1938-06-14

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of the standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Moore.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to call the
attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to a dispatch in the Toronto Daily Star, June 8, from Guelph, in which it is stated that Judge T. M. Costello of Goderich in recommending that certain people should receive naturalization certificates warned them that they should not join any communistic or socialistic parties. "Keep away from them, because they are trying to teach you something that is not good for either you or me to know," he is reported as saying. I should like to ask whether it is proper for a judge to participate in this way in distinctly political affairs.


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I shall inquire as to the
accuracy of the report before making any comment upon it. May I remark, though, that it shows that sometimes even freedom of speech has to be restrained to some extent.



BANKS IN ALBERTA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I should like to direct the following question 51952-242
to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Is the Prime Minister prepared at the present time to make public his reply to the telegram of June 3, from Premier Aberhart of Alberta, and the letter from Premier Aberhart, with regard to the threatened withdrawal of some of the branch banks in Alberta.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: My hon. friend gave me
notice of his intention to ask this question, and I sent immediately for the communications to which it was supposed to have reference. His question asks to have made public the reply to a telegram of June 3. I have no telegram of June 3, from Hon. Mr. Aberhart, but I believe the telegram to which my hon. friend refers is one of June 4. My reply is dated June 6. The telegram of June 4 is as follows:
Calgary, Alberta,
June 4, 1938.
The Right Hon. Lyon Mackenzie King,
Ottawa, Ont.
This government has been advised of several instances in which local managers of banks have informed residents that unless the existing laws in regard to certain taxation are disallowed or withdrawn branch banks throughout the province will be closed. The matter is being investigated at this end but as your government claims complete jurisdiction over banks and banking I must point out that this action of the banks has serious implications. Firstly it could be interpreted as a coercive threat to the people of Alberta and directed against his majesty's government in this province. Secondly the withdrawal of an essential service will place this government in a position of being forced to take such action as may be necessary to safeguard the welfare of our people. The banks are under definite obligation to serve the people and it is the duty of your government to see that such obligation is adequately discharged or alternatively that due notice is given to the government of Alberta of the banks' unwillingness to maintain these necessary services in which case we must insist that we be left free to organize our own banking system to serve the needs of our people.
William Aberhart,
Premier.
To this message I sent a reply on June 6, as follows:
Hon. William Aberhart,
Edmonton, Alberta.
I wish to acknowledge your telegram of June the 4th regarding the possible closing of branch banks throughout the province of Alberta, and to assure you that its representations are receiving the careful consideration of our government.
W. L. Mackenzie King.

National Parks Act



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the National Parks Act and the Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island National Parks Act, 1936, to abolish the Wawaskesy national park in the province of Alberta and vest the land in the province; to change the boundaries of the Elk Island national park in the said province by adding to and parting with certain described areas and transferring the latter to the province; and to withdraw certain lands from the Prince Edward Island national park and vest the same in His Majesty in the right of the province.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Mr. CRERAR:: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this resolution is to lead up to a bill amending The National Parks Act and The Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island National Parks Act. It is necessary to make some corrections in the boundaries of the park in Prince Edward Island. As the members of the committee are aware, the gov-srnment of Prince Edward Island set aside or acquired the area that was later transferred to the dominion administration for the development of a national park in that province. This involved the acquisition of property from various individuals, and in the adjustments incidental to the acquisition of this property it is now found necessary to change in some slight particulars the boundaries of some of the areas acquired.
There is also an amendment to The National Parks Act relating to a slight change in the boundary of the Elk Island park east of Edmonton. This is a slight rectification to permit the provincial government road, which passes by the park, to take off one small corner of it, which is replaced by an addition of some thirty-five or forty acres, according to my recollection, in another part of the park.
Then there is provision for the abandonment of a park known as the Wawaskesy national park north of Medicine Hat. This was acquired quite a number of years ago for the purpose of creating a preserve for the
[Mr. Mackenzie King.l
pronghomed antelope in Alberta. It has never been fenced. It consisted of a sort of elbow in the Saskatchewan river. At the same time another park west and south of Medicine Hat, known as the Nemiskam park, was secured for the same purpose, and now it is felt that it is unnecessary to maintain both parks. A resolution was passed by the Alberta legislature, I think at its last session, to the effect that the Wawaskesy park should be either fenced or abandoned by the federal government. Since the other park which I mentioned a moment ago is quite sufficient, in the judgment of the park administration, for the maintenance of the pronghorned antelope, under this legislation it is proposed to abandon the Wawaskesy park and let it revert to the ownership of the province.
I believe that covers all the amendments proposed under this legislation.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Unfortunately we could not hear very much of what was said by the minister. I was wondering if he would mention the negotiations that preceded the introduction of this resolution.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I cannot hear my hon.
friend.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I could not hear the minister, either. Would he be good enough to tell us what negotiations took place between the province and the dominion before this resolution was introduced?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The matter of adjusting the boundary of the Elk Island park has been taken up with the Alberta government; indeed the request in the first instance came from that government to make this slight correction in order to permit them to carry through a road at a certain point. At the same time, according to my recollection, they suggested that they would give us an area at another point somewhat larger than the few acres we were asked to give up. So far as the Elk Island park is concerned, this action is the result of an understanding with the Alberta government.
As to Wawaskesy park, I said a moment ago that the Alberta legislature at its last session passed a resolution to the effect that the parks administration should either abandon this park or fence it. This park includes some forty or fifty square miles in a bend of the south Saskatchewan river, with a natural boundary on two sides. There has been some

National Parks Act
slight supervision given the park, costing a few hundred dollars a year, but since we have the Nemiskam park, which is a preserve for the pronghorned antelope, it is considered unnecessary to continue the Wawaskesy park. Rather than go to the expense of fencing it and providing supervision, which would involve a considerable capital outlay and a further few thousand dollars a year thereafter, we are giving up that park. No national interest will suffer in any way, because a place has been provided where this special species of antelope may be maintained.


Mr. STEWART:: Is the change in the
boundaries of the Prince Edward Island park in the nature of an enlargement of the park, or otherwise? I gathered from the remarks of the minister, perhaps on a former occasion, that this area had1 been acquired by the provincial government and that there had been no expropriation or expenditure directly by the dominion government in connection with the acquisition of these lands. I should like to know if my recollection is correct.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is correct.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then I should like to know whether the compensation to the owners of the land included in the park has been adjusted, if that is all settled, and why the area is being either enlarged or decreased.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My recollection at the
moment is that the park area is being slightly curtailed; I think I am correct in that. There are some minor adjustments in connection with the acquisition of the property, but of course that is not a matter that concerns the federal administration. All we are concerned with is whether or not the area which the provincial government is willing to turn over to us is suitable for park purposes, and the slight rectifications in the boundary that are suggested will not in any sense interfere with the utilization of the area for park purposes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then with respect to the park in Alberta, was there any expenditure by the dominion in connection with either its acquisition or its maintenance; and since it is now to be abandoned to the province of Alberta is there any provision for compensation, or is it just being given back?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think I am correct in saying that there was no expenditure in con-51052-242J
nection with the acquisition of the area, which was set aside at a time when the resources of Alberta were still under the control of the federal government. The only cost involved has been a few hundred dollars per year by way of supervision. As I recall it, a settler adjacent to the area was paid a few hundred dollars a year simply to be in a position to report to the federal administration anything whioh needed reporting.


Mr. MITCHELL:: The Wawaskesy national park, which has just been spoken of, is in my constituency. I am familiar with the neighbourhood and I was surprised to hear that any money had been spent on it at all. I know that the land has been vacant, with the antelope either going on or off, as they see fit, in their grazing. I must say that both governments are to be commended in releasing this area from its original condition as a national park. As such it is purely a waste. Furthermore, so far as paying money to anyone for the superintendency of Wawaskesy park is concerned, I would say that such money has been wasted. I am surprised to learn that anyone has been paid, because it has been the natural place for anyone to go who wanted to hunt antelope. In my opinion, this is an excellent step.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The only expenditure incurred in the past in connection with this park was approximately $200 a year, which was paid to a resident close to the park, so that if occasion arose for the making of a report to the federal parks administration someone would be on hand to do it.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Crerar thereupon moved for leave to introduce Rill No. 154, to amend the National Parks Act, and the Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island National Parks Act, 1936.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



UNEMPLOYMENT-CONCENTRATION OF SINGLE UNEMPLOYED MEN IN VANCOUVER- STATEMENT OF MR. BENNETT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, before the

Unemployed Men in Vancouver
house resolves itself into a committee of supply I should like again to direct the government's attention to the situation that exists in Vancouver, unless it has been modified within the last few hours. There appears to be a complete violation of any thought of law and order, or regard for it. A federal property has been at the command of a group of trespassers for between three weeks and a month. Such a thing has never been heard of before in Canada, or, so far as I know, in any other British dominion.
There is an entire and utter disregard of the provisions of the law. Public property, a post office, is under the complete control of a band of men so far as the lobby is concerned. It is useless to say there is no interference with the transaction of public business; for people cannot come and go as they have been accustomed to do by reason of the presence of these men.
I am not expressing any opinion as to whether they have a grievance or not. That is a matter to be settled at some other time. But I do protest against this complete disregard of law and order. If there is one thing this country should stand for more than another, it is the observance of law and order. And when one has regard to the wording of a poster that has been placed on a telephone pole in the city of Vancouver, having reference to the young communists and their activity in this connection, one realizes that the matter is much more serious than would appear upon the face of it.
The question is: What has this government done as the custodian for the time being of the reputation and good name of the Dominion of Canada to see that the federal property maintained by the Post Office Department of Canada has been made available for business and free from trespassers? It is not the duty of the provincial government to remove these trespassers from that property. It is not their job. The duty falls upon the people who represent the crown in the right of the dominion, and the crown in the right of the dominion is the Dominion of Canada, not the province of British Columbia. It is the bounden duty of this government to maintain law and order, to free from trespassers the property erected for a post office, and to see that the grievance is adjusted.
Certainly we must make it clear that trespassers cannot take possession of property that belongs to the people, or the crown, in the right of the dominion, and not the province or the city.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to have that form of presentation go without a protest. I myself have urged again and again that the dominion government should take action with regard to the situation in Vancouver. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) suggests that the men may have a grievance, but that that is not the point, and that this grievance may be settled at some other time.
I cannot think of the matter in that way, at all. If the men have a grievance, as I believe they have, now is the time to settle it. These men have resorted to extraordinary expedients in order that attention may be called to their situation. But the question is not that law and order shall come first; it is primarily whether the grievances of the men are looked after. The maintenance of "law and order" involves that justice shall be shown in the maintenance of that law and order. In my judgment, when we have hundreds of young men incapable of finding positions, we should not insist too strongly upon the maintenance of law and order as a primary consideration.
In my judgment this government has not dealt vigorously or effectively with the question. It is all very well to say that these men may go to the places from which they came. But as has been stated before in the house, most of them are not in a position to establish residence anywhere. They belong to the great army of transient workers, who have done such a great deal in the past in building up this country. As anyone who has had much to do with unemployment must know, the majority cannot readily establish residence anywhere. If they came to Winnipeg, my own city, I think in many respects they would be just as badly off, or worse off than they are in Vancouver.
We know of the situation which existed a few years ago, when the present leader of the opposition was handling the situation, and when the men came as far as Regina. What happened? Nothing much was done until there was some overt disturbance, and then action was taken. I for one do not wish to be accused of urging that these men should break the rules of law and order. They have so far maintained law and order, as that expression is generally understood. There has been no overt action. But if the government maintains its present attitude, what can be

Unemployed Men in Vancouver
expected but that one day an incident may occur which will necessitate forcible action being taken?
The leader of the opposition contends that these public buildings are federal property, that they are held by the crown in the right of the dominion, and that these men are guilty of trespass. I suggest to the leader of the opposition and to this house that the men and women of this country are worth infinitely more than our public property.
If civilization is worth anything, these men have the right to obtain a living. They are not able to obtain a living at the present time on their own initiative. What are they to do? Again and again they have appealed to this house, but in vain. I shall not discuss whether the primary responsibility lies with this parliament or with the provincial assembly. It is true that this government actually did provide projects for these men during the winter months. Under ordinary circumstances it might have been expected that with the coming of spring the men would be able to find work in building construction and so on. However, this year the situation is different. I was thinking of their case when I was out on the prairies the other day. Under normal circumstances, the farmers keep their horses and cattle under cover during the winter,. feed them, and when spring comes along put them out to graze. If that practice had been followed this year the horses and cattle would have died, because there was practically no grass on the prairies, especially in the drought areas. If they had acted on the supposition which is the basis of the attitude of the federal government, these farmers would have turned their horses and cattle out to graze as usual no matter what might have been the expected results. That has been the attitude adopted by this government.
Under normal circumstances these men would have been absorbed in the labour market, but there is little demand this year. The men can ride the freight trains and come east at the risk of being arrested or injured, as a number have been. If they get to Regina or Winnipeg they will find that things are no better. Within a block of this building we are stopped as we go to lunch by men in need of food. What would be the use of adding more men to the group already here?
Only a few days ago I received a copy of a resolution that had been passed at a meeting of the Vancouver local council of women. This reads:
Whereas: There is existing at the present time in the city of Vancouver a very serious situation in regard to the single unemployed men, and
Whereas: On several occasions the Vancouver local council of women has asked the dominion government to provide a works' scheme which would absorb these single men and thus build character, be it
Resolved: That the Vancouver local council of women reiterate its stand for a dominion public works scheme for these men, and further, be it
Resolved: That pending the implementing of such a scheme that the dominion government provide shelter and sustenance for the men.
Yours very truly,
Harriette C. Porter, Honorary Corresponding Secretary.
Personally I would rather adopt the view taken by the Vancouver local council of women than that of the leader of the opposition. I believe they are in a better position to judge the needs of these men, and their sympathies are on the right side. Boys from ordinary families are involved in this matter, and I am glad the local council has passed this resolution, which I pass on to the minister as instructed. I do hope that not many days will go by before the government realizes, to use the words of the leader of the opposition, that this situation cannot go on indefinitely. We should not wait until there is some overt act and force is necessary. In my opinion the only way to settle this matter is to provide a work and wages program.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that there is altogether too much neglect of this situation. I realize the position in which the government finds itself, but I should like to say to this house that these men are Canadians. They are the same kind of men as those who fought in the great war from 1914 to 1918. Those men were heroes when we needed them. We sang songs about when the boys would come home, and we should not forget that these men bear the same names and the same blood runs through their veins. They have been raised in the same country. They are moreover the same kind of men as those who pioneered Canada. Once in a while we hear someone say that we must have population. They will sometimes say, let us have a more active immigration policy. But what is the use of having an active immigration policy when we do not take care of the men who are here now? If we recognize that we need more people in Canada, and we surely do, we should first take care of those who are here.

Unemployed Men in Vancouver
This country should be filled by a great population. Are we never going to change the conditions in Canada so that our people can make a living? Have we reached the point of saturation with respect to population? What is happening in Canada is due to the present system. It has been the constant contention of my group that there should be a modification of our present system, as a result of which all these men could be cared for. Members can sneer about this all they want to, but they cannot sneer those men out of that post office building. They cannot sneer into employment the thousands and thousands of men in this country who are in a similar situation.
Very often those who are well fed contend that there is work for all, but the experience of these unfortunate boys is patent evidence that there is not. There are too many who believe that all the unemployed have to do is show a willingness to work. Last year I saw something which I shall never forget. I saw hundreds of these boys riding the freight trains, going from place to place. I saw them get off the trains and wander out into the far places. I saw them seeking work and willing to do anything for almost nothing. Yet they were being turned away. What are they going to do? Something must be done. We cannot have men in a position like this indefinitely. It is a disgrace to this country. There is no doubt that we are strong enough to smash them if we desire. We have our tear gas. our poison gas, our bombs, our airplanes and all the rest of it, and these men are more helpless than sheep. But the mere fact that we rely on the strength of our civilization should make us more conscious of the fact that we should initiate action and not wait until they put on the pressure which may bring about that result.
There is inadequate work in this country for the willing workers. There must be a change in our system so that people may be employed. To say that there is no work to be done in producing goods and services is to say a thing which is an utter and manifest absurdity. Why should we not make such a change as will enable these men to be absorbed? These changes could be made. All that the well-fed people do who are placed on parliament hill to take care of these men is simply to treat lightly, laugh or sneer about the whole matter, and disregard any suggestions that may be made as to a possible solution. That is all I have seen since I have been in this house. It may be believed that the old system .under which we are living will solve this

problem, but I say it will not. All the generations in the future will prove this. Why should we wait until we are forced into the ditch before we begin to build a bridge?
I was talking with a lady the other day when coming down on the train. She was a refined lady from one of the best of homes, and she was telling me something of the conditions existing out there. She says that the butchers and various suppliers of food take turns to give these boys the things they need to live on, and it must be done. Women also take turns in cooking and bringing in food for them. That indicates clearly that the citizens of Vancouver sympathize in the deepest way with these unfortunate boys, realizing that their own boys might under other circumstances be there. Hon. members can easily realize how serious conditions are if they imagine their own boys being there. It is easy for anyone with a good income sufficient to take care of his own boys not to be disturbed by the situation, but suppose one of our boys was there and we were as helpless as the fathers of these boys are to give them any employment whatever or to take care of them; we should begin to realize the gravity of our problem. If the ordinary citizens of Vancouver will make the sacrifices they are making to maintain these boys for three weeks, surely the united people of Canada, speaking and acting through this parliament, can do something to alleviate their hardships.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour):	Mr. Speaker, this question has
been before the house on a number of previous occasions. This afternoon it has been approached from three different points of view. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) would have us deal with it by means of forcible ejection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that. On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to permit the Minister of Labour any longer to misrepresent what I said. I never used the word force in the observations I made. I said the men were trespassers and that it was the duty of the government to see that this trespassing ceased.


Mr. ROGERS:: Certainly I accept the correction of the leader of the opposition.
The leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation has suggested that the situation should be met by what can only be described as submission upon the part of the government to a mass demonstration in one province looking towards the provision of

Unemployed Men in Vancouver
special works projects for a particular group of unemployed. I do not say that offensively in any way. I think it is entirely borne out by the facts.
The leader of the Social Credit group would have us meet the situation by the provision of work to relieve all those who are unemployed right across this dominion.
We as a government have had to meet this situation from the beginning with a due sense of responsibility, and we felt that we had to meet it on the basis of justifying any action we might take upon grounds of principle, and not upon grounds of mere expediency. We have proceeded upon the basis of consultation and cooperation with the provincial government. We have taken the ground that those closest to the situation were best able to advise upon it. Therefore when the Minister of Labour of British Columbia made his statement that so far as non-resident transients were concerned they should be given transportation to their homes or places of origin, we gave support to that view. The Minister of Labour in British Columbia at the same time expressed his opinion that with regard to those transients who were not non-residents but who could establish residence in British Columbia, there would be available employment for them in the next few months. Whether the Minister of Labour is correct or not in that assumption, none of us is able to say.
I would point out, however, that this situation has not now developed for the first time. Last year these camps were closed; they had in them an even greater number of men than they have had in the past season, and there was no mass demonstration in Vancouver; there was no provision of works projects to give employment to the men. This year a very considerable number of the men who were in the camps last year did not return, proving that they had either found employment elsewhere or returned to their homes on the prairies. I believe that at the present time not more than five hundred of these men who are in Vancouver are non-residents. At the beginning of the difficulty possibly the number of non-resident transients would have been in the neighbourhood of twelve hundred. That at least is the information that comes to me.
I have stated before to this house, and it must commend itself, I think, to every member, that you cannot cure this problem of transiency by creating preferred conditions for transients in any one province of the dominion. I think that must appeal to everyone as
being reasonable, upon reflection. If you establish a special position for these men, whatever justification my hon. friends have said they are willing to give them, and who have sought to obtain their ends by methods which do involve at least a breach of order-if you establish a special position for them how can you deny providing special works projects to every single group of unemployed right across this country? That has not been the policy of this government or of any other government in this country.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


John Horne Blackmore: That does not matter. It is time we had a change.


Norman McLeod Rogers: This government has met that situation from the beginning, and must take and does take full responsibility for the policy that has been followed. So far as the administration of relief within the province is concerned, that is a matter which is effectively within provincial control. We have never withheld generous assistance with respect to relief to any province of this dominion.


Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker. I have just this to say with regard to the words of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). Members from the city of Vancouver have endeavoured in every way possible to bring the gravity of the situation home to the minister, and his statements in this house, in which he takes refuge, are the strongest indictment that could be brought of the most cruel and callous indifference of the government to the most serious distress. The men were released en masse a few months ago without adequate means for their support.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Not en masse.


Charles Grant MacNeil: In rotation. The last deferred pay vouchers that were given to a comparatively small group of these men were distributed on May 15, and they have been absolutely without means since. They were compelled to organize for their mutual benefit-something they had a perfect right to do.
The minister refers to conditions of last year. The conditions this spring were entirely different. There was no demonstration last year because there was some work available. At the present time plants and subsidiary operations are closing down. Yesterday the Woodfibre and Port Alice plants closed down, which every year absorb a large number of men, and all operations connected with these plants are at a standstill. The Powell river pulp and paper plant, that tremendous plant, is working only half time, and all related bush operations are slack.

Unemployed Men in Vancouver
I am going to tell the minister now that the real cause of the trouble is that he has an incompetent officer on the job in Vancouver. One good man representing the federal government would have settled this matter weeks ago. He is being badly advised. Read the editorials in the Vancouver papers and the resolutions that have been passed by different bodies of the citizens of Vancouver. The member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has referred to the resolution of the local council of women, which resolution must have reached the minister. Resolutions have been received by him from responsible bodies of citizens who have no friendly alliance with the communist party, on which the minister places all the blame for this situation. I have a resolution from Reverend Father Cooper, than whom none is more outstanding for his devoted and unselfish service on behalf of the underprivileged. This resolution was signed by Archbishop DePencier, of the diocese of New Westminster. These men in their considered judgment all say that the correct remedy is to provide employment for these men. It is not a question of the government submitting to mass demonstration. Mark you, these men who are unemployed in Vancouver went prior to the demonstration in an orderly, helpful and lawful way to the authorities asking for consideration of their special needs this spring, and were denied consideration of their needs or any proper consideration of their problems. It was only when municipalities all across the country had been wired to, and the men found that there was no work for them elsewhere, that they resorted to this spectacular means of demonstrating their needs. One good man with some authority to deal with the situation could devise a plan, with perhaps a little face-saving on both sides, and a little understanding of the problem, which would end the trouble. The problem could be dissipated overnight; but for the minister to sit here and say that nothing will be done, and take refuge behind official red tape, can only provoke trouble in this situation.
Why does the minister suppose nothing has been done? Colonel Foster, the chief of police of Vancouver, is a cool-headed man. and many times the citizens of Vancouver have been thankful that at the head of the police administration we have had a cool-headed man. He has ample force at his command. He has at his call the provincial police reserves. It would be a comparatively easy matter to toss tear gas bombs into the Post Office and art gallery. Why does be not do it? He knows that the art gallery, in which have been stored irreplaceable art [Mr. MacNedt.1
treasures which mean a great deal to the people of Vancouver and to the cultural development of that city, would be ruined in a few minutes by the attempts of the men to escape. Have you ever seen a mob of men try to escape from the effects of tear gas, as I have seen them, not once, but several times in Vancouver? Incalculable damage would be done, and there is always the danger of loss of life. Force is not being applied because the citizens of Vancouver are well aware that the men have a legitimate grievance. They know that there is not work available for them, and it is the definite responsibility of the minister to present in direct negotiation with the men some plan which will disclose to them avenues of employment, so that they shall not be thrown out by force into a situation which confronts them with nothing but blank hopelessness.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I doubt if there is anything more that we can do here to get action from this government. We have appealed to them from every point of view, I think, from which an appeal can be made. I wish to confirm what has already been said by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). In my opinion you may wear these men out, but the possibilities are that by the time you have worn them out they will be prepared for anything, and then we are going to have trouble, and trouble that could have been avoided by compromise and good-will on both sides. If a compromise were offered by this government or its representatives I am satisfied that the men would meet them more than half way.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will my hon. friend permit me? Has he seen-I assume he has- a copy of the telegram which I sent to Mr. Matts, the secretary of the committee, in which it was made clear to him that, either in British Columbia or in any other province, these men would not be disqualified in any way, would be equally eligible with others in the same position for youth training plans or for any other public works which might be available ?


An hon. MEMBER:: What does that
mean?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It means as much as it
ever meant.


Angus MacInnis: That does not mean anything to a hungry man. What the Minister of Labour says to these men is, "You may be hungry to-day, and we are not going to do anything about it, but if you move out of here and go on being hungry, we won't hold it against you six months from now."

Unemployed Men in Vancouver
That is not good enough, and I do not think if the minister were hungry he would accept what he said to-day as being good enough. Perhaps the provincial government will do something for the unemployed two or three or four months hence. It may be that the provincial government will do something then; but again, it may be that the provincial government will not, until they get federal assistance. The city of Vancouver to-day is carrying 2,500 men more than it was carrying this time last year, because of the shifting of the burden on to the city by the federal and the provincial authorities. Let me tell the minister that that was not the basis on which this government went to the country in 1935. That was not what was promised the unemployed by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the city of Vancouver. That was not what was promised the unemployed by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) in the city of Vancouver time and time again. All that these men are asking is that the government fulfil its promises and provide work. And let me say again that they are not very particular; the wages they have been working for have not been very high.


Charles Grant MacNeil: They worked hard last
year.


Angus MacInnis: They worked hard; and if the government has nothing more than the excuses which have been offered by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) in the last six weeks, all I can say is that this government is bankrupt indeed, and will pay the price of that bankruptcy some day in the. near future.


Mr. J. C. LANDERYOU (Calgary East):: It appears to me that the minister views the situation as being temporary, that he thinks that unemployment is a temporary condition; so he suggests that the unemployed leave the province of British Columbia and go back to the locality from which they came, and when they arrive there the federal government will assist the province in providing employment or some measure of relief for them. But I do not believe that the government has assured these men that if they do go back to the locality from which they came, work will be provided for them. Can the minister tell the house whether that is so? Has the promise of work ever been made to these men provided they go back to the point from which they originally came?
Reference has been made to the promises of the Liberal party, one of which was that they would issue money and credit to meet
the needs of the people of Canada. The unemployed in Vancouver, in common with the unemployed throughout Canada, are in need of purchasing power so that they may be able to provide for their basic needs. They want to have a place to sleep and something to eat. This is an emergency situation. If war were to break out, that also, would be an emergency situation, but the government could then find the money to provide the men with food, clothing and shelter, and possibly give them $1.10 per day. If unemployment is a temporary condition, if the minister thinks that Liberal policies are going to provide the citizens of this country with the opportunity to work, surely during this emergency he can provide them with at least $1.10 per day. I am sure that in that event the men will vacate the premises they occupy at the present time. I do not believe they want to create any difficulty. They are taking this action solely with a view of bringing to the attention of Canada their legitimate claims. They have a just grievance. I believe if the minister offered them employment in the areas from which they come he would have no further difficulty with them.


Mr. E. J. POOLE (Red Deer):: I should like to add my views to those of my leader in his protest against the conditions under which these men are compelled to exist. I was struck by one word used by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), namely the word "submission," his remark that he hates to submit to the dictates of unemployed men. I sometimes think that we in this house have lost all sense of democracy.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: The hon. member never had it.


Eric Joseph Poole: Let me say that we have the duty of satisfying the demands of the public. That is what we are here for, not to dictate and to tell them what they cannot have, but to supply their needs. This is not a new condition. Not only during the term of office of this government but while the last government was in power, excuses were made. They passed the word from the federal government to the provincial government, from the provincial government back to the municipalities; and now, after seven or eight long years, we find these conditions still existing. Are we to have another Regina incident? Or are we big enough to get down and reason these things out on the right basis? Is there work in this country? Have we the money to put these men to work? Can we use the national credit and all the instruments we have at our disposal to give these men employment and create national assets? Those

Unemployed Men in Vancouver
are the important questions. Anything which happens in Vancouver will not be the responsibility of the men who at the present time are occupying a public building; it will be the responsibility of this government.
We are not dealing with units; we are dealing with human beings. For seven years we have continually carried out the policy to which this leads, destroying men's souls, taking the best that is in men and destroying it, because being stiffnecked we make these men political footballs-" We are not going to give way to the dictates of provincial governments," and all that kind of thing. We should not in this house, on these questions, speak as social crediters or Liberals, we should speak as Canadians and as representatives of the people. If we are going to do anything to bring about a new feeling of confidence in this country I do not think there is any better place to begin than in the city of Vancouver by providing these men with employment. If this government has to bend a little, if it has to give way to what has been described as " demands," what does it matter? The essential thing is, let us get results. We have money for all kinds of purposes less deserving than the unemployed situation. I ask the Minister of Labour: Could not the government within twenty-four hours, if they were determined to do so, put these men to work? They could do it if they made up their mind that these men were going to work in a fair way; why then will they not do it? What are they waiting for.


An hon. MEMBER:: Twenty-five dollars a month.


Eric Joseph Poole: Well, that remark is stupid nonsense, and it is time to cut iit out. This question is too serious for this shouting across the floor " $25 a month " every time I rise to speak. We are dealing with the unemployment problem facing the youth of this country, youth, the finest asset any nation has. It is your job to make your contribution and see that these men get a break.


Mr. HANSELL:: Ask him what solution he has to offer.


Eric Joseph Poole: This excuse about transients and non-residents has been used on so many occasions. "Send these people back to where they came from." I do not care if they came from Halifax; they are Canadian citizens, that is all that matters. We should treat them all on an equal basis, not say to them: Go back to Halifax, and we will do something for you there. People know by this time that that is only a way of passing the buck, of evading responsibility. I do not think the minister

is lacking in humanitarian feeling; I know he is not. I have a high regard for him, but I should like to see him do something now about this situation. Do not let us have another disgraceful incident such as we had in Regina, where men were clubbed down; that leaves only bitterness and disunity and division when we should be giving the world a lead in national unity and reasonable understanding. getting together and discussing common problems. There is no use in letting a situation like this develop. I appeal to the government, joining my voice with the voices of my colleagues who have spoken this afternoon. There is no more serious question before the house at this time than this Vancouver situation. Put these boys to work and you will find that communism and radicalism will pass away like mists before the morning sun.



SASKATCHEWAN ELECTION-ALLEGED USE OP CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES-STATEMENT OF MR. COLDWELL

Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I have another matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the house. It concerns the Canadian National railway and an attempted use of it for political purposes by Liberal officials in some parts of Canada.
I have in my hand a notice which was sent out through the regular roadmaster's channels on the Margo subdivision of the Canadian National railways just prior to the provincial election in Saskatchewan last week. I hold in my hand new form 171, dated at Kam-sack, Saskatchewan, June 6, 1938. It reads:
To Section Foremen and Section Labourers
The Liberal government is very strongly against amalgamation with the C.P.R. If the Saskatchewan Liberal government is defeated in this election we will get amalgamation very soon, trains will be taken off and branch lines, many of them, will be closed. All Canadian National employees should vote Liberal.
"Liberal" is underlined with red ink.
See that your wives and as many of your friends as possible vote Liberal.
Attached to that is "A plain talk to railway workers" published by authority of the Saskatchewan Liberal Association, Regina, Saskatchewan. The "plain talk" reads:
A railwayman who has a job is a useful citizen of the community. He has his pay cheque, his community interest, he looks after his family, he puts something aside for his later years.
A railwayman out of a job is just another one of the unemployed. He becomes a problem to himself and to the community.

Saskatchewan Election
Those who would merge or amalgamate the two railway systems of Canada are more interested in things than in human beings. They may say that they are working to save the taxpayer but they overlook the fact that the railway worker is one of the best taxpayers in Canada.
The railways of Canada and the railway workers of Canada are needed to carry on the business of the country. Given a ten per cent upturn in business the railways will be able to get along. They will be needed.
In a large, richly-endowed country like Canada that ten per cent increase is sure to come. In the meantime the railways may do something to help themselves by minor adjustments.
A railway monopoly, whatever it might be for the country, will be of no value to the railway workers. The workers will be in the hands of the monopoly.
The Liberal party is the one party that has stood firmly against amalgamation. It stands there to-day.
Numerous leaders of the Conservative party are working for amalgamation of the Canadian railways. Read the speeches of Senator Meighen and others.
The C.C.F. would "socialize" the railways, creating a monopoly. It would be referred to as a publicly-owned enterprise but it would still be a monopoly.
Social credit has no railway policy. It works on the theory that if enough money is printed by printing presses, as handbills are printed, the railway problem would look after itself.
The Liberal party is the safe party for the railway workers. The Liberal party has never wavered as to the rights of the railway worker. Saskatchewan railway workers can show by voting Liberal that Saskatchewan wants no amalgamation.
Vote Liberal.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal benches applaud. If this kind of letter, sent out by roadmasters to the railway workers of Saskatchewan, containing this leaflet, is sent out by a national railway official, he should be subjected to the severest criticism and to discipline.


Malcolm McLean: Who sent the first letter out?


Thomas Miller Bell: I have given particulars, and I can provide the name.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who sent the first one?


Major James William Coldwell: I will tell you in a few moments.


Malcolm McLean: Why not tell it now?


Major James William Coldwell: I say further that there is no group in this house which stands as unitedly as the group with which I am
associated against railway amalgamation or unification, and people throughout the country know that.
I have here the letter, dated June 9, received by me to-day, which accompanied the communication I have just read. It is from Mr. A. M. Nicholson. I quote:
The enclosed was handed to me just before a meeting at Canora on June 7. It was received by a C.N.R. employee who prefers not to have his name known.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Major James William Coldwell: The reason for the omission of the name is quite obvious; anyone who knows anything about that Saskatchewan Liberal machine knows that it intimidates large numbers of workers and relief recipients in that province.


Malcolm McLean: That is not true.


Major James William Coldwell: The letter continues:
Three other employees came to me after the meeting and had similar communications. The employees are Ukrainians who had intended voting C.C.F. but who were greatly disturbed by the contents of this message on company stationery, and also by the fact that it was delivered through C.N.R. mail in the road-master's envelope.
Will you please do what you can to see that whoever has been responsible for intimidating voters in this manner is properly dealt with.
This occurred on the Margo subdivision of the Canadian National railways. I shall be glad to supply any necessary affidavits. Will you please return by registered mail.
That is signed by Mr. Nicholson. A moment ago I was asked who signed the original letter. The writer had not the nerve to sign his name to it, but it is so easily traceable that, now that it is brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport, there will be no difficulty in finding out who sent it. I had not seen one of these letters, Mr. Speaker; I had heard of similar communications in other parts of the province, though I could not lay my hands on them. This came to me, without having been requested, by registered mail this morning.
As a believer in public ownership, I stand for our publicly owned institutions; yet when attempts to use them are made by political parties or officials interested in the success of political parties for partisan ends, then I say it is time this house sat up and took notice of the situation. This is the rankest kind of intimidation. A few moments ago we heard speakers from several quarters of this house discuss the situation at Vancouver, where men are jobless. These in Saskatchewan, humble railway workers, some
Saskatchewan Election

of them with families, receive a communication of this description and are intimidated; they are made to fear that if certain things happen they will be in the bread line, and I say that in a British democracy any group of people who dare use the bread of our fellow citizens in order to take from them their full rights of citizenship and franchise ought to be condemned in the eyes of every decent citizen of this country.
I rise in my place this afternoon because I have been associated with elections in Saskatchewan for a very long time, and I have seen this sort of thing go on year after year, with teachers afraid to express themselves because it was so worked that the boards would get rid of them if they did; with ministers of the gospel moved from place to place if they expressed an opinion against the most unscrupulous political machine you can find in north America. What we have heard this afternoon is the sort of thing that should be frowned upon by every citizen. From time to time I have quoted in this house from Escott Reid's article in the Political Science Quarterly of February, 1935, wherein he outlines the methods under which the Saskatchewan Liberal machine has operated in days gone by. We know that whenever movements arise in western Canada that seek to unite the people, that machine is able to intimidate and divide. It was the attorney general of Saskatchewan who, in regard to social credit, confessed, "We started a prairie fire. Now we have to put it out." We know what that phrase meant. We know how some of these social credit candidates came into Saskatchewan in 1935, into some of the constituencies which we represent. We know the whole story, and in bringing this matter to the attention of the house this afternoon I have in mind not only this sort of intimidation but also the reference made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Poole), a few moments ago to the situation that occurred in the city of Regina in 1935.
When men are jobless they are desperate; and if they are threatened with the loss of their jobs they become desperate also. I say a threat of this description is something of which we should take notice. I was in Regina just three years ago, almost three years to the day. I saw those seventeen hundred boys arrive there. I mingled with them that evening; over the air I appealed to citizens to assist them. I moved among them and found them peaceful, law-abiding boys. I believe the government at Ottawa was misinformed regarding the situation there, and day by day I saw those boys become 
more restless. Just a day or so before the riots occurred I was among them, and they told me there was no need to worry. I had done what I could for them; I advised them to obey the law and maintain order, and then the riots occurred. I do not want to see a repetition of that in Vancouver, in Regina, in Calgary, in Winnipeg, or in any other city of Canada. But that is the sort of thing that is brought about when you take from the people the right to express themselves at the polls. Then you leave them only one alternative, an alternative to which I am absolutely opposed; but matters such as we have discussed this afternoon make it more difficult all the time for those of us who believe in democracy to maintain and propagate it for the achievement of orderly progress.
So I am bringing to the attention of the government and this house this communication, which is easily traceable, in order that steps may be taken to see that the person responsible for this sort of thing may be properly disciplined. In the future I believe conduct of this sort should be punishable not by fine but by imprisonment, and by a fairly steep sentence at that.


Mr. GRAY:: Is the hon. member stating
on his own responsibility that this leaflet or pamphlet which he has just read was sent out by an official of the railroad?


Major James William Coldwell: On the responsibility
of this letter which I have in my hand, from Mr. A. M. Nicholson of Hudson Bay Junction, Saskatchewan, who is a minister of the gospel-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Was.


Major James William Coldwell: Or who was a minister of the gospel-


Mr. GARDINER:: The C.C.F. organizer.


Major James William Coldwell: Maybe he is, but that
does not make him-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You know he is.


Major James William Coldwell: I submit that does not make him any the less a minister of the gospel of good news, any the less a citizen of Canada, or any the less a man. Mr. Nicholson forwards this to me stating that it was sent out on company stationery. That is obvious; the form is there, showing that it was sent out in a roadmaster's envelope on the Margo subdivision of the Canadian National railways, dated Kamsack, June 6, 1938.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would say to my hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Coldwell)

Saskatchewan Election
that I take no exception to his having brought forward the matter he has, but strictly speaking I think his protest should have been made to the president and directors of the Canadian National railways rather than to hon. member's of this house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen say " oh, oh," but may I ask my hon. friends if they assume that members of this house or members of this government have been in any way party to the transaction to which my hon. friend has referred.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If they say that let them prove it. Let them make any direct charge and it will be investigated immediately by the government. More than that, may I say that if my hon. friend who has brought forward this matter will communicate his representations to the president and board of directors of the Canadian National railways they will, I believe, proceed to deal with it in the manner in which I think it should be dealt with; and if they do, they will have the wholehearted support of this administration. That is the body responsible for the action of its officers, who in turn are responsible for the actions of their men.


Mr. McGREGOR:: The election is over now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The election in Saskatchewan is over, and I do not see that much good can be served by fighting it over again in this House of Commons when we have more important matters to attend to, but that is what the representations made this afternoon amount to.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: May I ask whether the Prime Minister is averse to having this matter investigated by the government or the Minister of Transport?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have been sitating that the Canadian National railways is a body that is supposed to be independent of government control, and the government should not interfere one way or the other in this matter unless, after the Canadian National authorities have investigated, they communicate to us their need of government assistance in order that rules and regulations may be enforced.


Malcolm McLean: Mr. Speaker, we have had the amazing spectacle to-day of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) trying to drag the Canadian National railways into partisan politics in this house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Major James William Coldwell: I object.


Malcolm McLean: And this on the unsupported word of a hired socialist organizer who left the preaching of the gospel to engage in partisan politics.


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a point of order. I am referring to a document sent out through the regular railway channels and dated at Kamsack.


Malcolm McLean: If the hon. member would give me a minute, I would come to that phase of it. At the very outset, the complaint that has been made before this house to-day should not have been made here. It is that either someone used Canadian National stationery for improper purposes, or that someone improperly used the Canadian National name in printing stationery for his own purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or the Liberal leaflet attached.


Malcolm McLean: I never knew there was a law against sending out Liberal propaganda in this country. The leaflet in itself was perfectly all right. It was truthful, moderate, reasonable and constructive. My hon. friend said a moment ago that he and his party were opposed to amalgamation. I can get the original handbook distributed by the hon. member, either by himself or by his agent in a meeting which he was addressing, in which he said the object of his party was to socialize the natural resources of this country, and the implements of production and means of transportation.


Mr. HEAPS:: What has that to do with
this?


Malcolm McLean: Let me ask this: How can you socialize public ownership? How can you socialize the transportation system of this country without having a monopoly? Would you with one hand administer the Canadian National Railways, with the other hand administer the Canadian Pacific railway, and depend on your feet to administer the other means of transportation?


Major James William Coldwell: Does the hon. member wish me to answer that point?


Malcolm McLean: My hon. friend has said that people have been losing their jobs because of political pressure being brought to bear on them. I would tell him that in my observation more men have lost their jobs or had to change their locations because of pressure brought by his socialist friends than I have seen affected by the democratic parties. A complaint of this nature should not have been made. Everyone in this house,
Saskatchewan Election

who has had anything to do with public business, knows that Canadian National business is dealt with in another manner. It is dealt with by a special committee of the house, which considers the accounts of the company, and officers of the company appear before the committee. It might be quite true that the hon. member does not believe in these men on the Canadian National railways being encouraged to express their own opinions about amalgamation, or more socialization than there is at the present time. I think the hon. member would agree with me in saying that the only wrong that has been done in this case is either the using of the stationery of the railway, the misusing of the company name, or the enclosing of political statements in company mail. If one of these things has been done, it certainly can be investigated by the company.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the point at issue has escaped the attention of both the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). The point is this: Here is a document alleged- and I use the word advisedly-to have been sent out by an officer of the Canadian National Railways.


Malcolm McLean: Alleged by whom?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just a moment. The
document is on the stationery of the Canadian National Railways, new form, No. 171. It is typical railway stationery and appears to be quite genuine. The document is dated at Kamsack, Saskatchewan, June 6, 1938, which would indicate the source from which it was issued. That would aid in the investigation of the matter, should the government desire to investigate it.
Now, nothing can be said against the Liberal party or any other party expressing its views in connection with governing this country on railway or other matters. If the Liberal party, as indicated this afternoon by the applause of its members in the house, are opposed to unification and amalgamation, that is their privilege. They have a perfect right so to advocate. But when Canadian National Railways stationery is used, or appears to have been used, and sent out by an official of the railway, as the evidence would indicate, and when on it one finds language in these words: "The Liberal government is very strongly against amalgamation with the C.P.R.", I suggest the matter should be considered. Then, I ask the Prime Minister to note this particularly:
If the Saskatchewan Liberal government is defeated in this election, we will get amalgama-

tion very soon, trains will be taken off and branch lines many of them will be closed. All Canadian National employees should vote Liberal.
That is what I think is the serious point in the matter. It all depends upon whether the document is as it appears to be.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just a minute; I will
come to that, if hon members will be patient. The point in the matter is this: If Canadian National officials, by virtue of their office and influence with employees and workers on the railway, are permitted to use Canadian National stationery to make declarations which, if not untrue, are obviously not based upon any authority, then I say it is a very serious matter. That is the sort of thing that drags the Canadian National into politics. My opinion during the years I have been in the house-and I think it is shared pretty generally by hon. members on both sides-is that it is highly desirable to keep the Canadian National Railways out of politics, if we can. I say, "if we can", because the experience over a long period of years would indicate that it is an extremely difficult thing to do. I think no one can say that we should not make every endeavour to do so.
A moment ago the Prime Minister suggested that the complaint should have been addressed to the president of the Canadian National Railways. I differ from him, and I say that this is the proper place in which to discuss a matter of this kind.


Ross Wilfred Gray: An anonymous letter?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My suggestion is that the Prime Minister represents the government of the country, and he ought to draw the attention of the president of the railways to it, and request that the whole matter be investigated by a competent officer of the company.


Ross Wilfred Gray: An anonymous letter?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not an anonymous letter.


Malcolm McLean: Surely it is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I asked the hon. member to let me have this document.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I refer to the other one from which the hon. member is reading.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the chief whip of the Liberal party would permit me, I should like to proceed. Any citizen of Canada is at liberty, through a member, to bring to the attention of the House of Commons any

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
grievance, and particularly at this point, on going into supply. He may mention any grievance to which he or others may be subjected.
I am not vouching for this, because I do not know the man. I simply say that the evidence of the stationery warrants that the matter be investigated.


Ross Wilfred Gray: The stationery?


James Garfield Gardiner: You can pick it up in any station in Canada.


Mr. FACTOR:: Is there a signature on the document?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, there is no signature. I suggest that that is quibbling, if I may be permitted to use the term without offence. It is rather begging the question. I submit to the Prime Minister that with this stationery before us, and with a responsible citizen, whatever his views may be, bringing it to the attention	of	parliament	through the properchannel, namely through a member of the House of Commons, the Prime Minister and the government owe it to the house and to the hon.	member who	brought it to	theattention	of	the house	to investigate	the
matter. I would not condemn the Liberal party or anyone else on this evidence until it has been investigated.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not evidence at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) says it is not evidence, but I submit that though it may not be sufficient to condemn, it is sufficient to warrant investigation. That is the point I make. I submit	to	the Prime	Minister that	the
matter should be investigated carefully at the instance of the government. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar or myself or anyone else has not the right to request the president of the railway to do anything, but the government has the right, particularly where it is alleged-I use the word advisedly-that officers of the railway have projected themselves into a political controversy and have used influences which they were not justified in using. In my opinion that is the point at issue.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that if instead of the Canadian National Railways being involved, this particular incident had had to do with some high official of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, that he had used stationery belonging to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to accompany an anonymous circular and have it distributed at the instance of the employees of the Canadian
Pacific Railway Company, would he not assume that the president and the board of directors of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company would take cognizance of a matter of the kind? The position of the government with respect to the Canadian National Railways is that the Canadian National stands on all fours, so far as freedom from government interference is concerned, with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Assurance has been given the president and the board of directors that if in investigating this matter themselves they should require the assistance of the government, that assistance will be given in the fullest measure. I think myself it is the duty of the higher officers of the railway concerned to investigate matters of the kind, whether they have to do with the government owned or the privately owned railway. I do not think it is the business of the government to be continually telling both railway companies what they should do with respect to their officials and employees.
Motion (Mr. Mackenzie King) agreed to, and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
Employment Offices Coordination Act-administration, $63,925.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): When this item was before the committee previously the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) inquired as to the connection between the Employment Service of Canada and the youth training plans. I told him then that this question might be answered more appropriately when we were dealing with the item having to do with training projects for unemployed young people, but that I would try to supply the information while the present item was under discussion.
My information is that all agreements specify that applicants for training, living in a locality where there is an office of the employment service, must be registered there as a proof of unemployment. In some provinces, particularly Ontario, the selection of trainees for different projects was made by officials of the employment offices, but in most provinces the employment offices were not used in that capacity. The women's section of the employment service gave valuable assistance in .helping to select young women for home service training schools and in their subsequent placement in employment. The facilities of all employment offices were available to trainees on the completion of their
3S30	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
course to assist them in finding employment. With respect to the other training plans carried on during the past year, it is suggested that the connection is a valuable one and ought to be improved further by the appointment of a number of special placement officers in the provinces where these plans are being carried out.
Mr. GREEN:: Could the minister state how many of the men now in the Vancouver post office and art gallery would be eligible for forestry training? I understand that the forestry training camps were opened again last week and that some hundreds of young men from British Columbia have been sent lo these camps.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not that information before me, but I shall be glad to get it for my hon. friend when the item which refers more specifically to the matter is under discussion.
The hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) asked a question with regard to the follow-up facilities of the employment service in connection with the placing of domestic help. I may say that when this matter was brought to the attention of the committee last year by my hon. friend I arranged for the director of the employment service to speak directly with him in order to secure specific complaints. My information is that at that time my hon. friend did not supply any specific information which would have enabled an investigation to be made. Later on he made it clear that he had Vancouver in mind, and a telegram was sent to Mr. McVety, the superintendent of the Employment Service of Canada in British Columbia. The text of Mr. McVety's reply is as follows:
Only one ease in twenty years where employment service has received unfavourable criticism and this was in May, 1934. Girl twenty-one years of age, sent as domestic to residence in good district, was accompanied by a married woman with whom she was living who inspected home and advised girl to take position. Home later turned out to be operated by procurers who were sent to prison for various terms. Position of department in matter fully investigated by minister-
That is the minister of labour for British Columbiaand local council of women who agreed every precaution had been taken. Vancouver city police prosecutor who made_ investigation and handled prosecution in preliminary hearing quite satisfied no blame attached to department and expressed thanks for assistance in obtaining witnesses. If Mr. MacNeil has any other case in mind will be glad to have particulars.

As my hon. friend is aware, it is very difficult to follow up these cases unless specific complaints are made. I can assure him that if he has any particular case in mind I shall be only too glad to investigate it for him.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I wish to assure the minister that neither at this time nor last year was I attempting to single out the Vancouver office for criticism, nor was I suggesting that they were conniving to bring about circumstances which would be to the disadvantage of these single homeless girls. I advocate, and I hope the minister will encourage, the development of facilities that will afford every precaution. I hesitate to bring specific cases to the attention of the department or to introduce them into a public discussion. There is no doubt that sometimes young girls in destitute circumstances are exploited by unscrupulous persons. They are asked to work at low wages or to do work that is too arduous. Advantage is deliberately taken of their unfortunate circumstances. Frequently they have been exposed to the operations of procurers for the chain of brothels in the interior of British Columbia. I am not criticizing the Vancouver office. I am urging the federal government to give them every cooperation in extending the follow-up facilities. I believe it would be the desire of the officials in charge of the women's division of the Vancouver employment service to develop those facilities as far as possible, and I urge that some definite plan be adopted so that these transient young women, who are frequently in a helpless condition when they reach Vancouver, shall be given every assistance and protection.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I can assure my hon. friend that that certainly is the desire of those who direct the employment service, and some indication that the service is operated reasonably well in that respect is that very few complaints have been received. Certainly as soon as any are received they will be investigated.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Will the minister develop the follow-up facilities?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, I shall do whatever can be done in that direction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like certain
information as to the advertisements for the second contract that was made with respect to Fort Henry. We had the date of the contract, and looking at the local newspapers there appears to have been no notice given of any tenders having been called for. The minister was of the opinion that notice was given, that the notice appeared in the Globe

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
and Mail, and he was going to look into the matter. It becomes important in view of what was said by the minister the other evening, especially with regard to the terms of the contract. I do not know whether or not the minister has a copy of the contract before him.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No, I have not a copy of the contract before me. In the return which was asked for in the early part of the session, and which appears in Hansard of April 7, 1938, it is made quite clear that in the first year of the work at Fort Henry the contract price was 872,288.50, and in the second year $305,448.50.	[DOT]


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was the notice of the call of tenders for that contract of which I was speaking. The minister said the other evening that the date was March, 1937. I told him that the contractors had complained that there was no notice of any such tenders being called for. The minister thought that the notice appeared in certain papers, but a search has failed to indicate any such notice in the local papers, and the question is whether or not there was an extension of the unit basis of the first contract without tenders being called for.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There are three companies which appear to have tendered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For the second year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who were they?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The Frid Construction
Company, Harold Harvey, and McGinnis & O'Connor.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Frid Company is of Hamilton, and both the others are local companies?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What were the tenders?


Norman McLeod Rogers: For the second year the lowest bid was that of the Frid Construction Company, $305,448.50; Harold Harvey, $335,008; McGinnis & O'Connor, $328,743.50. I stated that according to information I received the other day the tenders were advertised in the Globe and Mail and in the construction journals. I shall be glad to confirm that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does not appear to have been advertised in the local Kingston paper, and a very casual search did not indicate the notice in the Globe and Mail. Was the Globe and Mail one or two papers at that time?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think only one.
.51952-243


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is another matter. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) is not here, and I was desirous of obtaining certain information. When the minister was absent from the department the Minister of Labour was acting Minister of National Defence, and in view of what took place in this house the other day I have now authentic and much more complete information than I had when I was speaking then. The first question I desire to ask is this: Did the administrating officer at the Royal Military College make a report, which was entered in the R.M.C. central registry in May, 1937, and which was communicated here, and did the minister himself as acting Minister of National Defence make a reply to that document?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I will answer at once that I have no recollection at the present time of that report having been brought to my attention or of a reply having been made, but I shall attempt to ascertain if that was the case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will help the minister
with respect to it. At noon on the second day of January, 1937, Major Stethem, now Lieutenant-Colonel Stethem, retired administrating officer of the Royal Military College, was proceeding to his home when he saw a large two-ton truck, No. 33511C, bearing the name of Louis Drinka, loading up and carting away a full load of crushed stone from the Royal Military College government stone pile near Navy bay. This pile had been diminishing in size and there had been discussions about it. As administrating officer Major Stethem followed the stone through the city and saw the truck proceed to a laneway, running west from Sydenham street. The stone was dumped into a shed in the rear of a house said to be owned or rented by Mr. Stansbury. The shed was being converted into a garage. Stethem asked the driver what authority he had for taking the government stone, and he stated he got his orders from Mr. Stansbury.
Stethem reported the matter in consequence of certain threats and matters of that sort which took place afterwards in respect to himself. The further taking of the stone was stopped; but in consequence of what happened, on the first day of May Stethem requested that his original report be a matter of record in the R.M.C. central registry.
I wonder if the minister will be good enough to look at the files of the acting minister of National Defence, where I believe he will find a reply to that report. In view of the

3832	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices ____
fact that the Minister of National Defence is not here and these papers will be looked for,
I suggest that the item stand until we get that information, and that the minister proceed with other items, because when I deal with this I should like to deal with it completely and fully.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Most certainly I shall
have no hesitation at all in letting the item stand until that information is brought down. But there is nothing in the report read by the leader of the opposition which in the slightest degree is at variance with the statement I made to the committee some time ago, that Mr. Stansbury himself acknowledged that he had received a load of this crushed rock with the consent of the officer in charge and that he laid that crushed rock upon places on the roadway leading to his garage. He denied vigorously the statement made by the leader of the opposition that his garage had been built with public property.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The observations I made are completely at variance with the statement made by the minister. The minister himself states that Mr. Stansbury said that he had permission to do what he did. As a matter of fact such is not the case, so far as I have been able to ascertain, for the simple reason that on the report being made by Stethem to his commanding officer, the adjutant, steps were immediately taken by telephone and further removal of the stone was stopped. The stone was quarried by government relief labour, taken to the crusher, and the operation was paid for entirely out of government funds. In consequence of what was said in the house the other day, this information has become available from the one source from which it could come and be authentic, and that is why I ask the minister to look at the files and see this report and ascertain what reply he himself sent to the Royal Military College as to what action was to be taken in the matter. A copy of his letter in any event is available at the office. The original, of course, is at the Royal Military College. That is the position at the moment.
The other matter I mentioned was in connection with white lead which disappeared. The minister, is, of course, aware of the young man's name. Perhaps I should not mention it. He was convicted before Magistrate Shea for stealing a tarpaulin, and ultimately sentenced to a month's imprisonment, and the time that he was in prison ran as part of the month. He went to Guelph. At the time he was in the public employ, and when he came back he was given the same job again, it
[Mr. Bennett.l
having been held down during his absence by his father. He has since been convicted of a more serious offence, which involves punishment for just a day under two years,
I believe. There is a case under appeal-I am not mentioning the name-but he is the man who gave information with respect to the white lead and where it went. Apparently it is a small matter, but it arises out of the administration of this office in Kingston and the methods that have been pursued in connection with this administration.
There is another matter which I think I should mention, although the minister who referred to it is not at present in the chamber. This question in connection with coal is not at all a new matter. To my surprise I found that it was the subject matter of public discussion at the last election, and Mr. Sowards,, who has been attacked in this house, publicly said to his opponent, "I will put up a thousand dollars; you will put up a thousand dollars; I will name an engineer; you will name an engineer; they will choose a competent arbitrator; and if the bins to which you refer do not hold the amount of coal for which charges have been made. I forfeit my thousand dollars and am liable to any other penalties that may accrue to me by reason of it." That offer is still open. What is more, I have the measurements of the so-called bin. If the minister will read the solemn declaration of Mr. Gibson he will find that it does not touch this point at all. The cubical contents of the so-called bin are here, and I will give them, in view of the fact that although the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) dealt with this, and not the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), the Minister of Labour says he is responsible for procuring the statutory declaration. The bin was 31 feet, 6 inches long, 11 feet, 9 inches wide, and 6 feet, 9 inches high, which makes a total of 2,498 cubic feet. The number of tons it will hold depends upon the kind of coal that is used, but in any event at all times that number of cubic feet would hold more than is charged for in the ledger account which has been sent to me.
There is another point with respect to that. This matter has been discussed fully on the hustings and elsewhere. The offer Mr. Sowards made is still outstanding. His opponent has never taken it up. Mr. Sowards not having access to the public buildings, I understand some changes have been made in them since then. That, however, is not a matter of great importance, because it is well to understand the kind of bins they were. They were bins with holes in the outside through which coal was dumped; there was a central opening

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
out of which part of the coal ran until it was thrown back in the bin, and there was a fire hole to which coal was delivered to obviate the necessity of carrying it from the storage bin to the place where it was used. The question as to the quantity of fuel used by the school, that is the public building, is not a matter over which Mr. Sowards had control. The deliveries were checked as to weights and other relevant matters, and if the government desires, although it is not their property, although it is purely a local matter and the other instances were purely provincial and not federal matters, if an honest opportunity is offered for the measurement of the bin and the determination of its capacity he will be only too glad to deal with it. We obviously as a federal power have nothing to do with it except as it was utilized by Mr. Gibson, who is a provincial and not a federal employee, who is dealing with a provincial and not a federal matter, and whose declaration, it will be observed at once, leads nowhere as far as this matter is concerned.
I was unable at first to understand why the Minister of National Defence made the statement in view of what he said the other evening; but when the Minister of Labour made the observations he dad as to his part in it, I then quite understood, and this endeavour to think that an answer is made to the question of the administration of the Labour department's office in Kingston by making that declaration against John Sowards is, I think, somewhat beside the point. Mr. Sowards is ready and willing to meet the Minister of National Defence or anybody else, but obviously he cannot meet him with respect to provincial matters. And it is an odd thing that he had no complaint in this respect from the provincial authorities, but that^ the first intimation of it, so far as any official act is concerned, came from the federal authorities, here. I need hardly say that the matter was so discussed, according to the public press, in Kingston during the last election that it became known apparently to everybody. But no action seems to have been taken by the people concerned, namely the provincial government. It is a strange circumstance that the declaration, which is by a very competent man, does not in any sense indicate the size of the bin or that he made any measurement. All he says is that it will not hold the amount of coal charged for and the amount, he says, charged in the ledger account in round figures; but the coal deliveries were weighed in; the men who weighed them are prepared to support their statements and produce the ordinary vouchers and papers
which belong to the administration of a business of that kind, and this was the method pursued over a long term of years. I do not know that we can get any further with respect to the matter, it being a local one; for we have no documents or papers that can be produced.	.
Mr. ROGERS; Possibly my right hon. friend has not read the report of the penitentiaries commission, tabled to-day. I had not read it-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I have not read it.
Mr. ROGERS; -until the noon hour. That report refers specifically to two coal companies in Kingston, one of them the Sowards company, another the Morris company, with respect to which there had been complaints regarding short weight of coal. Two investigations were made by officers of the penitentiaries branch of the Department of Justice, one, I believe, by the warden of Collin's Bay penitentiary, the other by Mr. Dawson, an inspector of the penitentiaries branch. The commission has taken the view that the reports in each case which dealt with these matters were inadequate, and that the evidence which would exonerate the Sowards company and the other company involved is not conclusive. So it appears at once that there is this additional reason why the Sowards company, and I would say equally the other company involved, should be disqualified from tendering for public contracts until such time as the Department of Justice is able to deal with the subject matter of the report to which I have referred.
Mr. SLAGHT; May I make this suggestion to the leader of the opposition? This matter, as I understand, is primarily provincial and not federal. I think we are all familiar with the bombastic pre-election habit of offering to deposit a thousand dollars against somebody else who probably does not have a thousand dollars.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No trouble about that.


Mr. SLAGHT:: Well, perhaps not, if my right hon. friend is as generous as he usually is. But my suggestion is. Should the time of the House of Commons at very great expense per hour be occupied with a problem which, as I understand, is one of somebody measuring the bins and bringing down a report for future discussion of the size of the bins, and also to determine whether a load of cement had a content of the value of two dollars or two dollars and a half? My suggestion is that these are picayune
3834	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
matters of detail in the individual cases which my right hon. friend is exploiting. Should he not persuade the gentlemen at Kingston who are priming him with the information to take their complaints to the tribunals which have jurisdiction, namely the provincial departments whose officers are said to be lax; and if, as was suggested the other day, crime is involved, to take their complaints to the department of the attorney general of Ontario. If some other hon. member produced some complaint from Halifax, we should have to have bins measured there for the House of Commons; and some other hon. member might hear of something at Vancouver where the size of a load of gravel would have to be appraised. This would be wasting woefully the time of parliament. There are efficient ministers in Ontario with efficient investigators and inspectors whose duty it is to have these matters set straight if there is a real foundation for the complaint. I suggest to my right hon. friend that it is his duty, if he will permit me to put it so strongly, to tell those gentlemen to take their complaints to the proper authority, and if they are not properly investigated, and if wrong-doing has occurred and is not punished, then surely it will be time enough to waste the time of the-House of Commons on what seem to me trifling matters which should be corrected by the proper tribunal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) had been diligent in his attendance in the House of Commons since he came to it, he would realize what the duties of the House of Commons are. One of the duties of that branch of the House of Commons known as the opposition is to investigate the expenditure of public moneys. Unfortunately the present opposition is small in numbers, so there falls upon me a much larger obligation than I like to contemplate, but one which as long as I occupy this position and am paid a salary for it under the provisions of the Public Service Act I shall continue to discharge to the best of my ability.
The question of John Sowards came up in connection with a tender for coal, involving a large sum of money. He was the lowest tenderer. He was not given a form of tender, but he sent in the lowest tender. The hon. member was not in the house when this matter came up. Sowards was not awarded the contract because it was said that he was not a fit and proper person to have it. The Deputy Minister of National Defence was used as the figurehead upon whom to put the blame. It now appears that this should not have been done. The Minister of National Defence, on

being asked, in connection with the passing of his estimates, whose was the lowest tender, gave the figures, and the lowest tender was that of John Sowards. Then he said, "Here is the order in council." It was produced pursuant to an order of this house, with the relevant papers and the submission to council, and it showed that John Sowards did not get the contract because the minister, on the advice of the deputy minister, recommended that something should not be done. As I said, it appears that the deputy minister was not responsible at all. The Minister of Labour said in this chamber, as reported in Hansard:
I am responsible for this; I say so and so; and in consequence of what I said about Sowards, he was not awarded the contract at the lowest tender. Thus this country was involved in the loss of a substantial sum of money.	[DOT]
I have not the slightest apology to offer for bringing the matter to the attention of the committee: that is my duty. If the hon. member is a diligent reader of the records of this house since confederation and will take the record of the Liberal party in opposition, he will realize that it is regarded by them as their first duty to deal with these matters, even such small matters as the number of brandy and liqueur glasses on the table of Sir Charles Tupper when he was high commissioner in London. When public finance is involved it is the duty of every member of the opposition to endeavour to show whether the country got the greatest value possible for its money.
I brought out the facts and let it rest at that. Then the other evening the Minister of National Defence, on the discussion of an item in the estimates for the Department of Labour, rose in his place and read a solemn declaration of one Alfred Leonard Gibson of Kemptville. The sixth paragraph of that declaration states:
I measured the coal storage at the said school and according to measurements and the cubical contents of the said storage space it would be impossible to put more than fifty tons of dry coal into the coal storage space.
I can only say that anyone who knows anything about the cubic measurements of the given area and the solids that might be put in that space, allowing for air, knows that it would hold seventy tons.
I quite realize that the matter cannot be the subject of further discussion here, except for this: The minister has now risen in his place and speaks of something that he saw at noon. It was a report that was tabled to-day. As a member of the government he obviously had opportunity to see it. He

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
finds that a commission appointed by the government to deal with the penitentiary situation in Canada has made a report. That investigation, conducted by the Department of Justice, under which the penitentiaries fall, has not been satisfactory. Who are these men? Are they more eminent than the Department of Justice? The minister says one company is the Morris Coal Company, and the Morris Coal Company was the coal company that Mr. Gibson says delivered the coal to him, that enabled him to get his year's supply at less cost than when he got it from Sowards, although he paid a higher price. It is the other company mentioned in the declaration read by the Minister of National Defence. Obviously men cannot be tried in that way. Clearly this commission had no right to do this. If this government feel that fraud has been practised, their duty is clear. But it is an odd thing that although this matter was discussed in the provincial election campaign, no proceedings have been taken by the provincial administration against anybody. As the hon. member has very properly pointed out, that is their business, not ours.
The question is incidental to the large question that we are discussing, namely, the administration of this labour office in Kingston. There is behind it one of the most important questions that this house will have to consider, one which, trifling and insignificant on the face of it, is yet a subject which engaged the attention of the mother of parliaments for two long debates. In certain questions there are great principles involved, and this happens to be one of them. When I secure the information which I am hoping to get-the minister is not here to-day-we shall finish that phase of it; and when I am doing so I shall deal also with another matter in which the statements were as grossly inaccurate as it is possible for statements to be with respect to the expenditure of public money in connection with roads in Manitoba. I listened to the extravagant language used, and I shall deal with it in the proper way at the appropriate time. But I want the rest of this information, which I was promised and which I dare say public duty has prevented , the minister from furnishing up to the present. I am not complaining, but when I receive it I shall deal with it.
But I say to the hon. member for Parry Sound and to every hon. member of the committee that the control of the expenditure of public money is the basis of democratic institutions. Public money has always been the subject of most acute discussion in the House of Commons, and will continue to be. It
was because of the questions that arose out of this item that I have ventured to discuss it; I offer no apology for doing so, and I am going to continue to do so until I get to the bottom of it; I make that abundantly clear. I assure the hon. member that it is much harder for me than it is for him, but as long as I have a duty to discharge I am going to discharge it. I am not unmindful of the references that have been made to my retirement, and the very nice language that has been used; but I wonder if the hon. member for Parry Sound knows just what did happen. Even the cost of my food was investigated. Does he realize that while I was Prime Minister questions were put on the order paper as to the cost of my food, as to the cost of the quarters I occupied, and all that sort of thing? That is what I had to endure, but I did not offer the slightest objection.
Now comes this last point, and when we deal with that I hope we shall put it just where it belongs. I am not going to deal with it until the information I have sought is produced, and I do not in any sense attach blame to the minister for the fact that the information is not available to-day, since the Minister of National Defence, probably on account of a very sad occurrence, is absent, I understand, on public business. Therefore it would be wrong for me to complain because the information is not forthcoming; but when that information is produced, these letters, this report and so on, I hope we shall dispose of these matters very quickly.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: The right hon, gentleman
entirely misapprehended the suggestion I was making to him. It was not intended in any way to curb his investigation of the Sowards contract or the conditions under which it was granted or refused. My suggestion was that, having or purporting to have information indicating improprieties on the part of provincial officers at Kingston, who he admits are solely under provincial jurisdiction, he had a ready place to procure relief in regard to any wrongdoing that may have occurred there. The right hon. gentleman says he marvels that the provincial authorities did not take steps, because this was the subject of an election discussion. Well, if the provincial authorities began to take real steps in connection with matters that ar? bandied back and forth on the platform, there would be no end to it. But when definite information is in the possession of the right hon. gentleman, or people in Kingston who are advising him, it is not only their privilege but their duty to lay such information before the proper authorities. That was the suggestion I made to
3836	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
the right hon. gentleman, instead of wasting the time of this house on the petty side of it; giving him full opportunity and recognizing his perfect right to go forward with the matter of the Sowards contract. That is the only observation I desire to make.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As the right hon. gentleman has said, this matter can be very well carried further when the additional information is procured. I should like to point out, however-and I think this is the time to do it-that over the past six weeks the leader of the opposition has made a number of vague allegations, which I shall not dignify by the name of charges, with respect to a number of occurrences in Kingston and the neighbouring constituency of Frontenac-Addington.
I just want to go back over these allegations one by one, and I am in the judgment of the committee when I say that with respect to each one there has been not the slightest hesitation on my part either to investigate the complaint immediately or to produce anything that my right hon. friend has acquired with regard to it. The first specific statement made by the leader of the opposition was with reference to Mr. Stansbury, connecting him with the Frid Construction Company. The right hon. gentleman said that was due to his faulty recollection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do not magnify that; it was cleared up at once.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Nevertheless I am going to deal with it at the same time, because it went out in press dispatches all over the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the least important thing about him.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall come back to that again. When my right hon. friend made his correction and acknowledged that Mr. Stansbury was not a director of the Frid Construction Company, he said he confused the Frid Construction Company with two other companies, the Campbell Construction Company and the Frontenac Construction Company. What was the inference to be drawn from that? The inference obviously was-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those were not the words.


Norman McLeod Rogers: -that Mr. Stansbury was connected with one of the other companies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman must use the words correctly. Those were not the words used. Do not draw an implication from the wrong use of the words. Take the words.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The right hon. gentleman said there were two other companies there.

My right hon. friend can look up the words, but he referred specifically to two other construction companies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He certainly did.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Why, then, did he refer to these other companies if the intention was not to suggest that Mr. Stansbury was connected with them?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I certainly did not suggest that. Mr. Shea is the man who has to do with the Frontenac Construction Company.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Then what reason was there to mention that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: A good deal of reason, because it comes out in connection with the supplies that I have been talking about, and the Labour department. That is the point.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As a matter of fact, Mr. Stansbury had no connection whatever with either the Frid Construction Company, the Campbell Construction Company or the Frontenac Construction Company. Those were the three companies mentioned particularly by the leader of the opposition. Then I come to the further statement made subsequently, that Mr. Stansbury had built his garage with public property.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the way it was put.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That was the way it was put.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. Just read it. Why should the minister put it inaccurately?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I leave it to the judgment of the committee whether I have put it inaccurately. I read from Hansard:
Mr. Rogers: Certainly my right hon. friend seems to have made a special purpose of conducting a minute investigation in the constituency of Kingston, if he is now coming down to the question of the garage in the yard of the president of the Liberal association of that constituency.
Mr. Bennett:	If he built it with public
property, that is my duty.
Some hon. Members: Did he?
Mr. Bennett:	He certainly did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly. I am coming to that, and that is exactly where the stone was delivered, into that shed that was being made into a garage.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have already given to this committee the statement by Mr. Stans-*burv, which is in unequivocal terms and which was elaborated, as a matter of fact, in a statement which he gave to the Kingston Whig-Standard and which appeared in the

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
issue of Friday of last week. In that issue he gave a detailed statement of the materials that went into that garage. The building itself, as I stated here, is some seventy years old. The building was renovated, but with materials purchased by Mr. Stansbury. The only question remaining is as to this truckload of crushed stone, which was obtained with the permission of the official in charge of that particular material.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who says that?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That stone was placed upon the gravel road.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who says that?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have that from Mr. Stansbury.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not the officer in command, as the reports will show, if I am correctly advised; and I wish the minister would get the documents before he makes that statement.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The documents will be found and produced; but I understand that Major Bissonnette-and that is the name used by my right hon. friend-was said to have given that permission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly, and he is not available; but that is not what the record shows.


Norman McLeod Rogers: What remains, then, of this statement by my right hon. friend that this garage was built with public property? Was it correct or not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Correct to this extent, that I read, as I had authority to read, of this truck that went from Navy bay, where stone was quarried at the expense of the Canadian people, with machinery paid for by the Canadian people, down to where its contents were dumped into that building. The streets were described, and the number of the truck was taken by the officer in charge at the military college, who reported it to his superiors who telephoned Stansbury and stopped it. He did not make any suggestion then that he had authority from anybody.


Norman McLeod Rogers: All that appears in the statement I made in this house on Friday, with specific reference to the fact that this crushed stone had been laid upon the roadway leading to the garage; but my right hon. friend said that this was a garage built with public property. The statement was absolutely incorrect, and I think the right hon. leader of the opposition ought to retract it here and now.
I come to the next statement, in regard to the Frid Construction Company having removed certain crushed stone from the quarry to another building, the Crain building, which was being constructed by the same company at Queen's university.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; cement.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend referred to nibble-stone as well. I have a report here to the quartermaster-general, and I place it on Hansard here and now, because I think the sooner these matters are dealt with the better:
1. Reference the matter of disposal of stone from departmental property at Royal Military College and at Barriefield. The only information available on file is as follows:	(a) In
May of 1937 a request was received from the Kingston tennis club for a few loads of waste material from the rock crushing plant at Barriefield. This request was refused as all of the material was required for roads in R.M.C. grounds, (b) In July, 1937, a request was received through military district No. 3 for the use of waste stone from the Barriefield quarry, to be used for wall facing on a building at Queen's university. This application was approved on the understanding that the Frid Construction Company would pay 20 cents per cubic yard for an approximate amount of 200 cubic yards of stone.
In other words, that was done with the full permission of the Department of National Defence, and was a commercial transaction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Had the stone been moved at that time?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am reading from the report as I have it here. Most certainly the transaction was one which was agreed to by the Department of National Defence, and was not a case of the Frid Construction Company transferring to the Crain building at Queen's material that ought to have been used elsewhere.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: No false record in that.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I continue:
(c)	An application was received in September, 1937, from Mr. Harry McLean, Kingston, for the purchase of 1.500 cubic yards of waste rock from Barriefield quarry at 5 cents per cubic yard, for crushing purposes. This was duly approved, subject only to the provision that it did not interfere with the supply of waste rock from the same quarry to a contractor who was at that time making a rock fill for the department at Tete de Pont barracks. Protests were received from persons in Kingston against the sale of rock to Mr. McLean with the result that Mr. McLean was ordered to take his crushing plant out of the quarry, but that he would be permitted to remove the balance of the 1,500 cubic yards. Mr. McLean then rented his crushing plant
3838	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
to the Frid Construction Company, who used it for crushing rock for their Fort Henry work.
(d)	I can find no trace of a report from the commandant, Royal Military College in connection with rock or stone removal, and as the quarry at Barriefield was under the control of the D.O.C., M.D. 3, it is unlikely that the commandant would have submitted any such report.
(e)	There is no report from the D.O.C., M.D. 3 on any other matter in this connection than as above stated.
This is signed by E. Schmidlin, Colonel, D.E.S. That is an official report from the Department of National Defence with respect to another matter raised by the leader of the apposition, namely the transfer of rubble rock from this quarry to the Crain building, the inference being that the Frid Construction Company had done it for some sinister purpose, and that the public interest had been jeopardized thereby.
I come now to another matter with which I Jealt the other day, but with which I think I snail deal again at this time, namely, cement. The leader of the opposition has referred to the matter at some length. I have in my hand a telegram from the Frid Construction Company which sets out the entire transaction. It is, as I stated originally, a transaction which is common among contractors who have a number of jobs in the same area. It was done with the consent of the provincial authorities. I wish to place this statement on Hansard:
Confirming our statement re cement on our work Kingston. From our car shipped to Crain building Kingston May 29th/37 we took 350 bags to Fort Henry. When government car CN 412639 arrived we returned the 350 bags borrowed from Crain building car. During construction work at Fort Henry in order to keep work going borrowed cement in similar way from Drurys and Daltons supply houses. When government cars arrived returned borrowed cement from cars. On June 25th/37 arranged with government authorities to borrow from Fort Henry balance of cement required to complete Crain building in small quantities. The dates and quantities taken are shown on list sent you. We completed Crain building November lst/37 and on same date returned 1,000 bags in car load quantity to Fort Henry. The balance 750 bags car load returned when Fort could handle same January 24th-


Richard Bedford Bennett: January 24, 1938?


Norman McLeod Rogers: -both ears we purchased from Drury Supply Company,
This is signed by the Frid Construction Company. The list of cement loaned from the Fort Henry project to the Frid Construction Company is as follows:

Date	Bags
June 28	  60
June 29	 150
July 2	 60
July 7	 60
July 20	 150
July 21	 150
July 31	 130
August 4	 250
August 27	 70
September 1	 100
September 2	 200
September 9	 180
September 15	 225
September 16	 100
September 20	 60
1,945
That was a list kept by the Frid Construction Company of the cement which was loaned in this way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Loaned from where to where?


Norman McLeod Rogers: From Fort Henry to the Crain building, and some of it the other way. The Frid Construction Company happened to have two contracts in the same area at the same time. The leader of the opposition certainly intended to convey the impression that the Frid Construction Company was defrauding the government, and that the dominion government, inasmuch as it was contributing to this particular project, had suffered accordingly.
This information certainly denies any sinister character in that transaction. The accounts, I may say further, are all submitted through the provincial government, and are audited by the representative of the comptroller of the treasury before the dominion government recognizes any financial responsibility at all therefor. But the transaction as set out here is one which certainly, on the face of it, appears to be, and in my opinion is, an entirely honest transaction. I am advised that arrangements of this kind are by no means unusual with respect to contractors having a number of jobs in the same district. At all events it is clear beyond question that the cement which was loaned was fully returned. The Frid Construction Company is certainly a firm which enjoys the highest reputation. I have never for a moment at any time heard any suggestion to the contrary.
I come now to another statement made by the leader of the opposition. I am disposing of these, one by one. Another statement was to the effect that in the disposal of the equipment from the relief camps there had been some evidence of malfeasance, or evidence that the public interest had not been well served. The other day the Minister

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
of National Defence dealt specifically with all the equipment that had been disposed of from camps 42 and 37, when those camps were closed. The equipment was disposed of by the salvage officer of the dominion government, and was disposed of in no other way. As a matter of fact, a very small amount of the equipment was actually sold. Certainly the report effectively disposes of any suggestion that there was anything out of the way in the transaction connected with the disposal of that equipment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Horses were not mentioned by the minister.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The minister made a complete statement as to the equipment disposed of. Any other equipment of the relief camps is still on storage in the district. There is a further reference to this strange and mysterious fire which occurred one night. There again the statement by the Minister of National Defence is complete and conclusive. An investigation was made by the Department of National Defence, and it was found that no blame attached to anyone who had any connection whatsoever with the equipment which was disposed of in the manner set out in the report made by the Minister of National Defence.
We now come to the question of white lead. I believe there was mention of twenty-five containers of white lead. With the best will in the world I have been unable to discover as yet where this white lead was originally located when, as the leader of the opposition states, it was removed. I wish he would tell me now where it was located. He said originally it was at Fort Henry. My information is that there has never been more than two twenty-five pound cans of white lead in Fort Henry at any time. That is sufficient for their purposes. Yet my right hon. friend stated that this amount of white lead was taken from Fort Henry. Will he tell me now where the white lead was originally?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I am trying to find out.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But the leader of the opposition is supposed to be making an allegation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I inquired what had happened to the twenty-five cartons of white lead that disappeared.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Where were they located originally? I -have inquired from the Frid Construction Company and-


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were at Fort
Henry.


Norman McLeod Rogers: -I have inquired from the Department of National Defence, who have no information at all with respect to the matter. All I ask the leader of the opposition with respect to the white lead is that he provide me with more information, and I will make an investigation. I have not withheld a single document in connection with the whole matter. I have from time to time tried to deal with these complaints as they have arisen. But the pity of it all is that the leader of the opposition in this case is willing to accept evidence which I suggest, as a barrister he would not submit to a justice of the peace.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Do not call it evidence,
please.


Norman McLeod Rogers: "Evidence" is really not the word for it. When you take what is left of these vague allegations made by the leader of the apposition, what you have in effect is this:	Mr. Stansbury was applied to by a
returned soldier for assistance in getting employment; Mr. Stansbury gave him a letter, but he was told by the foreman on the job that he could not secure a position because he was a Conservative. I believe Mr. Stansbury acted in entire good faith in that matter. We have also had certain charges made against the director of the employment office in Kingston. On Saturday morning I instructed the director of the employment service that the charges made by the leader of the opposition should be brought at once to the attention of the superintendent of the employment service of Ontario for such investigation as was required.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have been made for some time.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is entirely a matter for the superintendent of the employment service of Ontario to take whatever measures appear to be required as a result of his investigation. There has been no interference on my -part with the administration of that employment service.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not suggest that there had been. I suggested there had been local interference in Kingston.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have gone over the statements of the leader of the opposition most carefully, and on Friday and to-day I have given to the committee such information as I suggest disposes of at least ninety-five per cent of the allegations made. So far as the others are concerned, I shall certainly investigate them with the least possible delay. May I say that if any member of this committee
3840	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
has reason to have a personal grievance against another, I have reason to have a grievance against my right hon. friend. Six weeks ago he made his first charge. He says he did not mention me as being personally responsible in the .matter, but my right hon. friend has it in his power as leader of the opposition -he is assumed to speak only with a full sense of responsibility-to create newspaper headlines, and he did. Newspaper headlines were published throughout this country on at least four separate occasions suggesting corruption and debauchery in the constituency of Kingston.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who suggested that?


Norman McLeod Rogers: My right hon. friend suggested that. Not only that, but time and time again it has been stated that the leader of the opposition was making an attack upon the Minister of Labour because of these conditions which were alleged to exist. As I have said, this has gone on over a period of six weeks, and it was not until Friday that the leader of the opposition rose in his place and said that he absolved me from any personal connection whatever with the charges.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that at the very beginning.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My right hon. friend did
not say that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I did.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My right hon. friend certainly did not succeed in convincing those who send out the press reports that I was entirely absolved in the matter. I suggest to him that what he really did was to apply what might be termed the slow poison of defamation over a period of six weeks. At the close of that time, to use the words of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Kinley), he bestows upon me the kiss of high regard. I suggest that the leader of the opposition would have been far better advised if, when he received these pieces of information, he had brought them to my attention to be dealt with in a manner in which I hope he has some reason to believe they would be dealt with-with a full sense of my responsibility as a minister of the crown. Sometimes I am inclined to think my right hon. friend has a dual personality. For his better self-for the public-spirited statesman-I have nothing but the highest respect; but for his other self-for the vindictive partisan-I can only say that I have a mixture of sorrow and contempt. If my right hon. friend is going to deal with these matters from the standpoint of his responsibilities as

leader of the opposition, I think it is high time that he alters his manner from that in which he has been dealing with these questions during the past few days.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am obliged to the
hon. gentleman for his lecture.


An hon. MEMBER:: It will not do you
any good.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will not do me any
good; it will be wasted on me, as the hon. gentleman says. The hon. gentleman has been so accustomed to lecturing that he undertakes now to lecture me with respect to my conduct in parliament. For nine years he was around about Ottawa. His great claim to fame is as a biographer of the Prime Minister and as a competent secretary who prepared many speeches to which I listened with great interest and sometimes amusement. I have a duty that is quite as great as that of the hon. gentleman; only I am out of office while he is in office. I was in office once, and he was out of office. When he sought the support of the people of Kingston he undertook to outline a new order of things. The old order was to pass away.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I said the relief camps would be closed, and they were.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not the relief camps that we are talking about; it is a question of the administration of the affairs of this country. The hon. gentleman found himself placed in charge of the Department of Labour. The relief camps were closed by the federal government and opened by the provincial government in British Columbia.


Norman McLeod Rogers: On an entirely different basis.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite. Those camps were closed, and to-day we have people asking that the federal camps be reopened. That request is being made by many people who complained bitterly in those days. We now have a public building owned by the people of Canada, by the crown in the right of the dominion, made into the kind of camp which the minister approves. It is true that the camps to which he referred were abolished, but a public post office has now become a camp. We had the spectacle of the acting Postmaster General (Mr. Euler) rising in his place the other evening and telling us about the games the men had on May 24 and the efforts to which they went to clean things up afterwards and leave the property in proper shape. So far as we are concerned, we had the camps closed last year in British Columbia, as the minister promised-he pounded his

desk vigorously and said he closed them up- but we have a camp established in the post office at Vancouver to take care of six or seven hundred people. That is the sort of camp he prefers. But I was dealing with his statements to the electors of this country and he must remember-


Norman McLeod Rogers: Read them then.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Whig-Standard contains a fair report of the hon. member's speeches.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am sure my right hon. friend has a file of them and he should read them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not the file beside me.	Like the hon.	gentleman, I	did notbring all the papers from the library. I do not think it necessary to say more than I said	a	few evenings	ago, namely,	that hesaid	he	was going to	create a new	order ofthings.	Much more	was expected	of him
than would be expected of the average man or of the average minister. He was bringing to bear his wide knowledge and vast experience in connection with public affairs in his particular riding. We were not going to have the conditions that existed in days gone by. We were going to have a new order of things. He was the new salvation, and a new earth was to come into being with the election of the hon. gentleman to parliament and his appointment to office. I have been pointing out that the conditions which exist in Kingston are worse to-day than they have been in the past, and that the whole atmosphere was redolent of patronage of the worst possible kind.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: What about the Manitoba
case?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There will be no difficulty about that, and if all the private and confidential letters sent to the hon. member were put on record here to-day I do not think he would stay here long; that is all.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Mr. Chairman, that is too contemptible really to pay much attention to. Because my right hon. friend is caught redhanded in one of the most nefarious patronage deals of which this country has ever heard, he loses his temper.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I merely repeat my statement, and I say it applies to many more besides the hon. member.


James Garfield Gardiner: Repeating it does not make it true.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And if all the private and confidential papers in respect to the conduct
14, 1938	d841
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
of elections in Saskatchewan were made public here, what would happen? What would happen about the contributions?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mine can all be published, but yours cannot.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think some people would feel awfully sick if yours were.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I want to tell the leader of the opposition that that was not a private but a public document belonging to the house when I read from it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was interrupted, Mr. Chairman, and I made my observation in consequence of it, which I think is a fairly true one, as everybody knows who has anything to do with politics in this country.
I stated to the minister that in view of the attack which was made against me personally at the time of the election-I was Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini combined, the Prime Minister said at Kingston, and the building of armouries was the beginning of militarism which the then Prime Minister was creating in this country-that was the position then.


Norman McLeod Rogers: And what is this, reprisal?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; this is the result of what I then determined, that I would ascertain to the extent of my ability just how far this new departure was going to cleanse and purify politics.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If I might say so, the leader of the opposition might discharge his informants for inefficiency.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister perhaps will think that quite in keeping with his general reputation for cleverness, but it has nothing to do with the issue.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It has a great deal to do with it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The issue is this: The minister was to create this new condition at Kingston, and I said, and I repeat, that Kingston has been a very difficult place for a very long number of years. The first year I came to this house was in 1911; I was in parliament from 1911 to 1917, and during that time the then Conservative member for Kingston, Mr. Nickle, was complaining of certain things that had been done in connection with the penitentiary. That was going on, and there were questions of patronage with respect to every other department; there was the question of the guards, and whether the regulations had been carried out; and then the civil service came into the matter. That was all going on during that period. I came back to the house in 1926; from then
1	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
until the present time I have been a member of the house, and from 1926 to 1935 to my knowledge there was always trouble about Kingston. When the hon. gentleman, now Minister of Labour, made his excellent declaration of public policy as to the preservation of our institutions and of democracy itself, I wanted to see whether his actions would be in keeping with what was done in the country to the south where, when President Wilson left the president's chair and became governor of New Jersey, he -had to fight the machine in order to vindicate the position he had taken before he went into politics, and I was curious to see whether the Minister of Labour would ibe able to resist the pressure of Kingston as expressed in the Liberal party machine.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is no Liberal party machine there. The Liberal party was out of power there for thirty years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that is what I wished to ascertain. It was not a question of reprisals or of vindictiveness, but a question of whether there was strength to resist and destroy or whether he would succumb and attorn, and the minister attorned to the party machine and succumbed to it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is not true.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That language is not quite in order.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But true nevertheless.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not in order but-


Norman McLeod Rogers: The only time to deny it is when you make the statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister might say it is inaccurate. I think that is the way he intended to say it. Now, assuming it is inaccurate, let me put this to him: Why is it that you have on the public records of this country the Minister of National Defence answering questions and pointing out that the president of the Liberal association appointed this man, that man and the other man, with his recommendation? If this condition was prevailing, the machine was still in control. Why was it that Rollands had to go to Stansbury to get a position? Why was it that Stansbury gave him a letter stating that Mr. Shea, who was the magistrate to whom I referred the other day, was ill in hospital? He is one of the heads of the Frontenac Construction Company. Why did you have the conditions you had in the employment office? Why did you have these men in court stating they were being charged with non-support of their wives, and saying: "We cannot get a job."


Norman McLeod Rogers: One person.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it is symptomatic. The minister assumes there is personal vindictiveness towards him, but I assure him that is not the case. He knows that I have for him personally a warm regard, but I say that conditions in Kingston as indicated by the illustrations I have given-and they were not intended to prove-


Norman McLeod Rogers: What remains of them now?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Every one remains just as it was. You had first of all men who could not secure positions. What about the positions that men sought for and could not get? What about the men who were convicted and sent to the reformatory and who came back to the job? What about it? These things are not denied. What about the conditions that prevail in that employment office?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Did I not tell my right hon. friend that that matter is being investigated?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite, but the difficulty I point out to the minister is that it is no good going to him quietly and for him to say he will investigate. Parliament is the place for publicly airing these grievances. It is the place where one may counter the declarations of policy that were made from the hustings. That is what it is for, and no one knows it better than the minister. Then there are the cases with respect to the employment service. These are cases that, quite obviously, are symptomatic of a condition.
We come now to the question whether public moneys have been properly guarded. The minister says that with respect to cement and rubble the consent of the provincial government was given. I ask him, when? I gave him evidence of cement being hauled up to the college building, and I knew perfectly well they would say they had consent. Why did they haul the bags back to Fort Henry?


Norman McLeod Rogers: My right hon. friend has not given the source of his information in a single instance. I have done so in connection with every one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But not under oath any more than the statements I have made. Mine are just as valuable.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have the statements from the reports of the officers of the Department of National Defence. Rubble-stone-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The rubble-stone I was dealing with has not been dealt with there. With respect to cement, there is a carload of cement, and here are the plans and specifications. They supply the cement. It belongs to

Sup-ply-Labour-Employment Offices
the crown in the right of the province. The contractor takes the cement and uses it on a private contract, and he says, "I got consent." When? What is more, everyone knows he should not ask for consent with respect to crown property; and what is more, the count of the paper bags in which cement is put is the evidence that the crown in right of the province has, to use it as a check, when it comes to pay its bills for the job. Those bags were carried from the Crain building to Fort Henry at night.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Who says so?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who says so? The man who did it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Who is he?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Drinka was the man in
charge.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Does my right hon. friend want to have the explanation which is given for that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know the explanation
that the contractor made; and he says, "This is rot." That is what the minister read the other day.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The reason is that in the
grounds of Queen's university there was not space for storage of the cement, and when the cement was loaned, and taken out of the sacks, the bags were simply returned to the Fort Henry depot to be destroyed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not to be destroyed, to
be counted.


Norman McLeod Rogers: They were counted, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly. And I ask
the minister if he can establish by any testimony that that consent was given until after the discussions took place in Kingston with respect to this.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My information is, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then all I can say is,
check it up. What is more, it is just this type of thing which has created the condition that has warranted me in bringing the matter before the committee. Just what condition? These irregularities, this seeing in the community the dragging of cement from the government of Ontario's car of cement to a private contract, and the drawing of the empty bags at night back to Fort Henry- that is not the way in which business is transacted as honest business, and the minister knows he does not approve it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I gave a full statement in
the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I beg pardon.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I gave my right hon.
friend a full statement in the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the way in which they dismiss this matter of the paper sacks, that it is "rot." There used to be cloth sacks, jute sacks-


Norman McLeod Rogers: But I read a telegram.
Mr. BENNETT. The word the minister read the other day was "rot." I suppose it is. Is that the idea? The minister accepts the denial of these people, who are the people concerned, with respect to it all. How does he know who sent the telegram?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The difference is this. This statement will be audited. The dominion government will not pay a cent unless this statement is correct, but my right hon. friend will receive information from any source whatever without making the slightest effort to corroborate it. That is the difference.
Mr. BENNETT. The hon. gentleman knows that the system with respect to payments was established by the former government, and he has clung to it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It has been improved.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I daresay that experience enables the hon. gentleman to improve it. But there was a pre-audit before the account was paid. First of all, there were three certificates. I am not going into that now except to say there was a pre-audit. But the paper bags were counted at Fort Henry to determine the quantity of cement that went into Fort Henry, and the cement that went into these bags was left over at the Crain building. The minister says, "Here is the statement of the bags they changed, 1,745 bags." And when did they buy back the cement that replaced it?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will my right hon. friend permit a question? If the Frid Construction Company had intended to make fraudulent use of this cement, would they have taken a careful count each date of the cement that was so transferred? Does that appear to the leader of the opposition to be logical?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact, they had that, of course, as they checked them into the Crain building from the car. Of course they did. Where else would they get it? And then, they say, "we returned it and checked it on behalf of the Dominion of Canada."
3844	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
Mr. ROGERS. But if they had wanted to steal it, as my right hon. friend was suggesting-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not suggest that.


Norman McLeod Rogers: -they would not have kept count of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the minister approve this way of doing business? That is the issue. That is the short way to put it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is not the short way to put it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is satisfactory to me; if he says he approves it, that is all I want.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have already told my right hon. friend that with respect to any financial responsibility of the dominion we act on accounts approved by the department. If this is a correct transaction, it will be approved, otherwise no. But it is a correct transaction according to our records so far.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the issue. Does the minister give the high sanction of his approval to that method of doing business?


Norman McLeod Rogers: My answer at once is that, according to the evidence I have at this time, which I am prepared to investigate further, but which does not appear to require anything further at this point, I would say that there had been no loss involved in this transaction. As to whether this is a practice among contractors, I am not a contractor myself and I cannot say; but my information is that this cement was taken from one job to another, both jobs being done by the same contractor, and that it is not at all unusual for contractors to make loans and replacements of that kind. That is the information which comes to . me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And nobody questions
that in connection with an ordinary transaction. But this is a Case in which, as I read from, the specification, the cement belonged to the crown and was supplied to the contractor; it was not the contractor's cement; it was not his to deal with.


Norman McLeod Rogers: When he took delivery.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; he did not take delivery for himself; he took delivery to work it into that property at Fort Henry. I ask, does the minister give the sanction of his approval to that method of transacting public business?
[Mr. Bennett.!


Ross Wilfred Gray: The contractor must surely have been charged with it when he took delivery?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The contractor was
charged with a carload of cement.


Ross Wilfred Gray: When he took delivery.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Delivery on the siding at Kingston; and it is so written in the specification, that they will supply the cement, and the cement is supplied. Then this man trades it off by hauling it to another job that he has. What have we as to the accuracy of the statement that he has made as to these bags, and when were replacements made? The minister gave the dates. When were the replacements made? In November. And when were deliveries made? I only point out that this is not a proper way of doing business; that is all.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My right hon. friend said more than that. He said it was dishonest.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say it is a dishonest way of doing business. I say this is a dishonest way of doing public business.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Whether it is a proper
way of doing public business is another question, but certainly it is not dishonest.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say it is a dishonest way of doing public business, and I do not believe the minister will rise in his place and give his approval to that way of doing business.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I will say that certainly it is not dishonest. Whether or not it is improper is a question, I would say, which should be determined on the basis of what is the practice of contractors. I would say that certainly they should have had and in all probability did have the consent of the provincial authorities to make that transfer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Parry Sound will admit that unless the consent was given antecedent to the change, it is theft under the criminal code; for it is fraudulent conversion.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Since I have been invited to express myself, my right hon. friend should know, and I am sure he does, that it must be without colour of right; that is, with an evil mind.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess-

Divorce Causes
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 147, for the relief of Frank Roy Hedges.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of Jessie Fields Chambers Henry.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Marguerite Oldham Jamieson Macdonald.-Mr. Emmer-son.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Ida Hillman Livermore Woodall.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Gabrielle Rachel Cecile Pelissier de Kermeno de Gouzil-lon.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Millicent Bar-beau Edmondson.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Theodore Charles Grothe.-Mr. Donnelly.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved the second reading of Bill No. 119, respecting divorce and matrimonial
causes.
He said: As the house will recognize, this is a senate bill. It came over to this house and remained on the order paper for several days, and, I take it, would have been dropped had I not sponsored it.
An hon. MEMBER:: Let it drop.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No. I have taken it up because I believe it is highly desirable legislation. I could have wished that someone else had undertaken to pilot it through the house. However, it seemed that no one else was willing to do this, so I felt it was my responsibility because I believe this legislation should pass. Personally I have no very special interest in divorce as such. Several years ago I sponsored a bill providing for the setting up of divorce courts in Ontario. I did so simply because as one member of the house I was utterly weary of going through the performance that we do go through in passing divorce bills. Every hon. member I think recognizes the procedure: The bill is introduced in the senate; the case is investigated by a senate committee, which perhaps is not strictly in the nature of a court-members coming in and going out again in the course of the hearing-and after that it comes to us. We
have a private bills committee which gives scant attention to these cases, unless, indeed, there is some special lobby, and then we may consider the case to a certain extent. But we rarely have witnesses before us; as a rule we rely almost entirely on the printed evidence as it comes to us from the senate committee. Then, when the bills come over to this house, they are frequently passed, as they were to-night, en bloc. None of us, I fancy, knows anything as to the merits of the bills which we passed a few minutes ago. None of us knows anything much about them. We give them readings in this house, first, second and third, in a purely formal way. That procedure is not at all satisfactory. Indeed, I agree very largely with what was said the other day by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) to the effect that it is rather a scandalous procedure.
The trouble a few years ago was that we were getting large numbers of divorce cases from Ontario; indeed, it had become an open scandal, and it was for that reason that I sponsored the bill which had come from the senate providing for the setting up of a divorce court for Ontario. I believe that is the right way to handle the question of divorce. That bill did not include Quebec because of the very strong feeling against divorce which prevails in a certain section of that province. However, I think a majority of hon. members in this house will agree that the setting up of a divorce court for Ontario was the right thing to do. Certainly by this time this house would have been deluged with literally hundreds of cases, to which it could have given very little attention.
This new measure has been, as it were, laid at my door.


Ernest Lapointe: As my hon. friend knows, the legislation in respect to Ontario has multiplied the number of divorces in that province ten times.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Perhaps it has. But let me point out to my right hon. friend that before that legislation was enacted it took a considerable amount of money to see a divorce case through parliament. Therefore only people who had money to spend to come to Ottawa and to employ lawyers could secure a divorce. My idea of justice is that it ought to be just as possible for poor people as for wealthy people to secure relief; and if people at Windsor or Niagara Falls or anywhere found it impossible to secure divorce solely for the reason that they could not come to Ottawa and employ lawyers, I think it is right that courts should be established within their reach.
Divorce Causes


Mr. CHEVRIER:: The condition is no better to-day in the courts so far as fees go than it was when divorces came before parliament.


Mr. WOODS WORTH:: I do not see how it can be worse! I do not want anyone to state here that I am out to break up the home. I am just as anxious to preserve the home as any hon. member in this house. This measure deals only with cases in which a home is already broken. Further, I do not want anyone to say that I desire to encourage immorality. I firmly believe that this measure, if carried, will save many from temptation to immorality. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that I speak as a child of a happy home. I speak as the father and husband in a happy family. I am supported in this measure which I am advocating by a large number of people of the very highest character. Hence I hope that, whatever the nature of the debate that may follow upon the introduction of this bill, no one will begin to sling mud and suggest that there are any other than the highest motives on the part of those who favour this bill.
I speak also as a social worker who knows something of the broken homes, and would seek if possible to save something from the wreckage.
To adultery as a ground for divorce this bill would add desertion, cruelty and insanity. The bill is an adaptation of the act passed in the British House of Commons in 1937. The British act was passed on the report of a royal commission of 1912. The majority of the royal commission laid down the principle that marriage ought to be dissoluble upon any grounds which frustrated what by universal admission were the fundamental purposes of marriage. I pause to repeat that statement, because it is a rather far-reaching principle.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the basis of the bill.


Charles Stephen Booth: It is the fundamental principle of the report of the royal commission, and the basis of the English bill. There are, of course, some who think that marriage can never be dissolved. I am not speaking to that group at the moment. But I am speaking of a situation which exists where divorce is recognized. The idea behind the report of the English commission was that when the very purposes of marriage were frustrated, a divorce was the best possible solution. Let me read that principle again: Marriage ought to be dissoluble upon any grounds which frustrated what by universal admission were

the fundamental purposes of marriage. The preamble to the English act puts its purpose very clearly:
Whereas it is expedient for the* true support of marriage, the protection of children, the removal of hardship, the reduction of illicit unions and unseemly litigation, the relief of conscience among the clergy, and the restoration of due respect for the law, that the acts relating to marriage and divorce be amended.
Then follows the bill. In introducing the measure Colonel Herbert said the bill was to prevent perjury, immorality and collusion, and I am afraid we have had all these evils existing under our mode of procedure here in this parliament. I am not prepared to say to what extent they exist in the courts.


An hon. MEMBER:: And they will continue to exist under this bill.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, my hon. friend expresses an opinion, to which of course he is entitled; but that was not the opinion, for instance, of that very representative commission in Great Britain, nor was it the opinion of the majority in the British houses of parliament.
I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that'the constitutionality of the bill was carefuly considered in the senate, whose counsel showed that there was no doubt as to its constitutionality. So I do not think we need pause to-night to discuss that question.
Again let me point out, as is done in the explanatory notes, that the only courts in Canada to which this bill applies are those which now have jurisdiction to decree divorce. We are not setting up any new courts; we are not instituting any new procedure. We are simply dealing with the grounds of divorce in the courts which now have jurisdiction.
The bill deals with divorce, judicial separation, avoidance and alimony, of which, of course, divorce is the most important section. The grounds for divorce are enumerated in section 6:
A petition for divorce may be presented either by the husband or the wife to, and it may be entertained by, the court, on the ground that the respondent:
(a)	has since the celebration of the marriage committed adultery; or
(b)	has deserted the petitioner without cause for a period of at least six years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or
(c)	has since the celebration of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty; or
(d)	is incurably of unsound mind and has been continuously under care and treatment for a period of at least five years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.
The first ground, of course, has long been recognized; that is adultery, and I do not

Divorce Causes
intend to enter into a discussion of that ground. The second ground is desertion for six years, which really means seven years before the case can be tried. It has sometimes been charged that the effect of a bill of this kind would be to introduce trial marriage. I do not think anyone can seriously contend that such would be the case. It is only after desertion for seven years that action can be secured. Let me further point out a fact that was new to me. In preparing to present this bill I was reading the Life and Letters of Lord Birkenhead, and I found that since 1573 desertion has been a ground for divorce in Scotland. I do not think anyone can contend that immorality has been more rife in Scotland than elsewhere; that more homes have been broken up in that country, or that there have been any specially injurious results. Yet desertion, a new ground for divorce as far as England was concerned, and as far as this country is concerned, actually has been a ground for divorce in Scotland since 1573.


Ernest George Hansell: Desertion for what period?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I could not say; I did not look that up.


Mr. REID:: It is very seldom used.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I could not say as to that; but that has been the law, and there is no special reason why it should be used more frequently outside Scotland, except possibly the fact that in this modern day people are travelling about more than they once did.
The third ground is cruelty. Again let me say that some people have become quite frivolous in their explanations as to what constitutes cruelty. I think we need not pay much attention to such objections, because cruelty is defined in the English law in the case of Russell v. Russell,-1897 Appeal Cases, page 395, as follows:
Legal cruelty was conduct of such a character as to cause danger to life and limb or health, bodily or mentally, or such as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger.
It is only that class of cruelty which can be alleged as a ground for divorce, and that is incorporated in the definitions contained in the bill.
The fourth ground is that a person is of unsound mind. I recognize that possibly there may be some little hesitancy with regard to this, because we all know that some remarkable mental cures are being effected. Yet here it should be noted that it is provided 51952-244
that the patient must have been continuously under care and treatment for a period of at least five years.
I am going to ask the indulgence of the house while I read a paragraph or two from a brilliant speech delivered by Lord Birkenhead on March 24, 1920, during the debate on the matrimonial causes bill. He said:
I, my lords, can only express my amazement that men of saintly lives, men of affairs, men whose opinions and experience we respect, should have concentrated upon adultery as the one circumstance which ought to afford relief from the marriage tie. Adultery is a breach of the carnal obligations of marriage. Insistence upon the duties of continence and chastity is important; it is vital to society. But I have always taken the view that that aspect of marriage was exaggerated and somewhat crudely exaggerated in the marriage service. I am concerned to-day to make this point by which I will stand or fall, that the moral and spiritual sides of marriage are incomparably more important than the physical side. ... If you think of all that marriage means to most of us-the memories of the world's adventure faced together in youth so heedlessly and yet so confidently, the tender comradeship, the sweet association of parenthood, how much more these count than that bond which nature in its ingenious telepathy has contrived to secure and render agreeable, the perpetuation of the species.
And again, in discussing the special case of desertion, particularly as it affects the woman, Lord Birkenhead said:
What is the remedy open to a poor woman who, when she married, gave up the pitiful pursuit by which she made her living until her marriage, and, relying on the marriage, is left penniless, and is left for the whole of her life unable to identify her husband, unable to obtain the slightest relief from the law? She is neither wife nor widow; she has a cold hearthstone; she has fatherless children for the rest of her life. ...	.
In the cases which have come to me within the last fortnight, if I had time to deal with them I could give your Lordships particulars which would bring tears to your eyes. What is a young woman of 22 to do who is, for the rest of her life, with no hope of alleviating the future, with a fugitive husband whom she can never identify, while the law says to her plainly, finally and brutally: "We will do nothing for you." It is said, "You have open to you judicial separation." Choosing my words advisedly and being prepared with chapter and verse of a hundred cases even at a date when the royal commission reported, and in a thousand cases since,. I say that I can prove that this state of judicial separation-admittedly the only alternative-is a hot-bed of vice.
We are told that such a woman as I have described is to remain chaste. I have only to observe that for two thousand years human nature has resisted, in the warmth of youth, these cold admonitions of the cloisters, that I do not believe that the Supreme Being has set a standard which two thousand years of Christian experience has shown that human nature in its exuberant prime cannot support.

Divorce Causes

And one other paragraph also dealing with the question of desertion. This is from Viscount Dawson of Penn:
Passing to clause 2, surely there can be nothing but praise, alike on grounds of logic and humanity, for the granting of divorce for desertion and cruelty. They both frustrate the purposes for which marriage exists. If they exist over years they destroy a marriage and that marriage is not worth preserving. The yielding to a chance physical temptation is as naught compared with the cold calculation of desertion or with a cruelty going on through the years, which can convert a home into a chamber of torments. In my judgment the community has no right to inflict on any human being the continued torture of such a home for any cause whatever.
Since it became known that I had put my name to this bill I have received various letters from people who have told of the desperate straits in which they have been placed, or have urged that some relief be given. I shall quote a sentence or two from the very plain letters of very plain people. Here is a letter from a woman who many years ago had a separation from her husband because of cruelty and non-support. He was a confirmed drunkard. The woman was given custody of the six children, the youngest of whom was only a few months old. All the children are now married. For twenty years the woman has not heard from her husband. She writes:
I am alone now and I have a chance to marry a very good man who would give me a comfortable home, and we would be company for each other in our old age.
I ask the house why she should not be permitted to marry again.
Here is the case of another woman, also elderly, whose husband had given up a position and a salary of So,000 a year. He had allowed all insurance policies to lapse after he had borrowed their full value, and had walked out, leaving his wife and three children penniless. The woman says that she believes she is entitled to a divorce from a man who has treated his wife and children shamefully, and for whom she has neither respect nor liking. She states:
My love died years ago for repeated and various forms of neglect.
Members of the House of Commons, I suggest, ought to try to get away from the involved legal and theological ideas with which we complicate the discussion of this subject. We should come to consider some of the extremely practical cases in actual life which face us at the present time.
Sections 12 and 13 of the bill deal with nullity. I need scarcely direct attention to
fMr, Woodsworth.]
the difference between nullity and divorce. Section 12 specifies these grounds for a decree of nullity:
(a)	that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the wilful refusal of the respondent to consummate it; or
(b)	that either party to the marriage was at the time of the marriage either of unsound mind or a mental defective within the meaning of any statute in force in the province of the court concerned or subject to recurrent fits of insanity or epilepsy; or
(c)	that the respondent was at the time of the marriage suffering from venereal disease of a communicable form; or
(d)	that the respondent was at the' time of the marriage pregnant by some person other than the petitioner.
I need not at the moment go into the other details of the bill which undoubtedly will come to the attention of the house when we reach the committee stage. I think, however, I have presented in as concise form as possible the principles underlying the measure.
I recognize that according to certain theological doctrines marriage is indissoluble. That is a theory which, if consistently held, is worthy of respect, and undoubtedly may retain a very strong hold on people belonging to certain religious faiths. But let me point out that divorce is recognized in this country. Let me point out further that there are divorce courts in nearly every province of the dominion. All this bill attempts to do is to place divorce on a more reasonable basis. My hon. friends who do not agree in principle must remember that in Canada we must work out some sort of modus vivendi.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is perhaps entirely unnecessary for me to point out that majorities as well as minorities in this country have certain rights. Further, it is perhaps hardly necessary that I should point out that the state cannot allow itself to become a policeman to enforce certain religious beliefs or practices. Let me point out that no one needs to take advantage of the existing legislation or of the proposed legislation. That is an entirely voluntary matter.
Further-and I trust that this will be kept in mind-the bill directly affects only those provinces in which divorce is already recognized. May I repeat that, as my closing appeal. I would urge that it be kept in mind by all hon. members that the bill directly affects only those provinces in which divorce is already recognized. I believe that recognition of this might considerably shorten the debate.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And provinces in which divorce is dealt with by the courts.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, those provinces in which divorce is already recognized, and dealt with by the courts. I thank the right hon. the leader of the opposition for the additional words.
I believe there is nothing further I can usefully add at this time. I hope that this bill, which has been very carefully considered by the senate, and amended in some important respects, will receive equally careful consideration from this house.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) upon the splendid speech he has made in support of this bill. What a speech he could have made had he been on the other side! It was easy to see that he was not speaking with the same fire and conviction he would have displayed if he had been dealing with the question of unemployment. I rise to move:
That this bill be not now read a second time, but this day six months.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bertrand (Laurier) for the second reading of Bill No. 28, to amend the criminal code.
Mr. SPEAKER:: When this bill last came
up, a point of order was raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber), and I now proceed to render my decision upon it.
Bill No. 28, an act to amend the criminal code, was introduced and read the first time on February 24, 1938. It did not then contain explanatory notes as required under the regulations adopted in June, 1923, but the
Criminal Code-Sweepstakes

bill itself was not in imperfect shape. Standing order 70 which prohibits introduction of an imperfect bill was passed on December 20. 1867, long before the adoption of the regulations in respect of explanatory notes on the right hand page. This standing order was probably directed against the introduction of blank bills as often happened in early days. The explanatory notes do not form part of the bill proper and they do not have to be approved by the house. They are only given as reasons for the text and to facilitate discussion.
On May 11 Mr. Bertrand (Laurier), sponsor of this bill, and the only member who had until then spoken to the second reading, asked the law clerks to have it reprinted with explanatory notes in pursuance of my decision on the previous day. He did so under standing order 86, which provides that it shall be the duty of the joint law clerks of the house to assist members of the house in drafting legislation and to revise, print and put notes upon all bills.
The reprint was fully distributed amongst the members of the house on May 13 before debate resumed, so that the regulation of June, 1923, which had been ignored prior to the first reading, was then duly observed. None of the members suffered any prejudice as the bill has been in their hands now for a month and debate has already taken place thereon during four sittings of the house, namely, on May 13, 20 and 31, and June 7.
The practice followed in connection with several government measures and Bill No. 11 which were reprinted with explanatory notes between first and second reading pursuant to my decision of May 10, must also apply in this case. As long as a defect of this nature is corrected before other members than the sponsor have spoken in the debate on the second reading, the rule is sufficiently observed and the bill is in order.
The explanatory notes are of minor importance in this case, but it is necessary to give a decision which will be followed in future.
I therefore rule that the house may proceed with the debate on the second reading of this bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a silent vote on this bill, and I propose to give the reasons why I oppose it. I shall endeavour to be brief.
The criminal code of this country, rightly or wrongly, has declared against gambling and lotteries. That represents a crystallized public opinion. That opinion has prevailed

for many years; it is the law of Canada. There are exceptions to that provision. This seeks to extend the exceptions so that lotteries may be held with respect to hospitals and educational institutions. The simple, single question is, is there any warrant for thus interfering with this exception to the generally accepted law of Canada?
Lotteries and gaming are nothing new. They have been before the world for centuries; in fact, games of chance go back to very early days indeed. But the settled experience of mankind has been that they are detrimental alike to the nation and the individual. That is the finding of the world in the light of all these years. Every now and then a nation sets up a commission to investigate, and without exception commissions have found against the continuance of lotteries or gaming. George Washington in one of his letters points out that gaming is framed in avarice, and other great men have pointed out that the effects of it are destructive of the vital character of a people. This is not a question of what my view may be; it is the verdict of the experience of centuries, and that experience is embodied in the criminal code of Canada.
It is suggested that through gambling or lotteries we can make it easy to increase the funds of hospitals. That argument has been adduced in many countries before commissions which have sat upon this question, and for a time, it would seem, the funds have been swollen by the contributions thus received. But in course of time this source of revenue dries up; men and women who were once willing to contribute to charitable objects are no longer inclined to do so; and in the end, it has been found, the state of that community from the standpoint of either hospitals or learning is worse than before it began. Consider the South Sea Bubble, the Great Mississippi question, the Louisiana Lottery; examine these and other similar ventures in the light of what I have said; without a single exception it will be found that they were detrimental to the nation and the individual.
We as legislators are concerned with two things and two only. One has to do with the welfare of the nation, whether or not it is desirable to encourage among the Canadian people the thought that fortunes come by chance, that funds available for learning and for hospitals come by chance, and that because a game of chance will add something to an institution, whether one of learning or a hospital, the individual should take a chance

Supply-Labour-Technical Education
of adding to his personal fortune. Is this the time to encourage that attitude of mind? I think not.
I could elaborate by extensive quotations and by what I conceive to be fairly logical arguments why, from the standpoint of the nation, this proposal should not be adopted. But, sir, the case as it affects the individual is yet stronger. What habit does it encourage in the individual? It conduces to unemployment, because men are ever seeking to get money to buy a sweepstake ticket. I am not unmindful of the tremendous pressure brought to bear upon many of us to support this sort of thing. Other men may have convictions quite as strong as mine, and I give the same measure of respect to their convictions as I hope they do to mine. But when I say to an individual, "Yes, we are going to encourage sweepstakes in Canada so that you may be able to beg, and sometimes"-as commissions have made clear- ''you may go so far as to steal to buy tickets on those sweepstakes," I am encourage-ing him to risk all upon a hope which is but a vain delusion; for it has been established beyond all question that never was there a vainer delusion than the belief that in the end you can get rich by chance.	,

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Technical Education Act-
Administration, $2,325.
Payments to the provinces for the encouragement of technical education, $50,000.


Mr. MASSEY:: Would the minister give the amounts that have been granted under this act since its inception?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As my friend is aware, the amounts- payable under the Technical Education Act b-'-'- paid to the provinces. Some of the province- did not take up their allotment, and there has been subsequent legislation by this parliament to enable those provinces which had not taken up their allotments to do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are still within their original quota?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. The amounts available during the period of the act and the amounts paid by the federal government to the end of the fiscal year 1937-38 are as follows:
P.E.I	
Nova Scotia.. . New Brunswick.
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan. .
Alberta	
British Columbia
Amounts available $ 198,187 86 662,113 94 512,461 28 2,569,655 53 3,178,608 97 719,746 56 847,620 91 678,524 40 633,080 55
Amounts
paid

In the case of Manitoba there is an unpaid balance of $302,339.23.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
Employment Offices Coordination Act-payments to the provinces in connection with the organization and coordination of employment offices, $150,000.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, I believe it was the suggestion of the leader of the opposition that this item should stand until the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) is in the house, and I am quite content that this should be done.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Had I not better finish what I was saying? I was in the middle of an observation.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If the right hon. leader of the opposition wishes to continue, I am ready.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am quite willing to defer it until I have the information asked for from the government.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall try to have that information available to-morrow.
Item stands.


Denton Massey: What were the amounts
for last year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Last year an amount of $14,813.56 was paid to Manitoba and $34,055.90 to Saskatchewan.


Denton Massey: Were there amounts payable out of amounts available to the other provinces?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No; the only province that now has an amount outstanding is Manitoba.


Denton Massey: When were the amounts
for the other provinces used up?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Perhaps I can answer that question in this way: The term of the act was ten years. As I recall, it was originally passed in 1919. Then there was a five years extension. At the end of the five year extension there were three provinces, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, which had not been able to take full advantage of their apportionment, and in order that these prov-
3852	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Technical Education
inces might not be deprived of any part of their original appropriation the act was extended at the 1934 session for another five years. Nova Scotia exhausted the balance of its subsidy in 1936; New Brunswick, last year, leaving Manitoba the only province which has an amount coming to it.


Denton Massey: What is the purpose of
this $50,000 that we are now discussing?


Norman McLeod Rogers: To meet possible claims by the province of Manitoba under the provisions of the extension of the Technical Education Act.


Denton Massey: The amount of this vote is actually $2,325; perhaps I misled the minister in mentioning the $50,000 statutory grant.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The amount of $2,325 is for administration, There is one official in the Department of Labour, Miss McKellar, who has been in the department since the inception of this legislation. She is the only official who devotes her time, in part at least, to the administration of the Technical Education Act. The rest is for what may be claimed by Manitoba.


Denton Massey: It is possible, I believe, to extend this act further, even though there has been a lapse between the payment of the last amount to the provinces.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The only province that
could claim an extension would be Manitoba. The other provinces have all exhausted the amounts that they might claim.


Denton Massey: The original act was extended five years; is it not possible to do that again?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Only to permit this province to take up its full apportionment.


Denton Massey: The existing act is now through?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It expires next year. If Manitoba has not taken up its full apportionment, and it is desired to permit Manitoba to do so, a further extension will be necessary.


Denton Massey: Has the minister any plan for further payments along the lines originally intended by this act?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No policy has been announced in that regard. My hon. friend may recall that the Vocational Education Act was passed during the last administration, but the provisions of that act have never come into force.


Angus MacInnis: Did the minister say that the $50,000 provided by statute cannot be called for by the province of Manitoba if it is not taken up this year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: Does that $50,000 and the possibility that it may be called for by Manitoba demand a full-time stenographer for a year for its administration?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Miss McKellar does other work in the department as well, but she comes under this vote.


Angus MacInnis: Would not this be the least part of her work? Surely there could not possibly be much work in connection with this. It is not fair to vote a full year's salary for a stenographer for what might require only the writing of one or two letters.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am informed that Miss McKellar is not a stenographer. I do not know at the moment just what her rating is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: She is an administrative officer with respect to this act.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes; she is really an administrative officer. She is frequently called upon to do other work in the department. But she was originally under this vote when the vote was much larger, and her salary has been paid out of this vote as long as the legislation has been in force.


Denton Massey: Over the week-end of May 21-24 there met in Toronto the Third Canadian Youth Congress. During the course of their deliberations they prepared various resolutions, among them one on vocational guidance, which I should like to read:
The present trend for more technical training in our schools increases the need for trained vocational counsellors. These counsellors can assist students in choosing an occupation to which they will be suited and from which they will be able to derive an adequate livelihood. Statistics regarding trends in employment, opportunities in industry, as gathered by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, should be placed at the disposal of vocational counsellors. The employment of such counsellors in our schools should be encouraged.
In view of the costly labour turn-over and unfitness due to the lack of direction, trained vocational counsellors should be included on the staffs of government employment bureaus, in order that the percentage of permanent placements may be increased.
I think one may recognize the sincerity of that resolution and also the fact that it makes a suggestion which is most worthy. One of the reasons why I was asking the minister the questions I did a few moments ago, under

Supply-Labour-Technical Education
this item dealing with technical education, was that I was wondering whether it would not be possible to find funds for the purpose suggested by the resolution. Those of us who have had dealings with the younger generation realize how often they are ill advised in regard to the courses they should follow. Our technical schools are doing a magnificent job. There are enrolled in these schools some 125,000 or 130,000 young people, many of whom are not altogether sure as to what courses they should follow. Accordingly there is placed upon the principals and teachers a rather difficult problem, in view of the numbers with which they have to deal. They do not know the personnel of their student body as fully as they might. I was going to say as fully as they should, but that is hardly fair, because they do the best they can, and they do it well; but they do not know the individual students as fully as others might if they were rendering assistance directly in connection with this work, such as the assistance that might be rendered by a counsellor. I wondered if the minister had given any thought to the idea that perhaps it would be desirable to make contact, perhaps through the youth committee, with the various technical schools across the dominion, with the view of placing counsellors here and there in some of the larger centres.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I find no fault whatever
with the terms of the resolution to which my hon. friend has referred. He would be the first to agree, I think, that the resolution should be addressed to the provinces as well as to the dominion.


Denton Massey: Quite.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Indeed, under the easting organization of the employment service I should say the responsibility of appointing additional vocational officers would rest rather upon the provinces than upon the dominion. As I mentioned this afternoon, it is the intention of the government in connection with the training projects for unemployed young people to appoint special placement officers in the various provinces, who will be in close touch with the facilities for technical education and also with the offices of the Employment Service of Canada. I feel that probably this would meet the immediate situation.


Denton Massey: I thought perhaps the advisers or counsellors would deal more with those seeking employment than with^ those seeking some course of education; but if it is the plan that they will work in close contact with the technical schools, of course that answers my question.


Norman McLeod Rogers: When I say they will
work in close contact with the schools, that is in the sense that technical schools would be used and have been used to some extent in connection with the training plans for unemployed young people.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not know whether I have missed the discussion I wish to raise or whether it has been raised already, but several times I have heard men say that there is a demand in Canada for skilled workmen, for which there is not a sufficient supply.
I have heard this on fairly good authority.
I am wondering whether the minister has any means of determining just what may be the nature of that demand. For example, is there any means whereby anyone in a school in Manitoba could find out just in what kind of skilled labour there is a deficiency in the dominion? I had the matter brought to my attention several times while the highly commendable work of the minister in giving special training to young people was in progress, that probably the young people did not know what to prepare for, and had no idea whether or not there would be a demand for them when they were trained. I was just wondering if the minister had adopted some definite plan in this regard and, if he had, what means he had adopted for advertising the fact so that those in need of the information might readily acquire it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In each province the
employment office would have a record of applications by employers for additional help, and we have also a record of those who had registered in these various trades, so a study of those two records would enable the employment service in a province to determine whether there was a special demand for a certain type of mechanical training. I remember some years ago hearing, in connection with technical education, of one province -at the moment I have forgotten which- that felt there was a demand for telegraph operators, and they turned out a very large number of telegraph operators, far more than could possibly be absorbed. Obviously that was a mistake. In connection with our training projects for unemployed young people we are trying to avoid that by applying training only in those fields where there is either an immediate or a prospective demand for employment.


John Horne Blackmore: To give a specific case, it was brought to my attention the other day by a statement from a young man who not long ago had come from .Germany, that there was a distinct dearth in Canada of skilled toolmakers, and that anyone who was really
3854	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Technical Education
proficient in that kind of work could readily find employment in Canada at good remuneration. I thought that was most remarkable. Here we have thousands of boys eager to get some sort of work that can be depended upon, and here we have a demand that is not being supplied. I wonder what provision we have for stopping up that gap.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer. I may say that I am very much interested in this question, having been a school principal for a good many years. I am sincerely and sympathetically interested in the minister's work, and I am well pleased with the efforts he has made. It is not well known how long it takes to train for some of these occupations, and there are vocations which require something in the nature of apprenticeship. It would greatly assist many of our boys if they knew what firms were prepared to take apprentices, what the conditions would be and how long it would take them to qualify.
There is another matter which, I think, must be cleared up very soon. I have mentioned it several times, and I mean to speak sympathetically, though I intend to be emphatic. It is this. There is altogether too widespread a belief, loosely entertained, that in this country there is work which can be obtained. I find that belief on every hand among the more prosperous, well-equipped, well-to-do people, who are not really in contact with realities. In order to get an accurate knowledge of just to what extent there are or can be jobs, this sort of service is particularly valuable. I hope I make my meaning clear to the minister; I should like to hear him speak in this regard.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As to the first question,
I believe it to be true that there is a dearth of toolmakers in Canada. I cannot speak positively on that point, but I have understood that in connection with the aeronautical industry, for instance, it has been found that there is an insufficient supply of well-trained machinists. A number of these industries that are now going into aeroplane production are themselves arranging for apprenticeships. I think it must be recognized that this field is not one which belongs exclusively to governments. In Great Britain, as the hon. member is no doubt aware, an apprenticeship system has been established over a long period of time. That is carried out jointly by the industries and the trade unions. In this country there has not been as much interest in apprenticeship as one might have wished. I believe I am correct in saying that at the 
present time only three provinces have apprenticeship legislation. I may point out that other provinces are expressing an interest in the apprenticeship system, and we hope that similar legislation may be passed in those provinces in the very near future.
As to the second question, I believe there can be no doubt at all that the man who trains himself for a particular job, provided there is a reasonable expectation of a demand for such a job, is in an infinitely better position during a period of unemployment than is one who has no special training. That is one reason, among others, why in the training projects for unemployed young people we are doing whatever can be done within the limits of the appropriation voted by parliament to provide occupational training in the various cities. I shall not say that up to the present time we have done more than make a modest contribution to the problem; but I think what has been done is an indication of the wisdom of pursuing the policy, and I hope it may be extended as time goes on.


John Horne Blackmore: I am more interested in the means by which one may get information. Supposing I am the principal of a school-as I was, before I was elected-and I wish to know just where a particularly bright boy might be taken on as an apprentice, or what kind of technical training he might get in Calgary or some other centre, in order to qualify for admission to apprenticeship; where and by what means at the present time can I get information so as to guide that boy?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I would say the first
application should be made to the provincial employment office. That would be done to determine where there would be a greater likelihood of a boy trained in a certain mechanical trade being absorbed. An application could be also made directly to the larger industries in the province. The truth of the matter is that our industries are under no compulsion to register with the employment service. Registration is a purely voluntary arrangement, so that it might very well be that the information which would come from the employment service would not be conclusive.


John Horne Blackmore: If a boy in northern British Columbia wishes to qualify as a toolmaker, for instance, and if he applied to an employment bureau in that province, is there a strong likelihood that they would know of the needs in Ottawa, or in any of the

Supply-Labour-Technical Education
industrial centres of Ontario or eastern Canada? Is the need registered in Ontario and transmitted to British Columbia, so that the officials in the latter province may know? I believe one of the reasons we are not as effective in the matter of apprenticeship is that distances are so tremendously great, as compared with those in Great Britain. Therefore we need to be particularly careful in getting details.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I believe that is undoubtedly true. The difficulties of carrying out apprenticeship here are greater because of the distances involved. Each provincial employment office may secure information with respect to employment opportunities in other provinces. That is one of the purposes carried out by the dominion coordination branch of the Employment Service of Canada. Therefore there would be no reason why an employment office in British Columbia could not or would not be advised of possible employment opportunities in a particular trade in Ontario or Quebec.


John Horne Blackmore: Would it be advised through the minister's department?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It would be advised through the clearing-house here.


Mr. MARTIN:: Is it not a fact that in Ontario information is readily obtainable through a system of inspectorships which have been established by the government of Ontario with respect not only to apprenticeships but to leamerships as well?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I believe that is correct.


Eric Joseph Poole: I think the minister will admit that there have been very few apprenticeships through employment bureaux. A very small percentage of employers make application to employment bureaux for employees. In support of my colleague I should like to repeat a conversation I had a year ago with one of the chief engineers of the Canadian Pacific Railway. He told me that when they were building stream-lined trains in Canada they could not obtain tradesmen or mechanics qualified to carry out the work, and I understand they had to import them from the United States. Of course, that is a terrible state of affairs.
During the period of depression in Great Britain they had a system of youth training, and I say that system is long overdue in Canada. If in the last seven years we had developed the natural ability of people between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five,
we would have built up a great national asset for the future. I do not think it is too late to begin.
There are in Canada trade schools qualified to teach various trades. Unfortunately, however, it has been learned that the activities of some of them have been more or less fraudulent, and some have acted under false pretences. That is by no means true of all of them. Unfortunately, provincial legislatures have passed legislation making it impossible in some instances for these schools to operate. I wonder if the minister would not give consideration to the establishment across Canada of a system of youth training so that the youth of the country may have an opportunity. Certainly they have not in the last six or seven years had an opportunity to learn a trade. When they are trained to a point where they are useful to industry they will be ready to slip into available positions. I say it is a scathing indictment against us to find that we had to import mechanics at a time when there were thousands of unemployed in Canada. Some appropriation should be made to see that these trades are kept right up to date, and that the men have an opportunity to learn mechanical engineering, and other types of work.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is the hon. member aware that last year parliament appropriated a million dollars for the precise purpose he has in mind? That amount was not entirely expended, but the amount that was expended -and we shall be dealing with it later-was duplicated by the provinces. In the hon. member's native province of Alberta, for instance, an excellent work was done under the superintendence of Doctor McNally of the board of education. Certainly we propose to extend the work during the present year.


Eric Joseph Poole: What trades were covered?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not that information before me, but I would suggest that this discussion might proceed more properly under an item in the supplementary estimates, and we can deal with it there.


Mr. BARBER:: Is the amount authorized by statute a balance that remains over from a sum that was voted some years ago, and allotted to each province? Which provinces have used up their amounts?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Probably the hon. member was not in the house when I gave that information. All the provinces except Manitoba have used their amounts, and this amount is available for that province.
3856	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Technical Education


Denton Massey: At page 12 of the interim report of the national employment commission I find this:
The commission recommended the following as a basis upon which such plans should be framed:
Training projects of an occupational nature;
Short-term learnership courses not exceeding one year in duration, devised to provide theoretical training concurrent with specific employment;
Work projects incorporating re-conditioning, training, and conservation features, for the purposes of restoring morale and of conserving natural resources.
Then on page 39 of the main report appear these words:
An adequate supply of skilled or semi-skilled labour is an essential at all times_ for the efficient carrying on of commercial, industrial and agricultural or other primary activities. The number of unskilled workers that can be placed in employment depends, to a considerable extent, upon the adequacy with which this requirement for the more skilled worker can be met.
There are two main phases to the work of training which fall within the commission's purview:
1.	Rehabilitation work arising out of the necessities of intermittent period of economic stress;
2.	Pei'manent training measures, e.g., apprenticeship and learnership, applicable at all times.
In both cases it would seem proper that the main responsibility (other than that which falls on industry itself) for providing adequate measures suitable to the varying conditions in the different provinces should lie with the province in question. It is not suggested by the commission that jurisdiction in these matters should be assumed either in whole or in part by the dominion, except that, when special need exists as at present, or as it may in similar future periods of economic stress, the dominion might contribute towards the cost of particular rehabilitation or training projects.
That is all I can find in either the interim or the final report dealing with vocational training as carried out in technical schools. I wonder if any other reports have been made by the national employment commission and particularly by the youth training committee of that commission dealing with this particular phase of the matter? The Technical Education Act was very successful in establishing technical education in the provinces. This act was so acceptable to the provinces that perhaps we are missing an opportunity here to carry forward a work which has been in progress now for a matter of nineteen years and which has given such extraordinarily satisfactory results. I was wondering why the national employment commission omitted that phase of the work from their report.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend will recall that it was as a result of the recommendation of the national employment commission, following the report of the youth employment committee to the commission, that the special item of $1,000,000 was placed in the estimates last year for training projects for unemployed young people. The report of the youth employment committee was not made to the minister or the government; it was a report of a general nature made to the commission. Many such reports of a special nature were made to the commission. The commission went over this material and derived from it the recommendations which appeared in the interim and subsequently in the final report.


Mr. WALSH:: In a debate some weeks ago I referred to this particular item which used to appear in much larger figures in the annual estimates. I deplored the fact that the amount granted was not as large as previously. I recognize the fact that education comes primarily within the jurisdiction of the provinces, but this is one instance where the federal government has been able to assist materially in a work under provincial control. It has been my observation that those small cities having technical schools suffered less during the depression.
I am thinking particularly of Shawinigan Falls in Quebec where a technical school was started many years ago by the Shawinigan Water and Power Company. Later on the school received assistance from the Quebec government and the city of Shawinigan Falls. This school also received a tremendous impetus from the grant given by the federal government under this legislation which is about to pass out of existence. This technical school in Shawinigan Falls offers an outstanding example, not only to the province of Quebec but to Canada as a whole. French and English boys are able to receive a technical education after having obtained a primary education in their own schools or classical colleges. The result is that the labour market in and around Shawinigan Falls is well supplied with trained labour. These boys attend technical school for a certain number of years and then are absorbed into the various industries in Shawinigan Falls, Grand-Mere, Three Rivers and other places. The school is operated also in the evenings, and many of the boys continue their education at those classes. Many of these boys, by reason of the technical education they have received, have risen in the community to high positions which they otherwise would not have been able to attain.

Supply-Labour-Technical Education
This grant has been withdrawn. Naturally a work of this kind and importance could not be allowed to suffer simply because of the withdrawal of a grant. In some instances the additional burden imposed by the withdrawal has been taken over by the province, while in other instances it has been taken over by the municipality concerned. This has all added to the general burden of local taxation. Two weeks ago I urged that this curtailment should not be made. I am generally urging the reduction of expenditure, but I do not think this is an item where that should be done. I do not feel the dominion government is doing enough in this phase of education or youth development. The minister points to the million dollars voted last year and the two million dollars to be voted this year for-


Norman McLeod Rogers: A little less than. that.


William Allen Walsh: -a particular need at this particular time, but I am thinking more of the permanent feature of technical education as exemplified by these technical schools. I feel sure that if parliament would continue to vote this grant, technical schools similar to the one at Shawinigan Falls would be constructed in other cities and a tremendous benefit would be the result, not only to the particular city but to the industrial areas in the immediate vicinity. I should like to urge this point upon the minister. I know it is difficult to find money, but I believe curtailment could be made in other directions and the necessary money found to apply to this particular field. As an educationalist I recognize the value of this type of education. In this country we have overemphasized classical and academic training, and in certain provinces we have no provision for the vocational and technical training of young boys and girls. I think this is an opportunity for the federal government to supplement any local efforts which are being made.
Referring again to Shawinigan Falls, I know that something of this kind would be most advantageous. I know the conditions which prevailed in that part of the country during the depression, and if the hon. member who represents that district is in the chamber, I know he will bear out what I say. They did not feel the full effect of the depression because most of the boys had received technical training after their regular education. Many of them continued attending evening classes until they found work in some of the industries. The result was that these boys were not roaming around the country in an effort to find work. They were
improving themselves and getting ready for something better in the future. You may say they could have done that equally well in a classical college or academic institution, but that is not so. Unfortunately the boys and girls in that type of school are rather difficult to absorb into employment, particularly in an industrial centre, and it is the industrial centres which as a rule furnish the great bulk of our unemployment.
I would urge upon the minister, first, that the withdrawal of this grant has placed an additional burden of taxation on localities or on provinces to maintain what was started or, at all events, received an impetus as a result of the previous grant, and, second, I would stress the good work that could be done if this grant were continued, in view of the developments which are taking place in certain of our industrial centres. New industrial centres are springing up here and there throughout the country. I have in mind one, a tremendous development, which opened only last week in the province of Quebec, and within a short time it will no doubt receive the benefit of provincial assistance in erecting a technical school. If this government had a fund for assisting and giving impetus to work of that kind, it would be of immense advantage to these places where industrial developments are taking place.
I would urge upon the minister, when he is introducing the legislation next year with the view possibly of extending the act, that he leave it as it was before and give the provinces an opportunity of receiving a further share of federal funds to assist them in developing technical schools and technical education for the benefit of the boys in particular and also, in certain localities, of the girls. In that way you will lessen the prospect of unemployment in the future, and give these young people an opportunity to train themselves for something definite in life. I was glad when I heard the minister deal with that phase and suggest that the person trained for a job has less difficulty in finding work than one who has received just a general training without any particular line of work in view, and I feel that the only way in which we can give that definite training is by the establishment of technical or vocational schools. It might be said that this is a field for the provinces and the municipalities, but they are finding it difficult enough to navigate through their present financial difficulties, and if they could only receive some assistance towards this end from the federal government I know that dividends would
3858	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Technical Education
soon be forthcoming. I recognize that the Minister of Labour is as much interested in this problem and in the development of technical education as I am myself.


Denton Massey: Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to make a speech nor am I going to, neither do I wish to hold up these estimates. The hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh) has just made many remarks that I was going to make on this item.
I think all of us who have had to do with Young Canada, particularly in the last few years, realize without any question whatsoever in our minds that the most practical contribution which can be made to the development of the young man or young woman who has some idea of gaining the most useful information possible in the way of development, and so forth, can be given by our technical schools, and therefore I think it is very unfortunate, after all the provinces, I believe, until 1929 were still participating in this plan in view of the fact that the Technical Education Act was extended for a further five years, that this work contributed to by the dominion government should be handicapped by the fact that its contribution is no longer forthcoming.
The hon. member for Mount Royal states that the municipalities have been forced to extend taxation in order to carry on this work and to take up the slack occasioned by the fact that this grant was not forthcoming from the federal government. If he will permit me to differ, I think he will find that instead of further municipal taxes being collected for this purpose the work was simply not carried on to the same degree as it had been in the past with the assistance of the dominion government's contribution, and when that grant was no longer received the work more or less ceased at that point.
The records will show, as the minister well knows, that technical education has been taken advantage of by increasing numbers of our young people throughout the years, and particularly from 1919 on. Apprenticeships, no matter how well organized they may be, can never fully take the place of technical education or education in the technical schools. After all, the boy who goes to work in a shop, even with the best available instruction, is deprived of the theory which is back of the practice in which he is engaged. In the shop he is taught practice rather than theory, whereas in the technical school he has theory and practice together; then later when he gets himself a job, wherever it may be, he starts with a definite amount of theory and a certain amount of practice, and then added to that theory and practice comes 
the experience within the shop itself. Therefore the apprenticeship courses which in great part no longer exist, and which have recently been revised as a result of the activities of the past year, never will, no matter how well organized they may be, take the place of the technical education which the lad or young girl gets in a technical school.
I therefore earnestly urge on the minister that he again give consideration to introducing a technical education act to function as the past act did. Here we find ourselves facing a " sure thing," if I may use the phrase; for we realize, as a result of experience over a matter now of some nineteen years, that the purpose to which these funds are devoted is a worthy and worth while purpose and has accomplished a definite job of work which has been most beneficial not only to the individual but to the community in which he lives.
The projects which have been launched under the youth training plan, which we shall come to shortly in the supplementary estimates, are in a very great degree experimental, and the minister will admit that some have proven to be better than others. On the other hand, here we are dealing with a project that is no longer speculative but has proven to be of value. The provinces have been accustomed to accepting this grant, to accepting it gratefully, and to bear their own share, and therefore there is no difficulty whatsoever about cooperation with the provinces in regard to this matter. There was no pious hope that this or that province would accept the grant even though it had at first refused it, or whatever the case may have been. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, in view of our experience under the act and the results that were obtained, I urge upon the minister with all the earnestness of which I am capable that he give consideration to bringing down next session a new technical education act, to function as the old.


Mr. LOCKHART:: May I add a brief word on one particular phase which probably has not been referred to in the discussion so far. Under the Technical Education Act technical schools have been started and maintained over a period of years in some of the larger urban centres, assisted by the provinces to a very great extent at the beginning, to the extent probably of fifty per cent for equipment, and with large grants for teachers' salaries, but as the years went on these grants have gradually been cut off. Technical education has been established as a necessary form of education. I think everyone who has experience will admit that. Now, as the years roll by, the grants from the provinces have

Supply-Lab our-Annuities
been reduced. When it comes to getting replacements to carry on the technical schools it is impossible to obtain the necessary money from the provincial government. I want to join with the hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for Mount Royal in stressing the necessity of the federal government giving serious consideration to the encouragement of this work and of aid to it by the provincial departments, because when replacements and, possibly, additions to the schools are necessary, on account of the popularity of this type of education, the onus comes back on the municipality. I believe many of us who have had experience in the matter have found that out, and I urge the minister to give consideration to that particular angle of the situation, in order that assistance may be given, possibly by the reintroduction of the Technical Education Act, also by encouraging the provincial departments to agree to continue to assist the municipalities upon whom the burden of replacement and of future extensions now falls, and thus to meet the growing demand for a type of education which conforms to the requirements of the present day.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fair wages and conciliation, $49,320.
Angus MacInnis: Would the minister give a short review of the work done by this branch during the past year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As my hon. friend is probably aware, this item covers the salaries of the fair wage and conciliation officers. There are fair wage and conciliation officers stationed at Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa. Their duties include the preparation of wage schedules for insertion in government contracts and the investigation of differences arising on this point between contractors and workmen. It is found that these officers by proceeding at once to the point of dispute, are very often able to adjust differences, thus avoiding the expense of a board of conciliation under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. I might say at this point that provision was made last year for the appointment of four junior conciliation officers. These junior officers are attached to the various offices I have mentioned in order to obtain the necessary experience in connection with fair wage adjustments and the settlement of labour disputes.


Angus MacInnis: Who is the junior conciliation officer in the western provinces associated with Mr. Harrison?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Mr. Harrison, of Vancouver, is the senior officer. Mr. Currie is the junior.


Angus MacInnis: Where is his home?


Norman McLeod Rogers: His home is in Saskatoon. All four of these officers were appointed by the civil service commission. I believe I am correct when I say that all four are returned soldiers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Annuities Act, $287,885.
Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: What constitutes the
main reduction in this item?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The reductions are accounted for almost wholly by the expectation of commissions to be paid during the coming year. There is a decrease. Perhaps I had better run over the details. In the permanent salaries there is an increase of $8,833; in the temporary salaries, a decrease of $5,004; printing and stationery, an increase of 38,500; telephones and telegrams, an increase of $150; commissions to agents and publicity, a decrease of 350,000.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: Does that mean that fewer annuities are being sold?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is largely a matter of forecast of the business that will be done in the course of the year. Upon the basis of the business done last year it is anticipated that the amount here voted for commissions to agents will be adequate.


James Samuel Taylor: What totals of annuities have been sold during the past few years?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I will begin with 1933-34:
Number of contracts
Year	issued	Receipts1933- 34	
2,412	$ 7,071,439 001934-	35	
3,930	13,376,400	021935-	36	
6,357	21,281,981	311936-	37	
7,806	23,614,823	951937-	38	
5,725	13,595,158	60
Therefore my hon. friend will see there has been a rather sharp drop in the last year. This is due no doubt, in part at least, to the increase in the rates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the sum total of the annuity fund at the moment?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The total receipts to March 31, 1938, are 8115,153,853.45.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What has been paid out? Of course the amount to the credit of the fund is just that sum less the payments out from year to year.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The balance on credit as of March 31, 1937, is $87,984,935.74.
3S60
Supply-Labour-Annuities


Richard Bedford Bennett: That fund, of course, stands to the credit of the annuities branch in the consolidated fund, and is really working capital of this country, available as such. The minister spoke on the question of the increased rates. There has been some controversy, as the minister knows, with respect to that matter. On what principle are the rates increased? I confess that they do not come within the actuarial rules which are laid down by the insurance companies, because the administrative costs are absorbed by the country generally, as I understand it, as was originally intended when the bill was introduced by Sir Richard Cartwright. The question I was anxious to have answered was on what principle the rates were increased. Our superintendent of insurance or our actuarial department did not do it. It was done, I think, by a gentleman from the university of Toronto.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My right hon. friend will recall that a special committee of the senate gave attention to this question over a year ago. They expressed the view that the existing rates for annuities were too low, and that actually the dominion government was losing a sum amounting to several hundred thousand dollars a year because of the low rates. As a result of that investigation, despite the fact that the rates had been in existence a great many years, we felt it would be wise to have the question reconsidered. I think I can best explain the difficulty which had arisen with regard to rates by saying that these rates were based upon a mortality table-


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the assumption that money would earn four per cent.


Norman McLeod Rogers: -based upon the experience of the British offices in respect of life annuities, male and female, 1863 to 1893. That is the table which was used and upon which the rates were based.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have kept within and done better than the mortality table, but it was a question of the rate of interest, was it not?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Not specifically; the point
was rather to investigate our actual mortality experience upon the basis of our own annuities. That had not been done before. That was the special work undertaken by Professor Mackenzie of the university of Toronto, a very well known actuary, who I believe had served as special actuary of one of the Carnegie foundations. Upon his advice we made an interim increase in* the rates amounting to fifteen per cent. That was put into effect

temporarily. On the basis of his recommendation a report was tabled some time ago. We have adopted the new British mortality tables, with a reduction-


Richard Bedford Bennett: A reduction in the light
of our own experience?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes; that is correct. So
that is the position at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This matter raises the
whole question-which is not going to be discussed to-night-as to whether or not our mortality tables, upon which our whole insurance structure is based, might not well be revised; because certainly the expectation of life in this country is greater than in some countries upon which the tables were built. As I understand Professor Mackenzie's work, he took the last British tables, but he did not apply them in terms of premiums but, because of our experience, made a lesser premium than they would call for. He did not, however, purport to do it in a completely scientific manner. I read a criticism of it on that basis. I think what he did was a perfectly sound thing; he gave us the benefit of an arbitrary basis because of our decreased mortality or increased length of life as compared with the British table. The result is that to-day our rates are still somewhat lower than rates based upon the purely British actuarial basis or the United States expectation of life, either one; quite substantially lower in some instances.
The point which I think does arise is the question of the interest rate. We predicate the rate upon the fact that the entire fund is in the consolidated revenue fund, and that the nation itself will pay interest on that money; the interest used* to be at the rate of four per cent.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It stiff is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Norman McLeod Rogers: I believe the leader of
the opposition has correctly stated the present situation. What Professor Mackenzie did was to take the life experience of our annuitants and study that in the light of the new British mortality tables. Perhaps I might quote briefly from his report:
We tested the fitness of several tables and found that the mortality rates of the new British offices tables, known as the a(m) and a (f) tables were, when taken at ages one year younger than the actual ages for each sex, more nearly in safe agreement with the experience under investigation than any other standard rates. The number of deaths among male lives over age fifty-five which actually occurred is five per cent less than the number "expected" by the a(m) table at tabular ages, but three per cent greater than the number expected when ages are rated down one year. The number of deaths among female lives over age fifty-five which actually occurred is four per cent less than the number expected by the a(f) table at tabular ages, but five and a half per cent greater than the number expected when ages are rated down one year. We have therefore decided to recommend the adoption of the a(m) and a(f) tables with a reduction of one year in age, which means that calculations on a life aged sixty-five for example will be made as if the life were aged sixty-four.
That, in effect, is what was stated just now by the leader of the opposition. It is quite true that the interest rate has been kept at four per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is still that.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes; that is statutory, and it has been maintained at that rate despite certain fluctuations in the interest rate down through the years. There has been some criticism with respect to the maintenance of that interest rate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think in the light of the reduction of the amount, that is an unfair criticism.
Supply-Labour-Annuities


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes; it seems so, because originally the purpose of the legislation was that the dominion government should offer a definite encouragement-


Richard Bedford Bennett: To thrift.


Norman McLeod Rogers: -yes, to people of small means to take out these annuities. I would feel that it might almost be regarded as in the nature of a contributory pension.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what this really is.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Not in form, but in fact it is. I might further say that in view of the adjustments in rates it may be necessary to make some adjustment as well in the amount that is held in reserve.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of the fact that it is in the consolidated revenue fund and we have assumed liability, that never becomes a matter of very great importance.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is purely a question of accounting.


James Samuel Taylor: In view of the relationship which the minister has suggested, that these annuities are very much like contributory pensions, is it possible to have these contributory pensions, these annuities, paid without reference to old age pensions? By that I mean that people who save all their lives and purchase these dominion annuities should be entitled to receive the benefit of that money irrespective of any other consideration.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is correct; they do.


James Samuel Taylor: I brought up in the house, I think last year, the case of a man named Rhodes in Vancouver who had his old age pension definitely reduced because he was the recipient of an annuity for which he and his wife together had paid some $8,000. The thing seemed so utterly unfair-


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend will permit me, with respect to the old age pension there is what is described as a means test. With respect to an annuity there is no such test, obviously, because the annuity is pur-' chased by the annuitant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The maximum pension
is provided by law.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. I can readily understand why the old age pension might be reduced by the amount that might be received in annuity by the person in question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When it reaches a given figure the reduction must be made because of the statute.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


James Samuel Taylor: All the same I venture to say there is no excuse for it.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: From the figures given by the minister there would appear to be a considerable shrinkage in business last year. The amount paid in commissions to agents and for publicity has been reduced by $50,000, but on the other hand I observe that the staff has increased by five. Would there be any particular reason for a staff increase in view of the fact that the business has diminished? I was wondering if there was any particular explanation for that.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The business fluctuates, of course. I gave the number of contracts over a period of years, from 1933 onward. In 1933-34 there were only 2,412 contracts.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: We are dealing with last year now.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Last year the number was very much larger, though it was less than in the previous year. I must say that 1936-37 was an altogether exceptional year. The number of contracts issued was 7,806.
iMr. BENNETT: Because they expected the rates were going up after the investigation.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Exactly. There was a great rush of business for several months at that time. Now we are more nearly back to normal, but at that time I think it would be fair to say that the branch was understaffed, having regard to the work that had to be done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Departmental administration, $115,226.
Mr. NEILL:: I wonder if the minister would answer one or two small questions that perhaps are not directly connected with this item, but I cannot find any other place to pin them. I should like information on the following points, and it will not take a minute if the minister has the information under his hand. I am sorry the right hon. Prime Minister is not here at the moment, but the other day in reply to the hon. member for Fraser Valley he dealt with the question of unemployment insurance. I should like to know if the minister would just expand that a little. I should like to know, first, what provinces are unwilling to join in an amendment to the British North America Act; second, which provinces have refused to cooperate in passing bills providing for unemployment insurance, and their reasons for so doing; and, third, would it not be possible and wise to publish the draft which the right hon. Prime Minister says is ready, in order to influence public opinion? Each of us has

Supply-La hour
some little influence, and if we went home and boosted for the bill as we saw it, we might be able to bring some pressure to bear on the various governments; but until the provisions of the bill are made known, we are asking people to endorse something more or less in the dark. At any rate I should like to know which of the provinces have flatly refused to join in an amendment to the British North America Act and why; which have refused to join in an unemployment insurance measure, and why; and if we could not have the draft act made public.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend will understand that if I appeared to speak cautiously in connection with this matter, it is desirable that I should do so, as I speak wholly from recollection. My impression is that all the correspondence with the provinces in relation to this matter has been tabled from time to time. The original letter asked for the cooperation of the provinces in the enactment of a national scheme of unemployment insurance. As I recollect it, replies were received from all the provinces. Three provinces expressed the view either that there should not be a national scheme of unemployment insurance or that no action should be taken pending discussion of the matter in their legislatures.


Alan Webster Neill: Which three?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Quebec took definite exception to a national scheme of unemployment insurance. New Brunswick wished to have the matter discussed in the legislature. Alberta took precisely the same position. Subsequently a further letter was sent to the provinces asking for their cooperation in a constitutional amendment which would permit this parliament to enact a national scheme for unemployment insurance. I believe I am correct when I say that answers were received from all but two provinces with respect to this request for assistance in putting through the constitutional amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A draft amendment was
enclosed, was it not?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes; a draft amendment
was actually submitted to the various provinces. Alberta declined to cooperate. New Brunswick expressed the view that no action should be taken pending the report of the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations. Quebec had already expressed its opinion in regard to the first question and, so far as I recall, did not specifically answer the letter referring to the constitutional amendment. Ontario had originally supported the proposal for a national scheme of 51052-245
unemployment insurance, but I do not recall that there was a letter received from that province with special regard to the constitutional amendment. That is the situation as I know it at the present time.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister spoke about
all the correspondence having been tabled. Could he look into the matter and see that it is all tabled, so that it will all be available?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be glad to do so.


Alan Webster Neill: What about the legislation
itself? What does the minister think about letting the public into his confidence with respect to the draft bill? After all, we have to deal with it finally, and it might help to formulate public opinion in its favour if we were familiar with its provisions. Would the draft bill form part of the matter to be laid on the table?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I would not care to answer that question without consideration. I can see some merit in the proposal, but I can also see some objections. I should like to have a full opportunity to give the proper weight to each.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to say I
had in mind the same suggestion as has been expressed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni with regard to the publication of the bill. I realize, of course, that under the rules of the house it cannot be introduced into the chamber. Having regard to that fact, I think it might possibly be tabled with the correspondence, leaving blanks, of course, where expenditures of public moneys or matters of that kind were involved, as is usual in bills of that sort.
It has not been unusual to lay bills on the table, to give them first reading, and then have them printed for second reading and circulated widely throughout the country. In view of the limitations in connection with the introduction of the measure, and in view of its having been declared to be beyond the legislative competence of parliament, it does seem to me it would be fair to have it made public, so that to some extent public opinion could crystallize around the concrete proposals, rather than in connection with an abstract discussion or suggestion.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The minister said the other evening that he had a special representative of the department in Vancouver, and that the remuneration to that officer was $500 a month. From what vote is provision made for his salary, what is his title, and what is the exact nature of his duties?



BKVI8ED EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Labour
Norman McLeod Rogers: That would come under the administration vote in the supplementary estimates, and I think it would be preferable to discuss it at that time.


Angus MacInnis: I think the point raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is worthy of support. This government adopts the attitude that if there is any opposition at all from certain quarters, it would immediately drop a measure like a hot coal, and do nothing further about it. It is quite clear, I believe, that in a country such as this, with such a large area and a wide diversity of opinion, there would not be unanimity in any measure the government may propose. Here is a measure, however, of which I believe enlightened opinion in all parts of the dominion is in favour. I believe the government itself is in favour of it, as indicated by the fact that it has proposed it. Should not the government take steps to familiarize the people of the provinces with the measure, because we must remember that this is a government of the provinces just as are the legislatures. We must learn their reaction to the setting up of a national employment insurance scheme to be used as a means of safeguarding the social welfare of the people.
In this way I believe the government would be able to bring pressure to bear upon the provincial governments, through the people in those provinces, and in that way would get consent. We are living in an age in which advertising and publicity of various kinds play an important part in our lives. If the sentiment in favour of unemployment insurance is crystallized, those backward provincial governments, which would like to build a Balkan states of Canada, would have to give way to enlightened opinion. In my opinion such enlightened opinion should be fostered and extended by the federal authority.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I do not think I can do more than take that proposal under advisement at the present time. I believe the hon. member will realize that it is not possible to do more than that. The leader of the opposition, as I understand it, suggested that the draft bill might be published without the financial provisions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mean that there would be blanks as to contributions by governments.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes; that would, of course, deprive the bill of what would be one of its most important provisions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no, you would be leaving out the question of contributions by employers and employees, and leaving the question of contributions by the government 
blank, because it would have to be preceded by a message. I think one might get a fair grasp of the general principles of the bill, having regard to the fact that the bill placed upon the statute books was one which was prepared in the light of knowledge obtained from the British labour office in connection with the operation of their act.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Combines Investigation Act, $46,670.
Charles Grant MacNeil: Have steps been taken
with regard to investigating complaints in connection with the milling and baking monopoly in Canada, in order to regulate, if possible, prices paid for bread?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Some years ago there was an investigation of that kind. Does the hon. member refer to an investigation made some time in the past, or one made recently?


Charles Grant MacNeil: Recently.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I believe complaints were made recently in Vancouver, and a preliminary inquiry was conducted. I have not the report of that inquiry before me, and therefore I am not in a position to give further information.


Mr. ESLING:: Because of instances arising in my own constituency, I brought to the attention of the government earlier in the session the conditions existing in connection with the holding of radio patents. We now have a combines commissioner. Under the statute it is necessary to go through a lot of red tape to bring to the attention of the commissioner conditions as they exist. The minister saw fit-and he must have had reasons for so doing-to refer the whole matter to the tariff board.
We now have on record over the signature of the officials of the holding company the fact that they control seventy-one patents. We have on record their letter, over the signature of the solicitor for the holding company, that they reserve the right to collect royalties on every radio brought into Canada; and no matter whether the purchaser pays the duty or not, if a radio comes from any other country this holding company reserves the right to collect the royalty.
There is no likelihood of the tariff board reaching this matter this year because they have too much business on hand. The government knows the conditions that exist. The government knows that every radio sold in Canada costs from forty to sixty per cent more than it would in the United States. This is due to the fact that this holding company controls these patents. In the first place there

Supply-Labour-C ommitments
are twelve companies concerned. They turn over their patents to this holding company and obtain a licence from the holding company to use their own patents. That results in a primary dividend earned through the use of the patent and a second dividend paid because of the increased price. Not only do they control prices, but they control the output.
It would be a simple matter for the minister to instruct the commissioner of combines to make an investigation. A practical, experienced radio man could complete this investigation in a week. He could tell the minister the true difference between the cost of producing a radio in Canada and in the United States. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) has been subjected to considerable criticism during the present session because the radio licence fee has been increased by fifty cents. This combines act permits the minister to make an investigation without any red tape, and if an investigation were carried on I am sure the result would be that the purchaser of a radio would save enough to pay his $2.50 licence fee for twenty years. The people know they have to pay this extra price because of this holding company. Why not get action? Why not give the public that relief for which the Combines Investigation Act was created?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I understand my hon.
friend to say that the matter to which he is referring is now formally receiving the attention of the tariff board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Referred to it by the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), was it not?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I believe it was so referred. I doubt the propriety of the Minister of Labour instituting an inquiry under the combines act while the matter is still before the tariff board. I shall be glad to look into the matter and see just where the reference to the tariff board stands at the present time.


William Kemble Esling: The tariff board has not
reached this matter, and it has innumerable other matters before it for investigation. It should have been considered at the first of this year in order that the people of Canada might be saved money. As I say, the minister has the power under the combines act to appoint an investigator just as in other cases where the question of prices on controlled production is being considered.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-To provide for commitments under relief settlement agreements with provincial governments, $200,000.
Harry James Barber: Would the minister
kindly explain this item?
51952-245i


Norman McLeod Rogers: This amount of $200,000 is needed to provide for commitments under relief settlement agreements with the provincial governments. It will be remembered that these relief settlement agreements were entered into with a number of the provinces by the previous administration. The purpose of the agreement was to take families who were on relief and place them on selected farms. This was a tripartite arrangement under which contributions were made by the dominion, the province and the municipality concerned. At first these agreements were entered into with most of the provinces, but at the present time the only provinces to which we are contributing are Quebec, Manitoba and Alberta. The total of $200,000 now asked for is accounted for by the following requirements:
Quebec	$100,000
Manitoba	 80,000
Alberta	  20,000


Harry James Barber: Contributions are made by the municipality concerned, the province and the dominion?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. The intention is to take families on relief, place them on farm land and provide assistance for a period of four years in order that the family may be able to establish itself.


Charles Grant MacNeil: What progress has been
made in this regard in British Columbia?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Very few have actually
been placed in British Columbia. The total number covered by agreements in British Columbia is 285, made up of fifty-two families and 233 dependents.


Harry James Barber: I notice this is a revote; was it unexpended last year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The agreements were entered into in 1936. They are four-year agreements, and our commitments are determined upon the number of families actually placed.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: What is the situation with respect to Ontario?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The agreement with Ontario has expired, but the numbers placed under previous agreements were 606 families with 2,384 dependents, making a total of 2,990 persons. They were placed from 1932 to 1934.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: There has been no
continuation of that agreement?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No. That plan has not
been continued in Ontario.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The provincial government does not want to negotiate, is that it?


Norman McLeod Rogers: They have not expressed a desire to revive the agreement for this purpose.
3S66

Supply-Labour-Commitments


Angus MacInnis: Were these families
placed in rural areas?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: How many are still on
the homesteads where they were placed?


Norman McLeod Rogers: In British Columbia fiftytwo families where they were originally placed.


Charles Grant MacNeil: They are still on the
land?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall have that information in- a moment.


Denton Massey: What is the total number
of those placed?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The total number placed
across Canada is 5,916 families, numbering with dependents 26.030. I can give the abandonments and cancellations for Canada as a whole, and then for British Columbia. Of the total of 5,916, the abandonments and cancellations are 1,313.


Denton Massey: Families?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, so the net result is
4,603 families are still established under the terms of the agreement.


Denton Massey: Were any established in
Ontario at all?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes; I gave the number
a moment ago, 606 families.


Denton Massey: How many of them are
still on the land?


Norman McLeod Rogers: So far as we are aware,
431 families are still established on farms in Ontario.


Denton Massey: Was I correct in understanding the minister to say that Ontario was not anxious to proceed further with this scheme?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The agreement expired in 1934 and was not revived.


Denton Massey: What reason does Ontario
give for not wishing to renew it?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I do not recall any reasons that were given, but there was a change of administration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And they have their
own settlement plan.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes; I believe that is true too. In British Columbia there were nineteen abandonments of the fifty-two families originally placed, leaving thirty-three families still established.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the exact number at present?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There are still established
4,603 families, with 20,762 dependents, making a total of 25,365.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many had we a
year ago?


Norman McLeod Rogers: We have not that information here. I gave the number of abandonments from the inception of the plan, 1,313 abandonments out of a total of 5,916 families.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were some additions, and the net number is still a little over four thousand established?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I notice the item under consideration is a revote. What was the amount voted last year, of which the revote now is $200,000? I assume the minister will be able to tell how much was expended out of last year's vote.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The amount voted for this purpose last year was $400,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How much of that was spent? Was it $200,000? Possibly I could make the point on which I am seeking information a little clearer to the minister. Take another department, the Department of Public Works, for instance. We vote, we will say, $100,000 for a building this year. When you come to the end of the year you have spent only, say, $50,000, and you wish to complete the building. Then you have by way of revote the balance of the original $100,000, which would be $50,000 to revote. Does the minister mean by a revote here a reappropriation of part of a vote of last year? Is this a new vote or a voting again of something that has already been voted?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The amount voted last year was $400,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If we are revoting $200,000 this year, then approximately $200,000 was spent last year.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am just trying to get the information. The actual expenditures are made under the terms of agreements. The agreements are not limited to a specific number of families, except as to a maximum, so it is not always possible to tell in advance how much will be expended. Perhaps we might let the item stand, and I shall see that the information is brought down.


Denton Massey: Will the minister also be good enough to tell the committee how much was spent on each family? Does it depend on the farm to which they are going?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The dominion pays one-third of an amount not in excess of $1,000
3S67

Supply-Labour-Relief Projects
with respect to the settlement of families on land from organized municipalities who would otherwise be in receipt of direct relief. The agreement also provides for a fifty per cent contribution by the dominion not in excess of S300 per family taken from an unorganized district. That is extended for a period of four years. Some of it is used for the provision of equipment and food while the family is getting established.


William Kemble Esling: Under what item may we discuss contributions to the provinces in aid of public works?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think the appropriate item will be the next one, No. 517.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My reason for seeking information was that the same question arises under three votes, Nos. 516, 517 and 518, and what I am anxious to ascertain is just what " revote " means. Is it a revote of the amount that was originally appropriated and that has not been exhausted, or is it a new vote altogether?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is really a revote of the amount to which we were committed under the agreement made subject to the legislation of last, year, and which we were not called upon to pay. I am not sure that a revote in that sense is a revote in the sense in which it is generally understood and applied in the Department of Public Works.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is exactly what I was trying to make clear to the committee. These items are not revotes in the ordinary sense of the word to which we have been accustomed in connection with public works estimates. It seems to be the voting of a similar item to last year, but unless it is part of an appropriation of last year I believe it is not really a revote at all, but a new vote.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think it would be fair to say that certainly the first and the second and the third are votes to provide payment for commitments made last year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is what I thought; but unless, as I say, it is part of the same item that was voted last year, it is not strictly correct to call it a revote. It is a vote to meet obligations that will mature during this year under agreements that were made last year, or possibly prior to that.
Item stands.
To provide for commitments and completion of works in connection with federal contributions to provincial and municipal relief projects, $1,075,000.


William Kemble Esling: How much by way of contributions to British Columbia has been
voted by this government, we will say in the last five years?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be glad to take note of that question. I am quite sure that this item will not pass to-night because there will be some further discussion on it.


William Kemble Esling: While the minister is looking that up, will he also look up whether the government is going to give that money-
I know it is $33,000,000-to the province, or will it expect the province to repay it?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is my hon. friend now referring to loans or to actual contributions made by the dominion government to British Columbia for joint works over a period of five years?


William Kemble Esling: Well, I am referring to the matter of $33,000,000, of which about $3,000,000 has been repaid in some way, I do not know how. I am asking the question particularly for the reason that for almost everything which is lacking funds for the purpose of completion the federal government is blamed if it does not come through with the money. But I have before me a press dispatch in which the finance minister at Victoria makes the statement that he does not expect the federal government to demand repayment of this money, or to collect this money.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be glad to secure that information for my hon. friend and to make it available when we are in committee again on this item.


Howard Charles Green: What public works are being undertaken in British Columbia, either by the dominion government, or by this government in conjunction with the provincial government, on which the unemployed men who are in the Vancouver post office and in the art gallery can be placed?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, there are no joint works to which the dominion government is now contributing through the Department of Labour. There are two stretches of highway, the Big Bend highway and the new highway from the international border to New Westminster, either to which the dominion government is contributing or for which there has been an undertaking that the dominion government will contribute.


Harry James Barber: Is that under this vote? Mr. ROGERS: It is not under this vote at all, no.


Howard Charles Green: Those are the only two projects on which these unemployed men could be placed at work?

Supply-Labour-Reliej Projects


Norman McLeod Rogers: Oh, no, I would not say that, because a number of other public works projects of the various departments-the Department of Transport, for instance, and the Department of (Public Works-are being carried out in various parts of the province. My hon. friend has raised his question rather under the Department of Labour votes, and I am able to tell him only with regard to the votes that are given here. As a matter of fact, although last year our contributions to highways were under the Department of Labour, this year they are rather under the Department of Mines and Resources, and to some extent under the Department of Transport in so far as our contributions pertain to the abolition of level crossings.


Howard Charles Green: I take it that the minister is very much concerned to have these men working, or at least to offer them work. Can they be placed on the work on the Big Bend highway and on the road from the boundary to New Westminster? If so, I suggest that this information be conveyed to them at once. If that were done, we might get quite a number of them out of the post office and the art gallery, and public support would be swung behind the government instead of, as I think it is to-day, being largely behind the men because it is felt that nothing is being done. The tragedy is that no move whatever is being made by this government. At least that is the feeling in Vancouver. Cannot the minister take some step to offer these men work right away on these two highways?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The work on the Big Bend highway has been continued over a period of years under agreement with British Columbia. The work on the highway from the international boundary to New Westminster has not yet been started. In all probability it will be done as a joint project with British Columbia. I believe an announcement has already been made with regard to that work, and it has been stated that those who are single and unemployed and residents in British Columbia will be upon the same footing as others as to eligibility for this work, but I am not saying and could not say that there would be an opportunity on this work for all those who are at present unemployed in the city of Vancouver.


John Charles Landeryou: Could the minister
give us in regard to Alberta similar information to what he has just given with respect to British Columbia?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is nothing in these votes, at least in the particular vote that is before us, for Alberta. My hon. friend is really now asking me to speak from memory fMr. Green.]
of votes in other departments. I happened to recall the vote for the Big Bend highway in British Columbia and the highway from the international boundary.


John Charles Landeryou: Can he tell us under which item we can discuss this?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The matter can be discussed under Ne 517, the item now before the committee.


Angus MacInnis: How much of this amount of $1,075,000 is allocated to British Columbia and what projects will be carried out under the vote?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As I explained before, this is a revote. It is designed rather to carry out commitments under agreements of the past year, that is to say, to complete the program in which the dominion government agreed to participate in the past year. I will give the break-down of them:
To provide for commitments under agreements with the provinces for which claims covering work done prior to March 31, 1938, will not be received in time to be paid before the close of the present fiscal year, 1937-38:
Quebec	$ 76,500
Ontario	 207,500
Manitoba	 15,000
Alberta	 13,500
British Columbia	 45,400
Total	$357,900
That is not for new work, but to provide rather for the payment of accounts which will be received after March 31 ,of this year but pertaining to work done last year.


Angus MacInnis: This work is already done? It provides only for payments for work done?


The CHAIRMAN:: It is eleven o'clock.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It largely provides for the completion of work.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, June 15, 1938