necessary for me to attempt to support the arguments he has put forward. His arguments are worthy of the attention of the house, and I feel that not only the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) but the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will give due consideration to his suggestions regarding this most recent innovation in connection with the railway systems of Canada. I consider it a vicious principle, and one likely to lead to difficulties and troubles which we do not now anticipate with relation to the financial set-up of the Canadian National railway system. From the financial point of view, I do not see that the securities trust corporation is going to play any real part in the final rehabilitation of the railways. In fact I am persuaded it is a step which, again from the financial point of view, will make the railway's prospects more difficult than they now are.
May I again suggest to the Minister of Transport that which I have suggested on
C.N.R.-Accounting

so many occasions, that the people of Canada are entitled from year to year to a clear and definite picture of the financial condition of the Canadian National Railways, and that yearly picture should show not only the condition in a particular year, but the condition from the time of inception. The balance sheet of the Canadian National Railways should show the people of Canada exactly the amount of money they have put into the railways, and give them a clear and concise picture of what the roads have cost and what they mean to our citizens.
Certain general principles should be followed in adjusting railway and government accounts. The entire railway loss, including all interest, should be taken up each year in the government budget and be clearly earmarked as such. The full amount of advances by the government should be shown on the railway balance sheet, according to the specific uses made of the funds. The railway balance sheet should record the cumulative loss of the railways. The net results of government railway operations should be clearly portrayed, after charging a fair interest on government investments, and then the necessary cross references should be made in the government and railway accounts so that no misapprehension could exist as to the relationship between the finances of the two.
The suggestion was made in committee that when through the medium of this bill, or in any other way, we criticize the Canadian National Railways, we are naturally antagonistic towards them. I want to make it clear that I do not regard that as fair treatment of anyone who criticizes government measures, even if they pertain to the railways. I look oack to discussions which took place in committee, and to the fact that this particular phase of the matter was referred to by a Liberal member, if other hon. members will permit me to refer to him in those terms. He made reference to that type of criticism, because on that occasion he was criticizing certain features of the bill and there was the mild suggestion that he was somewhat of an opponent of the Canadian National Railways. In my own mind I know that he was no more an opponent of the Canadian National Railways than I am. The hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Vien) is reported to have made the following statement before the committee on railways and shipping:
I resent a little the insinuation that either Sir Edward Beatty or any member of the committee should, when they are trying to find their basic fact, to use my hon. friend's own parlance, that there should be any particular interest other than serving the public interest.

On my own responsibility I wish to express myself this afternoon in terms similar to those used by the hon. member for Outremont. It is on the ground of the public interest that I criticize any measure brought in by the government, whether it pertains to the Canadian National Railways or to any other phase of government activity. I criticize the principle involved. I am not an opponent of the Canadian National Railways; I am a supporter of anything that is good for that system, and I believe I am working in the best interests of the railways and of the people employed thereon when I oppose certain features of Bill No. 12 now before the house for third reading. I wish to make my position perfectly clear, so that there may be no misunderstanding as to where I stand with respect to the Canadian National Railways.
The bill before us cancels a profit and loss deficit balance totalling $904,655,718. There is a credit balance to the proprietor's equity of $676,327,701. This is done by wiping out liabilities amounting to $1,5S0,983,419. I do not know whether I have the figures exactly right; I have tried to bring them down to date, and they may be a little out, but I think they are close enough for the purposes of the point I wish to make. Speaking to this measure on February 5, the minister is reported on page 597 of Hansard as follows:
I believe a schedule can be set up that will preserve the historical record, and this schedule can be made part of the annual report of the Canadian National Railways.
That is the statement the minister made in this house. However, it was suggested that that was not what was being done by the amendments made to this bill. The minister drew our attention to the fact that he said it could be done, not that it would be done. I think we should have a clearer conception of what the minister means and not be quibbling as to whether "can" or "will" was used. The meaning I took from that statement, and the meaning taken from it by all hon. members, is that an amendment would be made to the bill so that more definite information would be furnished than is provided by the bill in its present form. When I made my contention for a clearer balance sheet I referred to the evidence given before the committee by the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Henry Morgan. The meaning I took from his statement was that he was in favour of the balance sheet of the Canadian National Railways showing a full and complete picture of the financial expenditures on that system.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Is it not a fact
that Mr. Morgan said it was immaterial to-

C.N.R.-Accounting
him whether that statement appeared in the public accounts or in the balance sheet of the Canadian National?


William Allen Walsh: I was just coming to that
point. I should like to read just what Mr. Morgan said in order that hon. members may draw their own conclusions. He is reported on page 46 of the evidence given before the committee on railways and shipping as follows:
The executive of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce welcomes these authoritative assurances.
He was referring to the statements made by the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance. I continue:
First, because we believe with the ministers that the proposed adjustment of the capitalization of the Canadian National Railways should not remove from the knowledge of the Canadian people the accumulated costs of the national system. Rather there should be carried forward on the balance sheet itself,-
These are Mr. Morgan's words:
-a complete and continuous record of such accumulated costs from year to year. Secondly, because the clauses of the bill, as now drafted, do not make provision for that intended clarity, which both the ministers and we emphasize.
To carry out the expressed intentions of the government, therefore, it will be necessary to amend the bill, so that no doubt will be left in the mind of the layman that such provision has been made. The executive of the chamber makes this submission in accordance with the principles of sound public finance as approved by the chamber's general membership.
Of course I am in agreement with that statement. The conclusion I drew from it was tha-t the Canadian Chamber of Commerce accepted the amendment which was proposed at that time, which was that this information should be shown on the balance sheet of the Canadian National Railways and not as is proposed by the bill as at present amended. Mr. Morgan continues:
The Minister of Transport has intimated that the proper way of presenting annually this complete financial picture rests with the railway committee. We feel confident, therefore, that the committee will wish to see to it that an adequate clause is inserted in the bill and the desire of the government thus fulfilled.
He continues further on page 50, as follows:
Now, in the case of a government, the people of Canada, no matter what they do with the Canadian National balance sheet, still have to pay the amount that has been guaranteed by the government on the railway situation and on the advance the government has made to the railways; and, therefore, whereas it is quite appreciated that a new set-up for the Canadian National may be quite correct, all I am trying to submit is that we show in a footnote, or in some manner which you are better able to judge and work out than we are-I do not propose to make a suggestion- but the footnote should show the yearly deficit
and the accumulated deficit so that I as a taxpayer or as a business man in checking up the balance sheet of the Canadian National Railways will be able to see exactly the situation for that year and previous to that year.
I can draw no other conclusion from that statement than that Mr. Morgan supported the contention I made before the committee that the balance sheet of the Canadian National Railways, rather than the balance sheet of the Dominion of Canada, should contain this clear and concise picture. It is useless for the Minister of Transport to suggest that there will be a footnote in the balance sheet of the Canadian National Railways to the effect that if further particulars and details are required, reference should be made to the balance sheet of the Dominion of Canada. That is not what we want; that is not what the people of Canada want; that is not what the business men of Canada want, and that is not what the railway employees want. They want to be able to turn to the balance sheet of the Canadian National Railways and find there a clear and definite statement, not only for that one year but for all the years the system has been in existence. That is one point I want to emphasize in particular.
There is another point to which I should like to direct the attention of this house. I am inexperienced in so far as government work is concerned, but in my opinion the principle of this bill was changed in committee. I am subject to correction, but I have always understood that when the house agreed to the second reading of a bill, it agreed to the principle of the bill. When we gave second reading to this bill we understood it was to provide for the revision of the accounting set-up of the Canadian National railway system. In my opinion that is no longer the principle of this bill. The minister has changed it so that now it provides for the revision of the accounting set-up of the balance sheet of the Dominion of Canada. The principle behind the bill was altered in some degree between the time it left this house after second reading and the time of the return of the bill to the house. I brought this point to the attention of Doctor Clark, deputy minister of Finance, who appeared as a witness before the committee; I suggested that it was not in our power to make so vital an alteration in a bill as that proposed by the minister. Doctor Clark replied that " we cannot actually write them off unless parliamentary authority is given for such writing off." The sums now to be written off were advanced to the Canadian National and its subsidiaries as loans and should not now be eliminated without specific authority of parlia-
C.N.R.-Accounting

ment. And how, I asked, are we to give this authority? I assume the authority should have been given by parliament, as has been done heretofore in connection with deficits of. the Canadian National Railways. We are now proposing to give this authority on third reading of a bill to amend the financial set-up of the Canadian National Railways. The Prime Minister, I know, is an authority on constitutionalism; he has used phrases which would lead us to believe that he stands pat on principles of constitutionality. I suggest to him that it is not constitutional to change in committee the principle of a bill, or to adjust the balance sheet of the Dominion of Canada. In this case the largest adjustment that has ever been made in the public accounts is proposed to be done by authority of an amendment tacked on to a bill dealing with a matter other than the finances of the dominion. If that is constitutionalism it is contrary to my conception of the meaning of that term. My own experience may have led me into an error of judgment, but I make this statement in the hope that the point will be cleared up by, perhaps, the Minister of Transport. Either he is wrong or I am. As a new member, naturally I am willing to learn, but as I have said this proceeding is not in accord with my conception of constitutionalism.
When we were in committee I urged that we should get further evidence. I stated that I was not competent, on the strength of such evidence as we had already heard, to pass upon every phase of the bill, and I asked that another accountant be brought in, not to make an accounting of the Canadian National Railway system but to give evidence upon the principles involved in the changes that the minister has proposed. That was a very simple request. Of course I- was asked by the chairman to make a motion, but had I done so it would have been defeated. I threw myself, so to speak, upon the mercy of the chairman and the minister and requested that they call an expert accountant, preferably one versed in railway matters, to come before the committee so that we could ask him specific questions which would enable us to form a judgment on the principles involved in this bill. Some members interpreted this request as meaning that another firm of accountants should go over the books of the railway. That was not what I had in mind;
I wanted merely to ask a dozen or so questions in order to find out whether the accounting principles involved in this bill were the accepted practice among chartered accountants, particularly those concerned with railway accounting. The request was refused, but I contend that T had a right to make it and 
that it should not have been rejected. I have noticed in reading the reports of other committees of this house that they call in expert witnesses of all kinds to deal with the matters that come before them. By refusing my request the government closed the door of opportunity to me to find out whether I was right or wrong in the opinions that I had been expressing in connection with this measure.


Eugène Fiset: I hope the hon. member wishes to be fair in this matter. He knows Very well that when he made his request before the committee it was the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) who explained why the request was not to be granted. It was not granted because the officials of the Canadian National Railway Company who appeared in the capacity of experts before the committee gave information in writing and otherwise in reply to all questions that were asked by the members, including the hon. gentleman, and the committee therefore thought that it was not necessary to bring before the committee some other expert who had never had anything to do with the subject matter.


William Allen Walsh: 
Walter Edward Foster: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he has exhausted his time.


William Allen Walsh: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the house for having allowed me to present my views.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I rise now only to correct a statement made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Walsh). He tried to blame Sir Henry Thornton for the building of the Canadian National hotel in Vancouver. I happen to know something about that because I was a member of the Vancouver city council at the time that the building was started, and I can tell the hon. member and the house that Sir Henry Thornton was not in favour of building that hotel then. Many years before he was appointed president of the Canadian National Railways an agreement had been made between the city of Vancouver and certain railway companies-I do not know whether it was the Canadian Northern or what railway it was-in connection with certain property in Vancouver, and a part of that agreement was that at some time a hotel would be built in the city to cost a certain amount. In 1926 or 1927 the Canadian National Railway Company was asked to carry out that part of the agreement. The management, under Sir Henry Thornton, did not wish to carry out that part of the agreement because they did not think the time was opportune, and after some negotiations between the Canadian National Railways and Vancouver the city threatened to sue the company to enforce the contract between the railway and the city. These are the facts, and I do not think it. is correct to say that the building of the hotel was due to Sir Henry Thornton or to unsound business on the part of the management of the Canadian National Railways.
But even if it were, is that the only mistake that was made between 1925 and 1929? What private company in Canada did not overdevelop in that period? Why, then, hold up this particular company as extravagant in this regard? The other railway is equally guilty. I have heard the statement made in the house on several occasions and I think it is my duty to make the correction.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This bill has been fully discussed in the house and in committee, and in closing the debate I shall confine myself to discussing a few criticisms that have been offered on second and third readings. The chief attack on the bill is that it destroys the record of the cost of the Canadian National Railways to the people of Canada. We are told that the record is to be found in the balance sheet and that when the balance sheet is revised as proposed by this bill that record will go. There is a record of the cost of the Canadian National Railways to the Canadian people but it is found in the public accounts of Canada. You cannot find that record in the present balance sheet of the Canadian National Railways. To include that record in the present balance sheet, some $300,000,000 must be added to the indebtedness as shown in the balance sheet.
In 1933 the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act was placed on the statutes of Canada by the government of that day. That act provides that the deficits of the Canadian National Railways shall not be funded, and that provision was made retroactive to take in the balance sheet of 1932. From that day, beginning with the balance sheet of 1932, the record of deficits was ended.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not like to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but at page 18 he will find:	"Dominion of Canada. . . income
deficits, Canadian National Railways, contributed by dominion, 1932-36,	$277,521,-
384.49."


Clarence Decatur Howe: That may be so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is this year's report.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is in the report but not in the balance sheet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is part of the balance sheet, receipts and expenditures; it will be found on page 18.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The main object of this bill could be achieved by making retroactive the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act of 1933. Let us see what we are really doing in this bill-because it is being lost sight of in the criticism of details. We are setting up a balance sheet that eliminates the duplication
C.N.R.-Accounting

of debt as between the present railway balance sheet and the net debt of Canada. We are including in the new railway balance sheet all the debt of the railway that is not carried as part of the debt of Canada. That is the full test of what shall be retained as debt in the balance sheet. If it is in the net debt of Canada it is eliminated as debt from the Canadian National Railways balance sheet. What was formerly debt as between the dominion government and the railway is continued in the balance sheet as proprietor's equity. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has said that the proprietor's equity items are a duplication of the net debt of Canada. Of course that is so, but it is not a debt duplication because a proprietor's equity is not debt but is simply equity, as the term implies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it is in the liabilities column.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, just as the common stock of any ordinary enterprise is in the liabilities column. It is not bonded indebtedness. Now what is the test by which we arrive at the amount to be retained as proprietor's equity? The test is this: Was the money invested in the property? If so, it is retained in the proprietor's equity, provided it has not all previously been included in the new statement of funded debt. On the liability side of the new balance sheet will be shown every dollar that was ever spent to create an asset of the railway. It is all there.
What have we eliminated? We have eliminated, first, the losses of the railway, money advanced by the dominion government to make up operating deficits. Surely a loss is a loss and should be treated as such rather than as a liability or as an investment of the dominion. It is money lost, it is gone; and in paying that money back to the railway we have simply replaced the capital that was lost in that year through operation. Then we have also eliminated the interest on these losses. Under the legislation governing the accounting of the Canadian National Railways that interest was required to be carried by the railways and set up each year, but it never was set up in the accounts of the dominion government. There is in the public accounts of Canada no such statement of assets represented by interest charged on loans by the government to the Canadian National Railways. So there we have a perfectly logical elimination. It is significant that everyone who has had to do with the Canadian National Railways has urged the necessity for the procedure which is being followed in this bill.
IMr Howe.]
The authorities have been cited. We have first the Drayton-Acworth commission of 1917. Then we have the two firms of chartered accountants who were appointed by the government to make a report on the accounts as between the government and the national railway. Those accountants recommended the step which is now being taken.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not in terms. They recommended reductions in the capital stock, but not in the terms of this proposal.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They recommended that the practice of capitalizing operating deficits be discontinued, and that government advances of such deficits be not added to the investment account, but be absorbed in the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the Duff report?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, that is the report of
1925 made by Edwards, Morgan & Company and Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That only covers deficits, as I pointed out.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If we accept their recommendation it takes care of practically all the write-off contemplated by this bill: that government advances for such deficits-
-bp not added to the investment account, but be absorbed in the consolidated revenue fund of Canada,
Then we have the report of the Duff commission of 1931-32 under the chairmanship of the Right Hon. Sir Lyman P. Duff, which made two significant statements on the writing down of the capital liabilities of the Canadian National Railways. In considering the earning power of the railway the commission said, at page 30:
It is obvious that on this basis of earnings the capital liabilities would require a very drastic writing down.
In recommending the early attention of the board of trustees to the whole matter of the capital structure the commission further emphasized the need of liability adjustment as follows:
. . . this commission is of the opinion that it must be frankly recognized that a very substantial part of the money invested in the railways comprised within the Canadian National system must be regarded as lost and that its capital liabilities should be heavily written down.
Then we have the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act of 1933, passed by the late government, which provided that "income deficits shall not be funded." We have the financial legislation since 1932 which specifically limits the borrowing powers of the

C.N.R.-Accounting
railway to capital expenditures and refunding, and which specifically declares that deficit appropriations should be applied against the accountable advances. Then we have a very interesting letter from which I think I might take time to read a few lines, addressed to Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, then Prime Minister of Canada, by Sir Joseph Flavelle, Bart., dated Toronto, August 12, 1921. This letter was printed at the time and was circulated. At the time Sir Joseph was chairman of the board of the Canadian National Railways. He pointed out his idea of the proper capital structure for the railway. On page 7 the letter says:
The new national railway company to be formed shall have a nominal capital of say five million common shares and two million five hundred thousand six per cent preference
shares-*


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that the whole letter!


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, it is a very long letter, and I was just reading the part dealing with capital structure. It is not important if my right hon. friend objects.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but the point is that the various paragraphs are interrelated. The letter deals with the whole transportation situation and was written before the system was in its present shape, as the minister probably remembers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not particular about
reading it, but I think it is interesting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am quite content if
the minister puts the whole letter on Hansard.


Clarence Decatur Howe: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: That was in lieu of depreciation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: 
William Allen Walsh: Are not those state owned railways merely a department of the government? They do not bear the same relationship to the government of the country as our railway does to the government of this country?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are exactly the same, wholly owned by each province just as the Canadian National Railways is owned by our federal government.


William Allen Walsh: I thought they were administered as a regular department of the government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are run as separate enterprises.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It operates through a commission.
C .N.R.-A ccouhting


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite.


Charles Avery Dunning: A difference in name only.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the debate on second reading a point was made both by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) about the proviso:
Notwithstanding any provision of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, or any other act-
I thought it important to point out in just what way this bill does violence to that act, and I obtained a statement from the chief treasury officer which I shall read.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who is that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: "F.M.M." That is our own treasury officer.


Charles Avery Dunning: The officer of the treasury in the transport department.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He says:
The inclusion of this proviso was simply precautionary in order to overcome any technical objection that might develop in the application of the act. It is difficult, when drafting legislation such as this, to analyze all existing legislation to the point of certainty that no obstacle existed in any previous law. However, nothing has since developed to indicate that the clause is essential.
I have reviewed the amended act as it stands for a third reading, and am of the opinion that no serious difficulty need now be apprehended if the proviso were to be dropped.
The inclusion of similar omnibus clauses in existing legislation is evidenced in, for instance: The act of 1935 respecting relief measures which contains the following wording in section 2-
"Notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law, the governor in council may," and
Chapter 22, 1935, an act to amend the War Tax Act, section 9A, subsection (1) contains the following words-
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this act or .in any other statute or law."
The Salary Deduction and Continuance Act, 1935, section 3, subsection (1) contains the following wording-
"Notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law."
While it is, of course, not possible to foresee what technical objections may develop when the act is applied, the proviso in question could, I believe, be dropped without risk of occasioning any serious difficulty.
That clause, of course applies only to section 8, and I am told that the only possible effect it could have would be where some slight adjustment is to be made as between the accounts of the Canadian National Railways, the Hudson Bay Railway and the harbours board, and that the whole sum affected is about 81,600,000.

On the second reading the question was raised whether clause 12 of the bill really constituted a corporation to be known as the Securities Trust. In that regard I have an opinion by Mr. W. Stuart Edwards, deputy minister of Justice, as follows:
Dear Sir,
I understand that you require to be advised as to the form and effect of clause 12 of the bill to enact the Canadian National Railways Capital Revision Act. In the first place I beg to advise that the dominion Companies Act has no application since that act relates to joint stock companies, that is to say, companies formed on the principle of having for their members the holders of shares of the capital stock and no other persons. The corporation to be established by this bill is not a joint stock company since the members of the corporation are the trustees and I may say that in adopting this scheme we followed the scheme of the Canadian National Railway Company. By section 1 of that company's act of 1919, the directors, who are not shareholders, are incorporated as a company and by section 3 provision is made for vesting the capital stock of the company in the Minister of Finance.
Exactly the same as the Securities Trust. He goes on:
The Securities Trust acquires the attributes necessary to enable it to function as a corporation as a result of section 30 of the Interpretation Act rather than the Companies Act. That section, amongst other things, enables the corporation to sue and be sued and limits the liability of the members of the corporation.
The future tense was adopted in clause 12 of the bill to provide for the continuation of the corporation into the future and I beg to advise that since nothing is required to be done or is contemplated to be done under this or any other act to create or complete the corporation convinces me that the corporation will be established by the operation of clause 12 without more.
Yours truly,
W. Stuart Edwards, Deputy Minister of Justice.
Mr, BENNETT:	Although there are no
words saying that the corporation is created? Usually I have a great deal of respect for an opinion by Mr. Edwards.


Clarence Decatur Howe: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: You could not do that .except by statute. No trustee of the crown could give away property of the crown in any other way.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is true, but nevertheless we have undertaken to set up this balance sheet in order to show the money invested in the property, which after all is only $288,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, over a billion dollars


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, 8288.000,000 as far as this particular item is concerned. We have claims here totalling about 81,100,000,000, of which only S270,000,000 was actually invested in the railway property. That 81,100,000,000 has a value in that it establishes certain priorities in connection with any claims against the railway property made by anyone other than the dominion government, and for that reason we have thought it worth while to preserve those claims. Nevertheless we do not wish to burden our balance sheet with more than the amount of those claims representing the actual investment in the property. Therefore, as a matter of convenience only, we have set up a company to be known as the Securities Trust, which will hold all the claims, totalling something over a billion dollars. But we will put a value on the Securities Trust representing the $270,000,000 so invested in the property, and that amount we wish to include in the balance sheet of our railway as part of the proprietor's equity. Therefore we set up this company in a form which will permit it to be consolidated in the balance sheet of the railway, and we make the provision that this Securities Trust is a company within Canadian National Railways.
On the other hand, we place the stock and ownership of the company in the hands of the Minister of Finance, in lieu of the claims he formerly held totalling over a billion dollars. We then say that we will issue five million shares of stock representing ownership of the Securities Trust. After all, five million shares does not seem to be out of line with claims having a face value of over SI,100.000,000. So there we have our Securities Trust, a company wholly owned by the Minister of Finance, a company within the Canadian National Railways in order that its stated value can be consolidated with the railway balance sheet.
That is the whole story, and it seems to me that this company, set up as a convenience to maintain priorities and to give a stated value to securities which will allow them to be brought into the structure of the railway as we require, is being unduly criticised.
The question arises what the net benefit of all this may be. It seems to me that it can be put concretely in a few words. In the first place, we put a value on the property, the Canadian National Railway, which represents the total money invested in that property. Surely that presents a fairer picture to the public and the world at large than the present structure, enlarged as it is by operating deficits and interest thereon. It seems to me it is going to give the officers and employees of the railways a more reasonable objective to attain. Surely the earning power of a property must bear some proportion to the investment in that property. And setting up as the capital the investment in the property rather than a largely inflated sum will, I believe, put new hope in those responsible for the operation of the property.
It also shows to the world a consolidated balance sheet of Canada and its wholly owned subsidiary which will give a real picture of the total indebtedness of the two. With this balance sheet we can say to the investor in the securities of Canada "We have a certain debt which is shown in the net debt of Canada. We are responsible for a certain other debt, the funded debt of the Canadian National Railways, as shown in her balance sheet. If you add one debt to the other you have the total indebtedness of Canada, and when you buy a security of either the government of Canada or the Canadian National Railways you are buying your proportion of that consolidated debt." When that picture is shown I believe we will be better able to say to the investor of Canada, "If you buy a bond of the Dominion of Canada or a bond of its principal subsidiary, the Canadian National Railways, you will be buying an obligation of the dominion which, when due, will be met in full, in the future just as it has been in the past."


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


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wish to point out that
under the rules of the house there is no reply on the third reading. I did not raise the issue, however, because I desired the minister to proceed. It is a fixed rule, and on one occasion I found myself embarrassed by it. The rule in May about the minister not having said anything when he makes a motion has no application in this particular, because
C.N.R.-Accounting

we provided otherwise by special rule. It is an ordinary motion, a matter of course, and it is not a substantive motion. There is right of reply on a substantive motion. On other than a substantive motion, there is none. If the minister merely rises in his place and moves third reading he has exhausted his right, although in England, for another reason, the rule is somewhat different. They have specially provided a prohibition against it. On one occasion I endeavoured to make a reply, and found myself confronted with the rule as interpreted by the clerk at that time, namely that it was not a substantive motion. I only point this out to show what we met with on that occasion.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: My right hon. friend is not quite correct. I understand the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) did not speak when presenting the bill for third reading, and therefore he is entitled to speak at any stage during the debate on third reading. That is the rule, according to May.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is laid down in May; but he does speak, the minute he makes the motion. Mr. Speaker said, "The Minister of Transport moves," and that settles that. Then, we went on. Another minister might have moved, as I had to have done on another occasion. However, I waited until the minister had finished his observations, because I did not wish to take advantage of the rule. I direct attention to it, however, as it is a matter of some importance to all of us.


Walter Edward Foster: Is the motion carried?


Richard Bedford Bennett: On division.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would direct the attention of my right hon. friend to Red-lich, Volume III, page 57:
A further exception is the right of reply enjoyed by the member who has proposed a substantive motion. He is entitled to a second speech at the close of the debate. The right does not extend to the mover of a formal motion, such as a motion for adjournment, or to a member who has moved an order of the day. In the case of moving an order of the day a member may reserve his right to intervene in the debate at a later stage by signifying his proposal of the order by merely raising his hat, without saying a word.
Could it not be interpreted that such was the intention of the minister?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; the difficulty is that that is the English rule; but we have a prohibition here. We have a rule, standing order 43, to which I would direct the attention of the house. That was the difficulty I experienced. I am quite familiar with what is

laid down in May, but I must say we have no such rule, but rather a prohibition. We shall have to amend the rule, or face the situation as it is and let another minister make the motion.


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


Richard Bedford Bennett: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 79, respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Sections 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On section 5-Repeal of United Kingdom Trade Agreement Act, 1932.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The provision inserted in the old act dealing with the dumping of goods in the British market from countries which were not maintaining a capitalistic or profit system, has disappeared. Has any thought been given to the matter? Is the change made by arrangement, or how?


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, it was done by arrangement between the two governments. It was thought that the circumstances of to-day render it undesirable to retain the clause.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
On the schedule-Trade agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom.
Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of the time which has elapsed I should like to know if the minister can give us further information with respect to black sheets. I have had several further communications from other quarters stating that there have been further increases in the price. Is the minister in a position to give us any further information? The committee may be amazed to know that one of our Canadians has received an order from Africa for sheets for galvanizing, owing to the fact that under existing conditions there is such difficulty in getting supplies of raw material from Great Britain.


Charles Avery Dunning: He was not able to accept the order.

Camda-United Kingdom Trade Agreement


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is unable to accept the order unless this government is prepared to permit him to go into the United States to buy raw material. I submit that it is abundantly clear that the only market in which supplies can be obtained is the United States. In view of the constantly rising prices, I suggest that black sheets should be made free without further delay for a period of two or three months so that the Canadian fabricators may obtain the raw material for the galvanizing of sheets.


Charles Avery Dunning: Make them free?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, considering the present market price and the fact that they would be subject to the three per cent excise tax. If they could have been put on a basis of five per cent two months ago, well and good; but even if they are permitted to come in free they will cost something like 12i per cent more than they would have cost at that time. I am not sure but that the figures are higher than that, because they have changed since I last made myself familiar with the price list. We should permit our fabricators to get raw materials and the only place they can get them is the United States. Since we last discussed this matter there has been an increase in price.


Charles Avery Dunning: As the leader of the opposition intimated in a former discussion on this matter, it must be made the subject of discussion between this government and the government of Great Britain. I do not want to prejudice the approaches that are being made in this connection by discussing the matter any further, except to say that approaches are being made.


Denton Massey: In further substantiation of what the right hon. leader of the opposition has said, I would say that I have received several communications in regard to this matter which have stated that men have been prevented from going to work as a result of this raw material not being available at the present time. I have been urged to raise my voice to see that something is done, at least temporarily, by way of suspending the duty on these articles.
Schedule I agreed to.
Schedules II and III agreed to.
On schedule IY.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This schedule includes the vegetable oil items. I did not take part in the discussion the other day and I desire to make only one observation. It seems to me to be extremely difficult to understand just
what can be accomplished by a reference to the tariff board in view of the fact that the agreement is completed before the reference could be made.


Charles Avery Dunning: They can ascertain the facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What facts?


Charles Avery Dunning: I can assure my right hon. friend that the situation is most complicated. I am desirous of having a report from the tariff board upon which I can rely with respect to statements of fact, rather than having to rely upon statements made by either side of what is a very deep-rooted difference of opinion as between the interested parties.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I appreciate the minister's view and I agree with him as to the undesirability of endeavouring to arrive at a judgment on partially complete statements. My difficulty is understanding what the tariff board can do that will affect this matter, in view of the fact that we have provided already by this agreement for a ten per cent preference.


Charles Avery Dunning: A minimum preference of ten per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There does not seem to be any dispute as to certain facts. One undisputed fact is that the importations last year amounted to 250,000,000 pounds. This is a tremendous increase over any figure we have ever had before. The increase is so great as to warrant the conclusion, to put it mildly, that to wait until the next session of parliament for any action would appear to be creating a somewhat serious situation from the standpoint of Canada. These importations totalled 125.000 tons, which struck me as being a tremendous quantity. Any facts which may be ascertained by the tariff board would not modify that essential fact.


Charles Avery Dunning: As in the case of steel, but to a lesser degree, the price factor in connection with these vegetable oils must be considered. It may sound remote, but as a matter of fact the glycerine content has made many of these oils valuable for war purposes. The need for vital chemicals has been such as to affect the price structure of these commodities. I do not say that this will be a determining factor, but it may have the effect of changing the bearing in the immediate future.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Prices certainly have gone up during the last few months or even weeks.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have been forced to rely upon the advice of one side or the other of a controversy in connection with which I
2254	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
am bound to say that both sides have made extreme statements. I am not referring to the sides as represented in this house, but to those presented by the business interests of this country. I refer notably to the baking interests, as representing the consumers, and the animal fat producers, as representing the producers, supported to a degree by certain other elements including the National Dairy Council. Extraordinary statements have been made and I do not think we should dogmatize about what is to happen in the near future. I can only venture to say-I am again basing my statement upon the advice of one side only-that the price factor has been such as to prevent forward ordering to anything like the degree that it took place last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In other words, the imports will be lessened.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is what is represented to me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I certainly appreciate the difficulty the minister faces in dealing with this or any other item so completely affected by war conditions, using those words as indicating a state of mind on the part of many people rather than an actual condition. I represent a locality which is interested in vegetable oils and I bring the matter to the attention of the minister at this time because I did not participate in the discussion the other day. If a report is received from the board, we have no power to deal with it by executive action.


Charles Avery Dunning: By agreement only.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may not be desirable to initiate such a discussion in the light of the representations which I know have been made to the minister. So far as I am concerned, these representations do not affect my judgment when I realize that 125,000 tons of these materials have come into this country and in view also of the statement made before the price spreads committee as to the tremendous effect it had upon the profits of Canada Packers.


Charles Avery Dunning: Certain ones only.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certain ones of which?


Charles Avery Dunning: Of the packers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said Canada Packers;
I mean the firm.


Charles Avery Dunning: Western packers, of course, have not access to this commodity on an economic basis.
(Mr. Dunning.]


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am thinking about the firm known as Canada Packers. The representations that have come to me have probably been made to the minister himself by western packers, who feel the situation extremely keenly.


Charles Avery Dunning: Because they cannot get it economically.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite.


Charles Avery Dunning: It depends upon whose ox is gored.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may be that the minister has some warrant for his assumption that the interest is because they cannot participate, but at any rate the interest is very great and the representations are very strong. I suggest to the minister that the matter may become so overwhelmingly important if certain factors continue to operate that it might be desirable to initiate discussions without delay.


Charles Avery Dunning: The chairman of the tariff board advises me that seldom has he had before him a matter which requires such extensive research as this one. I questioned him about it, of course, following the representations which were made, and the representations themselves followed the agreement with Great Britain with respect to this particular item, which, as my right hon. friend knows, is viewed by Great Britain as very important.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not quite sure on that point. I was going to ask the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: But I do know this, that the relations at present existing between Canada and Great Britain with respect to these matters, especially having regard to the disturbed world conditions in many commodities, ensure sympathetic consideration by either government of any difficulty which is made known by the other with respect to the working out of the agreement. I feel sure that if the facts as disclosed by the tariff board indicate a situation demanding remedy we can secure a reasonably good hearing-I would go so far as to say favourable consideration from the British government in connection with anything we may find it necessary to propose in the interests of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I understand there has been a hearing before the tariff board; is that so? '


Charles Avery Dunning: I beg your pardon?


Richard Bedford Bennett: A hearing has commenced before the tariff board?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.

Canada-United, Kingdom Trade Agreement


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not in the country, but I read some newspaper clippings which indicated that quite a bit of evidence had been given with respect to the matter here in Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the inquiry was
adjourned, as I understand.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And there is nothing to indicate that any inquiries have been prosecuted outside of this country. Presumably it does involve some inquiries beyond Canada altogether.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would not definitely
say so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the minister spoke about the complexity of it as indicated to him by the chairman of the board, I was wondering whether or not the question of subsidiary interests that might be affected was included. Soap makers, for instance, are interested.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can assure my right
hon. friend that if he had been in the country he would have been inundated with representations by soap makers and bakers and-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Candlestick makers.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The immediate pressure appeared to be, judging from what I read, from the soap makers.


Charles Avery Dunning: And the bakers and the laundrymen, but strongest from the bakers.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Schedules V to VII inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Having regard to the
various schedules and the negotiations as to the time at which the agreement is to come into force, it is desirable that some portions come into force at one time and other portions at another time? I mention this having regard to the tariff resolution.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is all covered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. The sentence might read: This act shall come into force at a date to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council.


Charles Avery Dunning: In the meantime, under the provisions of the existing agreement-I think it is article 17-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not very important, because it is being repealed.


Charles Avery Dunning: -a great deal of thought has been given to the matter and considerable negotiations have been carried on between the two countries. I should like to reassure my right hon. friend upon this point and perhaps if I read my whole note on the matter, which is very carefully prepared and represents the understandings of both governments in respect to it, my right hon. friend will understand the position:
The agreement as a whole will come into force on a date to be agreed upon by the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom after the necessary legislative action has been taken in both countries. British action yet remains to be taken. As far as Canada is concerned, the bill before the house giving the agreement the force of law in Canada from a date to be fixed by proclamation will enable the Canadian government to implement its undertakings in their entirety. Similar legislation is being introduced in the United Kingdom and when it has been passed, both countries will be in a position to fix the date for the coming into force of the new agreement and the consequent termination of the 1932 agreement.
I call attention to the last words. The 1932 agreement remains in force until terminated by understanding between the two countries.
In the meantime, in accordance with the third sentence of article 17 of the new agreement, and under authority of article 23 of the 1932 agreement-which remains in force -the two governments agree that as from February 25, 1937, article 9 of schedule E of the 1932 agreement would be replaced by articles 6, 7 and 8 and schedule 4 and 5 of the new agreement, with this exception: the provisions of the 1932 agreement remain in force and will operate until they are superseded by the new agreement from the date to be agreed upon between the two governments.
That, I think, answers my right hon. friend's question. We are utilizing a provision of the old agreement to keep it in force until the proclamation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And of course the old agreement remains unrepealed until the proclamation.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is true.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Precious Metals Marking Act



PRECIOUS METALS MARKING ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour) (for the Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill
No. 2, to amend the Precious Metals Marking Act, 1928.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Explain, please.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The proposed bill provides for three minor amendments to the Precious Metals Marking Act. I think I am quite safe in saying that no one of these amendments is likely to prove contentious. I had proposed to take up the several amendments when the bill was in committee. I doubt if they call for any extended statement at this time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No principle is concerned?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is no principle concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Gold plate, gold plated, silver plate, silver plated.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the real commercial effect of this?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I understand that the addition here of gold plate and gold plated and silver plate and silver plated in section 10 is designed to enable the purpose of the act to be carried out with respect to articles of this kind manufactured from precious metals. It has been found, for example, that when an article was described as being of gold plate or silver plate it did not come within the safeguards provided in the act. As the leader of the opposition is aware, the purpose is to prevent fraudulent misrepresentation by providing for certain markings which will be a guarantee to the purchaser that he is receiving what he expects to receive.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Date letter.
Norman McLeod Rogers: I am going to ask my colleague the Minister of Agriculture to move that this section be deleted. Certain differences which have occurred over this section account for the fact that though the bill has been on the order paper some weeks, it has

not been possible to proceed with it. The original intention was that the Canadian manufacturers of fine articles of gold and silver might be enabled to use the current date mark as used by the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths of London, England. However, it was discovered on further inquiry that the company of goldsmiths had certain objections to their date letter being used in Canada, and for this reason it is not proposed to proceed with this clause of the bill.


Mr. STIRLING:: No date letter will be used in Canada?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The current date letter of the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths of London will not be used. As I understand it, they use twenty letters of the alphabet, placing them in certain shields, or other designs, and those in the trade, by means of these letters, are able to determine the exact year of the manufacture of the article so marked. Some Canadian manufacturers thought that it would be of advantage to them to use the same current date letter and it was felt that where the date letter of the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths was known there might be some advantage in following that particular date letter. That company, however, has intimated that it would prefer that we should not use the same date letter, and for the time being it is not proposed to proceed with this section.


Mr. HEAPS:: Was any reason given for the objection?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The latest communication from the goldsmiths' company, through the High Commissioner for Canada in Great Britain, reads:
Your telegram March 11th Metal Marking Act. Goldsmith Company regret unable to accede to request. They feel it should not be impossible to attain object without making use of London hall mark in the same way as other assay offices in the United Kingdom have distinguishing date letters, and they suggest that there would appear to be no reason why Canada should not adopt similar course. Goldsmith Company further suggest that it would be of advantage to accompany date letter which may be adopted with an additional mark representative of Canada which could not be copied elsewhere.
That is the objection made on their behalf.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When I first saw this amendment I thought there would be some difficulty about it. In my opinion it is highly desirable that we should have some way of identifying the date of our silver. There are three marks on English silver: first, the mark indicating its quality; second, the mark of

Precious Metals Marking Act
the city in which it is manufactured; and third, the letter that gives the date. The word sterling rarely appears on English silver. The Edinburgh marks are different from those of Chester or Birmingham or Sheffield. The London marks are the ones that we are most familiar with. The date letter for 1937 is capital A on the shield. That was given when the distinctive mark expired on the death of George V, and it covers both Edward VIII and George VI. The leopard's head indicates the quality and the place of assay.
Many times I have heard doubts expressed as to the quality of some of our silver that bears the word sterling. The quality of sterling depends, of course, on the amount of alloy mixed with iit; n75Aooo being usually perfect alloy for silver. It does seem to me that we should have some such provision as this, and I had hoped when the bill stood so long on the order paper that the minister was taking the opportunity to arrange with the British authorities that there should be no confusion. I think we might have a beaver, which it would not be difficult to place on silver, and that would indicate the quality. The question of location would have to be determined by subsequent conference between the body of the trade and the government. The date letter is a matter of arbitrary arrangement. In point of fact the oldest date goes back to the 1400's.
I do not think it would be difficult for us to arrange our letters in such a way as to avoid the possibility of conflict with the English. As it stands now, the difficulty is very real. If, for example, our letter were the same as the English, and if the same form were followed, one might look at a piece of silver and conclude that the date was 1700 and something, when in fact it was 1935. It would be highly desirable to work out some plan whereby from a letter or some arbitrary symbol we might be able to determine the age of our silver. The practice is quite interesting; it also adds to the value of the silver. It is only for a year, of course. The date on which the new letter is promulgated is not always certain, but it continues for twelve months, during which period the particular letter chosen is impressed. Once you get your place of assay, then you have no trouble in fixing your date from that letter.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Time of identification.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it identifies the year exactly. If you have your other two marks a.nd can define .them, then you know where it was assayed, and you know it is what is called sterling because that other mark indicates it is sterling silver according to the 31111-143
English definition, which I think is 97%ooo. In the United States they are exactly as we are. You have the initials of the firm that manufactures, for instance, Gorham's is "G. & Co." stamped on the bottom of a silver tray. But that does not help because there will be the word "sterling" put somewhere in the comer. You do not know what year it was done. In England you can take your magnifying glass and read that letter on a piece of silver and fix the year, if you are familiar with the symbols. I hoped the minister was going to be able to carry this through, because I think everyone realizes it would be a distinct advantage to us all.


Mr. GARDINER:: I move:
That section 3 be deleted.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is anything going to be
substituted for this clause?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Nothing to be substituted at the present time. The final communication from London was under date of March 19, and it was not found possible by the Department of Trade and Commerce in the interval to provide a substitute for the clause it is now proposed to delete. I might say, however, that it is strongly the view of the Department of Trade and Commerce that there are advantages on the side of having a date letter as was proposed in this clause, and I shall certainly bear in mind what has been said in support of that view by the leader of the opposition. I might at the same time direct his attention to the fact that the Precious Metals Marking Act does provide for national marks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But we have not got far with it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No, but they may be
authorized by the governor in council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 4-Advertisements.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Does this stand in its
present form in view of the deletion of section 3?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is to be a slight
amendment of the form of words.


James Garfield Gardiner: I move:
That subsection (dl) be deleted and the following be substituted therefor:
"(dl) in any printed or written matter of the nature of an advertisement of an artele to which this act applies uses any mark or description the application of which to such article is prohibited by this act."



Piecious Metals Marking Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wonder if the minister regards that as the best expression. It is difficult to suggest that an advertisement uses anything.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think perhaps the explanation lies in the interpretation section of the act. The word "applies" is given a restricted meaning; that is, a description applied to an article would mean a description attached1 to the article itself, either by some form of impression or by a label or tag. But it has been found that the purpose of the act has been frustrated through false advertisements. That is, there may be an advertisement saying that certain described articles of silver will be sold at a certain section of a store at a certain date, and that may very well operate to induce a purchaser to go to that particular place believing he is receiving these articles.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would it not be better to put it another way? As it is now you have-


Grote Stirling: Two verbs contiguous.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not only that, but you assume that an inanimate thing is capable of an act, that an advertisement uses something.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I might quote the original section:
(d) imports or otherwise brings into Canada any such printed or written matter;
And this would follow:
in any printed or written matter of the nature of an advertisement of an article to which this act applies uses any mark or description the application of which to such article is prohibited by this act.
That is, there is another section which expressly forbids-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I know exactly the case they are after.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have no desire to insist on this particular form of words.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In making the goods
designated in a previous clause is any firm allowed to mark the goods themselves without having the permission of the governor general in council?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Provision is made in the Precious Metals Marking Act for the use of marks of quality on articles of precious metals.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Similar to the hallmark, so-called, in England.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are the firms who mark the goods given permission or licence to do so?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No licence is necessary, but if marks are used and if there is misrepresentation they fall under the penalties provided in the act.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is there such a penalty as revoking the right to use the mark?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Section 13 deals with offences and penalties under the act:
Everyone is guilty of an offence, and liable, on summary conviction thereof, to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars and not less than twenty-five dollars for each article or part of an article in respect of -which the conviction is had, who being a dealer,
(a)	applies to an article any mark not authorized by this act, or by regulation made under the authority of this act, to be applied thereto;
(b)	applies to an article any mark in a manner not so authorized;
(c)	omits or neglects to apply to an article any mark required by this act, or by regulation made under the authority of this act, to be applied thereto.
My hon. friend's question related to the nature of the penalty. The penalty provided in this particular section is a fine.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I thought the government might regulate or control the privilege of marking these goods. I think the revocation of the right to use a certain mark in cases of infraction would be a greater deterrent to fraudulent practices than a fine.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That part of the statute is not in force yet.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It comes under the Unfair
Competition Act. The trade marks have to be registered.


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

Richard Bedford Bennett: What shall we take tonight?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Immediately after recess we shall take up the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) respecting unemployment and agricultural distress; then the resolution in the

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) with regard to the indebtedness of the Canadian National Railways, and after that supply.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the Prime Minister any particular department in mind?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The remaining supplementary estimates for the current year. If we get along with those we shall take up the Trans-Canada Air Lines bill.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. UNEMPLOYMENT



PROVISION FOR ALLEVIATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT AND AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress and for such payments appropriated by parliament as may be necessary for all or any of the purposes of the proposed legislation.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Norman McLeod Rogers: Mr. Chairman, this resolution precedes the introduction of a bill to provide for the continuance of federal assistance to the provinces, and through the provinces to the municipalities, in their efforts to deal with unemployment and agricultural distress. The present act, namely the Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act, 1936, expires, as no doubt hon. members are aware, on March 31 of this year. Although it is generally recognized that economic conditions have improved considerably during the past year, and we trust are continuing to improve, still the improvement has not yet reached the stage where federal assistance can be withdrawn.
The bill which will be founded upon the resolution is in terms very similar to the present Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act and, like it, provides (1) for the initiation and carrying on of works by the federal government for the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress; (2) for federal assistance being extended as in the past few years to the provinces, under agreement with the latter in their efforts to relieve unemployment conditions and also the very serious 31111-1434
conditions which have existed in certain areas of the prairie provinces; (3) for the continuance of assistance by the dominion to the provinces by way of loans towards the provinces' costs in connection with such measures; and (4) a further provision by which the province is required from time to time to furnish the dominion with certified statements as to its financial condition in such detail and in such form as the dominion may require; also that it shall furnish such other information and permit such examination and audit to be made by the dominion as may appear to be necessary.
Those, Mr. Chairman, are the main features of the bill which will be introduced following approval of the resolution.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Chairman, before the resolution carries, I suggest that we ought to have a more extended statement from the Minister of Labour. He speaks of the greatly improved conditions which prevail to-day as compared with last year and possibly the year before. I should have liked to hear more from the minister in that respect. He may say that he is prepared to give that information when the bill is in committee after it has received second reading, but in view of what has happened in past years I am asking that the information be given now. I can remember occasions in years past when days and days have been spent in committee on the resolution in a discussion of the general situation, but very little opportunity is afforded in committee on the bill to ask questions on details. I believe the minister would not be doing anything out of the ordinary if at this time he were to give a little more information than he has done. After all, there is no question so important to the house or the country as this one respecting relief and unemployment.
Personally I should like to know the government's policy for coping with the situation. It will be of no use for the minister or hon. members to say that a commission has been appointed to deal with the question, and use that as a cushion upon which to fall every time the matter is raised. After all, the government must assume responsibility for dealing with unemployment. We would like to know what the policy will be, because the granting of relief to persons out of work and the creation of additional public works are in themselves no solution of the unemployment problem. I believe the minister will be one of the first to admit that no form of capital expenditures initiated by the government is in itself a long-range solution of the problem. In my opinion capital expenditures ultimately
2260	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricidtural Distress
tend to aggravate the situation. If the government has a definite policy for dealing with unemployment, I should like the minister to state it at this time, rather than later when we are in committee on the bill.
The government admits that at this time there are 400,000 out of work. One of the tragedies we must face is the vast number of young men and women who are leaving school or have been out of school for some years and are still unable to find a means of livelihood. The problem of the government to-day is either to find employment for the rising generation and those members of the older generation who may be out of work, or so to adjust the economic life of Canada as to make it possible to absorb these people into useful and productive occupations.
So far this government has done nothing different from what has been done in the past six or seven years. We have been told, and probably will be told again, that it has adopted the policy of attempting to expand our foreign trade. Well, every country is attempting to do that, and if there has been any expansion in our foreign trade it has been not so much the result of the policy adopted by the government as the result of world conditions over which the government and probably parliament had no possible control.
Let us suppose that within the next few months the great rush of manufacturing armaments ceases, through some agreement among the nations of the world. Canada would be one of the first countries to feel the effect of such a stoppage, and our numbers of unemployed would be greatly increased. Today our wheat is moving to Europe because of the war scare. Our factories are running longer hours and more men are being employed on account of the increased spurt in the manufacture of armaments. If for any reason the manufacture of armaments stopped, what would happen to us? To-day we have about 400,000 people out of work. We are unable to provide them with any form of employment, and we are told again to-night that for the next twelve months all they can hope for is further relief from federal, provincial or municipal authorities.
I have a strong objection to the giving of relief to those men and women who unfortunately find themselves out of work, because instead of making useful citizens of them we are doing the reverse. If at all possible I should like to see the government, represented by the minister, place before the house some concrete proposal just as is being done in other parts of the world, so that we may go back to our constituents and tell them that the government is attempting to deal in a

fundamental way with the problem of unemployment. In my humble opinion ours is one of the most backward parliaments in the world in dealing with this problem, and I do not think any person would deny that. Look to any country within or outside the empire and you will find that in some fundamental way it is grappling with the problem of unemployment.
In this country we seem to be at a complete standstill. Sometimes we say it is the result of the British North America Act, sometimes that it is the result of the policies adopted; but whatever the excuse may be, the fact remains that in this country we are doing less to deal with the problem of unemployment than is being done in any other country. I do not want to see us take a backward step; I should like the government to bring down a forward-looking policy which would commend itself to all parties and all members and permit our young people and the older generation to look forward to the future with some hope.
I ask the minister and hon. members of this committee, with what degree of hope can those who are out of work look forward to the immediate future? We are in the second session of this parliament, and if it goes the usual length of four years, its life is half over; yet nothing worthy of mention has been done to deal fundamentally with the problem of unemployment. I ask the Minister of Labour to inform the committee and the people of this country whether the government has in contemplation any plans outside of what he has enumerated?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Mr. Chairman, as my hon. friend is aware, a bill will be founded upon this resolution. Ample opportunity to discuss the unemployment question in all its aspects will be afforded while the bill is before the house in committee. A further opportunity of discussion will be afforded when specific proposals dealing with certain aspects of the problem are before the house in the form of special supplementary estimates. I have no desire to withhold any information which any hon. member of the committee may desire at this time, but it does seem to me that there might be a danger of duplicating discussion.
The bill itself will be similar in terms to the Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act of last year and will open up the whole field of the problem for discussion. Perhaps it would meet the desires of the committee if I made a statement with respect to each of the Department of Labour special supplementary estimates when they are before the house in com-

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
mittee. That would enable us to focus attention upon the particular measures designed to relieve unemployment and agricultural distress. If we have a discussion now there is a possibility that it might range over a wide field and not be so focussed as to bring criticism or possible approval of particular measures.
I share the view expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) that the task before us is one of great magnitude. However, it seemed to me when he was speaking that he seemed to exclude two of the methods adopted of providing additional employment. The first is the expansion of foreign trade and the accompanying stimulation of our own industries, and, second, the expansion of public works. I do not think I am distorting what he said when I suggest that he excluded the public works remedy as one which afforded any permanent hope of dealing with this problem. With that view I am in complete accord. I would point out to him, however, that due in part to the trade policies of the present administration and, I am bound to admit, in part to conditions over which no government has any control, there has been an expansion of employment during the past year. That expansion is reflected in the figures which have been discussed quite recently in this house. For instance, there has been an improvement of some 56,000 employed gainfully in this country during the past year; that is to say, some 56,000 more of our people were employed in January of this year than in January of last year. You will find that the 1936 figures represent a considerable improvement over the figures for January of the previous year. To be quite fair, I must also say that the figures for January of 1935 indicated a considerable improvement over the figures for the same month of the previous year.
May I say at this point that if one is going to have a reasonable understanding of this problem, if one is going to present it to the country in terms which can be readily understood, it is of the utmost importance that statistics should be presented in their proper setting and with proper explanations and qualifications. For example, would anyone suggest that in a country of seasonal employment it is proper to compare figures of employment in July of one year with the figures of employment in February of another year? I suggest that the only way in which a fair estimate of the improvement in employment in a country of seasonal occupations can be obtained is by taking the figures for the same months in successive years. If I am correct in that suggestion, then perhaps I am guilty of a degree of condemnation of some hon.
members of this committee who, I am willing to concede quite inadvertently, have given a misleading picture by taking the employment or unemployment figures for one month and comparing them with the figures of another month in previous years.
When we look over the industrial conditions obtaining in Canada at this time I think we are justified in saying that there has been a very marked improvement in employment in the province of British Columbia. During the past year and a half there has also been a notable improvement in employment in the maritime provinces.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: The minister is giving employment figures; would he give us the unemployment figures?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have the figures of those who were on relief.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is only part.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, perhaps
I could shorten the discussion as far as we are concerned by making a suggestion at this time. We do not desire to duplicate the discussion, but at this stage of the session I am sure we all desire to obtain the maximum information with respect to this problem with which we have to deal. It is a question whether or not it might not be more advantageous if the minister would supply the information asked for now. In the very nature of things, when the bill is before the committee the chairman may limit the discussion to a particular section and thereby prevent a general interrogation of the minister which would be quite permissible on the resolution. If the minister will not misunderstand me, I suggest that it might be well for him to make a statement indicating the exact problem with which he is faced at this time. We are now at the end of March. He might tell us what the position is with respect to the farm side of the problem; then he might proceed to tell us the number of unemployed and the number on relief at this time as compared with the same time last year. Perhaps he could indicate in a general way the measures which he proposes to take to deal with this problem. As he says, he has the information there, and I am inclined to think that in view of all the circumstances it might expedite business if he dealt with it in that way. That is my own personal opinion only.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As I explained at the beginning. I am entirely in the hands of the committee. It is a question simply of when the information can be given with the greatest advantage. The hon. member for Winnipeg North asked as to unemployment figures.
2262	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
As he is aware, we do not have any exact census of the unemployed in Canada. In saying that I am simply traversing ground which is familiar to all hon. members. The bureau of statistics, however, has for some time past made an estimate of unemployment in Canada, and upon the basis of comparisons which, I believe, were derived from the census figures of 1931 they inform me that they have reason to believe that their estimate of unemployment is quite accurate. It is, however, an estimate and nothing more.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the same estimate
based on consideration of the same factors as heretofore?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well then, you have something that is comparable anyway.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Quite. It does not differ in any particular. Referring to the question put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I have the figures-that is, the estimate-for unemployment as given by the bureau of statistics: for January, 1935, 572,000; January, 1936, 556,000; January, 1937, 500,000. That does indicate, I suggest, at least a steady improvement during that period. I should also like to repeat what I said a few moments ago, that one also finds that there was an improvement as between January, 1934, when the number stood at 598,000, and January, 1935, when the number stood at 572,000. At the same time the improvement in the unemployment figures during the past year is greater than in any previous year, as will be seen by the figures I have given. There is an improvement indicated here during the past year of 56,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Could the minister inform the committee which particular industry shows the greatest gain in employment?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am sorry but I have not that information. As I explained to my hon. friend, this estimate comes from the bureau of statistics. Perhaps I should say this, that the figures as prepared are based upon (1) the records of the trade unions; (2) the returns of the employment services of Canada; (3) the bureau's index of employment in firms; and (4) the population trend. Those are the several factors upon which this estimate is based.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Did not the employment commission secure any accurate statistics?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Two reports have been
tabled of the registration of the unemployed on relief. Again I would remind my hon.

friend that the registration was confined to the unemployed on relief, and for reasons which I think were given quite fully a year ago to this house.


Angus MacInnis: Has the bureau of statistics recourse to any figures other than those on relief, so that they can take into account unemployed who are not on relief?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As I just indicated, the estimates of the bureau of statistics are based upon a number of factors

returns from the trade unions, returns from the employment services of Canada, the bureau's own employment index, and finally the population trend. That is to say, the figures of the bureau of statistics are worked out independently and they cover a larger field in that they go beyond the unemployed on relief. These figures are supposed to represent as an estimate the total of the unemployed in Canada.


Grote Stirling: Does the minister understand that the estimate covers men, women and children down to the age of sixteen, or something of that sort?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have no information which would indicate that. I assume that it would cover all those who would otherwise be employable, but I think that one can only infer from the factors used how extensive it would be.


Mr. POULIOT:: The horn, member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) should be satisfied with the information given, because it comes from that well of information which has the high approval of his leader, the right hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Bennett). The minister obtained these figures from the bureau of statistics, and if the bureau cannot go any further, well, then it must be O.K.; the exminister of national defence cannot ask any more; the bureau is an encyclopedia of general information about unemployment. Where did they get it? They got it from this association, from that association, from a hundred and one other associations who do not know anything about it; they brew it with algebra and geometry and every other kind of mathematical science, and here you have the approximate data about unemployment; you must be satisfied with it; it is a full course meal of knowledge about unemployment. I regret very much to have to dissent in that particular.
It was not my intention to have spoken at this time; I purposed to wait until the bill was brought in, and I so informed the minister. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) inquired about what had

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
been done, and other hon. members may be interested in practical suggestions with regard to the relief of unemployment. I have full confidence in the minister in charge, provided that the members of his staff go to the proper sources for information. It is very easy for an employment commission to get it. They have only to communicate with the provinces and tell them that they want that information to be secured from the municipalities. And there is this sanction, that if the information is withheld the minister can tell the provinces: You will get no relief unless we receive the data we have asked for.
The idea underlying the classification of the unemployed is the drafting of a proper policy for the relief of unemployment. How can this be possible unless the government knows what can be done with the unemployed; what has been their previous trade or occupation? So far as the building trade is concerned, Openings may be offered to those carpenters, plumbers and other artisans who have been on relief for some time-some of them, in fact, for years. Some of these men were out of work while the last government was in power, and now that there is improvement in that field, so much the better. But, as has already been said, the idea must not be to give an opportunity to people who have no money to go considerably into debt in order to install new plumbing fixtures and other improvements in their homes. Rather the purpose is to inspire confidence among people who have money, in order that they may spend more of their own money. If the Canadian people understood that, we should soon see larger expenditures in the repairing of existing homes and the building of new houses.
Theoretically speaking, I am against the granting of subsidies by the dominion government for this, that and the other thing. The dominion gives regular and statutory subsidies to the provinces to help them to manage their own business; this parliament does not interfere in the expenditure of that money. But if the provinces have an exclusive jurisdiction in one matter and the federal government is without jurisdiction in the same field, I do not see how they can clasp hands to do cooperatively work which one of the parties has no right to do. I cannot understand such a system. When two parties agree to do something, in order that they shall work together, each of them must have some jurisdiction. As things are, however, this kind of help is extended as a means of showing good will, as evidence of tolerance, and also on account of the emergency.
I have investigated the condition of the settlers who have been established on rocky lands and the committee will be surprised to learn that many of them have not a single animal. They have not a horse or a cow or an ox, and in some cases their hens have died of hunger. It is incredible but true. These men have been put on this rocky soil which is anything but fertile by various organizations-the provincial government, and especially the colonization department of the Canadian National Railways, at the head of which was Mr. Laforce. To my great astonishment this man was elected president of the St. Jean Baptiste Society of Montreal by the credulous members of that society, and after that was loaned by the Canadian National Railways to the Quebec government. He is now deputy head of the provincial Department of Colonization. It is a real shame, because he is entirely ignorant; he cannot speak properly either French or English. He was formerly in the immigration department of the Canadian National Railways, and when he lost his job there, he began to organize a department of colonization which is absolutely useless. He nas been replaced by another useless individual, who praises Laforce so as to show that he himself, Lanctot, is useful.
The poor men who are on this land have written to me stating that they have no relief. But, more than that, if these poor settlers, many of whom die of starvation, happen to make a little money by working on the roads, or if they have a premium of some sort from the provincial government, they receive no more direct relief. They get $3 or $4 a month as relief, and sometimes $5. I thank the minister (Mr. Rogers) from the bottom of my heart for the interest he has taken in them. It is not my business as a member of parliament to look after the colonization schemes of the province of Quebec, but it is my duty as a Canadian citizen and as one who knows the sufferings of these people, to give full information to the dominion government about what is going on. I have been laughed at in this house and called many names because I defended the poor men who have been suffering in the north. They sent me affidavits in support of the statement that the mothers had no milk to give their babies. A permanent official of the Quebec Department of Health told me some time ago that the reason why infantile mortality has not been decreasing in that province was that the children were underfed, even the babies being given, not milk, but simply the juice of pork and beans, and sometimes the beans without the pork. That is why infantile mortality has not been decreasing there. I learned that
2264	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
from no less an authority than Doctor Lessard, who was supervisor of the Department of Health in Quebec. It is time there was a readjustment.
I do not understand how people could be credulous enough to accept Laforce as deputy head of the Department of Colonization in Quebec. It is shameful. That man should be sent back home. An official of the Canadian National Railways told me the reason why he is reputed to be an expert. Someone said "We know he knows nothing but he talks so much about colonization that we have come to believe that he does know something about it." In the civil service, in the Canadian National Railways, and outside, there are many men receiving fat salaries and doing their best to keep their jobs at the expense of the poor fellows who have to pay for it all.
I know these settlers; I see them every day in the recess when I am at home; I visit them. I should like the members of this committee *to see their plight-four families with only one ox, and sometimes not even that. I could mention names; I could let the minister have the information I have received. He can check it at any time. There are families of five, six, seven, and eight young children, settled by the Quebec government on certain lots through the cooperation of Laforce, as Mr. Hungerford admitted on March 18 in the committee on railways and shipping. These people are on rocky soil, the timber having been destroyed by fire; on many lots there is no construction timber, and the fuel trees have been burned down; and they have not a single animal. How can they live except by direct relief?
That is why on principle I am opposed to the policy of duplication. The employees of the Quebec government have informed these settlers that they have suffered so much through the fault of the dominion government, that it is the fault of the dominion government that they do not receive direct relief. It is a shame. Provincial governments should take the responsibilitiy for what they are doing. I do not know anything about colonization in Ontario but I know a great deal about it in Quebec, and when I visited the settlers during the last election I was moved to tears by their condition-and I was the more amazed at the reception I got in the House of Commons when I spoke on their behalf.
I am inclined to believe that the reason these men have no roads is that there is a desire to prevent people from seeing them and the conditions under which they have to live. The condition of these settlers in the new parishes of my constituency is incredible; the 
committee would not believe me if I told them how these people are treated. I protest strongly and I hope that Mr. Duplessis will read what I am saying to-night and will soon fire Laforce, who has been an exploiter of the Canadian National Railways. He is one of those responsible for the martyrdom of these brave settlers, their wives and children. It is time the people of the province of Quebec woke up and realized what has happened in these new colonization districts. I am sure the minister knows enough about it to realize that I am not exaggerating. I invite anyone to come with me next summer and see these settlers. They will be found to be very good and worthy people who deserve something far better than they have received from men like Laforce.


Abraham Albert Heaps: As the hon. member has referred to the unemployment situation in Quebec, will the minister tell us whether in recent weeks he has had any complaints with regard to maladministration of unemployment funds in respect of the city of Montreal?


Norman McLeod Rogers: From time to time we have had complaints about the distribution of relief in particular municipalities. Someone may send in a complaint, suggesting that relief has not been administered without discrimination. Whenever a complaint of that kind is received an inspector is sent to the locality and a report is made. If the report confirms the complaint the matter is brought at once to the attention of the provincial government, and I think that I can say that in general the condition has been remedied without delay.
I do not recall that we have had any formal complaints with regard to the general administration of relief in Montreal. Actually the dominion government has not in the past interfered and does not now interfere with the relations existing between the provincial governments and municipalities. I doubt very much whether, even if the provincial government of Quebec had reason to condemn the administration of unemployment relief in Montreal, they would bring their complaint to the attention of the dominion Department of Labour. It would be more natural to expect a provincial government to take its own measures to correct that situation.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wish to thank not only
the minister but Mr. Hereford, Mr. Carter and the other members of the department who have helped me in my work on behalf of the settlers.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Denton Massey: I was very much interested to hear the minister's comments in connection with the subject matter of the forthcoming bill, and also his answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg-


Norman McLeod Rogers: An answer which is not
yet completed.


Denton Massey: I fully understand, but I
was referring only to the part which had been concluded, that is that there has been in the past year an increase of 50,000 in the number employed, to which we all say hear, hear. On the other hard, let it be remembered that that increase of 50,000 is only 2 per cent, approximately, of the number of those gainfully employed.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But as against the base,
about 10 per cent improvement.


Denton Massey: About 10 per cent decrease in unemployment, and 2 per cent improvement in employment.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, I think that for the committee to get the proper picture you have to use the same base.


Denton Massey: I agree with that, but let it be remembered that an increase of 50,000 is an improvement of 2 per cent in employment and at the same time a decrease of 10 per cent in unemployment. We in this country are concerned with two great controlling factors; one employment, and the other unemployment. As employment increases we would naturally assume unemployment would decrease, and here we have a case in point. We have a 2 per cent increase in employment and a corresponding 10 per cent decrease in unemployment.
Let it be remembered further that this year there will reach the age of sixteen over 200,000 Canadian young men and young women. Of this 200,000 a very substantial percentage will be seeking employment. This is the fresh crop of Canadian youth, ready to follow the occupation perhaps of their choosing or that which perforce they must accept. There is, of course, a substantial number each year-I do not wish to go into figures at this stage of this debate-who drop out of occupations, and their places must be filled by others, these men whose places are vacated as the result of death, injury, old age or whatever it may be.
We must further bear in mind that the change which has taken place in the operations in factories and such places in the last few years has been very extensive; mechanization has been carried forward to a great degree, and operations which heretofore required hand labour in great part now require it to a very much less degree.
Further there are to-day many firms working overtime, which instead of employing an extra man or two, or three or four, or one hundred, are working their regular force extra hours. In one department of government that is the case. My friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott) knows full well, I imagine, that in many places there are those "temporarily employed" who are working far longer hours than they are supposed to do in such employment. That is certainly true of the city of Toronto. In a return made just the other day it is shown that temporary employees engaged in the sortation of mail who are supposed to work from say 7 o'clock until nine or nine-thirty in the evening are working until one, two, three, four or five o'clock in the morning. That simply means that they are taking jobs that might go to others; that the number employed in the post office might reasonably be increased without additional expense. Also in the same return the Postmaster General shows that the amount of mail handled at station "A" in Toronto is practically up to the 1929 level. I simply cite Toronto as typical. In fact, the Christmas mail-


John Campbell Elliott: The criticism by the employees in Toronto and elsewhere is that they are not permitted to work more time and get the extra pay that someone who would otherwise be out of a job is now receiving.	[DOT]


Denton Massey: Yes, I agree that there are some cases of that sort, but there are two sides to the story. Some have come to me and complained bitterly because, being employed on a temporary basis, they cannot get the permanent rate, and they never know when they are going to have to work until three or five o'clock in the morning. The result is that they get a large amount of pay one week and a small amount the next, and they do not know where they are at; it is an entirely unsatisfactory state of affairs. However, I did not rise to bring the Postmaster General to his feet, but simply mentioned the post office as an illustration of what is happening in many places.
It seems to me to be peculiarly important that the minister in drafting his bill should bear in mind a factor to which I have spoken in this house on many occasions. In the speech from the throne, page 3 of Hansard, I read:
Measures will be taken, in cooperation with the provinces, to assist in the establishment of unemployed young people.
There is a National Employment Commission, which I do not wish to discuss tonight. There is a youth committee of that
226G	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
commission. That committee, according to the minister's own statement in a return, has reported on several different occasions. Legislation for the benefit of unemployed youth is forecast in the speech from the throne. Where is that legislation? Where is the value of those reports that have been turned in by this youth committee, which we will assume has done its work conscientiously and well? From the speceh from the throne we who are peculiarly interested in the youth of this country took heart; we thought something might be forthcoming.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If I may be permitted to interrupt, while I do not believe it is in order to discuss estimates at this stage, I am sure my hon. friend is aware that a sum has been placed in the estimates for the specific purpose of providing training projects for unemployed young people. When it is stated in the speech from the throne that measures will be taken to carry out a certain object, that does not of necessity mean that the measures will assume legislative form. In fact, the bill which will be founded upon the resolution now before the committee will grant authority for the dominion government to enter into agreements with the provinces touching this and other aspects of unemployment relief. That is to say, this bill, the unemployment and agricultural assistance act, when finally approved will provide means by which the dominion government can cooperate with the provincial governments in order to deal with the establishment of unemployed young people. I take it my hon. friend is concerned with the object, and not particularly with the means by which the object is achieved.


Denton Massey: Both, Mr. Chairman. After all, there is an object to be attained; there is a result to which we are all looking. The means towards that end are matters which have been discussed in this house many times. I do not think an original suggestion has been made to the minister this session in regard to possible ways in which the young people of this country can be given an opportunity to find gainful employment. The minister, that is to say, has in his possession to-day all the necessary information which he needs to build up concrete, specific, direct and constructive plans for the employment of those among our youth who are seeking employment. The minister knows perfectly well, for instance, that if there is an increase in the building trades as a result of this, that or the other thing that may be done to stimulate building, there is bound to be a scarcity of skilled mechanics. Here is a situation which this country is going to face if this improvement takes place.

I cannot help but smile when those who sit opposite speak of the efficiency and effectiveness of this administration, what it has done to improve conditions, and how much has been done by its trade policy. The improvement in this country, Mr. Chairman, is not because of, but in spite of this government. Those of us who sit on this side realize that literally nothing of a wide and constructive nature is being done by this government, and at the moment we are not speaking from the point of view of his majesty's loyal opposition; we are speaking from the point of view of those throughout this country. One does not wish to become political in a matter of this sort; I am speaking as one who has a very keen interest in the future welfare of Canadian youth. Weekly I come in contact with a great many of our youth, not only in this province but in other provinces as well, and I know perfectly well the spirit of hopelessness that is possessing our youth because this government is not doing anything progressive or showing signs of doing anything. There are youth organizations, not merely local or municipal or confined to one province, but of a national character. The minister knows what they are, and what they are doing. Many of these young people are meeting night after night, discussing this problem, trying to formulate some suggestion that will be approved by this government. Some of us have brought forward these suggestions both last session and again this session. The minister has always received them with the courtesy that is characteristic of him; but what has been done? Nothing.
It may be said that I am anticipating what may be contained in the bill. We have yet to see this bill, but I do think it incumbent upon those of us who are peculiarly interested in the problems of which I have spoken to-night at least to raise our voices in an effort not merely to criticise but to criticise constructively, and to impress upon the minister that this great body of youth throughout the length and breadth of Canada are looking to this parliament to give them if nothing else, at least a ray of hope. Day after day goes by; we come to the dying hours of the session. What has been done in any shape or form that will give the young man or young woman who is out of a job and cannot get a job the assurance that, after all, we are progressing in the right direction and that this government is fully seized of the responsibility that rests upon it at least to give the youth of this country a feeling of distinct encouragement and hope after conditions have been so discouraging and so hopeless?

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I rose to-night to do what I could in this direction. I am not speaking politically; I am speaking as an individual in this house; I am not even speaking as one who is in opposition to the present government. I am speaking to the minister irrespective of politics or anything else on behalf of the youth of this country who are deeply concerned not with to-day only but with the to-morrows and to-morrows, and I sincerely hope that before this session is over something may be done which will at least indicate to the youth of Canada that the government is alive to the situation with *which it must deal, for surely nothing has been done so far to give the slightest indication that the government is aware of what needs to be done.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Perhaps I should say that this special problem of youth did not suddenly come into existence in October of 1935. It has been a special feature of the unemployment situation from 1930 onward. I quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Massey) that the government must recognize it as a special aspect of the larger problem, but I should have thought my hon. friend would feel that some progress had been made when, for the first time since 1930, a definite sum was set apart to deal with the reestablishment of unemployed young people.
There will be an occasion for the discussion of this matter more properly, I think, when the estimates are before the house, but I should like to assure the hon. member that we do have in mind the importance of this question. I do not suggest for a moment that the amount appropriated will do all that he may think should be done, but I think it will permit us, in cooperation with the provinces, to make a definite beginning towards reestablishing unemployed young people in private industry, and I am quite sure he will agree that this must be the ultimate solution. Simply to arrange for a special public works program for the unemployed within the youth age group would not meet the situation at all.


Denton Massey: Public works only-no.


Norman McLeod Rogers: What my hon. friend has in mind, I am quite sure, is the increase of the employability of unemployed young people in order that they may find their way into private industry, in order that they may be prepared for an opportunity and seize that opportunity when it comes. I agree that conditions during the last few years have not been favourable to that kind of preparation of our young people for specific tasks. I am
entirely in agreement with my hon. friend when he suggests that something should be done along the line of preparing these unemployed young people for particular tasks and then, through what I hope will be an improved employment service, eventually bringing them into private employment. The whole matter is one which raises questions of jurisdiction. I do not bring this in as an obstacle; I think the obstacle, such as it is, can be overcome to some degree, but I would remind my hon. friend that apprenticeship is not a matter in which the dominion government has legislative powers. There is no question whatever on that score.


Denton Massey: I admit that, but the government can do much to inspire industry to establish apprenticeships.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Precisely, and the government proposes to do just that.


Denton Massey: It "proposes," but it has done nothing yet.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The provision is in the estimates for this year and, as I said at the beginning, there was no reason why the dominion government should have waited this long.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I should like to make one or two suggestions to the Minister of Labour with regard to the subject touched upon by the hon. member for Temiscouata. I do think that in land settlement schemes of the future the greatest possible care should be taken to see that families are not settled on land so far north as to be beyond any connection with community life, and that they should not be settled on unproductive land or without sufficient equipment and farm animals to be self-sustaining. Particularly do I urge that when it is a fact that in the southern portions of all our provinces-and I am thinking particularly of Ontario-there are plenty of unoccupied farms with fairly good buildings, in the midst of communities where all the necessities for civilized living are available, together with the friendship and contacts with people that are necessary for happiness. I think a very great error has been made by pushing the land settlement into new areas, when in the older portions of the provinces there was land that could have been utilized.
There is one other thing I think we ought to do in relation to the unemployment of youth. I believe we should make it possible under some arrangement for the sons of farmers who want to farm and who are skilled farmers to begin on land of their own. I know there is a federal loan scheme at five
2268	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
per cent, but that interest rate is too high. No young farmer to-day starting in with almost nothing-maybe a team of horses or a couple of cows from his parents-can get along on land on which he has to pay five per cent. It is hopeless from the beginning. If the federal government wants to take a great number of young men out of the cities or prevent them from going into the cities, or in some cases take them off the unemployment rolls, that is one way it can be done. I personally know, and every hon. member must know, of dozens of young farmers who want to farm; but it is no longer true that the father can retire to the market town near the farm and give the farm over to the son. Although he, his wife and children, may have worked hard for many years, the farmer cannot accumulate enough to retire from his farm and leave it to his son.
And so all through rural Ontario we find this problem of young farmers not being able to establish themselves; or the other problem of two families having to live under one roof, which in many cases is not roof enough. Much could be done, and I believe at not very great expense, by doing everything possible to settle farmers' sons on the land. They are the logical people to put on the land. It is hopeless putting people on land who do not know anything about it. Those who are skilled in the art of farming find it difficult enough in these days to make a living on the land, but it would be impossible for people who know nothing about farming, and still more so if they are put on land where even the most skilled could not exist.
I do not think the stupidity of the land settlement policy could be matched, it is a masterpiece. There have been terrific blunders. I am not blaming the minister or the government, but I do think it is time to call a halt. If we are going to have a land settlement policy, let us use people who are skilled, let us put them on land where they have a chance, and at a rate of interest which they can pay.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I had expected the minister
to inform the committee in more detail.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I was going into another
phase of the matter.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If the minister intends to
speak, I shall take my seat.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I had already dealt with
the figures of unemployment as they come to us from the bureau of statistics, and had indicated that there had been a very substantial improvement during the past year, following a marked improvement in the previous year.

I should like to turn from that to the figures of unemployed on relief. It has often been said that improvement in employment has not been reflected as it ought to be in a reduction in the number on relief. I quite agree that there is not always the close approximation which one would expect to find between an improvement in employment and the reduction in the number of unemployed on relief. For this lack of approximation a number of reasons may be given. I believe there can be no doubt that when industries are increasing their staffs after a period of prolonged depression employers of labour are most likely to call back those who have been unemployed for perhaps only a short time, and whose savings have been sufficient to carry them through the crisis. It is also natural for employers faced with an opportunity of expanding operations to bring in a number of younger people. I believe there can be little doubt that a situation such as has developed in the past year in many of our industries is more favourable to younger people of marked physical vigour than to older members of the staffs who have been previously let out. At all events I believe we would find that a very considerable proportion of the increase in the number of those employed during the past year would be accounted for by those who, while unemployed, at the same time were not on relief.
I should also like to point out that total relief figures are most misleading when placed side by side with figures intended to represent an improvement in employment. For example, total relief figures in Canada include those in the drought areas who are receiving relief. I believe no hon. member will suggest that the condition in the drought areas is likely to respond to normal processes of economic recovery. That is to say, those receiving relief in the drought areas are receiving it because of climatic dislocation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many do you estimate there are now?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The number would be
somewhere in the vicinity of 200,000. I say that subject to correction.


Grote Stirling: Are they included in this half million?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The half million does not
include them. That figure is confined to industrial employment. I am now referring to what is sometimes called the total relief figure, and I wish simply to point out that in any total figure, actually there are elements which are intractable in that they do not respond to normal processes of economic recovery. I have indicated those in the

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
drought areas as composing one of the elements. I might have taken the dependents, those under sixteen years of age. No one would suggest that the number under sixteen years of age receiving relief would be reduced by an improvement in economic conditions, except in so far as the head of a family might be released from the relief rolls and be thus able to carry his dependents with him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is still another intractable element in the total relief figures, namely the unemployables. I am not going to suggest that it is possible to indicate the exact percentage. We sought to have the municipalities indicate the number of unemployables in connection with the re-registration of the unemployed on relief, but when the figures came in there was a marked diversity. I believe there can be little doubt that in the case of some municipalities there was a natural surrender to the temptation to reduce the return on unemployables, on the assumption that if the number were put in at a larger figure it would represent a greater burden, which would fall primarily upon the municipalities in any ultimate readjustment of the financial burden of relief.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What would the minister call an unemployable?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I know of no definition of unemployability which is not based upon physical grounds. That is to say, I am quite sure that in sending us in a list of unemployables municipalities would send us a list of what were formerly known as charity cases, those who by reason of ill health or physical disability would be unable to engage in gainful occupation.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In checking over the figures, has the minister come across such instances in any marked degree?


Norman McLeod Rogers: What does strike one in going over the figures is the diversity in the number of unemployables given by the different municipalities. That is to say, there is no uniformity, which I suppose is to be expected. We have variations running from five per cent up to fifteen per cent, so I would be inclined to think that ten per cent would not be far out of line. However, there is no standardized definition of unemployability and no means of distinguishing the unemployable from those who are employable, other than the test of physical fitness. Perhaps my hon. friend has in mind the increase in unemployability on what might be termed psychic grounds.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is an increase due to the use of machines and the unwillingness to employ men of advanced years. This is particularly so in some municipalities.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Undoubtedly in some industries there is an increasing tendency to discharge employees at an earlier age, but I cannot say whether the municipalities would take that as an indication of unemployability. However, I began by saying that the unemployable represent still another element in the total relief figures which could not be expected to respond immediately to an improvement in the economic conditions.
Having made these observations, I should like to place before the committee the latest available figures of relief totals, and particularly the improvement as indicated by percentages in the number of those on relief as compared with those on relief in February of the previous year. The families on relief, exclusive of the drought areas, in February, 1936, totalled 253,376. In February of this year this number had dropped to 209,978, or a decrease of seventeen per cent. The total numbers on relief, exclusive of the drought areas, decreased from 1,212,129 last year to 1,021,615 this year. In the drought areas in February, 1936, there were 28,908 families and a total number of 154,160; this year the numbers were 31,992 and 162,475 respectively.


Grote Stirling: There has been an increase in the total?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There has been an increase in the drought areas. When the drought areas are included, the percentage of decrease is fourteen per cent in respect of families, and over thirteen per cent in respect of the total numbers. That improvement is particularly gratifying at this time because in other years there has not been that improvement in the figures over February of the preceding year.


Major James William Coldwell: Do the figures given by the minister include the number of men who have been placed under the farm placement plan?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not that information before me, and I should prefer to answer that question when the bill is before the house.


Major James William Coldwell: That would make a
material difference in the numbers on relief.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A very material difference.


Abraham Albert Heaps: And in the number of employed.
2270	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Mr. MacNICOL:: Has the minister made allowance for the 10,023 Canadian workers who left this country in 1936 to return to work in the munitions plants of England?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Until my hon. friend has mentioned the figure, I was not aware of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The figures were given the other day in the papers, but I do not know how accurate they are.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I do not know how they could have been obtained except from the Steamship companies.


John Ritchie MacNicol: A return was tabled on February 23, in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). The figure given in that return of those who arrived in Canada from England during 1936 was 2,197. A Canadian press dispatch dated London, March 27, refers to a return made in England stating that during 1936, 7,826 more people came to England from Canada than went to Canada from England. The two figures added together give 10,023 who went back to England from Canada.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But not necessarily for
employment.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In the part of Toronto from which I come certain things have happened which cause me great distress. Many machinists, tool makers and other experts in the iron and steel industry whom I know have returned to work in the munition plants of Sheffield, Manchester, and other British cities. They are the kind of men we want in this country.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I was very glad to hear the minister say that the number of employed in the maritime provinces had decreased, but I wonder whether the facts will bear out that statement. Last year the premier of New Brunswick announced that the province was going off relief and great credit was given to the provincial government for being the first in Canada to go off relief. Shortly after that announcement was made, the city council of Sainit John stated that it was ridiculous for the premier to have made such a statement, as there were many people on relief in that community. The same was true of Moncton, Northumberland and many other municipalities in the province. I am satisfied that there is great need for unemployment relief in that province.
I know the dominion government did grant further aid to the province by way of public works, and I know also that the province has employed more men in its public works

department and in its public garages, which is another form of relief. I should like to know from the minister just what the situation is in the province of New Brunswick, and whether he considers he has had adequate returns from that province to assist him in compiling his figures. I feel that he has not.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In answer to the particular question raised by the hon. member, I may say that last year the government of New Brunswick did indicate its desire to abandon direct relief. In presenting that policy to the dominion government there was also the suggestion that the grant in aid which had been received previously by the province might be used by the provincial government to supplement the proportion of the amount available for joint works in the province, in order that a greater degree of employment might be given to those who otherwise would be on direct relief. In view of that arrangement the province of New Brunswick did not, if my memory serves me, make a return to the registration of the unemployed on relief in the month of September. Subsequently, in order that our records might give a better indication of the situation over the entire dominion, some returns have been coming in. The position taken by New Brunswick, is as I understand it, that while occasional aid is now being given to certain municipalities, they still desire to maintain their policy of remaining off direct relief as a continuing system of granting public assistance.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Will the minister state whether the young men in the prairie provinces who are placed on farms are included under those on relief?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That question was put to
me by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I said that rather than give a possibly inaccurate statement I would secure the information and place it before the house in committee when the bill is introduced.


Mr. MacNEIL:: Are those engaged on
forestry projects included?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The same answer applies.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then the figures
which the minister has given may not convey anything like a correct picture of the whole situation, because apparently New Brunswick is not included-


Norman McLeod Rogers: New Brunswick is included in those figures.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -and we do not know whether or not the thousands who are on farms and forestry projects are included.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
There is yet another class. Here in Ontario thousands of men are drifting about the country and not receiving regular relief. I do not see how they can be said to be registered. Some of them go to a cheap lodging house, such as a mission, and get one night's room and two meals; they then drift on to the next place, travelling sometimes by freight trains, sometimes on the roads, getting lifts when they can, often having to walk. When they reach the next town they get a bed, perhaps for one night, and two meals, and then pass on. Sometimes they beg on the streets for several days: some of them even beg in this building, and others on the streets nearby. They can be seen around the station house, remaining there until they are put out. They can be seen in some of the cheaper restaurants until they are ejected. Sometimes they commit crimes in order to be put in gaol over-night, that being the only way they can exist. They have no proper provision for sleeping, no way of keeping their clothing clean, no resources with which to provide the odds and ends which every man must have. Thousands of men exposed to conditions such as these are drifting about the country: they get no relief excepting in these very casual ways, by missions and other charitable institutions, through the goals, and by means of private donations.
It seems to me highly desirable that first of all some information should be secured with regard to this class of people. Some of us remember the almost impassioned plea which the minister made a year ago, that he could not do anything about this great problem until he had information. Well, it does not seem as though we have much more information than a year ago about large areas of this problem. Not only should we get information, but above all else we should be prepared to tackle the problem.
I shall not accuse the minister of trying to mislead the house-he rather complained that certain figures which had been mentioned were not quite accurate or fair-but I do suggest that he is falling very far short of giving us an adequate picture of the whole situation. He may not have the figures before him, but when the bill is presented we should have, if not statistics as accurate as could be provided by a census, at least a very much closer estimate than has been given to-night.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Just to clear up one point. I understood the minister to say that New Brunswick is reporting at the present time regularly as to its unemployed.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I say they were certainly included in the figures for February which I gave a moment ago.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Were those who were receiving assistance through grants in aid last year included as being on relief?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Those who were receiving public assistance from the municipalities and the province were normally included in the totals for direct relief in that province.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: My understanding was that last year $173,000 was granted the province under the heading of "grants in aid of,'' and those who were receiving that were not included as on relief.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think that must be incorrect.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The province was off relief as far as the record shows.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The grant in aid to the province of New Brunswick, as to other provinces, is paid in a monthly lump sum, and it is indicated that that monthly lump sum shall be used for the relief of necessitous persons within the province. Up to the time that the government of New Brunswick announced its intention to go off direct relief, that sum of money would have been distributed, together with an additional amount by the province concerned, to the municipalities where relief was being granted. After the province went off direct relief, the grant in aid was used to supplement the amount made available to New Brunswick for a joint works program. In other words, the province during those succeeding months believed that it would be possible to take heads of families off direct relief by giving them employment on public works. As it happened, the number was not large.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: The minister does not appear to have attached any importance to the increasing mechanization of industry and to mechanical aids in clerical work in connection with commerce and industry.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I do attach importance to it.


James Samuel Taylor: (Nanaimo): Has any effort been made to gather figures in connection with that development?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have no figures which would indicate the degree to which unemployment has been due to the cause just mentioned. If I remember correctly, this question did receive some attention at the last session. I know of no way by which the dominion government can obtain that information.
2272	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except through the census.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Except possibly through the census.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The census of 1931.


Norman McLeod Rogers: For that time, yes, but not for the intervening years. It would require a continuous census to present the problem in its changing phases.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: The minister said that those on relief in New Brunswick were included in the figure he gave. Does that figure include those engaged in joint works programs, who really could not be said to be employed in industry but are only temporarily engaged on government work? Are they included in the figure, or does it represent only those who are absolutely dependent on the municipality?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The figures are compiled precisely in the same way as they have been in other years. The question was raised as to those on farms, particularly in western Canada under the farm employment plan, and I undertook to find out whether those engaged are included in the totals. Perhaps I ought to give the same undertaking with regard to those who have been employed on joint works programs. Naturally I am most anxious to get the greatest degree of accuracy possible in the figures. I am sure that all of us would be willing to recognize an improvement if it did occur, and my belief is that there has been an improvement. If any corrections are necessary I shall see that they are made.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We are not unwilling to recognize any improvement that has taken place.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As far as the joint works program is concerned very little can be done in New Brunswick in the winter months.


Major James William Coldwell: But is it not a fact that in the fall the people were told that there would be no more relief forthcoming in the large cities? When I was in Saint John in November I saw a statement to that effect. That was official from the government.


Mr. STEWART:: While we give every possible weight and favourable interpretation to the figures presented by the Minister of Labour it must be perfectly apparent to the committee that there is, after all, comparatively little improvement in the unemployment situation when we consider the very large number still in that category; and the next conclusion that must be drawn irresistibly from the minister's statement is that after a

year and a half this government in dealing with this question is following practically the same lines that were followed by the former government and which were the subject of such severe and incessant criticism by those on the other side of the house. In view of the statements of the minister himself, I think we had a right to expect something different from a mere continuation of the methods of dealing with this problem which were so roundly condemned by hon. gentlemen opposite.
The minister did not refer to the closing of the relief camps. As I remember, when these camps were closed he intimated that some substitute for them would probably be found in the nature of training camps. Undoubtedly the closing of the camps resulted in scattering these homeless men from coast to coast. The minister in the security of his home in Ottawa perhaps does not know it, but I can tell him that if he lived in one of the towns he would find his doorbell being rung many times a day by men who pass up and down the streets begging, and who were formerly in camps where they were comfortable. I am sure they would be much better off there than they are at the present time.
One hon. member has referred to that unascertained number of people who are drifting up and down the country without employment. I am sure I am not astray when I say that the minister has not included those in the figures he has given the committee. We knew exactly how many men were in the camps; they were included in the figure for relief. Now they disappear.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Not necessarily.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I contend that they do necessarily disappear because they are moving and you cannot count them.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I will deal with that later.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is no way of ascertaining from time to time how many there are because they are in one town to-day, another town to-morrow, and somewhere else the next day. As far as I know there is no way of ascertaining how many men are in that position, whereas formerly we knew exactly. The minister said there were approximately 500,000 on relief, as reported by the bureau of statistics.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I mean unemployed. That was the number in January, 1937. Down to what age do they go?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is purely an estimate; no breakdown is possible.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am not asking for a breakdown. In making up these figures what is the minimum age taken-sixteen?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is nothing to show that, but I shall be glad to find out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The bureau of statistics did put a limit.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is not indicated here.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As I recall it, the basis of age which was taken in the calculation at all times was sixteen, and I presume it has been continued.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That was the age in the relief figures and I suppose it would be the same.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Another criticism I would make, although I do not wish to be severe, is that we are getting this important legislation at this late date of the session. I suggest that it should have been one of the first things submitted to the house, and we should have had ample opportunity to discuss it in all its aspects. In years gone by there was most severe criticism because similar legislation was not brought down earlier in the session.
Another item to which the minister refers is a million dollars in the estimates for some training of youth, or for some scheme for finding employment for them. In view of what he has said, I take it that he would prefer not to outline anything in that connection but to leave it until the estimates are before the committee. I do not think it would be out of place, however, for him to give some outline of what is proposed to be done with that million dollars, because after all it is a part of that larger plan for the relief of unemployment and the improvement of conditions.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: 2274	COMMONS
Unemployment and, Agricultural Distress
of talk that we put false hopes in the minds of young people or any unemployed people, and perpetuate this psychological condition in their minds.


Denton Massey: Has the government given them any hope?
Mr. R0BICHA1JD:	The best way is the
way that has been followed by this party since we came into power. Open up the channels of trade, increase prosperity, and unemployment will take care of itself.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Robichaud) said it would be better for this house if we did not discuss unemployment and relief questions. I wonder if he gave that advice to his party three or four years ago, and if he had done so, whether they would have accepted it. A few more speeches like that would be deplored, I am sure, by no one more than the Liberal party themselves. In the industrial centres, of which the hon. member evidently has no cognizance, the question of relief and unemployment is the biggest problem. There is no hon. member in any part of this house who can go back to his constituents and not deal with the problem of unemployment and relief. No question was more paramount in the last election campaign than that of unemployment and measures to end unemployment. But lo and behold, a member of the Liberal party now says we should not discuss unemployment and relief, and is applauded by members of his party. I am wondering whether they are so anxious to forget the problem. But let me say they will not forget it until it is finally and adequately dealt with by the government. When the minister himself informs this committee that some half million people are out of work, we are not supposed to discuss it; we are to forget all about it! This half million cannot forget about it. Probably many of them are not on relief. I know the unemployed, have known them well for years, and a great many of them even to this day are too proud to ask for relief. What they are anxious to obtain is work. I had hoped that the minister to-night would explain to the committee the policy of the government in attempting to provide employment for the half million who are out of work at the present time. So far the minister has not given the committee any inkling of the government's intention.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If you exclude public works and trade stimulation what is left?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not exclude foreign trade; I referred to the increase in foreign trade, but I said it was not a solution of the unemployment problem. And I go further. I say that public works is not a solution of the unemployment problem. See what has happened in the United States during the past three or four years; they have pumped, not millions, but billions upon billions into the economic structure of the country, and in spite of that they are still faced with the problem of unemployment. Then there is the vast amount of public works undertaken in the United States. But in spite of that vast expenditure, and the amount that has been lent to private industry, they still have a. vast army of unemployed there.
Nobody objects to public works and the expansion of trade. We are all anxious for it; I am most anxious to see the expansion of trade between this country and other parts of the world, and I am willing to vote money for public improvements to any amount that the government cares to propose in this chamber; but I contend that in themselves these are not solutions of the problem of unemployment. The minister may bring down recommendations for the youth of this country to be taught certain trades; but, speaking in a general way, what is the use of teaching trades to youth when in a year or two the trade may no longer exist? A vast amount of the work to be done is not skilled work. You can go into factories and find that perhaps 80 or 90 per cent of the men employed are not doing skilled work. Most of the work to-day is unskilled or semi-skilled, work which can be taught in a couple of hours. One goes into a motor factory and sees men working at the conveyors; they perform a few evolutions with their hands, in an hour or two they are expected to become skilled in that kind of work.
Then if you go into a railway shop you will find that the great majority of the men employed there are unskilled mechanics. The same thing applies to other branches of industry, which have become so specialized that to a large extent the skilled mechanic is a thing of the past. In connection with the trade at which I formerly worked, a number of years ago I was told that the trade had practically disappeared; that it had become specialized, and numbers of boys were engaged in particular branches of the trade.
So if the government hope to solve the youth problem of this country by having young people become apprentices in certain lines of industry I say they are doomed to disappointment, and in years to come they will find they

Unemployment and, Agricultural Distress
have only aggravated the unemployment situation without coming any closer to a solution of it. The solution lies much deeper, and will not be found in merely training young people in particular trades or even in expanding our foreign trade, and least of all by providing public works in this country.
To-day, Mr. Chairman, it is not a question of providing employment, which, useful though it may be, is perhaps a thing of the past. We can produce to-day in such abundance that by putting men to work for five or six hours a day we can make available more than enough goods to satisfy all our requirements. Now we must give the vast masses of our people an opportunity to enjoy the benefits of that production. The question in my mind, and the question I direct to the government, is this: What are we doing in order to see that the people of this country, both employed and unemployed, may reap the benefits of that which is produced? In that direction the government are doing nothing; they have not even started to tackle the problem. Year in and year out we in this corner of the house have suggested that at least we should increase wages, thereby increasing purchasing power among the people, and decrease the hours of work so that great numbers of those unemployed may be absorbed in industry. We are always met with the reply: This is not a question that comes under federal jurisdiction; it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. We always meet the obstacle of jurisdiction as between the federal and provincial government. I remember when the Minister of Labour spoke in this house a little over a year ago on the question with which he is dealing to-night. At that time he said he wanted to take a long-range view of this problem and deal with it from that aspect; but to-night we are not getting a long-range view. We must infer from what the minister has said that the government are merely going to continue with the policy-or lack of policy-they have pursued for the last couple of years.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the policies which have been pursued by various governments since unemployment became a factor in this country have not in any way improved or even alleviated the unemployment situation except, may I say, as far as the granting of relief is concerned. I dislike seeing ablebodied men, good Canadian citizens, compelled to be the recipients of public relief year in and year out. It saps their vitality; it destroys the manhood and womanhood of these good Canadian people. Yet in what we have been told to-night what hope is there for that vast army of unemployed that we have in 31111-144J
Canada? Earlier in the evening I mentioned a figure of 400,000 people out of work. Immediately after I had spoken, the Minister of Labour rose in his place and said people were using figures a little too glibly and that they were making wrong comparisons. I do not know why he should have mentioned that when I was so conservative in my estimate that I was a hundred thousand below the estimate the minister himself gave as to the number of those actually out of work.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I had no reference to my hon. friend at all.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am very glad to hear that. Evidently I made a miscalculation when I quoted four hundred thousand instead of five hundred thousand. The exact figure, of course, we do not know. It would take a good deal of calculation and research work to ascertain the actual number out of work, but I had hoped by this time our employment commission might have been able to give us something concrete in regard to the number of persons out of work in Canada. Up to the present., however, we have not had even that.
Here is the position in which I find myself, together with dozens of other members in all parts of this chamber. Soon we will be-going back to our constituents; at least it is" the hope of the government that the session will be concluded within a short time and' that our labours will be ended for this year.' Members will be going back to their constituencies. My hon. friend from Fort William, for example, will be going back to his home city. I wonder what he will tell his constituents when they ask what this government has done to deal with the unemployment problem. The hon. member applauded a moment ago when the hon. gentleman who preceded1 me said we should not discuss unemployment relief in this chamber. I wonder if the hon. member for Fort William will tell his constituents that he is in favour of a hush-hush policy in dealing with the problem of relief and unemployment.
When I go back to my constituents I have to tell them something of what has happened in this chamber, and something with regard to the policy of parliament apart altogether from the policy of the government. They come to me and ask what parliament has to offer to the men who are out of work. What shall I say? What can I tell them? All I can say is that the government, or parliament, is going to continue along the lines that have been followed for the past number of years; relief will be granted, and it is hoped that something will turn up that will ' in some way relieve the difficulty.
2276	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
Personally I would like to see the government come forward with a more concrete policy than so far has been suggested to the house. The granting of relief and the construction of public works do not offer a solution to the problem, and I believe the minister knows that as well as I do. Must we trust that something will turn up-just trust to luck that conditions will improve and that the improvement in economic conditions will absorb more people into industry? I think it has been established beyond doubt that even if we could get back to the figures of 1929, which were the highest in the history of Canada, there still would be a vast army of unemployed, almost as great as the army we have out of work at the present time. If such is the case, Mr. Chairman, it proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that far more radical treatment is necessary in connection with the unemployment than anything so far undertaken by the government.
I would plead with the government to undertake such measures as will meet the situation. If I thought for a moment that the establishment of closer trade relations with other nations of the world would be a solution of the problem I would hold up (both my hands and give thanks to the government for what they have been able to do along this line. But in spite of what has been done and in spite of what the government may attempt along these lines, we reach a certain stage beyond which we cannot go, and then we find ourselves still as badly off as we are to-day. I think it is the duty not merely of this government but of parliament as a whole to face this situation.
As I said before, practically half the term of this parliament is over. We expect to prorogue in the near future. When we meet again the government will have been in power for more than half the usual term of a government. What will happen? Probably we will have the same unemployment situation to face, the same number of men knocking at our doors asking for help. The situation aggravates itself from the standpoint of those men who have been out of work for one, two or three years. As the Minister of Labour suggested earlier in the discussion, they become unemployable; and then the difficulty is to rehabilitate them and help them to become useful citizens. The greatest waste we have in Canada to-day is the men and women who are out of work. I know the minister's heart is in his work, but I am not appealing so much to his heart as to his head, because I believe he has as good a head as any hon. member. I feel that if he would apply his talents, his energy, and his knowledge of 
economics to the problem of dealing with unemployment he could give us at least some hope that if not at this session, then at a later one, there will be some radical, remedial legislation which will give hopes to the vast numbers now out of work in Canada.


Mr. McIVOR:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Winnipeg North has asked if I an in favour of a hush-hush policy. I certainly am not, and I do not believe the Minister of Labour is practising a hush-hush policy. The hon. member has asked how I could go back to Fort William. My reply to him is that our problem is not that of permanent unemployment, but rather occasional. We have seasonal unemployment when the men come off the boats, but I can say to the house that we were in a far better position last fall than ever before.
I am not in favour of relief work. I think it is demeaning to manhood to put a man on relief, and I am hoping that our Department of Labour may bring about work with wages, so that a man can give an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. My position is that we should not have relief in any form, and if any part of the dominion can show us that it can do without relief, then let it lead the way.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Mr. Chairman, my
chief concern is that we will not delude ourselves into too great a sense of security. I *have said very little by way of condemnation, censure or criticism of the government. I am inclined to think that under the present system, according to orthodox principles of finance it has done practically everything that can be done. But at the same time I am decidedly alarmed by the rumours I hear to the effect that we are going to let this matter take care of itself, that we are going to cut down relief, and all that sort of thing.
I do not know whether I come in contact with more suffering men than do other people, but the contacts I make are certainly anything but reassuring. A little experience I had this summer might be worth mentioning. I had not intended to tell this to the house, but in the circumstances I believe I should. A minister in one of our western towns wanted to go to England, and instead of going in the regular way he decided at first hand to try the conditions of the unemployed. With that in mind he dressed himself in overalls and a working shirt and set out to cross Canada just as he would have done had he really been out of employment. I will not tell all the details the man told me, because I believe it would not be in the public interest to do so, but I will say that since hearing his

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
story I have been bitterly ashamed that I have had to admit conditions such as those he described are permitted anywhere under a British flag. The treatment he received at the hands of various people was, to say the least, shameful.
Men simply cannot get work. I believe it would be a good thing if, before talking so glibly about conditions, about two-thirds of the hon. members of the house would simply follow that man's example. Let hon. members go where they are not known, forget their fine positions and their salaries, and see how long they can carry on hunting for these jobs they know so much about. Let them approach relief officials and experience some of the things concerning which strong men have wept in my room in this building. So long as such conditions exist in a city right under the eaves of this building I maintain that surely we are not speaking in the public interest when we talk about cutting down relief. We are going about the problem in the wrong way entirely.
I hesitate to say anything by way of condemnation. If I cannot take time enough to offer a solution, I do not say anything. It is very easy for us to tell when a line is crooked; our task is to tell how to make it straight. That is what everybody wants to know. But while we are learning to make it straight, let us not neglect to leave all the remedies which might be necessary for those who have to travel that line.
I do not know whether or not the minister has attended to the matter I have in mind, but I would suggest that first we ought to have a means whereby every man who wants a job and cannot get it may step into one of hundreds of depots throughout the dominion and register the fact that he is without a job. He should not be treated unkindly because he does that. He could state that he wants a job; he could tell the kind of job he would be willing to do, and the amount of money he would be willing to take. If we did that, I believe we would begin to find out the number of people who really want work.
Next we ought to find out the number of jobs available. Twenty years ago a man could step into any community, go to the employment bureau and find work. He could step into the blacksmith shop of any community and make it known that he wanted a job. The news would spread, and before very long he would receive work. That condition existed ten years ago, but it does not exist to-day. I have personally gone to two or three employment bureaus; 'he last thing they want to see is anybody looking for a job.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Surely that cannot be true.


John Horne Blackmore: It has been, wherever I have been. In the little experience I have had I have not yet found one single employment bureau which was ready to take a man on. The first advertisement I have seen in the papers since the depression asking for labour is the recent one having reference to the farmers of Ontario.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Would the hon. member
give me the name of an employment office where, when one applied for a job, there was any lack of effort on the part of the head of the employment office to place the applicant? Although we do not effectively control it, we are contributing to the employment service, and if there are complaints of that kind I want to know about them.


John Horne Blackmore: I am sorry the minister did not get my meaning. What I said was not that they were not willing to do all they could, but the last person they wanted to see was someone wanting a job. In other words, it is not that they were not willing to do all within their power to get a man a job. The only thing they can say is: We just cannot do anything for you at all.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is a better explanation.


John Horne Blackmore: That is exactly what I said before. I said the last thing they wanted to see was a man looking for a job. I have not found discourtesy in employment bureaux, but men have shrugged their shoulders and by other means indicated that it was just utterly hopeless. That is the pathetic condition. In almost every mail, I receive two, three or four letters from people who are pleading for something to do. I have to write back and say I can find nothing for them to do. If there are jobs to be had in this country, it seems to me we ought to know about them. Surely they could be advertised in the press in order that the unemployed would know where they are.
A man who comes from one of the mining areas told me not long ago that one of the most pathetic things he had to face was the number of men who had hitch-hiked, walked and suffered other deprivations in order to get into that area to try to find a job. But there were no jobs and these men were hungry, tired, discouraged, foot-sore and cold. He told me that every day at least ten or fifteen came to his door pleading for something to eat. They told him they were ready to do anything. While there may be no use railing against these things, I submit that while they exist

I know they do exist in my province and in my constituency-it is simply shameful for us who are well fed and are receiving
2278	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
considerable incomes to rise in this house and speak disparagingly of the people in need of relief.
The first thing to be done is to register the transients; and then we should know what jobs there are, where they are, and how to get to them. When that is done we will be getting somewhere. A young man came to my room the other day in complete despair. He was here in the city last year and I gave him some advice as well as a little money. He came in to see me again and told me how anxious he was to go to work. He asked me to advance him enough money to enable *him to go to a certain store in the city and buy a supply of needles, pencils, pins and other trinkets which he could sell and make his way. There are a number of people doing this same thing in the different cities. While they are "getting by" they cannot be said to be employed. They are not employed, according to my definition of the word. You cannot imagine a young man who is doing that sort of thing establishing a home. You go into the homes of this city and people, will tell you how they have bought pins, needles, pencils, shoe-laces and such things until they cannot buy any more. This is simply another form of relief. It is another kind of begging.
I do not know the experience of other hon. members of this committee, but I have found I cannot walk six blocks in this city where the labouring men are without being asked for the price of a meal. As long as this sort of thing exists in Canada, it is no time to talk of cutting down relief or closing it off entirely. I refrained from taking part in this debate largely because of my anxiety to see this measure go through, but after what had been said I felt it was my business to say something. There is a distinct alarm in the different municipalities in my province over the proposed revision in relief. I do not think the government should go forward with this idea. If conditions are picking up, let us prove it by advertising where jobs can be had.
There must be tens of thousands of people in Canada in the same position in which I find myself. I have five young people in my home who are ready to go to work and I cannot even buy jobs for them, much less find them. I have put them through high school and I could put them through normal school, through technical school, or even through university; but still there would be no work. What is the use of talking about the improvement in conditions when there are tens of thousands of young people in this position? Their parents would not admit or make known that they were unemployed, but the fact is they have no jobs. If condition? hire 
this continue we will have no young people in the future. They simply will not be born. These young people will not marry and we will have a wastage, instead of splendid men and women for our future generations.
This is perhaps the greatest calamity which has faced us as a British race. I feel very much concerned about it, and I am sure others feel likewise. I hesitate to say anything about this to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), because I feel they are worried just as much as I. The reason I speak now is to submit that we should not delude ourselves into thinking that all is well when all is not well.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member referred to the number of men selling shoelaces. The other day I bought a pair of shoelaces from a man and I had paid him my money before I noticed that his breath was strong enough to knock me down. The hon. member (Mr. Blaekmore) says that he cannot go down the street without being stopped for the price of a meal. Apparently he is too easy. I had the same experience when I first came here last year, but I finally made up my mind that it was a racket. I realized that the word was being passed from mouth to mouth that I was good for a quarter any day. Finally I told one man that I was getting sick and tired of it, and I have not been bothered since.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but I think I should not let the statement of the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Robichaud) with respect to relief in the province of New Brunswick pass unchallenged. He has said that this is largely a matter of psychology. The Premier of New Brunswick, the Hon. Mr. Dysart, represents the same constituency in the provincial house as the hon. member represents in this house. Last year I noted that the constituency of Kent was a literal hive of industry due to the provincial and dominion moneys being spent in that district. You could hardly get along the roads because of the numbers of men being employed. I am not surprised that the hon. member comes to the assistance of the premier, as most of the money was spent in his constituency. Unfortunately the other parts of the province did not receive the same consideration. I may say that the opinion held by the hon. member (Mr. Robichaud) with reference to the cutting-off of relief in New Brunswick is not the general opinion throughout that province. I should like to quote an article which appeared in the press about that time. It states:

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
Relief Crisis Approaches in Cities of N.B.
Municipalities Feel Pinch of Carrying Relief Burden
Statements made at Montreal by Premier Dysart, that New Brunswick is the first province to " go off relief," are termed "ridiculous" by Councillor George E. Barbour of Saint John. Councillor Barbour told the city council he did not understand how the Premier could make such a claim in the face of figures showing the amount which relief is still costing New Brunswick municipalities, even though the province has not been contributing for the last few months.
He goes on to say:
Government contribution toward relief in New Brunswick terminated in the early fall. Provincial road development projects were intensified at that tine with the view of absorbing the unemployed. This program did take care of quite a number of jobless-550 in the Saint John area, for instance-but hundreds were still left to be cared for. The men on the roads received $2 a day and were unable to put anything aside for the winter. Now the road jobs have ended.
Councillor James A. Whitebone, of Saint John, in making a statement at that time said:
"Something has to be done and done quickly."
He predicts that further delay in facing the issue squarely will lead to " a very serious situation."
I would counsel the hon. member (Mr. Robichaud) to go to the fishermen along his own coast and ask them if there is no need for relief, or let him inquire of the fishermen on the southern coast of New Brunswick, or up in Gloucester county along the Caraquet coast. In our own province, very much to our sorrow, there is yet need for relief. My purpose in rising is to say that New Brunswick went off relief when it was no more justified in doing so than any other part of Canada would have been, and the credit which the premier of that province tried to take to himself on that account is not deserved either by him or his government.


Mr. RYAN:: A short time ago I listened
to a remark by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I understood him to say that in Saint John last fall the announcement was made that so far as the cities were concerned the government would have no more to do with the people.


Major James William Coldwell: No.


William Michael Ryan: If I misunderstood the hon.
member I shall be very glad to withdraw my remark, but that is the impression I got.


Major James William Coldwell: If I might just explain: I said that while I was in Saint John I understood an announcement was made that there would be no more relief in New Brunswick. That is what I said; at least that is what I intended to say.


William Michael Ryan: An announcement along that line was made; that is, the premier announced the relief offices would be closed. He did not, however, intend to intimate that assistance would not be given to those who were in the category of relief recipients, for following that announcement a works program or an arrangement was instituted to take care of those who had been on the relief rolls. For instance, considerable work was done in the way of preparing roads for paving, leading out of Saint John.
As regards what has been said by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) in connection with press reports as to public statements made by members of the city council,
I think the gentlemen referred to wanted to give the province the idea, and correctly so, that the situation so far as unemployment was concerned was still serious in the municipality of Saint John. I should like to say, in fairness to those who are unemployed in my constituency, and particularly in the city and county of Saint John, that among them are very many deserving persons who are anxious for work and there is a continued need of employment. And I would impress that upon the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers).
If any further grants in aid are to be given I hope that the provision for New Brunswick will not be reduced to any extent by reason of statements that have been made that the province has gone off relief. The policy which the provincial government has adopted is not to give direct relief but to assist by works projects such as road building and the like. The need for assistance remains, particularly in my own constituency. I cannot speak for the county of Kent, for the hon. member who represents that constituency is familiar with the situation there. But I know that in Saint John we have very few slackers. Those who are out of employment are only too glad to go to work if useful work can be given them.
When the government adopted the policy of ceasing to provide direct relief, the municipality ran into a special difficulty, in that a large number of what are called borderline cases, that is men who had not been listed on relief rolls but who from pride or some other reason had refrained from giving in their names, wished to participate in these works projects but found it difficult to get employment because they had not registered. This caused some trouble in the municipalities, and the result in Saint John was that the municipality had to take care of very many who were still unable to find work. So I repeat that, in fairness to those who are out of employment to-day in the constituency of
2280	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
St. John-Albert the Minister of Labour might well take these circumstances into consideration when the time comes to give additional grants, because I can assure him that there is still much need and that the people are most deserving.


Grote Stirling: Could the minister give the committee information with regard to the reopening of the relief camps, and in which provinces they have been reopened?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I would hesitate to accept that version of what has happened. In certain provinces where supplementary schemes have been in operation to provide for single homeless unemployed there has been an arrangement whereby some of the old camps were made available. But the conditions are quite different. There is no connection whatsoever with the Department of National Defence. They are conducted wholly as provincial construction camps.


Grote Stirling: I quite understand that.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The camps are no different in that respect from any other highway camps that have been operating during the period. Men are either receiving regular wages, as in some camps, or payment on a deferred pay basis, which applies in the forestry camps in British Columbia. When the bill is in committee or the estimates are before the house I shall be glad to furnish detailed information on that point.


Grote Stirling: I am not suggesting that the dominion has played its part in reopening any of the camps, but my information is that in British Columbia, on the highway camps that were the relief camps under the dominion government, relief projects have been reopened.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is so.


Grote Stirling: What I want to know is, how is the cost of these camps defrayed by the provinces? Does the cost come entirely from provincial funds or does it come out of money paid by the dominion government to the provinces for certain purposes?


Norman McLeod Rogers: In the case of some of the provinces, application was made for the use of some of these camps, and where they were in remote places and could only be used for that purpose, arrangements were made to transfer these camps to the provinces. As to the precise financial arrangements, I shall be glad to take note of the question and give my hon. friend that information.


Grote Stirling: Perhaps the minister would.
I should like to have it.


Mr. CHURCH:: I should like to say a
word or two about the way this relief policy has been carried out. There have been a great many complaints. Under the act the minister is empowered to make agreements with the provinces-not with municipalities. But a large part of the unemployment in this country is not in the provinces as such; it is to be found in the larger municipalities; they are the ones that are suffering and they have got nothing.
Last year there was a long debate when the relief act was going through committee. It provides that within fifteen days after the opening of parliament the minister shall lay on the table the agreements which are made with the provinces. What do these agreements show? The sum of $2,750,000 was handed to the government of Quebec and was distributed in various ways. For example, Three Rivers got a court house, public buildings and certain municipal institutions. The money was parcelled out in that province. I am not objecting to that; but when it comes to Ontario, where unemployment is acute, what do we find?
Last September following a meeting between the Ontario government and the ministry here, an agreement was drawn up. I got a return to an order of the house replying to certain questions I asked, and it shows that not one cent of the $2,700,000 that was given to the province went to the municipalities. Instead, roads were constructed, uneconomic roads which no one could by the widest stretch of imagination regard as coming properly under the act.
The city of Toronto sent a delegation to wait on the Minister of Justice, who was acting Prime Minister, and I must say he received them with great courtesy, but he said they would have to wait until his leader came back. That deputation had a program for playgrounds and other undertakings that would have provided employment. But what happened? They were told that they would have to go and see Mr. Purvis, and when they called on him he referred them to the provincial government, and by that time the unemployed had already been taken care of under the city's budget. As a past president of the association of Canadian municipalities I contended then, as I contend to-night, that there should be equality of treatment in these grants. The larger municipalities across Canada, from Halifax right through to Victoria and Vancouver, should receive grants from this parliament, because the municipality is the dumping ground for the unemployed.
Last week there was a meeting of the mayors and there was general complaint about the

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
difficulties encountered under the act of last year. Talk about people taking the coppers off a dead man's eyes! The provinces will take all the revenue they can get and leave none for the municipalities, because there is too much politics in the distribution of funds. If there is one thing that should be avoided in the effort to relieve unemployment it is politics. Let us keep the whole thing clear of politics. In my opinion the money should be distributed among the municipalities according to population, instead of leaving the provinces to take it all. They even take income tax, though it is true that they give a large part of it back.
One thing I object to most vigorously is the use of the money handed to the province for the construction of roads which at the present time are altogether uneconomic. During the by-election men were working on roads in East Hastings and some in Norfolk and Elgin. The construction of these roads does not help city unemployment; it simply represents a direct cash subsidy to the oil and motor industries. Here we have railways building their own roadways and at the same time we are subsidizing, through the construction of .these uneconomic roads, the oil and motor industries to compete against the railways.
Under the former government the agreements worked satisfactorily, though the difficulties were ten times greater. A mayor in Toronto could telephone down to Ottawa and get some relief, a third or a half, at any rate something to go on. To-day we find $17,000 being spent for dredging in Toronto, and we have a lot of revolving doors in the post office. But what is being done in connection with the level crossings? The matter was discussed the other night by the hon. member for Dan-forth (Mr. Harris) and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey). To-day in Toronto I saw many places that are simply a dumping ground, and last summer, from the train, I saw similar places in different parts of Canada.
I am not here to criticize the minister, but I am sorry that last session he did not incorporate in the act a clause giving him power, in making these agreements, to deal with the municipalities, leaving politics out of it. There should be a clause in the act providing for agreements with Montreal, Winnipeg, Regina, Vancouver and the larger municipalities, instead of compelling them to go to some bankrupt province which, if the money is given over to it, will make deductions for overhead and other expenses. I have looked over the legislation in the United States and I find that there the money is given to the municipalities on a definite standard plan. This old method of making agreements with the provinces has
been weighed in the balance and found wanting.
The present plan of building roads ought to be discontinued. Uneconomic roads should not be built at all in these days, because the money could be used to better advantage if it were given to the cities themselves for municipal institutions. That is what is being done in Italy; they are putting up municipal institutions to meet the requirements of the next forty years, schools, breakwaters, and other works that make employment. Ninety per cent of the money should be spent in wages, but that is not done when the money is handed to the provinces. The municipalities can run their business as well as the provinces, indeed a lot better; and if they had had the same help from the banks that the provinces have had they would not be in difficulties to-day, a-t any rate, not to be same extent.
If this money is handed over to the province of Ontario for relief work the larger cities will get nothing; it will be spent on roads. Hamilton, Brockville and other towns are badly in need of funds. The municipalities have been starved in the last six years, with the result that they can scarcely put a coat of paint on their buildings. The boards of works in the cities and towns of Ontario are starved for urgent public works as a result. The school board has no money for new schools. There is no money for normal expansion to take care of school children. The result is they are housed in portable buildings and that kind of thing. The same is true of municipal institutions generally. The minister has tried the provincial system; why not make it fifty-fifty and this year try to make some agreement with the larger cities and towns? He will get better value for the money, more will be spent in wages, and it will be better in every way than the haphazard system by which one province gets a large sum and others, which do not vote right, get none. If relief is going to be handled in that way we shall have unemployment forever.


Denton Massey: Some time ago in answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) the minister referred to what he considered to be some reasons why those who are on relief fail to find reemployment. It seems to me there is a further point in that connection which must not be overlooked. These men who have gone on relief did so perhaps only after a protracted period of endeavouring to make both ends meet without suffering the humiliation of relief, and the result in many cases has been that not only they but their families have suffered stark want and deprivation.
2282	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
The physical condition, of these men must be remembered. Many men who were capable of doing a hard day's work now find themselves completely out of condition. As one said to me the other day; "I am absolutely soft. I got a job, was tickled to death to get it, but after working three days I was absolutely done, could not hold it, could not keep the pace. It was something I could have handled easily a couple of years ago." The minister in his consideration of these problems should, I think, give some consideration to the question of physical reestablishment of those who have been on relief for long periods and have suffered what that entails.
While I am on my feet may I ask whether the reports of the youth committee are to be tabled, or is the house otherwise to be made acquainted with their contents? Perhaps I am premature in asking that question in view of the fact that we have not seen the bill, but I am extraordinarily interested, as I know other hon. members are, to learn of the findings of the youth committee.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is not the intention to table the reports, inasmuch as the reports of the youth employment committee were made to the National Employment Commission. The government received recommendations from the National Employment Commission based upon the reports. I may say that the report of the youth employment committee was of such a character as to indicate a real need for some assistance along the lines that were discussed a few minutes ago; and it is upon the basis of that recommendation that the amount is provided in the special supplementary estimate.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rogers thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 80, to assist in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 73, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain expenditures made and indebtedness incurred by the Canadian National Railways during the calendar year 1937, and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railways

Mr. Dunning-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Charles Avery Dunning: This bill was referred by the house, following second reading, to the 
special committee which deals with Canadian National Railway matters, and has been favourably reported on by that committee. It is similar in its terms to bills previously passed each year dealing with the financing for the year of the Canadian National Railways.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Power to issue securities for refunding and capital expenditures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It might be well if the minister could place upon Hansard, so that it will be there as a record, how these sums are made up, as the proceedings of the special committee are not permanently on record.


Charles Avery Dunning: The sums in subsection 2 (b)?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. If that could be done there would be upon Hansard a short concise record for future reference.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: But it is not on record in Hansard, and anyone who wants to get it cannot do so. Can a short statement of that be put on Hansard?


Charles Avery Dunning: Of how the figures are made up?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, a very short and simple statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry to say I have not the budget here. It was all discussed in committee and fully passed there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know, but the difficulty is that frequently in this house, two or three years hence, someone discussing this matter is unable to point to the figures making up that budget because they are the record of a special committee and not on Hansard. I intended to speak to the minister about it before. I think it is desirable, personally, having regard to my own experience in matters of this kind.

C.N.R.-R e funding


Charles Avery Dunning: I hardly expected to reach this to-night, so did not advise the Minister of Transport to bring his budget with him. The summary contained in paragraph (b) is only partially what my right hon. friend desires?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does not touch it at all; it is simply the aggregate.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. Paragraph (b) reads:
(b) Additions and betterments including coordinations and acquisition of real or personal property, not exceeding $23,607,700, estimated
as follows:
General additions and betterments. $11,289,999 Less: Equipment retirements. ..	7,389,999

Acquisition of securities	 561,000
New equipment purchases	 19,396,700

Less:	Available from working
capital	 250,000

If it is desired that a more complete statement from the railway budget should be placed upon Hansard I will ask that section 2 stand until to-morrow. Unfortunately the minister cannot get the information at this late hour of the evening.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I see no reason why the bill should not be proceeded with and perhaps on third reading the Minister of Transport could place a short statement upon Hansard. I think it very desirable to have that information. Frequently when I have had to turn back to some page of Hansard I have found only a summary which did not give the desired details. What is given here, of course, is the aggregate, and what I should like is a little more detailed statement. Then three years from now the Minister of Transport, when he asks a question from this side of the house, will be able to turn up Hansard and obtain the information.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be very glad to prepare such a statement.


Charles Avery Dunning: And we will leave third reading until to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-Form and terms of guarantee.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This raises a question
which I think is of some importance, and which was just touched upon last year. There should be some understanding as to the extent to which guaranteed securities, as distinguished from direct obligations of the country, are to
be issued in connection with the enterprise. Since deficits now are taken care of by direct appropriations and not by guaranteed securities, I submit to the minister that there should be some rule as to the extent to which guaranteed securities may be issued from year to year as against the securities we issue for the purposes of the railway.
Some people contend that we should not issue guaranteed securities any longer in connection with any of these matters except to refund or for the purposes of equipment, that capital expenditures in their entirety should be found by the country. Equipment securities, of course, being properly retired out of the operating revenues of the company- though it will be noted that in this instance that is not entirely the case-would be a proper charge against guaranteed securities, and the same would apply with respect to ordinary operations the cost of which is repayable out of the operating revenues of the enterprise. But it is felt that other sums should be found by the country itself, and that there should be some established relation between the two. I only mention this to the minister because I think one of the financial journals has been directing some attention to the fact that we are accumulating guaranteed securities very rapidly, and at the same time the further question of a limitation upon our own direct liabilities bears no relation to the extent to which we are issuing guaranteed securities.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is, of course, a
point in what my right hon. friend has said that goes very deeply. My right hon. friend will agree at once, I think, that the issuance of guaranteed securities against definite capital betterments is unquestionably a good practice, and that if we were at a stage where this system could apply proper depreciation, that of itself would very largely answer the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think we, like my right hon. friend, are still a little hopeful of the future. At any rate. I could not indicate this evening where the line should be drawn, but I appreciate the force of the point mentioned by the right hon. gentleman.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.	.
Section 7 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Frederick George Sanderson: Shall I report the bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Third reading can be
given to-night.
C.N.R.-Refunding


Charles Avery Dunning: The minister can put
on record a short statement when his estimates are under consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, or at any other time.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.58 p.m.
Tuesday, March 30, 1937