1938-04-04

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Dorothy Dean St. Clair Ross.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Frances Margaret Stewart Butler.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Agnes Le Blanc Archambault.-Mr. Walsh.

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

Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	When was the post office building at Brampton, Ontario, constructed?
2.	What was its original cost?
3.	Upon what dates, and in what amounts was additional money spent upon said building by way of alterations, additions, improvements, renovations and repairs?
4.	Will further expenditure be made on said building during the year 1938?
5.	If so, for what purposes will this further expenditure be made?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	1889-1890.
2.	$29,096.38 (including cost of site $4,000).

3.1891-1892	.. ..$	17	141892-1893	46	101893-1894	156	261894-1895	181	181895-1896	12	101896-1897	30	501898-1899	35	101899-1900	62	001900-1901	155	001901-1902	11	251902-1903	129	761903-1904	514	251905-1906	60	781906-1907	907	631907-1908	480	061908-1909	102	391909-1910	214	521910-1911	57	341911-1912	1,210	971912-1913	159	401913-1914	5,061	581914-1915	5,368	081915-1916	824	591916-1917	870	341917-1918	32	251919-1920	22	201920-1921	24	411921-1922	1.447	571922-1923	125	431923-1924	113	251925-1926	123	021926-1927	219	981927-1928	3,445	261928-1929	386	071929-1930	638	991930-1931	126	731933-1934	259	451934-1935	2,263	601935-1936	1,386	261936-1937	79	93Total.. ..	.. ..$	27,362	72
4 and 5. Matter under consideration by Post Office Department.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-BRANCH LINES
Mr. LECLERC:: 1.	What are the names of the companies which hold the capital stock in the branch line railway operated by the Canadian National Railways system between Farnham, Granby and Waterloo, province of Quebec?
2.	What was the gross revenue of this railway? (a) How much was derived from Granby? (b) In what year was the station at that point erected ?
3.	Does this branch line furnish any profit to the Canadian National Railways after paying expenses of operation?
4.	Has the Canadian National Railways system any interest in the Montreal and Southern Counties Electric Railway?
5.	Is there a deficit in operating this system? If so, what is the annual amount?

Questions


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	The line forms part of the Stanstead, Shefford and Chambly Railroad Company, the capital stock of which company is held by the Centmont Corporation. The capital stock of the Centmont Corporation is held by the Central Vermont Railway, Inc. The capital stock of the Central Vermont Railway Inc., is held by the Canadian National Railway Company.
2.	No separate accounting is maintained for this line; (a) This is a question of internal management and it is not the policy of the railway to make such information public; (b) About 1888.
3.	See answer to No. 2.
4.	The Canadian National Railway Company owns 62-1 per cent of the capital stock of the Montreal and Southern Counties Railway Company.
5.	The operation of the Montreal and Southern Counties Railway before taxes and income charges resulted in a deficit of $60,910.69 in 1937. The corresponding result for 1936 was $63,449.02.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-POINTE CALUMET-OKA, QUE.
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Has the Canadian National Railways system purchased by private arrangement certain lands between Pointe Calumet and the village of Oka, in the county of Two Mountains?
2.	If so, for what purpose were these lands acquired?
3.	What did they cost the railway company?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	To provide for a proposed extension of the existing spur to reach sand desposits and sand beaches on the north shore of the lake of Two Mountains.
3.	$29,904.


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	1934-35
Head Office	
$ 20,263	19P E.I	
2.105	19NJ3	
4,738	02N.B	
5,979	86Quebec	
54,905	32Ontario	
55,553	56Manitoba	
20,902	06Saskatchewan	
52.209	03Alberta	
40,263	79B.C	
12,221	67


TORONTO ISLAND AND MALTON, ONT., AIRPORTS- RADIO FACILITIES
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	What radio equipment and facilities will be provided at the municipal airports at Toronto island and Malton, Ontario?
2.	Will such equipment and facilities be provided at the expense of the dominion government? If not, who will bear said expenses?
3.	Will the appointment of radio operators at the said airports rest with the dominion government? If not, who will appoint them?
4.	If said appointments are to be made by the dominion government, will they be made by the civil service commission?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	The Department of Transport are now constructing and will maintain and operate a radio range station which will serve both airports.
2.	Trans-Canada Air Lines will install, maintain and operate the two-way communication sets necessary.
3.	The appointment of radio operators for the radio range station will rest with the Department of Transport; The appointment of the radio operators required for the twoway communication service will rest with Trans-Canada Air Lines.
4.	The radio operators employed by the Department of Transport will be appointed by the Civil Service Commission.


FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT-COST OF ADMINISTRATION
Mr. HYNDMAN:: 1.	What has been the cost, by provinces, of the administration of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, each year since its inception, to date?
2.	What is the total amount paid by the government to date for legal services in connection with the administration of the said act'
April 1,1937, to
1935-36	1936-37	Feb. 28,1938$ 31.458 21	S 26,106 74	$ 24.108 4221,616 20	37,192 58	19,600 739.393 58	4,958 76	4,810 4630.333 02	26.164 22	20,534 74134.313 43	89.430 27	69,169 20132,484 79	110,404 86	80,500 0478.083 46	67.669 34	48,738 49134,231 98	97.307 27	79,825 25110,194 39	80.289 08	73.517 5331,015 40	15,792 48	9,581 41$713,124 46	$555,315 60	$430,386 27
Total.. , 2. $12,653.21.

Questions


OLD AGE PENSIONS-SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: 1.	What is the total number of people receiving old age pension in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	What is the total amount paid annually?
3.	How many are getting: (a) $20 per month; 'b) $15 per month; (c) less?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	As at December 31, 1937

11,701.
2.	On account of adjustments between provinces, it is not possible to ascertain accurately, from the records of the dominion government, the total amount paid during any particular period to residents of the province of Saskatchewan.
The dominion's contribution to the province of Saskatchewan during the calendar year 1937 amounted to $1,745,941.78, which constituted approximately 75 per cent of the total amount paid out in old age pensions by the province of Saskatchewan.
3.	As at December 31, 1937: (a) 4,496; (b) 5,123; (c) 1,562.


SASKATCHEWAN RELIEF-DOCTOR STAPLEFORD
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	How much has Dr. Stapleford, who was employed in the distribution of relief in the province of Saskatchewan, and the inquiry into relief in the said province, received by way of expenses since the 1st of October to date?
2.	Did he employ a staff, and, if so, what are the names of such employees, and what has been paid to each by way of salary and expenses?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	$274.43.
2.	Yes.
As at March 31, 1938 .	Salary Expenses
Mackie, A. R	$1,209 68	$4 50Graham, D. W	
304 19	....Grant, Miss N. K	561 29	....Rowson, Miss E	
152 90	....Tarcey, Miss H	141 29	....Mason, Herbert	
30 00	....Wood, Miss B. B	196 45	....


SHERBROOKE, QUE., HOSPITAL LOTTERY
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	When the Sherbrooke hospital lottery was being organized, who was the official responsible for enforcing the law against lotteries?
2.	What change has the Postmaster General authorized the postal authorities at Montreal to make regarding lotteries?
3.	Were representations made to the Postmaster General to the effect that the Army and Navy Veterans sweepstake and the Irish sweepstake were using the mails at the same time as the Sherbrooke hospital lottery, without interference ?

4.	Were all the correspondence and documents of the Sherbrooke lottery sent to the Post Office Department at Ottawa?
5.	If so, in what manner were they forwarded ?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Instructions were issued by the director, administrative services, Post Office Department, withdrawing mailing facilities from the Sherbrooke Hotel-Dieu Benefactors' Association, 158 South Bowen Avenue, Sherbrooke, P.Q., based on rulings from the departmental solicitor and the Department of Justice that the scheme of membership indicated in lottery tickets and literature issued by this association was illegal.
2.	Nil-Postal regulations apply uniformly throughout Canada.
3.	Representations were received respecting the army and navy veterans sweepstake and mailing privileges were withdrawn from this association.
There has been a standing order in effect for several years against the Irish Free State hospitals sweepstake denying this organization the use of the mails.
4 and 5. All mail matter for the Sherbrooke Hotel-Dieu Benefactors' Association, 158 South Bowen Avenue, Sherbrooke, P.Q., is intercepted and forwarded under cover by mail to the Post Office Department, Ottawa.


WILFRID GAGNON
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	In what year was Mr. Wilfrid Gagnon appointed to the customs service in Montreal?
2.	What was his classification?
3.	By whom was he appointed?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	1925.
2.	Labourer.
3.	The then Minister of Customs and Excise.


JOSEPH MILORD
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	In what year was Mr. Joseph Milord appointed to the customs service in Montreal?
2.	How was he classified?
3.	By whom was he appointed?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	1924.
2.	Labourer.
3.	The then Minister of Customs and Excise.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will the government lay on the table the list of 47 pages of goods on which the United States propose to discuss further reciprocity

Questions
with Canada as published partly in the local press on January 8, and on which the people of that country were asked to write the Trade Department at Washington to give their views or objections on any of these items with a public hearing on March 14 afforded?
2.	Will the government consider adopting the same method and procedure here in order to give the business men of Canada an opportunity of being heard in the same way by letter, and a public hearing later, before any proposed agreement is consummated, and not after it?
3.	Will the government consider calling into consultation Canadian industrialists and agriculturists regarding the effect of same on the Ottawa agreements, before and not after any agreement or treaty is consummated or proposed ?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The hon. member apparently refers to a statement which the government of the United States communicated to the press of that country on January 28th. A copy of the statement is being tabled.
2.	The procedure at present adopted by the United States government in connection with current trade agreements is based upon the fact that arrangements concluded under the Trade Agreements Act are not submitted to Congress for approval. As the situation in this respect is different in Canada, it is not considered necessary to adopt the United States procedure.
3.	The present practice under which Canadian industrialists, agriculturists and others interested, may communicate with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or other ministers concerned, on all matters respecting commercial treaty negotiations, is believed to be adequate.


TRANS-CANADA AIRLINES-RADIO RANGE STATIONS
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	How many radio range stations will be built in Canada for the airways service?
2.	How many, if any, have been built to date?
3.	What is the estimated total cost to complete such stations?
4.	What is the cost of the average single station ?
5.	Is the four tower system of antennae to be used?
6.	Are the United States airlines replacing the present four tower equipment with five tower type? If so, for what reasons?
7.	Would the introduction of the five tower mean scrapping of the four tower equipment?
8.	Who are the personnel of the Department of Transport's airways radio division?
9.	What percentage of them are from the United States?
10.	What company or companies have contracts for supplying equipment for the radio range stations ?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Thirty stations.
2.	Eleven stations have been completed; 12 stations are under construction and will be completed before July 1; 7 stations will be constructed during the fiscal year 1938-39.
3.	Total cost of 30 stations-$1,500,000.
4.	$50,000.
5.	Primarily, yes, but all installations are made with provision for the installation of the fifth tower when conditions warrant it. Installation of the fifth tower will be made at Vancouver, Lethbridge, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal this year.
6.	The Bureau of Air Commerce is installing a number of new stations of the five tower type and installing additional equipment at four tower stations to convert them to the five tower type; the reason being that the four tower type will not permit weather information and courses being given simultaneously, while the five tower system does, Where airways are congested it is to be preferred, but is not essential when traffic is comparatively light.
7.	No. This point was given due consideration when the Department of Transport commenced its construction program in 1937.
8.	See appended list.
9.	Nil.
10.	The Canadian Marconi Company of Montreal have a contract to supply radio range transmitters and the Standard Steel Construction Company of Welland, to supply radio range towers.
Ottawa headquarters: H. E. Walsh, senior radio electrical engineer; W. A. Acton, radio electrical engineer; J. B. Knox, assistant radio electrical engineer; J. Albulet, junior radio electrical engineer; J. Belcher, radio operator; M. G. McCadden, clerk, grade III; A. W. Eaton, stenographer, grade I; I. K. Sheppard, stenographer, grade I.
Winnipeg-W est-
Construction and maintenance engineering staff: A. K. Baylay, assistant radio electrical engineer; W. E. Fenn, assistant radio electrical engineer; H. J. Williamson, junior radio electrical engineer; C. W. Thomas, radio electrician.
Operating staff-Radio operators: N. Hadley, C. G. C. Connelly, J. E. Duke, C. H. Harding, P. M. Eldridge, J. R. Allen, J. R. Howard,
J.	Syder, A. P. Stark, R. S. Fulton, J. S. Parkin, F. C. Aitkens, C. A. G. Ennever, L. H. Pockett, N. E. Nelson, B. L. Marshall, C. S. Hewitt, D. A. McDougall, F. Burwell, R. R. Travers, T. E. Bate, S. A. Shatford, J. L. Johnston, H. V. Allan, J. W. Philpot, J. E. Walker, R. W. Weaver, H. Needham,
Questions

W. B. Beart, W. Hartree, J. Mennie, A. T. Scott, H. C. Rayner, W. L. Harris, R. E. V. Potruff, C. J. Grey, W. F. Hilchie, W. North, J. A. Coutanche, W. A. Blacklock, L. J. Debenham, A. J. Newington, B. Burrill, J. R. Nutter, T. Foley, C. E. Marcelle, T. Davidson, W. J. Twamley, L. H. Fendon, W. G. Wastill.
Winnipeg-East-
Operating staff-Electrician, J. O. G. Cann; radio operators: L. F. Brown, H. B. Tompkins,
H.	J. Moore, F. C. Cornish, H. E. Bickmore, C. S. Baldwin, J. J. Tizzard, F. S. Woodrow, T. B. Linklater, W. L. Nelson, W. J. Thomas,
S.	L. Young, W. S. Woodley, T. G. Barrowman, A. W. Loke, H. M. Murphy, J. R. DesCoteaux, G. H. Pickard, A. Cote, W. H. Ingarfield, R. F. Austin.


CATTLE SHIPPED TO UNITED STATES
Mr. SENN:: 1.	How many cattle were shipped weekly to
the United States from Canada during:	(a)
the month of March, 1937; (b) the month of March, 1938?
2.	What were the classifications of such cattle, differentiating between dairy cattle and other cattle?


Mr. ILSLEY:: This information is not available from statistical compilation.
farmers' creditors arrangement act-CASES


PENDING
Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	How many cases are pending consideration by the board of review under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act in each of the provinces of the dominion?
2.	During the last year what was the average monthly number of new cases submitted to official receivers under the said act in the province of Quebec?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Prince Edward Island, 22; Nova Scotia, 23; New Brunswick, 108; Quebec, 595; Ontario, 1,162; Manitoba, 204; Saskatchewan,
I,	158; Alberta, 1,007; British Columbia, 8. Total 4,287.
2.	55.
exchange fund credit Mr. CAHAN:
1.	What amounts stood to the credit of the exchange fund on December 31 in each of the years 1935, 1936, and 1937?
2.	On each of the said dates, what portion of the said exchange fund was invested in securities of the Dominion of Canada?
3.	On each of the said dates, what portion of the said exchange fund was invested in securities guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada?


Mr. DUNNING:: I am advised by the Department of Justice that in accordance with fM>
Howe.l
the provisions of the present statute this is a question I am not at liberty to -answer.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.


Charles Avery Dunning: Answered.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MALLETTE:: What are the names, positions, present salaries, and dates of appointment of all dominion government employees at St. Hubert airport, Montreal?


MONTREAL HARBOUR BOARD-EMPLOYEES
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	How many persons secured employment with the harbour board of Montreal during the years 1928, 1929, 1930?
2.	How many secured employment with the Montreal harbour during the years 1935, 1936, 1937?


EXPORT OF WAR MATERIAL TO SPAIN
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Did the Prime Minister or any member of the cabinet from the date of the commencement of the civil war in Spain, about July 18, 1936, to July 30, 1937, receive any letters, telegrams, communications or requests asking for the imposition of an embargo on the export of war material to Spain?
2.	If so, from whom were such letters, telegrams, communications or requests, received?


LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Mr. BARBER:: 1.	Has the $14,000 passed as item 207 (page
50,	estimates 1937-38), been expended?
2.	If so, to whom was payment made from the vote, and what amount to each?


THE CORONATION-EXPENSES OF CANADA'S REPRESENTATION AND CONTINGENT
Mr. BARBER:: 1.	Has the $35,000 passed as item 218 (page
51,	estimates 1937-38), been expended?
2.	If so, to whom was payment made from the vote, and what amount to each?


Mr. BARBER:: 1.	Has the $197,000 passed as item 249 (page
52,	estimates 1937-38), been expended?
2.	If so, to whom was payment made from the vote, and what amount to each?


CAN ADA-STR AITS SETTLEMENT TRADE
Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	What was the total amount of imports to Canada from Straits Settlements during each of the years 1936 and 1937?
2.	What was the total amount of exports from Canada to Straits Settlements during each of the above years?

Radio Broadcasting
3.	What was the value of Singapore pineapple imported into Canada from Straits Settlements during each of the years 1936 and 1937?
4.	What rate of duty, dumping duty or otherwise, or tax, was imposed on importations of Singapore pineapple from Straits Settlements during each of the above years?
5.	Was it established that such pineapple imported into Canada during the year 1937 was sold at less than the market value?
6.	Was any inquiry made in this regard?
7.	Under the provisions of the Marketing Act is it compulsory for the firm or corporate name and address of the packer to appear on the labels of all canned goods imported and marketed in Canada?
8.	If so, was this regulation enforced in connection with the importations of Singapore pineapple ?
9.	Do the labels on all canned pineapple imported into Canada specify the net contents of the tin?
10.	Is Singapore pineapple packed principally by Chinese employees ?
11.	Has the Canadian government ever made any inspection of the conditions under which such pineapple is packed?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. BOULANGER (for Mr. Deslauriers):: For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, reports and other documents exchanged between the government or any officer thereof, and any other persons with respect to a lottery which was organized in favour of the Sherbrooke hospitals, in 1933, 1934, and 1935.


NATIONAL DEBT
Mr. FAIR:: For a return showing-
1.	Total amount of the national debt each year since 1912;
2.	Total amount of interest accrued and paid on the national debt each year since 1912;
3.	Percentage of revenue collected each of the above years required to pay interest on national debt;
4.	Cost of flotation of loans each of the above years.


ALBERT ROCHON
Sir EUGENE FISET (for Mr. Deslauriers):: For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams andj^other documents, dated during the year 1937, exchanged between the dominion government or any officer thereof and any other persons with respect to Mr. Albert Roehon, former customs employee in Montreal.


EXPORT OF WAR MATERIAL TO SPAIN
Mr. MacINNIS:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, resolutions, communications and requests received by the government of Canada or any members thereof, from July 18, 1936, to July 30, 1937, concerning an embargo on the export of war material to Spain.


SUSSEX, N.B., CUSTOMS OFFICE
Mr. BROOKS:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents relating to the customs office at Sussex, New Brunswick, either to or from any department or departments of the government or ministers or heads thereof since January 1, 1937, to date.


LEFROY, ONT., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. TOMLINSON:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports and other documents exchanged since July 28, 1930, to date, between the Post Office Department or any officer thereof and any other person or persons with respect to the appointment of Byron B. Grose, as postmaster at Lefroy, Ontario.


GLAMIS, ONT., POSTMASTERSHIP
William Rae Tomlinson: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports and other documents, dated from July 28, 1930, to date, exchanged between the Post Office Department or any officer thereof and any other person or persons with respect to the dismissal of Mr. Greir, postmaster at Glamis, Ontario, and the appointment of his successor Mr. McKeeman.


RADIO BROADCASTING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. FLEMING (Humboldt):: Would the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) explain why President Eamon de Valera's message to the North American continent was not carried over the hook-up of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on March 17 last?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of the question. I took the matter up with the general manager of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and was advised by him that the speech of Mr. de Valera was an exclusive feature of the Columbia Broadcasting Corporation and was not available to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The hon. member will recall that on Wednesday, December 29, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation broadcast over their network President de Valera's inaugural address [DOT] on the institution of the new constitution of Ireland.
Interim Supply Bilk



INTERIM SUPPLY BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: It is not the intention of the government to take up supply to-day, but the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has an interim supply bill, to make provision for two months of the present fiscal year, and also a bill relating to extra supplementary estimates for the last fiscal year. I would ask that the house give its consent to going into supply, for the purpose of getting these bills through, before proceeding with the next order of business.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.


Charles Avery Dunning: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $36,717,668.24, being the amount of each of the several items as set forth in the further supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1938, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1938.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Avery Dunning: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $39,057,624.49, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1939, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1939.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is understood that the passing of this interim supply in no sense impairs the privilege of discussion of any of the items covered by it.


Mr. BENNETT:: That is the only observation I wish to make about it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
[Mr. Howe.l
Charles Avery Dunning: Resolved,	that	towards	making	good	the
supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1938, the sum of $36,717,668.24 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Avery Dunning: Resolved,	that	towards	making	good	the
supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1939, the sum of $39,057,624.49 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 88, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1938.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-$36,717,668.24 granted for 1937-38.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a provision in this bill of an extraordinary character. The estimates purport to grant to one of the provinces a sum of money for ordinary operating expenses. I cannot recall that in the history of confederation any province has found it necessary to secure money for that purpose.


Charles Avery Dunning: There was a similar vote last session.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not for operating expenses.


Charles Avery Dunning: The same vote exactly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then I am misinformed. The Minister of Finance says that we did make a provision of this kind last year.


Charles Avery Dunning: A million and a half.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have a very strong opinion that in the bill, this grant should be subject to conditions; that it should be made perfectly clear that the utilization of this money for political purposes will be a criminal offence, that any person who makes canvasses for election purposes and endeavours to secure support by utilizing this as a weapon of offence should be subject to punishment under the criminal code. Matters have reached a stage where I think action is called for now and not some time hence. Men have been

Ways and Means-Interim Supply
going into public meetings and marking names down in a book. They have been saying to people, " From whom are you getting your sustenance "7 and " Who is providing your relief "? No threats are made, but the impression is left on the minds of these poor unfortunates that they must necessarily support Liberal candidates in the provincial election. I think that that sort of thing is just as bad as anything can be in this country, and it should be ended if at all possible.
When we grant a sum of money to enable a government to carry on, one of the conditions should be that any endeavour to utilize that grant for political purposes shall constitute a criminal offence and be punishable accordingly. I think the government should make it perfectly clear, beyond peradventure or doubt, that the time has come when this sort of thing should disappear. It is one of the matters that is causing great difficulty at the moment in this confederation. Anyone who has observed conditions in Canada to-day must be more or less concerned about the feeling in the two larger and richer provinces, as manifested by the utterances of public men, in connection with these provinces supplying money for this purpose. It is incumbent upon us to create a situation that will not enable that sort of propaganda to be continued. Nothing could be more fatal to this confederation than for large sums of public money to be taken from the richer provinces to meet the extreme conditions that prevail in several of our provinces without its being made apparent that that money must be used in the strictest sense of accountability.
There is another point. I think a condition should be inserted that with respect to this 82,000,000, it shall be utilized for the purpose of paying the salaries of teachers that are in arrears in the province. I can conceive of nothing worse than the condition indicated in various letters that I have received. I fancy every hon. member has received similar letters; I am thinking of a circular communication which indicates the dire necessity due to the arrears of salaries accruing to teachers in Saskatchewan and Alberta. Only the other day I had a communication from Alberta pointing out that the condition in Saskatchewan to which attention had been directed was not limited to that province, that in Alberta the teachers were in much the same situation, and that if action was taken in the one case it should be taken in the other. Apparently no request has been made by Alberta for a grant for operating purposes, but there is one from Saskatchewan. I suggest that it would be proper to provide that the moneys
thus granted should be available for liquidating the arrears of salaries due to the teachers in the province.
The Minister of Justice is not in his place, but he must have had his attention directed to the fact that in Saskatchewan a direct tax has been imposed on trains and elsewhere for educational purposes. This is a percentage tax on the amount of the account. If my information is accurate, and it seems to be borne out by the records, the legislature of Saskatchewan has endeavoured to make this tax reach into other provinces. It is being applied to transactions that indicate the importation of goods into Saskatchewan from the neighbouring provinces of Manitoba and Alberta or elsewhere. According to the British North America Act there must be a free movement of commodities between provinces, and to impose a tax on such movement is entirely wrong. This tax has been imposed since we last granted 81,500,000 of money. Until the minister said the language was the same, I was not aware that it was, but this $2,000,000 should be considered in the light of the additional sum in excess of what was granted last year, and in the light of the tax properly imposed with respect to matters within the province and improperly imposed with respect to transactions originating outside the province.
In any event some assurance should be given, since we are providing the money, that it will be utilized for the purpose of providing for the arrears of salaries due to teachers in the province of Saskatchewan. I am not going to dwell on the hardships they have experienced or on the difficulties they have had to encounter, because every member of the house I think has received a communication in which the distressing facts have been very succinctly put forward. I think it would do much to satisfy the older provinces, which have sometimes made complaint, if it could be stated that a part of this money will be used, as urged by the organized teachers in various parts of the dominion, for the payment of the salaries of school teachers in Saskatchewan.


Mr. GARDINER:: Mr. Chairman, I need scarcely say that as the minister from Saskatchewan I am surprised at the issue which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has just made of the fact that the province of Saskatchewan is under the necessity of asking for assistance from the federal government. The leader of the opposition has taken the rather high ground which he has been accustomed to take on a number of occasions during this session, of attributing to everyone else political incentives in connection with everything that any government in Canada

Ways and Means-Interim Supply
which does not happen to be of the party to which he belongs undertakes to do. I can scarcely conceive of any more objectionable political issue being raised on anything that might take place in this house than that contained in the speech which has just been delivered to this committee.
The leader of the opposition has taken the opportunity which this vote of $2,000,000 presents, a vote arising out of the necessities of the people of Saskatchewan, to make a purely political speech, to put it on Hansard for the use of people in any election campaign which may take place in western Canada within the next twelve or eighteen months. The right hon. gentleman could not have made more obvious what his intentions were than he did in the early part of his remarks. He has run through practically the whole gamut of the activities of the provincial government, from those having to do with schools to those having to do with entirely different matters, in order to make it appear that some use might be made of these funds which would not be to the benefit of all the people of Canada.
In the first place no such use as he indicates can be made of these moneys because of the fact that this was an undertaking given to the province of Saskatchewan some months ago, and given on the understanding that this vote would be presented to the house during the present session. The expenditures for which this money is to make provision are expenditures which have been undertaken and carried out since the time that undertaking was given by this government and cannot in any sense be made a part of any appeal that may be made in Saskatchewan or elsewhere in connection with any election campaign that may be held in the future.
There has been a propaganda carried on recently throughout the whole dominion of Canada, coming from a source which those of us who live in Saskatchewan know something about, having to do with the school situation in that province. The leader of the opposition has just made use of that propaganda in placing his views before the house. The province of Saskatchewan, ever since its inception in 1905, has been quite capable of looking after its own school affairs, and when the leader of the opposition undertakes to bring the school affairs of Saskatchewan on to the floor of the federal house for discussion, he is assuming a responsibility that was never intended to be assumed either by the opposition or by the government of the Dominion of Canada. School matters are dealt with by provincial governments, and I might point

out that whereas the previous government in Saskatchewan, because of the financial difficulties through which they were passing, found it necessary to reduce the school grant from $1.50 to $1 per day per room, the present government has increased the grant from $1 back to $1.50 per day, or an increase of fifty per cent, and is paying this increased grant.
In addition to that, the present government of the province has been making loans to the school districts of $30 a month to assist in the payment of school teachers' salaries; and the province itself, after the report which was received from the Bank of Canada, has levied upon the people of the province a sales tax of two per cent, which is a tax not only on meals on trains but on practically all sales made in Saskatchewan, an exception being made of some of the food products and other important necessities that are sold in the province from time to time. I have not heard that the government has made any attempt to put the tax on transactions outside the province. As a matter of fact, I think it has been very careful not to render its act ultra vires by attempting to do any such thing.
The government of the province has assumed the responsibility of taking care of the schools; and if any moneys advanced to Saskatchewan by this house were to be earmarked for school purposes it would result, I think, in this house assuming responsibility in connection with the administration of matters having to do with education which I am quite sure the federal parliament does not intend to assume. One could scarcely conceive of any suggestion being made to this house at any time that would stir up greater difficulties between the federal government and the governments of the provinces than that which was just made by the leader of the opposition to the effect that in making a grant of money to Saskatchewan for ordinary government purposes we should stipulate that a certain part of that money should be used for school purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what I said, Mr. Chairman. I said to pay teachers' salaries.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, paying teachers'
salaries is a very important part of school purposes in any province. When the right hon. gentleman quibbled over "school purposes" to say he had in mind paying teachers' salaries, he was not only playing to the gallery, and to the political gallery at that, so far as Saskatchewan is concerned, but he was assuming something that the people of Saskatchewan will not assume.

Ways and Means-Interim Supply
Then some play was made of the fact that this vote was for ordinary government expenditures, and the question was raised whether this had ever been done before. The right hon. gentleman needs only to go back to the last period of government in this dominion and to look over his own records to find that in Saskatchewan his government provided very considerable sums in one of the years during that period, for the very same purpose,-


Richard Bedford Bennett: For special purposes.
Mr. GARDINERand no such conditions were placed upon that provision of funds as he is suggesting should be placed upon the grant of this particular amount. I suggest it has been fairly well proven to this house and to the Canadian people that Saskatchewan has been going through a very difficult period; that they do need some assistance from other parts of Canada; and I want to state on behalf of the people of Saskatchewan that we appreciate the manner in which other parts of the dominion have come to the assistance of that province. I know that Liberals and Conservatives, including the governments of the two old provinces of Canada and the people of Canada in general, have been satisfied that in respect of any funds which have been provided for the province the provincial government has shown the desire not only to play fair with all the people of Canada, but so to administer the funds provided as to give service to all the people of that province irrespective of what their political leanings may be. I would think that the committee should pass-


Mr. LENNARD:: What about fruit and vegetables?


James Garfield Gardiner: WThat is the question?


Frank Exton Lennard: What about the distribution of vegetables during the past few months?


An hon. MEMBER:: What about it?


James Garfield Gardiner: What has my hon.
friend got to say about the distribution of vegetables during the past few months? I venture to say that if he were to go out into the province of Saskatchewan and ask every single individual-and I could give him a list of the names of practically all of the recipients, if he desires to have it-whether that distribution of vegetables had been properly made, he would find that at least 999 out of every 1,000 would say it had been properly made. I suggest further to him that when
certain interests in Toronto wrote letters to the wholesalers of Saskatchewan and asked them to send in letters that might be published indicating that there were criticisms with regard to the distribution of food in Saskatchewan and Alberta last fall, they did not publish any criticisms that they got, and certainly they did not publish the replies of the wholesalers to whom they had written. Criticisms were invited, but criticisms could not be found. If anyone were to go through Saskatchewan and Alberta to-day and follow that distribution of vegetables, cheese, beans, fish and apples, they would find, over the whole trail followed by those commodities, satisfaction on the part of the people who obtained them.
I think the time has come when these votes should be considered on theiir merits. The leader of the opposition has stood up all too often this session and waved before this house the flag of political corruption. I have been tempted on one or two occasions to remind him that if we were to bring into this chamber all the street corner stories that are circulated at election time and all the newspaper rumours that float around on such occasions we should probably not have to go further back than to about two weeks before the election of 1930 in order to remind him of some of the stories that appeared in the press of that time, calling attention to meetings cancelled and trips made to Montreal, calling attention to what was going to happen immediately after the election was over if his party were elected to office. I would only need to follow that up a few weeks later to find that everything which was then rumoured in the press was actually done on the floor of this chamber; and I might suggest to him that probably he is on rather dangerous ground when, on every occasion that a vote is brought before this house, he raises the political bogey and suggests that someone is going to make some political use of the moneys that happen to be voted.
Let me repeat that this two million dollars is money which is necessary to pay for things that have been done in Saskatchewan; it is necessary because of undertakings given some considerable time ago. It can in no sense be considered a vote of money to be used either this summer or a- year from now, whenever any election may be held in Saskatchewan, for the purpose of influencing votes there, and I would ask the leader of the opposition to accept this statement and so consider it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I assure this committee that I have no knowledge of any propaganda connected with a circular sent out by teachers



Ways and Means-Interim Supply
with respect to payment of salaries. The first knowledge I had that there was anything of a sinister character attached to it came from the speech just made by the Minister of Agriculture. I received a letter pointing out that teachers were unpaid and that the Saskatchewan situation merited careful thought and consideration. Another letter came from teachers' organizations in other provinces asking that consideration be given to that thought. I wrote and stated that at the appropriate time I would mention this matter in the House of Commons. That is all I know of anything connected directly or indirectly with propaganda so far as schools in Saskatchewan are concerned. So far as I know the people behind the movement are earnestly concerned about the non-payment of teachers in that province; and when I saw this provision in the estimates, namely to enable that province to continue essential services pending improvements in crop, I regarded the payment of teachers as an essential service and I therefore brought it to the attention of this committee. I withdraw no word I have said with respect to it. I think it is a matter that merits not only careful consideration but the giving of some assurance that the money will be utilized in part for that purpose.
On Friday last the teachers' organization of Alberta sent me a communication pointing out that this provision had been confined to Saskatchewan; that they too required consideration, and that any effort which might be made by parliament to provide salaries for teachers should not be limited to Saskatchewan. Now the picture as presented by the Minister of Agriculture is entirely different. He says that this money is spent already, that we are voting two million dollars to cover an expenditure that has already been made by Saskatchewan, and that it was made in consequence of a promise which was given some time ago. Just how they got the money is a question which will have to be considered at a later stage, with respect to another matter. So far as that phase is concerned I can only say it is quite obvious that the money cannot be used to pay teachers if it has already been spent.	.


James Garfield Gardiner: The obligation for its expenditure is already assumed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the obligation has been assumed for the amount, it is quite obvious that a free disposition of it is no longer possible. A condition has arisen which makes it no longer possible to apply it for that purpose. I am much obliged for that information. It is true that it is for the year ending

March 31, 1938, but the provision was to continue essential services, and I assumed from the language that it meant to continue them beyond the date when we gave our sanction to the appropriation. However that does not appear to be so.
So far as the other phase of it is concerned, namely the question of the provision made by the province for the payment of its own essential services, I have only this to say, that the imposition of the sales tax and its application were, I thought, a very proper thing to do; but when I learned that it was endeavoured to apply it on the importation of commodities from the neighbouring province of Manitoba I thought there must be some mistake. I am told definitely, however, with respect to certain commodities that come from Manitoba that the two per cent sales tax has been applied, at the risk of the act being ultra vires, as the minister says.
I am not going to follow the distribution of vegetables to-day; I had no intention of doing so, because there will be a time and place in which we will follow that distribution. But I do desire to make it perfectly clear that there have been complaints-I have large numbers of them-as to the method of distribution and the method of acquisition of the supplies that were distributed by the federal government. This is a matter that the minister has now brought into the issue and I will not discuss it.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was introduced in reply to a question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is true; the minister was answering a question asked him. However, I do not intend to deal with that matter now. There is an occasion in the estimates to deal with it, because we as a dominion have expended public moneys to purchase supplies of apples, cheese, beans and other commodities and, as the minister indicated some time ago, the particulars will be forthcoming, as to the names of the people to whom these commodities were distributed, the manner of distribution, and so on. For the moment, however, I was dealing with the one question of essential services and of the necessity of these essential services, if they are carried on with this money, being made subject to a condition, which would have no value now inasmuch as the obligations have been incurred and the expenditures made in part. But the minister made some observations which either meant something or meant nothing. If he desires to discuss the reason why I went to Montreal I am prepared to give it to him now. I went there because of

Ways and Means-Interim Supply
his beloved Beauhamois, to make it quite clear that none of that fund went to the Conservative party in that election. That is easily verified, and if he suggests that there were any other discussions I can tell him, with a little effort in looking up some papers, where I was during the time I was there! I could give him. considerable information if he desired to have it in connection with other matters that would be vastly interesting to this house and possibly to himself.
The purpose for which I rose has been entirely vindicated by the minister's intimation that so far as this item is concerned it has either been already spent or commitments have been made under it. But this is supply for the year ended March 31, and presumably there will be further appropriations for the year ending March 31, 1939, and then I will follow the observations which I have made by offering an amendment to meet a situation which I think should be met. I will not do so now. I wanted to have an explanation, which the minister has given, as to whether or not this money was for the year ended March 31, or whether it was to be used to continue essential services beyond that time. The minister has given an assurance, which ends that phase of the matter, that the money was for the year ended March 31, 1938, and that commitments have been made or expenditures already completed that make it no longer possible to impose any conditions. That serves entirely the purpose I had in mind.
May I assure the minister and the committee that if I seem to be anxious about some of these matters I am not thinking in terms of any political effect in other places. That was not my intention at all. But no thoughtful man who looks out upon the country to-day and realizes the disharmony and disunion that exist between the provinces can help being concerned. I am sure that the Prime Minister is. I am sure that every man in this house is concerned about confederation, and every effort that we can make, however trifling it may be, that will do something to render it less possible for the critic to make the observations that have been made will be all to the good. And these observations have been made not on the street corners, but in reputable magazines and papers; they are not gossip in the current press but calmly and carefully considered statements, well balanced statements with respect to these matters. In this light I did venture, as I believed it to be my duty, to direct attention to the possibility of removing one at least of the many causes of friction between component parts of this confederation. There never was a time when
51952-125i
there was more need of our endeavouring to do so. If in consequence of the observations I have made the minister is annoyed, that is my misfortune and not my fault. But it is to be hoped at least that the concern for the unit, the confederation, the nation, will outweigh the considerations that each of us may have for the moment for the component provinces comprising confederation.
Mr. lOUNG: Those of us who come from Saskatchewan and are familiar with the very severe plight in which the teachers find themselves can all say how greatly we sympathize with that section of the population. I take it from what the leader of the opposition has just said that he approves of giving a grant-to help to pay the salaries of teachers, which he describes as an essential service.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; I do not want the hon. gentleman to misunderstand me. If the provinces are given a grant of money it is a very appropriate thing for us, who find the money, to say that a portion of it, without indicating what portion, should be utilized in liquidating unpaid teachers' salaries.


Mr. YOUNG:: Well, that is exactly what I was saying.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It didn't sound like it.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: There are other essential
services in Saskatchewan, services that I know something about, such as taking care of the sick, for instance, and looking after women and children. Our doctors have had a very hard struggle. I do not know of any group of men who have been more unselfish and untiring in their efforts than the medical profession in my province. I know medical men there who have been going almost without their meals, running their cars to go and see people. I know of medical men who have mortgaged all they had to serve the people of the province. But I know something else, too. I know that during the years 1930-35 the medical profession not only in Saskatchewan but throughout western Canada were so concerned at the inadequacy of medical services being given in that part of Canada that there was a strong agitation among the doctors of those provinces to get together and find out what could be done. They did this. They visited the premiers of the four western provinces and put the situation up to them, and they received from those four western premiers, on behalf of their respective governments, letters suggesting that the federal government should come to the assistance of the provinces in order to help to carry on essential medical services. They came to

Ways and Means-Interim Supply
Ottawa when the leader of the opposition was Prime Minister, and what was the result? They almost received the cold shoulder. At any rate, they Aid not receive one dollar to help along those essential medical services. And now that the right hon. gentleman is in opposition he says that we should come to the assistance of the teachers and pay their salaries.
If it is a good principle now to come to the assistance of the teachers-and I am not saying that it is not-surely the right hon. gentleman is not the one to press it after turning down very definitely and positively the request made by the medical profession of western Canada to carry on essential services at the time to which I have referred..


Mr. McIVOR:: I venture at this time to say a word on behalf of those men in Saskatchewan, the clergymen, who assisted in the distribution of vegetables and all the other good things that came from the east.
I would not stand by and allow anyone to say -there was a crooked thing done by any of these men or those associated with them in the distribution of the goods that were sent out. These men carried out that distribution efficiently, and often there was nothing left for them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wish to correct just one observation made by the hon. member for Saskatoon. It is not correct to say that any effort was made by the west. The representative of the doctors, Doctor Routley, attended here and asked that certain provision be made in relief measures for medical services. We said that was a matter that should be dealt with by the provinces, with respect to the moneys they received by grants in aid to enable them to carry on relief; that it was not our function so to do. We said the provinces could do as they pleased with respect to these matters, and that was the cold shoulder they received. Let there be no misunderstanding with respect to that.
With respect to teachers the same thing applied, only now this money is for the maintenance of essential services, in the terms of this grant or appropriation, and we have a perfect right to impose a condition that the money be utilized to liquidate any balance that may have accumulated. But the money having been spent there is not much use in locking the door after the horse has walked out or -been taken out. Perhaps it has been taken for a ride; that may be the net result. That was the position with respect to medical services, about which I know a very great deal; and the hon. gentleman himself was not present.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: The right hon. gentleman knows very well that nothing was included in the grants in aid for medical services, and I am not saying -that it occurred only when he was Prime Minister. I just said that inasmuch as he was so solicitous for the payment of teachers I thought the record should be kept straight.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Even at the risk of correcting the record and putting it right I must say that I have never found the hon. member for Saskatoon to make a complete statement during the time I have been in the house. Part of the statement is always made and the rest is left in abeyance. One is imagination; the other is fact. On the question. of supplanting imagination with fact the truth is that those were grants with respect to relief. This is a grant made to enable the province to carry on its business, and its business is to look after the teachers. The minister says the rate has now been increased from SI to $1.50 a day, in regard to the assistance given the schools.


James Garfield Gardiner: Per room.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, $1.50 per day per room. Presumably that is for the purpose of maintaining the efficiency of the schools. I was talking only about the question of the teachers' salaries. With respect to grants in aid for relief, the province may make the distribution it thinks best, but this is not a grant for relief; this is a grant for essential services. It is not of the nature of the grants that were made by the late administration, unless the hon. gentleman refers to grants with respect to roads. That is the only point I -have in mind.


James Garfield Gardiner: There were threequarters of a million dollars of teachers' salaries unpaid even at that time.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not anticipate this sort of discussion arising at this stage of the bill; I thought it had been fairly thoroughly discussed the other evening, when this item was before the committee of supply. I quite understand that the right hon. leader of the opposition was not present on that occasion, and has a perfect right to take advantage of this opportunity. I should point out, however, as I pointed out the other evening, that the wording of this vote is very similar to the wording of the vote by which this house at its last session, following the investigation by the Bank of Canada into the affairs of Saskatchewan, appropriated $1,500,000. As I pointed out the other night, the examination by the Bank of Canada was based upon the

Ways and Means-Interim Supply
conditions existing at that time, that is, a year ago. Along in the summer it became quite apparent that any estimate which had been made by the bank as to the prospective revenues receivable by the province of Saskatchewan during 1937 could not possibly be realized, because everyone could see that the worst drought in the history of the province was upon those people. Therefore the problem of carrying on the essential services of the province became much more acute.
Parliament provided a million and a half. This additional amount represents a careful further examination of what was imposed upon the people and the government of that province by the additional drought conditions of 1937. The Minister of Agriculture is quite correct in saying that, when the government of the province made representations to us last September as to the conditions, it was quite apparent that no authority existed for enlarging the amount which had been granted by parliament. The government had no such authority. The only thing the government could do, after examining all the facts and the provincial income-meaning by that the income of all the people, the figures of which I gave the other night, as between 1936 and 1937 in Saskatchewan, which represent the greatest reduction, I think, of the income of the whole people of a province that has ever occurred in the history of Canada-was to say, "We are willing to place before parliament at its next session a proposal to increase the amount of a million and a half which has already been provided, by a further sum of $2,000,000." Certain conditions were imposed, which I need not go into in detail now, conditions having to do with cutting of certain expenditures in which the dominion believed economies could be effected. In addition a very thorough examination was made of the purposes for which this money was required, which are the ordinary services of the province.
On the basis of the assurance given by myself on behalf of the government that such an item would be placed before parliament, undoubtedly the province in the interim has been able to carry on those essential services, and only because of that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No doubt the Minister
of Finance received a telegram from the general secretary of the Alberta Teachers' Association on March 8, a copy of which was sent to me, dealing with the request of Alberta to be assisted in the same way with respect to this educational matter.


Charles Avery Dunning: There was no request
from the government of the province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; I said from the
general secretary of the Alberta Teachers' Association. At that time the minister's correspondent referred to the unanimous plea of the Canadian Teachers' Federation to the dominion government for assistance to be given in connection with the drought area of Saskatchewan; and the general secretary of the Alberta Teachers' Association points out that these conditions apply equally in that province in the case of some six thousand teachers.


Charles Avery Dunning: In that connection I can only point out that the development of arrears of teachers' salaries in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta has been a progressive matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It began before you
came into office.


Charles Avery Dunning: It began some considerable time before we came into office; in fact in 1934, I think, the arrears in Saskatchewan were in the neighbourhood of three-quarters of a million dollars. It has been a growing condition. No government of Canada has yet taken the ground that in assisting the provinces, either by way of relief or by way of assistance in financing their essential services, the government of Canada or the parliament of Canada should earmark the precise purpose for which the sum so granted should be expended.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that has been done frequently.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps my right hon. friend would tell me when during his regime he made such a conditional grant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was done with respect to particular roads and particular undertakings under the relief legislation.


Charles Avery Dunning: But that does not include services of this character, covering the whole province; it was by virtue of a fifty-fifty agreement to spend money on a particular material objective, which is a vastly different thing. In that connection we have proceeded exactly along the same line. I do think we would be creating very serious trouble in the future if in dealing with a province we attempted to dictate what they should do, because you must remember that it involves what they should do not only with our money but with their own. You cannot separate them. You cannot say, with respect to an expenditure of $2,000,000 by this government for general provincial purposes, that it must all go for this purpose and none for that, because we know perfectly

Ways and Means-Interim Supply
well that to do so in practice would be to involve the withdrawal of certain provincial expenditures for that purpose and the application of the money to something else. If we start that it involves actual control by the dominion of the manner in which the province expends its own funds. I am afraid it could not be escaped. I appreciate entirely the desire of everyone to see that teachers are assisted, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has indicated. They have been, in fact. I presume it is true that there are still arrears. But no one from the west will say that the condition of teachers has not been materially improved in Saskatchewan during the last year or two, partly as a result of assistance rendered by this parliament in the way of assistance of this kind.
I do suggest, not that the problem has been solved-heaven knows it is one of the most difficult problems with which we have to deal, with all its varied aspects which touch us so closely-but that everyone who has had the handling of it in recent years, and in this I give credit to my right hon. friend opposite as well as to ourselves, has endeavoured to approach the problem in a spirit of doing the very best it was possible to do for those afflicted, always having regard to the desirability of maintaining, as he puts it, "national unity", and at the same time dealing as effectively as we might with a problem which has been recognized by all as a national emergency.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: I understood the Minister of Finance to say on Friday night that he would give an opportunity for a full-dress discussion of the subject of the distribution of relief in Saskatchewan. He intimated that in order to let this measure through the discussion could be had on some other item.


Charles Avery Dunning: Quite. I did not give that assurance in connection with this measure, because as the hon. member knows it has nothing to do with distribution of relief. But I can assure him there will be no lack of opportunity to discuss anything connected with relief in Saskatchewan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have reference not only to the general subject of relief, but to the manner in which relief has been distributed in that province. On the ground of the assurance the minister has given-


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Reference has been made to the distribution of vegetables, and to a number of other matters connected with the distribution of relief in Saskatchewan. Statements have been made by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance with which I, personally, do not agree. But I believe it would be better, and I understand the minister will agree, to leave the discussion of those matters to a later date; therefore I shall not continue the discussion at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Mr. DUNNING moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 89, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1939.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee and reported.
Mr. DUNNING moved the third reading of the bill.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the bill is read the third time I wish to make it abundantly clear that in agreeing, as we have, to this interim supply being passed, we have in no sense surrendered our right of criticism with respect to the various items which appear in the supply bill for this year.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is understood.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe the Minister of Finance has already anticipated that, by making some such observations.


Charles Avery Dunning: Correct.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



SEED GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 78, to assist the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan in financing the cost of seed and seeding operations for the crop year 1938.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What are the amendments?

Relief and Agricultural Distress


Charles Avery Dunning: They are clarifying amendments which do not affect the bill in the slightest degree.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday March 31, consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution-Mr. Rogers-Mr. Sanderson in the chair:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance towards the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress, and for such payments out of moneys appropriated by parliament as may be necessary for all or any of the purposes of the proposed legislation.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of the session I promised I would take an early opportunity to present a detailed survey of the existing relief situation, and review the results obtained under the several measures adopted by the government for the relief of unemployment and agricultural distress. Since that undertaking was given there have been three debates on unemployment, but apart from the debate on the address in reply these discussions occurred on resolutions, and were therefore somewhat restricted in scope. This is the first opportunity I have had to speak generally and at some length on the problem which has become the primary responsibility of the Department of Labour in so far as its federal aspects are concerned. Hon. members will recall that I had intended to make this statement on the second reading of the bill which would be introduced following the approval of the resolution now before us. However, it was the wish of the committee that the resolution should remain in committee and this statement be made during the discussion thereon. That is the present position.
It so happens that it is just over two years since I addressed the house for the first time on the subject of unemployment. The occasion of that discussion was a motion for the second reading of the bill to establish the national employment commission. In July of last year the interim report of the national employment commission was submitted and its publication authorized by the government. During the past week the final report of that commission was tabled and distributed to members. I realize it is the wish of the committee that I should deal with the subject matter of these reports, and particularly the
main recommendations contained in the final report. I propose to do that before I have finished.
As I mentioned a moment ago, two years have passed since I spoke first to hon. members on the question of unemployment. At that time we were all keenly aware of the gravity of the situation that confronted the country, and I sought to deal with the question without any appeal to party prejudice or any resort to recrimination. Let me say at once that I intend to follow the same policy this afternoon. This does not mean that as a government we seek any immunity from criticism where criticism is due. We must be equally ready to give reasons for what we have done and for what we have refrained from doing. We are prepared to do just that. It does mean that after two and a half years in the Department of Labour I have not changed my conviction that the question of economic insecurity, or perhaps I should say the solution of the problem of economic insecurity, transcends all sectional differences, and it certainly transcends the political fortunes of individuals.
Without question it is the most vital problem which confronts all governments at this time, regardless of the measures that may be adopted to deal with it. I should like to suggest to the committee that in its wider aspects it involves our whole theory of government and it raises issues, as I have had occasion to mention before, which lie at the very root of our system of federal public finance. I shall do no more than mention these considerations at this tame, but I shall return to them later in order to emphasize the interrelation of measures which may be adopted to deal with unemployment and other aspects of national policy and constitutional reform.
Before dealing with the work of the national employment commission, I think it will contribute to the information of the committee and place this work in a proper perspective if I deal first with a number of important decisions which were made by this government in relation to unemployment and the relief situation before the national employment commission was established, When we came into office in October, 1935, perhaps the most urgent question that met us was the determination of the grants in aid from the dominion treasury .to the provinces for the relief of unemployment and agricultural distress. We met that problem, following a dominion-provincial conference and following very strong representations made by a conference of Canadian mayors held in Montreal
[Stage Direction]
Relief and Agricultural Distress
at about the same time, by an increase of seventyjfive per cent in the grants in aid payable to the provinces for the relief of unemployment conditions.
I want to speak of that at the present time because it is related to something that I shall have to say a little later. I think it will also be useful if I indicate to hon, members, particularly those who were not here during the last parliament, the train of events which led up to the system of grants in aid to the provinces, which, as I have said, was one of the first problems which confronted us as a government when we came into office. When direct relief was instituted in this country as a result of the abnormal conditions which had developed from 1930 onward, that system of relief was based upon the assumption that in constitutional practice the primary responsibility for dealing with unemployment and distress lay with the municipality, but when it became too great for the municipality it was time for the province to render assistance, and when it became too great for the province and assumed national dimensions, it was time for the dominion government to come to the assistance of the provinces.
That principle, if I might term it such, was expressed very clearly on a number of occasions by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) when he was Prime Minister, and also by the present Prime Minister when in opposition. I think I cannot do better at the moment than quote the words of the present leader of the opposition as of September 10, 1930, which was about the time when it was considered necessary to institute this system of direct relief through grants in aid from the dominion treasury.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not until the
next year that direct relief came into being.


Mr. ROGERS:: That is quite true. In the first year resort was had rather to a system of works by which this government assisted the provinces and the municipalities in the execution thereof. With that correction, I quote the words of my right hon. friend:
But this dominion will not be engaging in that form of relief or business which primarily it is the duty of the provinces or municipalities to undertake; but to assist them in the discharge of that duty this grant is being asked for.
I come now to the next year, when on July 23, 1931, the present Prime Minister is reported on pages 4101 and 4102 of Hansard as follows:
It is not wise from the point of view of principle for one government to raise taxes and pass them over to other governments to
IMr. Rogers.]
be expended. The government which raises the taxes ought to control their expenditure. I believe that was the principle laid down at the time of confederation. It was recognized that the provinces would need something in the way of subsidies to supplement their sources of income, but I contend that one of the bases of the confederation act was the idea that the federal and provincial governments would have certain definite fields of services assigned to them, that they should have complete control over those services, that they would raise the moneys necessary and see to their expenditure. If for any reason the division is not fair, then adjustments should be made by the paying of additional or altered subsidies.
Then I come finally to the close of the period during which the leader of the opposition was Prime Minister of this country, in 1935. The following quotation is from Hansard, 1935, page 166:
Mr. Bennett:	It has been common ground
between the right hon. gentleman and myself that the primary obligation with respect to relief under our constitution rests with the small community, whether it be a municipality, a village, a town, or a city.	The second
liability rests with the province that brought those organizations into being, and if the question is of a national character the dominion must assist.
It was in conformity with those views of the relative obligations of the several governmental agencies set up under the federal constitution in respect of relief and distress that a policy of direct relief was built up in this country from 1931 onward. In the beginning that policy was based upon a threeway division of the financial obligation; the dominion government contributed 33J per cent, the province contributed 33) per cent, and the municipality an equal percentage of the total cost of direct relief.
That system continued until August of 1934. In July of that year the present leader of the opposition summoned a dominion-provincial conference, which canvassed very thoroughly the situation which had developed under the system which I have described. I have read very carefully the report of that conference. The report was not published, and I shall not refer to it in any particular other than to say what was later recorded, that under a system where the dominion government committed itself to a percentage of indefinite expenditures, there was a tendency towards waste and a tendency towards laxity of administration, and it was in view of those considerations that the government of that day changed the method of percentage grants in relation to the problem as it existed in each province to a system of monthly grants in aid of fixed sums, these to be paid to the provinces for their assistance in meeting that problem.

Relief and Agricultural Distress


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was when the
representatives of the provinces were here.


Mr ROGERS:: Yes. That followed the
conference of July, 1934. Those grants in aid went into effect in August of that year, and they were the grants that were in effect when this administration came into office in October, 1935.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was some variation as to amounts.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My information is that
there was only a slight variation in the amounts paid under the grants in aid agreements. It is quite true, of course, that the administration of my right hon. friend did deal with special emergency situations in the western provinces on a different basis, but I am referring here only to the grants in aid of unemployment and agricultural distress apart from what was done in the drought area. The grants prevailing from August, 1934, up to October, 1935, are as follows- my right hon. friend is correct; there was some alteration in the case of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, but the grants to the other provinces I find are substantially the same:	Prince Edward Island, 81,250; Nova
Scotia, $40,000; New Brunswick, $25,000; Quebec, $500,000; Ontario, $600,000; Manitoba, $135,000; Saskatchewan, $200,000; Alberta, $100,000; British Columbia, $150,000. These were monthly grants in aid. The only changes were in Prince Edward Island, where there was a reduction from $2,125 to $1,250, and in Nova Scotia, from $40,875 to $40,000. That is to say, there were only minor adjustments. These were the grants that remained in force for the period of fifteen months before this government came into office.
When we came into office we summoned a conference of the provinces and asked the provinces to lay fully before us the situation which had existed in the preceding period and to indicate how far they believed that that system had operated injuriously to the structure of municipal and provincial finance. It was manifest at that time-and one must remember the cumulative effect of these things -that some immediate action was necessary on the part of the dominion government to relieve the position of the municipalities. The municipalities themselves complained that under the relief legislation of the preceding period they had in many cases been unable to raise by taxation their portion of what was required, and were now being confronted with the inevitable results of a process of increase of debt due to the funding of relief costs. At all events the situation as it was presented to this government appeared to be
a critical one, and we met it in the manner I have indicated. We increased the grants in aid to the provinces by seventy-five per cent for the winter months, and in the order in council under which that increase in the grants in aid to the provinces was authorized we emphasized that the increase was designed particularly to afford relief to the municipalities.
It is quite true, as has been said before in this chamber, that in certain cases the provincial governments appeared to be reluctant to pass on these increases to the municipalities, but that occurred in only a very few cases, and as a result of communications addressed to the provinces by the Department of Labour we have reason to believe that certainly during the first quarter of the year 1936 the increase in the grants in aid was substantially passed on for the relief of the municipalities.
From that time forward we have by degrees, in conformity with the improvement in general conditions, gradually reduced the grants in aid to the provinces. I am not going to indicate at this time just when those reductions were made and to what provinces they apply. I merely point out that the first act of the government in relation to the relief situation was based upon a clear appreciation of the cumulative effects of relief costs upon junior governments. We did it to meet an immediate emergency during those first winter months, and as the situation gradually improved we as a dominion government have correspondingly reduced our grants in aid to the provinces.
The next question that confronted us as a government was the disposition of the relief camps. I am not going to deal with that subject at great length, but as I said before I think it is important that we should understand fully just what policies have been followed, and why they have been followed, in order that the committee may review the entire situation at this time. The relief camps had been established to meet an emergent situation which had developed as a result of continued drought in the western provinces and of great decline of activity in other industries. As is well known to members of the committee, the industries of logging, lumbering and mining are to some extent seasonal in character, and tend to attract to themselves a large body of fluctuating labour. With drought conditions prevailing in the western provinces it was not possible to absorb that labour in agricultural occupations. As a matter of fact, during successive years there was a steady migration from rural areas to cities.
Relief and Agricultural Distress

The result was a concentration, of transients in our larger cities. It was in the main to meet that situation that the relief camps were established.
When we came into office the relief camps had been in operation for a period of about two and a half years. They were established in every province of Canada with the exception of Prince Edward Island; they totalled in all 144. They stretched across the dominion from Nova Scotia to British Columbia. I think it might be useful to indicate to the house how the strength of these camps increased in the period to which I have referred. As of January, 1933, the number in the relief camps was 1,936; in January, 1934, it was 19,526; in January, 1935, it was 21,631; and in January, 1936, it was 20,241. So the tendency had been for the numbers of these single homeless men, as they were described, to increase during that period, and there was in the nature of things a very considerable pressure upon both the preceding administration and this government when it came into office to increase the number of relief camps in order to provide a refuge for larger numbers of these men.
We had to make a decision as to what should be done with these relief camps. It was announced originally that the administration of these relief camps would be transferred from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Labour. Immediately following that statement, the Department of Labour established a committee of inquiry to visit the camps and to report to the minister with respect to the policy that should be followed in relation to them. The terms of reference to that committee indicate clearly that so far as the Minister of Labour was concerned there was a desire, which of course extended to the government as a whole, to find out whether in the existing circumstances the camps really met effectively the situation created by unemployment and transiency, or whether it would be desirable to close them and deal with the situation in another way.
The terms of reference were as follows:
1.	The desirability of continuing the relief camps on their present basis or in any other form.
2.	The allowance or wage policy which should be followed in the relief camps during their continuance, and the relation of any proposed change in allowance to other forms of unemployment relief, and more particularly to existing schemes for farm placement carried out in cooperation with the provinces.
3.	The adequacy of existing facilities for reestablishing men now in relief camps in industrial and agricultural employment.

4.	The adequacy of existing facilities for general education, occupational training and supervised recreation.
5.	Any other matter in relation to the administration of relief camps which you deem to be of importance in the formulation of the policy of the Department of Labour in relation to these camps.
The members of that committee consisted of Mr. Humphrey Mitchell, formerly a member of this house; Doctor E. W. Bradwin, president of the Frontier college, who has had a long experience in dealing with this type of single homeless men, and Mr. Rigg, the head of the dominion employment service.
The committee lost no time in making its investigation, and upon the basis of its report it was determined by this government that the relief camps would be closed. We stated that we hoped it would be possible to close the camps as of July 1, 1936. Meanwhile, again following the recommendations of the committee, we decided that the allowance of twenty cents a day, which had proved the cause of so much contention and ill-feeling in preceding years, should be altered, that the men in the camps should receive a wage allowance of fifteen dollars a month up to the time of their closing, and that that amount should be paid to them on a deferred pay basis in order that they might be assisted towards absorption in some other line of occupation. It was said at the time that the relief camps could not be closed. It was said that there would be riots. It was said that it would create a disturbance of the labour market, and that, regardless of the conditions which had developed in these camps it was better to continue them than to seek to close them at that time. Fortunately it was found possible, through the cooperation of three departments of this government, the departments of national defence, of transport and of labour, to work out a plan whereby the greater number of men in the relief camps would be transferred to useful and gainful employment on maintenance work on the great railway systems of this country. Special employment officers were also sent to the various camps in order to assist others in them toward other occupations. Many were enabled to return to agricultural occupations.
I should like simply to say at this time that the program as announced was carried out to the letter. There were no riots; there were no disturbances. Some ten thousand of these men went to maintenance work upon the railways, and so were placed in a position to earn money,-for the first time in a number of years, in the case of a vast majority of them. Many found other occupations, and the camps ceased to be an integral part of

Relief and Agricultural Distress
the administration of relief in this country as from dominion day, 1936. I should like to say too that in view of subsequent events, whatever may be said by hon. members as to the wisdom of that policy, it can be said that the policy itself was well timed, and also that those who were in the camps were enabled, by the adoption of other methods of dealing with this situation, to move into much more wholesome occupations. From that time forward, although there have been difficulties from time to time in certain of our larger cities, the problem of the single, homeless men has never attained the serious proportions it had prior to the closing of the relief camps.
The next question which faced us was the determination of the real dimensions of .this problem of relief; the desire on our part to think of that problem not merely in terms of numbers but rather in terms of human need and of the occupational possibilities of those who had been unemployed and on relief for a period of years. So in February, 1936, we arranged, following the recommendations of the do-minion-pTOvincial conference in December of the previous year, to have a special trial registration and classification of the unemployed on relief. That was of very great value in laying a foundation for the more complete and more accurate registration which was conducted subsequently by the national employment commission.
The next decision taken by the government related to the assistance given to the provinces in connection with projects known as relief work. For some years, as I mentioned, the dominion government had assisted the provinces in the construction of highways and to some extent of buildings and .municipal enterprises. The tendency was to concentrate expenditures upon highways and particularly upon sections of the trans-Canada highway which had not yet been built. The result of that policy was that there were in certain provinces, notably in Ontario, large concentrations of single men on these trans-Canada projects, and it was not found practicable to bring to them the heads of families on relief in the larger cities and towns of the province. We believed that it was reasonable in the first place that whatever expenditures were made for relief works should be distributed and located as far as possible in relation to existing employment needs, and we also felt that undoubtedly there would be full support both in this house and in the country for the stipulation in any agreement with the provinces that those working upon such projects should be taken largely from the relief rolls. The stipulation that at least fifty per cent of those working on joint projects should be taken
from the relief rolls was inserted in the relief works agreements with the provinces covering the year 1936-37, and it has continued from then to the present day. We have had the assurance therefore, regardless of the extent of these programs, that they have contributed at least to the reduction of the relief rolls; and we have also had the assurance that the reduction has not been confined to single municipalities or areas but has been distributed as far as possible in relation to employment needs.
Those were the decisions that were taken before the establishment of the national employment commission, and that brings me to the setting up of that body. The second reading of the bill to establish the national employment commission was moved on March 30, 1936, and the commission itself was set up as soon as possible after the bill received royal assent. We made it very clear, when the national employment commission was set up, that we believed that there was a real need for an agency of this kind which could give its attention to certain aspects of this great problem of unemployment relief and also bring about a more effective co-ordination of effort among all governmental agencies having obligations in relation to that problem.
The house will remember perhaps some of the discussion that took place on the provisions of that bill, and it will be recalled in particular that it was emphasized at that time that the functions of the national employment commission were to be advisory. It is true that there is one provision in the bill whereby administrative functions could by order in council be conferred upon the commission; but in the debate it was emphasized by members on the opposite side that it would be undesirable to have administrative functions so conferred, and there was no question as to the feeling of the house that the main functions of the commission should be confined to advising the government with respect to measures to deal with unemployment and agricultural distress.
I should like at this time to refer to the functions of the national employment commission as set out in the act. They are:
The commission shall,
(a)	carry out as soon as possible a national registration and classification of persons on relief in cooperation with the provinces, municipalities and private and public bodies;
(b)	recommend to the minister conditions to be complied with by any province obtaining grants for relief purposes from the government of Canada;

Relief and Agricultural Distress
(c)	recommend to the minister effective means of mobilizing the agencies for relief both state and voluntary, and so coordinating their work as to avoid overlapping and abuses, and to secui'e when necessary, an effective supervision and auditing of expenditures of all moneys;
(d)	investigate and report upon proposals for the carrying out of programs of public works and other projects to aid in providing employment;
(e)	recommend to the minister measures with respect to programs of public works and projects of the dominion, the provinces, the municipalities, and other agencies, intended to aid in providing employment in a manner which will serve to mobilize and coordinate their activities;
(f)	investigate and report to the minister on measures of cooperation with commercial and industrial groups in devising means under which provision may be made for the maintenance and increase of employment;
(g)	investigate and report to the minister upon plans for the establishment of an apprenticeship system in industry;
(h)	investigate and report upon ways and means of providing employment for disabled persons, and cooperate with the veterans' assistance commission in its efforts to secure suitable employment for ex-soldiers;
(i)	recommend to the minister comprehensive measures constituting long-range plans of national development which may be proceeded with or discontinued from time to time as conditions may determine;
(j)	take such steps to ensure publicity as in the opinion of the commission may be necessary to enable it effectively to discharge its powers and duties.
Those were the functions conferred upon the national employment commission, and I will now deal first with the personnel of the commission and secondly with the recommendations which have come from that commission, first in its interim report and subsequently in its final report, which was distributed a few days ago. First may I say this with regard to those who were appointed to the national employment commission and also to the two special advisory committees on youth employment and women's employment. Those who were appointed to the commission and the committees accepted their duties with a very keen sense of the importance of the task and a very keen sense of public obligation. I emphasize that at this time because there have been, and I suppose quite naturally, suggestions occasionally in this house that those who were employed on this work were perhaps not giving to it their full time and that the work might have been concentrated to better effect had there been a smaller commission or had those placed upon these committees been able to give their full time to them. In my own experience with the 
personnel and the machinery of this organization I am fully convinced that we could not have found in Canada a group of men and women more keenly anxious to serve the country in connection with this very great problem.
The national employment commission was organized in June 1936, and the first problems that confronted it were three. I referred a few moments ago to the problem of single homeless men and the measures taken by this administration to abolish relief camps ancf direct those in them to gainful occupations. It was necessary to anticipate the need for caring for single unemployed men and transients in the winter of 1936-37, and the first problem dealt with by the commission was this one, which past experience had proved had in it very serious elements of danger and disturbance. After a very careful study of that problem it was the view of the commission that we could best deal with that situation of transiency and the single unemployed by an expansion of the farm placement plan which had been in operation on a limited scale in previous years. The commission itself arranged conferences with representatives of various provincial governments in order to work out the details of that plan. As a result of the adoption of the plan and the full cooperation of the provinces in it, at least those provinces which felt that the question was a serious one within their borders, the farm improvement and employment plan was set up under which in the winter months of 1936-37 it was found possible to place in Manitoba some ten thousand men and women in farm employment.


Mr. MacNICOL:: At government expense?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The expense being borne in part by the dominion and in part by the province, on an equal basis. The total in Saskatchewan was 14,850. The number remaining on the farms for the summer, in other words the number absorbed in agricultural occupations, was 4,051. In Alberta the total number of placements was 4,155 and supplementary plans, public works projects and forest conservation took care of another 1,509, making a total of 5,744. The number remaining on farms at wages for the summer at the conclusion of the agreement was 1,360.


Angus MacInnis: Would the minister tell us what the wages were, when he comes to that point?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not the wages received by those men who were retained on the farms, but my information was that they

received the prevailing wage in farming operations in western Canada at that time. I take it that my hon. friend is not now referring to what was paid under the farm employment plan?


Angus MacInnis: I should like to have both.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In British Columbia under the farm placement plan the number placed was 300, and under supplementary plans 4,147. In Quebec the total placements were 5,506 and the number remaining on farms was 4,400.


Mr. MacNEIL:: In the figures the minister gave for British Columbia does he refer to men who were placed on farms in British Columbia?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The British Columbia figures on farm placements are very small, for reasons which I think my hon. friend will appreciate. We understood the situation as well, so in British Columbia, where the farm placement plan was applied to a limited extent, we arranged for special projects under which certain unemployed men and transients were engaged in the great primary industry of that province, namely forestry. That was the case in 1936-37 and also 1937-38. While they are so engaged, as my hon. friend is aware, they are receiving wages, and in connection with those wages there is a deferred payment plan.


Mr. HEAPS:: What wages do they receive?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not the wages before me at the present time, but I shall be glad to take note of that question and give my hon. friend the information in committee on the bill.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Were there three hundred placements on farms within the boundaries of British Columbia?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, those three hundred placements were within the province of British Columbia.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister's figures in reference to Quebec show that practically four-fifths of those placed on farms during the winter at the expense of the government remained on the farms through the summer.
Mr. ROGERS; That is quite true.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would the minister kindly explain that?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not an explanatory note on that point but I shall be very glad to try to get the information and give it to the committee. I should mention that in the province of Quebec no payment was made to the farmer under this plan. In the other
Reliej and Agricultural Distress
provinces payments were made, in order to bring about a larger absorption of these single unemployed on the farms.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Has the minister the figures for Ontario?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Although the plan was submitted to Ontario that province did not feel that the situation warranted the adoption of the plan. I may say that the proposal to deal with this problem of transiency and the single unemployed through a farm placement scheme was made available to all provinces, but those where the problem was greatest, the western provinces, naturally had the greatest number of placements. Quebec did adopt it; Ontario did not.


Alexander McKay Edwards: There were no contributions to Ontario under this plan?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Would the minister give the reasons why the plan was not adopted by Ontario?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As I recall it the communication was to this effect: it was anticipated that increased logging, lumbering and mining operations in Ontario would very largely absorb the single unemployed, and at the time there was promise of a very marked expansion in those directions. Objection was taken to it also on the ground that the wages paid under this plan, if you can so term the allowances made, were well below what was normally paid farm workers in Ontario, and the department of labour of the province felt that it'would be unwise to adopt the plan in view of those two considerations. I do not think I am misstating the situation as it was at that time.


Mr. McGREGOR:: Could the minister tell us how much was spent on the whole project?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be glad to take note of that question and furnish the information later. I may say, however, that this method of dealing with the problem has been far more economical and, as I mentioned a while ago, in our opinion far more wholesome and far better from the standpoint of the morale of the men and women involved than the former scheme of dealing with single unemployed in relief camps. So far as the expense is concerned, in the last year of their operation the relief camps cost some $9,000,000. On the basis of the increased wage allowance which we introduced in February of 1936 the cost of the camps, had they been continued throughout that year, would have been
812,000,000.

Relief and Agricultural Distress


Richard Bedford Bennett: At the increased rates of pay?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. The increased wages would account for the excess over the 89,000,000 of the previous year. Under the farm employment plan the actual expenditures last year I am quite sure did not exceed $2,500,000, and that amount would also cover the supplementary plans to which I referred, which were in operation in the provinces where the farm employment plan was not in force.
The next problem which was dealt with by the national employment commission was the persistent depression in the building industry. Members of the committee will recall that the employment commission put forward the terms of a plan which actually was put into operation before the house met last year, and which already has had the effect of bringing about a marked stimulus in the building industry. I refer to the home improvement plan. I do not think it is necessary for me to give the details of this plan. It involves encouragement on the part of this government, through the cooperation of financial and loaning institutions, of the repair of private homes. Up to date there has been expended directly under this plan, on home improvements, the sum of 815,000,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: In a little over a year.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. The plan is still in operation, and the results under it fully warrant its continuance. At the present time it is in full operation, and we believe there will be still further developments during the coming year.	[DOT]


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the minister not mean that the government has loaned $15,000,000, but that the total amount spent would be up to 860,000,000 or $70,000,000.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No; the loaning institutions have loaned $15,000,000. I was going to say that the experience in the United States, in the operation of a similar plan, has been that for every million dollars loaned directly in this way for the improvement of homes there is an additional expenditure of some $5,000,000, which is induced by what might be described as imitation. That may appear to be an extravagant estimate, but it has been the experience in the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the 815,000,000 is the sum total the banks have advanced?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is true. About eighty-five per cent of the expenditure is for labour. There is no doubt that the plan has contributed very largely to the improvement of conditions in the building industry. The

advantage comes not only from the extent of the amounts spent, but from the distribution across the dominion. A great deal of it is spent in repairs in smaller municipalities, but I believe the scheme has fully realized our expectations in providing employment in those places in which it is most needed.
Certainly the commission was wise in its decision to deal first with the depression in the building industry. The next question dealt with by the commission was the matter of registration. I have no doubt that by this time hon. members will fully appreciate the advantage of having a continuous registration of the unemployed on relief. Certainly I can say .that from an administrative standpoint there is a tremendous advantage in being able to obtain from the registration branch at any given time a statement regarding the actual relief situation in any district. We can obtain information not merely with respect to the numbers unemployed and on relief, but concerning the occupations from which they came and the facts with regard to ages and other matters of economic and social significance.
Before I have finished I believe I shall have been able to give the committee additional evidence of the value of having this means of continually measuring the fluctuations in the relief problem. A few days ago the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) directed attention to what he felt were some premonitory signals of a resumption of the depression in Canada. At the present time I shall not do more than say that at least so far as the relief situation is concerned, the figures at our disposal will enable us to measure with reasonable rapidity any changes which may occur from time to time in any part of the country. So far as employment is concerned, although there has been some falling off in recent months, I believe that falling off is certainly not enough at this time to justify our saying that there has been a definite reversal of the upward trend of employment in Canada.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Does that apply to
industry?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall deal with that.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Surely the minister knows that the recession in industry is very severe at the present time.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I quite 'appreciate there has been some effect felt-


Alexander McKay Edwards: Very much.


Norman McLeod Rogers: -in the border cities of Ontario, particularly,-


Alexander McKay Edwards: All over Ontario.


Norman McLeod Rogers: -of a recession of manufacturing in the United States.

Relief and Agricultural Distress


Alexander McKay Edwards: That is not the point I brought up. I was not speaking about the border cities; I know nothing about them. But I do know that in central Ontario the recession is quite pronounced, and particularly in some industries.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If the hon. member will permit me to continue, I shall be pleased to deal a little later on with the point he has raised. After all, I quite agree with the hon. member that what we want is the truth. At the same time, while we should avoid excessive optimism, surely we should avoid excessive pessimism.
I come then to the recommendations of the national employment commission with respect to conditions to be attached to the grant in aid. During the first months of its existence the commission advised me, and I think properly, that it did not feel that it should recommend changes in grants in aid until it had had time to make a thorough study of the relief situation. In due course the commission made its recommendations concerning conditions which should be attached to grants in aid, and referred also to the coordination of what might be described as public aid with measures of voluntary aid given by welfare agencies.
The recommendations of the national employment commission were approved in principle by the government shortly after the publication last July of the interim report of the commission. It would have been possible for the federal government at once to have imposed those conditions, as originally recommended by the commission, upon all the provinces. We could have done so upon the basis, I suppose, of refusing to pay any grant in aid to a province unless it accepted the conditions laid down in the report of the commission.
At the same time I felt-and the commission agreed-that it would be desirable that before introducing new conditions with respect to grants in aid we should bring the provinces to us, one by one, and try to secure their willing cooperation in accepting recommendations which were designed to remove abuses in existing relief administration. We did arrange to bring officials of the various provincial departments of welfare to discuss their problems in administration with a committee composed of one representative of the Depart ment of Labour, one from the national employment commission and one from the Department of Finance. Those conferences, conducted with each province, singly, extended over about two months. I did not feel that
time had been wasted. Through those conferences it was found that some of the recommendations of the commission were not uniformly applicable. At all events, as a result of them a draft agreement was drawn up, the two main purposes of which were: (1) to remove the major abuse in connection with relief administration which, in some ways, had put relief in competition with gainful labour, through the tendency in certain places to raise relief scales above prevailing wages, and (2) to secure the cooperation of the provinces in trying to segregate for the time being, for the purpose of information, those on relief who were unemployable and who, therefore, in the strict sense of the term, were not in the category of those who might be directed into gainful occupations.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: The minister referred to certain sections of the country where the relief rates were higher than the prevailing rates of wages. To what localities does he refer?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not that information immediately before me, and I am not sure that it is desirable at the present time to indicate them. I can say to my hon. friend, however, that in a number of provinces it has been discovered that the relief scales have been raised to a point where they have been competing with prevailing wages. I do not think anyone will seriously argue that that is a desirable situation.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Or that the prevailing rates of wages have been brought down to the relief schedules.


Norman McLeod Rogers: So far as the prevailing rates of wages are concerned, the article in the agreement makes full allowance for what may be contributed by some other bread-winner who is a member of the family. There was no desire to apply it in a rigorous or inhuman manner; at the same time there was a feeling on the part of the commission, which is referred to explicitly in its report, that an effort should be made to see to it that relief did not compete with gainful occupations. These several agreements were entered into with the provinces after draft agreements had been sent to them for their comments.
I want to emphasize to the committee the fact that in dealing with this whole matter we, as the dominion government, have sought to cooperate with the provincial governments with respect to the administration of relief. Obviously there must come a finality to conferences; obviously there must come a time when the dominion government feels fully justified in saying that there has been enough

Relief and Agricultural Distress
of conferences; that in order to protect its position it is necessary that this or that action shall be taken. But I want to make it perfectly clear that in all that we have sought to do in these last two years, we have endeavoured to secure the cooperation of the provincial governments. We felt also that although it was true that we were merely granting financial assistance to the provinces to deal with the problem of unemployment and distress, the provinces might reasonably expect that we should give something more than grants and make an effort with them to find constructive measures to reduce the problem and to apply measures of effective amelioration.
I come now to the recommendations of the national employment commission which appear in the interim and final reports. Members of the committee who have read the final report will remember that a brief and concise summary of the recommendations contained in the interim report was given on the opening pages. I have touched already upon the main recommendations in the interim report. I have not, however, dealt with one of those recommendations, a recommendation which is given further emphasis in the final report. This refers to low rental housing, and I shall speak upon this matter a little later and in another connection. So far as the three measures that I have mentioned are concerned, I would stress that they have been applied to all the features of the larger problem; that they have been successful in their operation and that they are now being continued.
May I turn now to the recommendations contained in the final report. On page 10 of the final report, following references to these other measures which I have just discussed, the commission directs special attention to the importance of the tourist trade and the possibilities of expansion in that important industry. This question has been referred to at different times in this chamber. According to an estimate by the bureau of statistics, during the past year the tourist industry brought about expenditures amounting to some
S300.000.000. One great advantage of the tourist industry is that it is not one requiring that kind of protection or assistance which tends possibly to place one section of this country against another. No tariff protection is needed to stimulate the tourist industry. Moreover, this industry will confer its benefits upon every section of the dominion, and within those sections benefits are extended to almost every kind of business and occupation, i think the committee will agree generally fMr. Rogers.]
that in stressing the importance of the tourist industry and the possibilities of expansion, the national employment commission has touched upon a matter of great importance and upon a development with great possibilities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is nothing new
in that.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I agree that there is
nothing new in directing attention to the value of the tourist industry. On the other hand, it has a distinct value that we should recognize in its relation to the unemployment situation. In other words, it is an industry capable of encouragement and stimulus in a manner which, as I have just suggested, does not set one part of the country against another.


Alexander McKay Edwards: How does the minister
determine the value of the tourist business? What is the yardstick?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be glad to get
that information for my hon. friend. The value of this industry has been determined by the bureau of statistics over a number of years. My own feeling has always been that it could not be regarded as more than an estimate. Of course, there is a record of the number of motor cars that cross the boundary at the various points of entry. Estimates are also made of the expenditures of visitors while in the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a partial record of what they take out.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is no more than an
estimate, but that does not detract from the value and importance of the industry.


Alexander McKay Edwards: It is a valuable industry.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In connection with the
development of the tourist industry, the national employment commission makes a number of specific recommendations. It suggests what matters should be explored and stresses the importance of close cooperation in this regard between the dominion and provincial governments. The report reads:
The commission submits that the following matters should be explored and advised upon:
National tourist highways,
Retail articles attractive to tourists on which import duties should be adjusted to reduce the sale price,
Historic forts and sites, their restoration and marking.
They refer also to handicrafts, sports and competitive sports projects and so on. So far as the suggestions with respect to the tourist trade are concerned, they have been receiving

Relief and Agricultural Distress
the attention of the government for some time. In their relation to unemployment, they will certainly receive further attention.
During the past two years the government has been working along the line of a broad coordinated program of national development and conservation. I shall have occasion before I have finished to indicate certain lines upon which definite progress has been made within this program. Different features of it have been undertaken by a number of departments of the federal government, either with or without -the joint participation of the provinces. It will be remembered by those who have read the report of the national employment commission that in its reference to public works projects there is a distinct recommendation that as far as possible each government, dominion, provincial and municipal, should deal with its own projects within its own jurisdiction, and that these should be financed and administered independently. With the displacement of joint public works, as recommended by the national employment commission, this program of what I have termed national development and conservation will be furthered by projects which will be controlled and administered within the federal jurisdiction. Within it we propose to give special attention to the proposals of the national employment commission for the encouragement and development of the tourist industry, and this policy has been in its earlier stages, and will !be in its later stages, recognized as an act of faith on the part of this government in the future possibilities of a united Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the minister any details of what the plans are for the tourist business?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Before I finish I shall give certain details in connection with what has been done. As the leader of the opposition is aware, specific projects are dealt with normally, have been for some years at any rate, through supplementary estimates for that purpose.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Has the minister in mind cooperation with the Ontario government in its proposed flood control plan?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I do not think I should be or can be inveigled into a commitment of that kind at the present time. I am sure if I answered my hon. friend in the affirmative, there would be no lack of other members who would suggest suitable measures of cooperation in their own constituencies. In the nature of things we have had in recent years to deal
with a vast variety of projects put forward because of their remote relation to unemployment or relief; but my own feeling has been, from the experience I have had during the last two and a half years, that we should concentrate, not on works projects as such merely for the purpose of providing employment, but rather on such projects as will develop this country, conserve its resources and make possible an increasing income, and, I trust, a permanent absorption of a larger number of our people into independent occupations. That has been our policy so far as we could bring it about through the programs which have been undertaken in the past two years. That is the policy we propose to maintain and to extend, and as I said a moment ago I believe it is a policy which will also play its part in counteracting some disintegrating forces which exist in this dominion at the present time. Within federal jurisdiction, under federal control, there are means of developing this country which will not merely contribute to the temporary alleviation of unemployment, though I do not disregard the importance of that, but above all else make it possible for Canada to increase its national income.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Has the minister anything particular in mind in that regard?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think I shall be able to satisfy my hon. friend. As I have said, there are certain features of this program which are already in operation, and I shall refer to them before I conclude my remarks. There are other features of it which, as I have indicated, may have a special relation to the tourist industry, and which will be announced in due course.


Mr. LAWSON:: May I take it that the features to which the minister proposes to refer before he finishes, are those in respect to which the policy of the government for the past two years has been the development of natural resources?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes; that and also the means we have followed in stimulating certain of the basic industries of this country in order that they may absorb a larger number of our unemployed. That is substantially what I have in mind.
I come next to the recommendations of the national employment commission with regard to what is termed rehabilitation, or plans for improving employability. In this connection I should like to refer back to another recommendation of the commission which was adopted by the government, and as a result

Relief and Agricultural Distress
of which there has been in operation during the past year a program of youth training through which, I am justified in saying, a new hope has been given to and a stronger morale built up in thousands of unemployed young people from one end of the dominion to the other.
The national employment commission received a report from the youth employment committee, and it passed on to this government a recommendation, based on the report of the youth employment committee, that the government should initiate training projects for unemployed young people. It will be remembered that last year we placed in the estimates an item of $1,000,000 for that purpose. There were some in this house who suggested that that amount was too small; there were others who suggested that it was too large. I think it may be said that the amount, although it might have been doubled with advantage, was perhaps what it ought to have been haying regard to the experimental nature of this work. We lost no time as a government in following the recommendation of the national employment commission in that regard, although I acknowledge freely, as stated in the report of the commission, that so far as the expenditure was concerned, we did not go as far as the commission thought we might have done. Letters were sent to all the provinces in May last, following the prorogation of parliament, asking the provinces to submit to the dominion government projects for training unemployed young people, projects which would have a value in the restoration of physical health and morale, projects which would have what might be termed a recreational value for those who had been unemployed in our larger cities. In other words, we set out in our proposals to the provinces the framework within which these various projects should be made to us, and when those projects were received we dealt with them and adopted them if they fell within the categories laid down by the national employment commission. I am happy to say that every province accepted eventually the proposals with regard to training projects for unemployed young people, and from Prince Edward Island right through to British Columbia these projects have been in operation during recent months.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask the minister a question in that regard?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Certainly.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have in mind that perhaps twenty-five to thirty thousand skilled

men-toolmakers, machinists and so forth- have returned to the old country to work in the munitions plants there. What method has the government been following or what has been recommended to train youths between eighteen and twenty-five along these lines? I do not know of any-and I am thoroughly acquainted with many machine shops-who are being trained in these vocations. If we should need them to fill these positions we shall not have them.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The observation of the hon. member-which perhaps is rather an observation than a question-is quite properly made. There is no doubt that there has been an exodus of trained mechanics to Great Britain; but is my hon. friend also aware that in past years we have in the main drawn our trained mechanics from Great Britain?


Alexander McKay Edwards: The technical schools of Ontario are supplying them.


Norman McLeod Rogers: They are training them to some extent; but I believe the hon. member for Waterloo South will find, if he consults with officials of trades unions and heads of industries, that many of our finest mechanics were drawn from Great Britain. In the last two or three years, in particular, with the great expansion of certain trades, especially the iron and steel industries, in the metal trades, in Great Britain, they have been drawn back to that country.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister does not intimate that any skilled mechanics of that kind are being drawn from Great Britain to Canada?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Oh, no, not at the present time. The movement is rather the other way. But apprenticeship, as the commission report indicates, falls in the first instance upon industry. That is to say that industry in this country, if it feels it has a lack, either now or in prospect, of trained mechanics, is in its own interest surely under an obligation to take some measures .to train boys who will take the place of those mechanics who, as my hon. friend has said, have gone back to England and of those who are advancing in age and will soon retire. Some of our industries have recognized that problem.


Mr. STEVENS:: How many young men or young women, as the case may be, have been or are being trained under these agreements with the provinces which the minister has cited?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have all this information here and I shall be glad to place it before the committee.

Relief and Agricultural Distress


Mr. COLDWELL:: What steps are being taken to follow that work up? This training is good. What follow-up is there? If it is not followed up, it is lost.


Norman McLeod Rogers: First, as to the question put by the hon. member for Kootenay East, these questions are questions which naturally call for an answer, and an answer will be given. I have the information as to the total number who are receiving training, and I propose to give it to the committee. Certainly I have no desire to withhold it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why the secrecy now?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The matter of time is surely not so important. I should like to continue along the line that I had intended to follow. But as to the general question which has been put, as I have said, the first obligation for training mechanics lies upon industry. In the second degree that obligation has always rested upon the provinces, which, as this committee is aware, now control the relations between employer and employee, wages and hours and industrial conditions generally. For that reason I want to say frankly to the committee that we as a government did not feel it was desirable, at this stage at any rate, that we should by dominion legislation seek to invade the field of apprenticeship. There have been cases before-and they have been brought to the attention of the house-where the dominion government has by a grant in aid induced provinces-at least they have occasionally told us afterwards that they were induced-more or less, the assumption has been, against their will, into new directions of expenditure. I need only mention agricultural instruction and technical education. Once we have gone into those fields the tendency has always been to make what was designed as a temporary expenditure into a permanent expenditure, and in this way to bring about as it were a transfer of provincial obligations to the dominion by a back-door route, and that has not been a satisfactory method of dealing with the situation.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Would the same
objection not apply to these recreational projects which the dominion is now undertaking?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No, because we have proceeded by way of agreement with the provinces. There has been no dominion legislation dealing with the subject of apprenticeship, which, as I have said, does lie and always has lain within provincial jurisdiction.
So far as these youth training projects are concerned, we have dealt with them by agreements with the provinces. But I would say that, within the categories laid down by the national employment commission, we have sought to get the cooperation of the provinces, particularly the industrial provinces, by bringing about what are termed learnership courses; the learnership courses, while they do not constitute apprenticeship in the ordinary sense of that term, do actually train young men for absorption in private industry; and by our continuing these courses over a period of two years or three years, as the case may be, we are enabled to provide in some measure for this lack of trained young men in some of our larger industries. That is particularly true in Ontario, where more progress has been made in that direction than in some of the other provinces in which, after all, there is not the same diversification of industry or the same opportunity for these learnership courses.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But surely if it is possible to do that in what are termed learner-ship courses, it would be possible to do it in the case of apprenticeship.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall not quarrel with my hon. friend over the use of terms. But I shall say this, that, particularly at the present time, I do not think it is advisable that the dominion parliament should assume what might be regarded as legislative jurisdiction over apprenticeship. That is the point I have in mind. We can assist the provinces by agreement as we are doing in connection with training projects.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Very wise.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend agrees with that?


Alexander McKay Edwards: I do.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I believe that anyone who has followed the actual results under these grants in aid, which usually have been given under pressure of immediate circumstances without any clear vision of what they may involve in time to come, will agree that that policy is not one which ought to be continued or extended at the present time. Fortunately we have now reached a position where we shall have a review, and I hope a thorough review, of these interrelations between dominion and province under these indirect arrangements through which the dominion has given financial assistance to the provinces to enable provinces to do what they are obliged to do under the constitution but which, in many instances, they are unwilling to concede to any other legislative authority.
Relief and Agricultural Distress


Richard Bedford Bennett: Sometimes they concede it, but say they are unable to do it.
Mr. ROGERSSometimes that has been the case; and I think the leader of the opposition will also agree that we are suffering at the present time from the fact that we as a dominion government have been led under stress of circumstances-to meet emergencies, if you will-into making grants to provinces to enable them to maintain administration with respect to great social services, such as old age pensions, to which this dominion government contributes three-fourths of the cost. I do not believe any member of this house can consider that a sound method of conducting federal relations, and it is one which I hope will be rectified. I do not wish to extend that point at this time, having had occasion to deal with it some time ago. If I speak of it now it is because at the Department of Labour more than any other department one is conscious at all times of working in a field of indefinite jurisdiction where responsibilities are not precise and where, for this reason, there is always the possibility of misunderstanding, friction and recrimination. My right hon. friend referred a moment ago to the fact that there had been certain disintegrating influences in this country in the past few years. I am sure that part of that has been due to this very practice of dealing with some of these problems that touch human need upon the basis of dual and therefore indefinite responsibility as among various governmental agencies. It is not a problem that we can settle here at this time; but it is one of which I believe the country as a whole ought to be aware, and certainly we should not continue farther along a way which has been tried and found wanting in the respects that I have mentioned.
I have every desire that stimulus should be given to apprenticeship. There are certain things that can be and are being done by the Department of Labour here to encourage apprenticeship; but my point has been that it would not be desirable for this dominion parliament to assume anything in the nature of jurisdiction with regard to apprenticeship, practically all industrial matters being at the present time under provincial jurisdiction.
The hon. member for Kootenay East asked me if I would be more precise in connection with the projects which have been established under the youth training plan. In the first place it would be useful to give the various schemes that were proposed:
(a)	training projects of an occupational nature devised to increase the employability of young unemployed persons pending employment;

(b)	short term learnership courses, not exceeding one year in duration, devised to provide theoretical training concurrent with specific employment;
(c)	work projects for young unemployed, incorporating reconditioning, training and conservation features undertaken for the purpose of restoring loss of morale among the young unemployed and conserving natural resources.
In connection with forestry work, for instance, the camps that have been established in a number of provinces would be in accord with that classification.
(d)	training projects of a physical nature for young unemployed, to assist in the maintenance of health and morale pending employment.
I have before me in some detail the summary of the training which has been given, and later on I shall be glad to give the results in each of the provinces. The summary goes up to the latest date. I would point out in that connection that a number of provinces in the very nature of things took some time to develop the projects they felt best suited to their needs. It so happens that Ontario and Quebec, the largest industrial provinces, did not actually get into full operation under this plan until October of last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that to the first of March?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is to the end of January, the latest date for which we have reports. Training was given to 16,072 men and 12,850 women, a total of 28,922.


An hon. MEMBER:: Will the minister give the figures under each classification?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be glad to do that with respect to the different provinces, but at the moment I have the figures arranged in a certain way. I shall give the summary now. I come next to those placed in employment, and that touches a point raised by an hon. member a few moments ago. It was felt by those dealing with this particular problem that the vital need was vocational direction. There is no doubt in the world that the impact of the depression upon the younger men who have come of age in the last few years and have not found work has been unsettling, and the tendency has been to create a kind of hopelessness which requires some sort of continuing direction. I am not going to say that I am satisfied as yet that we have developed a satisfactory system of placement; but we have had it very much in our minds, and we propose to appoint special placement officers in connection with these groups in all provinces and attach them

Relief and Agricultural Distress
to the employment offices. We have already made some progress in that direction, but so far as placements are concerned, in this limited time, the figures are *hese: men, 1,371; women, 731. The number of days' work given in forestry and mining, men, was 151,357. Next we come to the rural courses. There were: men, 5,998, and women, 3,427. In forestry there were: men, 2,416; mining, men, 519; physical training, men, 1,671; women, 4,302. The number of those taken off relief were: men, 2,565, and women, 1,173.
That is merely a summary of what might be termed the beginning of a sound enterprise which fully justifies its continuance. I know, from my own contact with some of those who received this training in various provinces, that to them it has meant something more than the reduction of one or two or three from' the relief rolls. It has meant the possibility of receiving training for some definite occupation and has meant a restoration of morale and a new direction towards independence.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I ought first to the ask the indulgence of the committee as I continue the statement begun this afternoon. On the other hand, it will be remembered that the committee requested a comprehensive statement with respect to unemployment conditions. Certainly the problem itself justifies such a statement, and it has been my endeavour to place before the committee in as much detail as is possible at this time the situation existing at present with respect to unemployment and the results obtained under th_ various measures adopted by the government to deal with it. I propose, however, to move as rapidly as possible toward the conclusion of my remarks.
At six o'clock I was dealing with the youth training agreements. No doubt at a later stage in the discussion there will be ample opportunity to deal with the projects adopted in the various provinces for the training of unemployed young people. I pointed out this afternoon that all provinces had cooperated in the formulation of these training plans. At the same time we have assurances from all provinces that in view of the results obtained during the past year they are prepared to continue these projects to a greater or lesser
degree during the coming year. May I say also that the initiation of these training projects for unemployed young people marks the first action taken by any government in this country in relation to this special aspect of the unemployment problem. In another connection the appointment of a women's employment committee-and certain recommendations from that committee have also found expression in youth training projects- marks the first attempt on the part of any government in this country to deal with that special aspect of the unemployment problem.
We believe that the experience gained during the past year in the development of these training projects for unemployed young people will enable us to improve them materially in the next year. I made it quite clear to the committee this afternoon that we have been moving, as it were, in an experimental way. We have asked the provinces to indicate projects which are best adapted to conditions within their boundaries, and we have sought to focus the training projects in such a way that ultimately they will lead to the absorption of those so trained, in industries which are fully established in the provinces where the training is being given. I also indicated to the committee that we attached great importance to the setting up of a proper placement service in connection with these plans, which, I believe, can be done, and we propose in particular to see that vocational guidance, if I may use that term, is related closely to the various training projects which will be established during the coming year.
In addition to the recommendations of the national employment commission with respect to training projects for unemployed young people, there is also a recommendation for training the unemployed in the older age groups. I may say at once that ,the government is fully seized of the wisdom of extending these plans so far as possible to unemployed men in the older age groups. We realize, as indeed anyone must realize who has followed what has taken place in the last few years, that many men have lost their former occupations, and unless something is done for these men which will assist towards their reabsorption in private industry, the outlook for them is more tragic in some respects than for the unemployed young people. Here again progress towards the improved employability of those who have been out of work during the depression years is dependent upon the active cooperation of the provincial governments. In connection with this question of extending rehabilitation to men in the older age groups, we have been in conference with
Relief and Agricultural Distress

various provincial governments. I am hopeful that we can make substantial progress in this direction during the coming year. The committee will understand that in dealing with matters involving education and apprenticeship, the dominion government may give a lead; the dominion government may initiate, but it must have the full cooperation of the provinces if these plans are to succeed. The alternative would be the setting up by the dominion government of educational services overlapping those already established in the provinces. Clearly that would not be a desirable way of meeting this situation.
I come next to another recommendation of the national employment commission, first made in the interim report and repeated at some length in the final report. That recommendation emphasizes the desirability of establishing a national employment service, a question which has been before the house on various occasions. It so happened that this recommendation by the commission was one of the first that was transmitted to the Minister of Labour. I felt as the commission indicated, that in dealing with an unemployment problem, of the dimensions to which that problem has grown within recent years, it was of great importance that we should have an efficient employment service which would operate along uniform lines so far as possible, and subject to some general national direction. At the time that recommendation was transmitted to me, the legislation passed by the late administration with regard to unemployment insurance was before the courts. I refer to the Employment and Social Insurance Act, which provided for the setting up of a system of employment offices across the dominion. In the circumstances it was felt by the government that it would be preferable to await the decision of the courts with respect to that legislation before giving consideration to the alternative of the dominion establishing of itself a national employment service. It will be remembered by members of the committee that the Unemployment and Social Insurance Act first went to the Supreme Court of Canada, and was then taken on appeal to the privy council, where it was declared ultra vires of the dominion parliament.
We were then faced, in due course, with what further action might be taken by the government in cooperation with the provinces to vest this parliament with full legislative power to deal with unemployment insurance. It is scarcely necessary to remind the committee that the government met the situation by seeking the cooperation of the provinces to secure the necessary amendments to the

British North America Act to make it possible for us to establish a national system of unemployment insurance, carrying with it as a necessary corollary a national employment service. It may be urged that, regardless of the establishment of unemployment insurance, it would have been wise, or would now be wise, to proceed with the setting up of a national employment service, and I should like to say frankly to the committee that from time to time the national employment commission urged that course upon us. On the other hand, I should like to say with equal frankness it was my view that it would not be desirable to deal piecemeal with this question; that it would not be desirable, let us say, for the dominion government to have a national employment service in three or four or five provinces, and provincial employment services in the remaining provinces. I believe that we should at least make every effort to secure an employment service which would operate in all provinces of the dominion, before giving serious consideration to the alternative I have just suggested.
I think we must recognize that, as a matter of fact, under existing constitutional arrangements the provinces have direct control of and interest in industrial conditions. As I said this afternoon, the whole question of the relationship between employer and employee is now within provincial jurisdiction, as is the case also, for instance with wages and hours. No doubt it was due in part to this reason that the setting up of employment offices in this country was left within provincial jurisdiction.
At the present time, as the committee is aware, we have what might be termed a cooperative system with respect to employment offices. In 1918 parliament enacted The Employment Offices Coordination Act. Under that act the sum of 8150,000 is set apart each year and is divided among the provinces upon the basis of their expenditures for employment services in relation to the total expenditures in the dominion for that purpose.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What do the federal
officials in those offices do?


Norman McLeod Rogers: With the few exceptions which I shall mention in a moment or two, there are no federal officials in the employment offices established across the dominion. The personnel of the employment offices of the various provinces is selected by the provincial governments. The dominion government has, attached to the Department of Labour, what might be termed a coordinating agency which operates as a clearing house for information with respect to employment offices under the

Relief and Agricultural Distress
control of the various provincial employment services. There was set up, too, in connection with the reestablishment of war veterans a service which consists largely of special attention being paid to the training and absorption in industry of disabled war veterans. There are some officials-I have not the number before me

appointed by the dominion in some of the provinces who deal with that particular aspect of the problem. Generally speaking, however, the personnel of the employment offices, under the existing system, is appointed by and is under the control of the provincial governments.
May I point out to the committee that under that system the dominion government has only a limited control over employment offices. For example, we cannot compel the provinces to establish employment offices in particular localities. We have no effective control over the selection of the officers in the various employment offices who deal with employment conditions. There is no doubt, I believe, that in some provinces the employment service has fallen below the standard one would wish to have in connection with this very important question.
As I have pointed out, the national employment commission made it quite clear that in their view, and in order particularly to deal with the question of rehabilitation, it was desirable that there should be a national employment service. I do not believe we should enter into competition, so to speak, with the provinces; we cannot compel the provinces to withdraw from the service. Some provinces in western Canada have indicated their willingness to withdraw from the present employment service arrangements, and are quite ready to have those services taken over by the dominion government. On the other hand, we have had no such intimation from the great industrial provinces, so that I feel it would be to the disadvantage of the efficiency of that service if we attempted to set up what might be described as a dual system.
We trust that in due course the various provinces may see the wisdom, in relation to the great problem of economic insecurity, of giving their full cooperation toward setting up a national system of unemployment insurance. If that is done, there is no real problem with respect to the establishment of a national employment service, because the very connection which would be established between unemployment insurance and industry would ensure a situation whereby a system of employment bureaus attached to an unemployment insurance scheme would soon prove its usefulness in competition with any provincial
service, if, indeed, under those conditions the provinces desired to continue the existing services.
I turn next to the recommendation of the national employment commission with reference to rehabilitation through land settlement.
I shall touch upon this matter only briefly to-night. Here, too, the recommendation is one which does not lay exclusive obligations upon the dominion government. The proposal is rather that in connection with the general problem of rehabilitation of those who are now unemployed and on relief, there should be an effective and continuing cooperation between the dominion, the provinces and the municipalities in the rehabilitation of suitable families on the land.
We have had some experience in this matter. As a matter of fact, we have had relief settlement agreements with a number of the provinces, which agreements have been in operation for several years. In the first instance those agreements were established by the late administration, and under them some thousands of families have been established on the land. It must be remembered by hon. members of the committee that last year the house was sharply divided- as to the wisdom of that policy. I would go so far as to say that the success of any policy of the kind depends essentially upon selecting the right people for the right land. Undoubtedly-and I shall not deal with the reasons now-in the relief settlement plans, as they have operated in recent years, there have sometimes been unfortunate selections of people and unfortunate selections of land. Obviously this whole question is one which must receive the further consideration of the government in conference with the provinces. It may well be that based on the experience of the past it will be possible to develop a more effective scheme of rehabilitation than has existed in other years. It is a direction in which we should move carefully and surely because, in connection with soldier land settlement and other arrangements of this kind, this country has had a rather unfortunate experience.
I come next to the recommendation of the commission which incorporates certain proposals made by the women's employment committee. I quote from pages 17 and 18 of the report:
The committee at an early date also drew the attention of the commission to the inadequacy of the existing employment service of Canada to meet the trying demands placed upon it in respect to unemployed women. They endorsed the recommendations of the national employment commission for a unified and extended service. In their final report the vital
Relief and Agricultural Distress

part which such an improved service would play in solving the employment problem of women, and the impossibility of successful attainment without it, are strongly emphasized.
And again:
Finally, the women's employment committee is of the opinion that the dominion government can render a genuine service to all gainfully occupied women, particularly in industry and trade, by establishing in the dominion Department of Labour a women's bureau to undertake research in connection with the employment of women, and to provide the machinery for educating the public to the point that working conditions and wages are improved, all to the end that employment conditions for women may become more attractive.
May I say in that connection that if and when it is possible to establish a national employment service, it is obvious that a proposal such as this is one which could best be expressed within the framework of such a service. Apart from that, however, we have in the Department of Labour at the present time certain research clerks, two of whom are highly qualified women who are, I believe, in a position to do useful work along the lines indicated in the report. They are being instructed to give their attention to this problem as outlined in the report of the national employment commission.
I come now to the recommendation of the commission with respect to low rental housing. I referred to it this afternoon and said that I would return to it before I had finished. The national employment commission made proposals to the government last year with respect to low cost housing. These proposals were later given the form of a draft bill which reached the government at a time when it was not feasible to give it the necessary consideration before the prorogation' of that short session of parliament. This proposal is contained in an appendix to the report. I may say that the proposal is now before the Department of Finance and is being considered in connection with other plans for the stimulus of housing which are now in operation under existing legislation.
It may be known to members of the committee that during the past year there has been a marked increase in building carried on under the Dominion Housing Act. For a time there was good ground for apprehension that the results would be cause for disappointment, but within the past year there has been a marked improvement in the building carried on under this legislation. This has been due in part to the original provisions of the act and in part to certain regulations which were introduced a year ago and which made the act available to a larger number of people.

I turn next to the recommendations of the commission with respect to unemployment aid. In dealing with this section of the report I should like to emphasize that here we have what might be termed a contingent suggestion or expression of opinion upon the part of the national employment commission. That is, the commission, in fulfilling its advisory function and in recognizing an obligation to deal with the problem of unemployment, not merely as it exists immediately but as it might develop within a few years, took the ground that it would be well to consider what action might wisely be taken in connection with unemployment assistance, if and when it was found possible to introduce unemployment insurance on a national basis.
In its introduction to its discussion of this problem the commission emphasizes most of all what it terms a functional division of responsibility in connection with unemployment distress. I have no doubt that members of the committee have read this section of the report and I shall not enter into it in detail at the present time. In commenting upon this section of the report I should like to say that the government agrees in principle with the views expressed by the commission, that a functional division of responsibility for social services is preferable to a system of dual responsibility where the dominion government supports social services within provincial jurisdiction by the payment of grants in aid. This opinion has been expressed on various occasions by members of this government and, if I mistake not, by members on the other side. We believe it is a sound policy that financial and administrative responsibility should be united in the same authority and that the government which controls the spending of money for social services should be responsible for raising such money by taxation. We agree also that the method of supporting unemployment relief by grants in aid from the dominion treasury, with the administrative control remaining with the province and the municipality, is a method which tends to be wasteful and inefficient. This system, however, as the commission has recognized and as it has been recognized on both sides of the house, has been developed within the established principles of our federal constitution.
Until the constitution is altered the dominion government is under obligation to observe the existing distribution of powers and responsibilities in relation to social services. While the national employment commission recognizes that the system under which the dominion government assists the provinces

Relief and Agricultural Distress
by grants in aid for unemployment relief is one that should properly be followed within the constitutional structure, the majority report of the commission directs attention to the fact that the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations is now conducting an investigation with a view to the reconsideration and readjustment of the obligations and taxing powers now assigned to the dominion parliament and the provincial legislatures. The report observes also that the dominion government has sought the cooperation of the province in order to bring about a nationally administered system of unemployment insurance. The report proceeds in the following terms:
This commission also recognizes that the establishment of a national system of unemployment insurance would necessitate a supplementary system of unemployment aid to meet those phases of unemployment need which experience abroad has shown cannot be covered by unemployment insurance. Such a supplementary system of unemployment aid would, in its opinion and for reasons stated later, be best administered by the dominion. This further step would necessitate determination by the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations of the financial basis on which such a system should be established, and in the light of relevant considerations, of the wisdom of further constitutional and financial changes. The national employment commission does not consider it to be within its competence to express an opinion on these changes, other than to record its considered judgment that if financial and constitutional considerations should permit, the coordination of a nationally administered system of unemployment insurance and employment offices, buttressed by a similarly administered system of unemployment aid, would have decisive advantages over the present system in coping with problems of employment and unemployment.
In summing up its views under this head, the majority report contains the following observations:
In stating thus its opinion the commission is not judging the financial abilities of the various governments nor the sources from which the funds should be derived; nor has it given consideration to any compensating readjustments which might be considered a necessary part of such a system; all these things it considers to be beyond its purview.
It is, however, recommending that the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations give consideration to the views here expressed, as well as to the many other relevant factors which fall outside the national employment commission's terms of reference.
The objections to the ultimate assumption of dominion responsibility for unemployment aid are set out in the dissenting report of Mrs. Sutherland. She expresses the view that "in spite of errors in the practices surrounding the giving of dominion financial assistance through
grants in aid, the primary responsibility of the government closest to the applicant is fundamental." She states further:
Although a change to a centralized system where the dominion assumes administrative responsibility may have some advantages in the mechanics of its application, any new system designed to finance and administer so uneconomic a national burden as distress resulting from loss of income because of no work, is liable also to many abuses.
Ia general the dissenting report stresses the importance of social assistance being administered by municipal officials with knowledge of local conditions, and with the restraint of municipal taxation operating as a deterrent to waste and laxity of administration. This view is still strongly held by some provinces of the dominion where direct relief has been eliminated or reduced to small proportions.
The dominion government has already indicated its willingness in cooperation with the provinces to secure a constitutional amendment which will permit it to introduce a national system of unemployment insurance. A national system of unemployment insurance will require for its effective administration a national organization of employment offices. In its majority report the commission has recognized that the establishment of a nationally administered system of unemployment aid must depend upon two conditions:	First,
the adoption of a national system of unemployment insurance; second, a revision of existing obligations and financial powers under the federal constitution. Since the subject of unemployment aid is bound up with the larger questions of redistribution of responsibility for social services and reallocation of revenue sources which are now before the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations, the government has decided to reserve judgment on this section of the report until that commission has completed its investigation and has submitted its findings. We feel that this is the only position we can properly take in the circumstances. Any other course at this time would involve either an arbitrary curtailment of the terms of reference already issued to the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations or a process in bargaining with the provinces on one particular feature of constitutional readjustment in advance of the more comprehensive settlement which it is hoped will emerge from the present investigation of dominion-provincial relations.
In this connection it may be stated that certain provinces have suggested that they would be willing to assume the entire cost of unemployment relief if the dominion government would consent to the reallocation

Relief and Agricultural Distress
of revenues now collected within the provinces under federal legislation. It is clear that any formal discussion of such a proposal would be equally impossible in advance of the findings of the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Before the minister
leaves that question, may I ask if the department has considered the United States system of unemployment insurance. They had similar constitutional difficulties to ours in Canada, but they overcame them by a different system of application. Has the United States system been considered by the government here?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The Department of Labour, in giving its attention to unemployment insurance, has given serious thought to the systems which have prevailed in other countries, and I assume also that the late administration gave the same serious study to the alternative methods of a national system of insurance and systems such as now prevail in the United States. I do not wish to comment adversely upon the arrangements which now exist in the United States; but at the same time I understand that the establishment of separate schemes in different states has led already to serious complications, particularly in adjoining states where there are large working populations, for instance, in the state of New Jersey, where many working people reside and yet go to work in the state of New York. I simply mention that in passing. I can, however, assure my hon. friend that we have gone very carefully into the systems of unemployment insurance which prevail in other countries.
In connection with its recommendations as to administrative machinery, the national employment commission suggests the desirability of setting up in the Department of Labour a small administrative committee which would assist in carrying out the recommendations of the commission. There is also the suggestion that this committee should act in close cooperation with a subcommittee of the cabinet which also would give special consideration to unemployment problems. A subcommittee of the cabinet already exists for the purpose indicated.
We have in the Department of Labour a number of officers each of whom is concerned with particular branches of the work of the department in relation to unemployment. It is my own thought at the present time that in carrying out this suggestion, instead of setting up a detached advisory committee, which would have had no intimate connection with the problems of administration, it would be desirable that the committee should be

composed of these several officers of the department who have a day-to-day acquaintance with special aspects of the problem of unemployment. Certainly in our future action in this regard we shall do our utmost to see that there is a continuous and careful coordination of the work of the Department of Labour with that of other departments concerned with various aspects of relief and unemployment questions.
This report, and the main recommendations which I have discussed this afternoon and this evening, represent a genuine and useful effort upon the part of the members of the commission and the two advisory committees to give the government and the country some definite direction for the future in connection with this continuing question of economic insecurity. I say that regardless of whether or not I as Minister of Labour am in complete agreement with all the recommendations of the commission. It will be understood by this committee that this commission, and, indeed, royal commissions in general, are called upon to deal with problems under definite terms of reference. That is inevitable and unavoidable. But it has been found by the late administration and, indeed, by all administrations in this country, that a commission charged to deal with a particular problem under definite terms of reference will sometimes, and quite justly from its point of view, make recommendations which from the standpoint of the government it is necessary to reconcile with broader considerations of policy. That undoubtedly is the explanation of the failure on the part of governments-all governments-to accept and implement all recommendations which appear in reports of royal commissions. This government, let me say, feels that in connection with the problem of unemployment it has received able assistance from the national employment commission and the committees on youth employment and women's employment. I have indicated this afternoon some of the distinct and practical advantages which already have flowed from the acceptance by this government of recommendations of that commission, and these advantages will continue to operate during future years.
I shall have reason a little later to indicate to the committee that during the period the national employment commission has been in operation there has been a marked improvement in employment conditions. I am not suggesting that this improvement in conditions has been due wholly or even in large measure to the recommendations made by the commission which have been adopted by the government. I merely say at this time that the commission gave very careful thought to the

Relief and Agricultural Distress
problem committed to it, and that it made to the government various recommendations, some of which have been accepted, for the reasons I have given, some of which have been rejected and some others of which have been held in suspense, also for reasons that I have given. But of this I am very sure, looking back over these last two years, that the establishment of the national employment commission was a wise measure, and I can testify to the fact that during a very difficult period I as Minister of Labour received most valuable assistance from the chairman and members of that commission.
I wish to turn now to what might be described as another aspect of the unemployment problem. Thus far I have been discussing measures directed toward the relief situation or special measures proposed by the national employment commission to provide additional employment. But this government has never attempted to deceive the house or the country with the suggestion that the true cure of unemployment lay in any project which could be developed by an advisory body or which would assume the form of large public expenditures. This government from the very beginning has taken the view that in the long run, and looking toward any permanent solution of economic insecurity, if we can think in terms of permanence in that regard, the true path along which we should go is that of expanding trade and expanding industrial activity. And when as Minister of Labour I deal with the unemployment question, I feel that I would not be doing justice to the problem if I did not refer to the measures taken by this government to deal with the expansion of trade and the promotion of industrial activity. It may be recalled that the opinion was expressed in the house not long ago that it was impossible to revive foreign trade. There are those who said in explicit terms that foreign markets were dead, although I doubt very much if those who made that statement realized the full implications of it for the Canadian people-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who said it?


Norman McLeod Rogers: -because, if foreign markets-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who said it?


Norman McLeod Rogers: If I mistake not, the statement was made on one occasion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that foreign markets were dead.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I cannot recall any such statement.


An hon. MEMBER:: We can.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Although I acquit the leader of the opposition of making that statement in explicit terms,-


Richard Bedford Bennett: He certainly did not.


Norman McLeod Rogers: -I am at least bound to say that some of his policies indicated that so far as he was concerned he put his faith in economic nationalism and in the building up in this country of what might be termed a self-contained industrial structure. But this government has never adopted a defeatist attitude in matters of trade. We realized that great changes had come over the world in recent years, and that the result of the depression had been, so to speak, to cause nations to withdraw within themselves to find some delusive security behind the ramparts of high tariff walls. But we did not believe in that policy; we did not believe that such a trend was inevitable or permanent, and soon after we came into office we gave an earnest of our refusal to accept that theory. We obtained a reciprocity agreement with the United States under which a remarkable stimulus has been given to the great primary industries of this dominion. I shall give shortly some of the results which have been obtained under that reciprocity agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister would not call it reciprocity, would he?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I would call it reciprocity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is the only one who would.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I would also go further, perhaps, and remind the leader of the opposition of some of his predictions with respect to what would happen when that reciprocity agreement came into effect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are coming true now.
Mr. MaeNICOL: Conditions are getting worse every day.


Mr. STEWART:: We have only to wait a little while.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: His estimate of fifty millions instead of six under the item dealing with the $100 exemption for tourists.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The purpose of that reciprocity agreement was to obtain in the great country to the south of us assured markets for the primary producers of Canada. The leader of the opposition made a statement
Relief and Agricultural Distress

from which he would have us believe that the present agreement could have been obtained by him in its present form.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yet on another occasion he also made it clear that he had not concluded an agreement such as the present one because he feared that by doing so some injury might have been done to the manu-facting industries of this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He never said that.


Norman McLeod Rogers: He was not willing to go the last mile in that respect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not say that, so far as I can recall. What he said is on the record, without being paraphrased by the hon. gentleman.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, I have no desire to paraphrase the statements of the right hon. gentleman.


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Which recommendation is the minister discussing now?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am dealing with the
unemployment question, and I propose to refer to what has been accomplished by this government and under this government with respect to the expansion of trade and the increase of employment which has come through the expansion of trade.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That will keep us here till next August!


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes. We do the job.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Notwithstanding the decline in cereal exports due to the poor harvest of last year, Canada has maintained her position among the countries of the world as the fourth largest exporter during 1937. I am now going to place upon Hansard some of the effects of the trade policies of this administration so that it may be clear to one who reads, that in those policies there has been an expansion of trade, and, on the basis of that expansion in trade, a resultant increase of industrial activity in this dominion.


John Ritchie MacNicol: A contraction of employment in Canada.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Total trade:	exports,
calendar year, 1935, $825,284,114; calendar year 1937, $1,110,192,151. I should like to point out particularly the increase in the exports to the United States. In the calendar year 1935 the exports were $358,569,736. They increased in 1937 to $470,181,046. I could go
fMr. Rogers.]
right down through the list of countries with which this government has arranged trade treaties and point to a marked and continuing improvement in exports from Canada to those countries. It may be and indeed it has been said on occasion that the trade with the United States would have occurred whether or not there had been a reciprocity agreement. That suggestion has been controverted time and time again in this house, but I think it. may be useful at this time to indicate exactly the manner in which our trade with the United States has increased.
I deal with domestic exports from Canada to the United States for the twelve months ending December 31, 1935, 1936 and 1937, and I shall take, first, items subject to reduction in rate of duty:
1935	 $35,723,003
1936	 59,281,878
1937	 64,582,861
In other words, there has been a steady expansion, an increase of 80 per cent in 1937 as compared with 1935. The next is items bound by a low rate:
1935		 $3,482,351
1936		 4.751,407
1937		 2,744,964
Next I take items bound to free entry:
1935		$129,813,279
1936		 152,775,607
1937		 189,350,813


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister is of course aware of the fact that the president could not make any item that was on the free list dutiable. Therefore, so far as free entries are concerned, they must have continued.


Charles Avery Dunning: Congress could have
changed it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The Minister of Finance has given the answer to the question. Congress could have changed it. At all events, what I am giving the leader of the opposition and the committee is the actual effect on trade between the United States and Canada flowing from the reciprocity agreement concluded by this administration.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I ask a question?


Norman McLeod Rogers: May I be allowed to continue? I shall be under questioning before the committee, I know, and I am fully prepared for it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But we did not expect this part to come in.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Perhaps I surprised my hon. friend in that respect. The totals of the figures I have given are:
1935		$169,018,633
1936		 216,808,892
1937		 256,678,638

Relief and Agricultural Distress
I suggest to the committee that these figures carry the implication-


Alexander McKay Edwards: Will the minister give the imports of manufactured goods from the United States?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I do not have them for the same period, but I am sure my hon. friend can secure them from the bureau of statistics.
I may be able to get them myself for the hon. gentleman.


Alexander McKay Edwards: It is one-way trade.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As a matter of fact, I would not be disturbed by increasing imports from the United States. I want to see what those imports are, and if my hon. friend will examine them item by item I suggest he will find that the increase in imports was due in very large measure to raw materials, goods that were used by our manufacturers. At any rate I make that prediction, and. I say that they will form a substantial item in the imports from the United States. So much for the increase in trade which has taken place as a result of the trade policies pursued by this administration. No one can read these figures without realizing that this increase in trade has meant increased employment. It could not mean anything else.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In the United States.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No; in this country. Not only that, but when we examine the improvement in employment conditions in Canada during the past year and a half we find that it has taken place mainly in those industries which received a new stimulus from the trade agreement with the United States. But the government has not by any means been content to let the matter rest there. We have gone from one country to another expressing our willingness to trade with them and we have entered into agreements that have laid a basis, we believe, for continuing expansion of our export trade. I am not suggesting that this trade will not be subject to fluctuations which may follow changes in international conditions; far from it. But I do say that with respect to its trade policies the government has made and is making a definite and practical contribution to the relief of unemployment in Canada and in the only way in the long run which is likely to mean the absorption of unemployed in independent and useful occupations.
I turn to another direction in which the government has stimulated industrial activity in Canada. I referred this afternoon to what had been done during the past two years
under agreements with the provinces looking to the encouragement of the tourist trade. In cooperation with the provinces we have built sections of the trans-Canada highway and have built new and accessible roads to national parks, and now I propose to refer to the stimulus that has been given to the great mining industry by the policies adopted by this administration.
It may be remembered that two years ago it was felt desirable that in order to bring new mines into operation, particularly those mines which were far removed or considerably removed from railway communication, special assistance should be given through the building of roads. That policy was initiated by this government under the direction of the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar). In 1936-37 the dominion made a contribution of 81,272,000 for this purpose and the province contributed $610,000, making a total of something under two million dollars for the improvement and building of mining roads. In 1937-38 the dominion contributed $1,300,000 and the provinces $600,000, again making a contribution of just under two million dollars. The employment created by the expenditure of these sums represents, for 1936-37, man days of work, 353.000, and at least fifty per cent of those working on these projects were taken from relief rolls; and in 1937-38, 332,000 man days, at least fifty per cent being again taken from relief rolls.
It is not possible of course to indicate precisely the effect that these roads have had on increasing mining production. But this at least is true. The roads were carefully selected and built into proved mining areas, and this made it possible for prospectors and mining companies to bring in machinery and, in certain instances, to establish mills which otherwise would not have been set up. In the last three years there has been a remarkable increase in the gold production or mineral production of the country. These are the figures:
1935		$312,000,000
1936		 362,000,000
1937		 456,000,000
That surely represents again a marked contribution to the relief of the unemployment situation. In that connection I should like to make it clear to the committee that the government assisted the mining industry in more ways than through the construction of roads. It may be recalled that in what I think was the first budget of this administration, additional encouragement was given to

Relief and Agricultural Distress
new mines coming into production. An amendment to the Income War Tax Act provided that all new metalliferous mines coming into production between the first day of May, 1936, and the first day of January, 1940, would be exempt from income tax for a period of three years. Here, too, there can be no question at all that this policy has been of substantial assistance in enabling many small mines to get properly on their feet and go into production. These mines have swelled the total production to which I referred a moment ago.
May I also refer to what has been done, partly for the relief of those in need and partly for the stimulation of a great industry, by another department of the government. I refer to the Department of Fisheries. The fishing population in certain provinces has passed through very difficult times; yet despite conditions of poverty with which many members of this committee must be familiar these fishing families in Quebec and the maritime provinces were most reluctant to go on direct relief. They have, in many instances, a very low standard of living. Anyone who is familiar with the work they carry on cannot but feel that no class of people in this country is more deserving of our consideration than these fishermen. This government took special measures to deal with the needs of our fishing, population. Out of the appropriation of the Department of Fisheries for the fiscal year 1936-37, some 8200,000 was spent, in cooperation with the provinces concerned, in order to aid in the reestablishment of needy fishermen in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec. From the joint fund provided by the dominion and .the respective provinces 6,649 loans to fishermen and 22 loans to fishermen's associations were made in the maritime provinces, while in Quebec some 8,930 fishermen received grants. During the last fiscal year, under another appropriation, the sum of 8400,000 was used for the same purposes.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Was any of this money expended in behalf of the fishermen in British Columbia?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I understand that British Columbia did not accept the scheme. Presumably it was not accepted because in the view of the British Columbia government the provisions of assistance as offered did not seem to have the same appeal there. In addition, the Department of Fisheries, through stimulus to marketing, has helped improve the condition of the fishing industry. Under those 
policies there has been a steady and substantial increase in the value of the exports of fish. I shall give just a few rough figures of the value of exports:
1935	1936	1937
Fresh and frozen
halibut	$231,000	$418,000	$454,000
Fresh and frozen
salmon	
466,000	707,000	548,000Whale oil	
98,000	127,000	148,000
In these several references to the expansion of trade and of industrial activity in certain directions under the policies of this administration I have indicated a substantial enlargement of opportunity for employment. I now propose to give the committee-and with this I shall conclude-a statement, based upon registration, of the unemployment condition in Canada at the present time. I give first, the figures for January, from the registration branch, the registration which was set up by the national employment commission, but which will be continued now in connection with the Department of Labour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are those figures based on the original computations made by the commission, or is a fresh census taken of the unemployed on each occasion?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The answer to that is this: The first general registration made by the national employment commission was in September, 1936. The forms, which required a great deal of careful preparation, were then determined upon, and from that time forward the various provinces and municipalities have maintained a continuous correction of the figures from month to month. Each month the registration branch receives these reports from the provinces and municipalities. There is of necessity, as I pointed out some time ago, a time lag in the receipt of the information at Ottawa.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And it cannot be complete.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think it can be as complete as any figures that could be obtained.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except census figures.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Except census figures; but there again the trouble with census figures, as the leader of the opposition is aware, is that because of the magnitude of the task you do not get the figures until much later, and then they do not represent an existing situation. It may be remembered that last year the United States set apart an amount of something like $5,000,000, or possibly more, for a census of the unemployed. The census was taken through the post office, and when it was completed the head of the census, who was a prominent industrialist in the United

Relief and Agricultural Distress
States, acknowledged that he could not say definitely whether the unemployed numbered
7,500,000	or 10,000,000. There was that much uncertainty. The figures, moreover, were not available until some months later, and it just happened that those were months when there was a marked increase in unemployment in the United States, which was known to everybody. I think the method of registration which we have in operation at the present time is as effective as could be devised under the circumstances. Certainly it enables us, within what I acknowledge is some margin of error, to determine the fluctuations in the actual conditions.
To return to my original statement, in January, 1938, fully employable persons on aid numbered 161,000. In relation to our population that figure is far less than the United States figure, and I believe I am correct in saying that it is proportionately less than the figure of unemployed in Great Britain, despite the great industrial activity now existing in that country.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are these the numbers of unemployed receiving relief?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes; I am now dealing with the unemployed on relief.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That does not give a picture of the unemployment situation.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It gives a picture of the unemployment situation in so far as it is a relief problem at the present time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But the figure
given by the minister is not comparable with the figure for Great Britain.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Otherwise what we would have-and I have referred to them from time to time-would be the estimates made by the bureau of statistics. Those estimates are based, in part, upon returns from the trade unions; in part, upon the annual increase in population, and in part, upon the figures which come in with respect to relief. They are estimates and no more.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The minister just tried to compare the figure he gave with the figures for Great Britain. Those figures cannot be compared.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I believe my hon. friend is correct in that, and I acknowledge it fully. What I am giving now is the number of the fully employable on relief. The total number of persons on aid, other than agricultural aid, including employable, unemployable and non-worker dependents, or, in other words, including children up to the age of
sixteen, and wives, was 604,000, in January, 1938, according to unrevised figures. Farm population on agricultural aid shows a figure of 410,000. That is a significant figure, and one to which I shall refer in a moment. It is a reflection of the vast drought conditions in Saskatchewan. Then, there is a comparision of January, 1938, with January 1937, and December 1937. I should like to place those figures on Hansard, because at this time I think it is of the utmost importance that we should know what the situation is, as reflected by registration figures.
For January, 1938, fully employable persons showed a decrease of thirty-seven per cent from January, 1937. From December, 1937, the number of fully employable persons showed an increase of about seven per cent. All persons on non-agricultural aid in January, 1938, showed a decrease of thirty per cent from January, 1937. From December, 1937, to January, 1938, there was an increase of seven per cent in non-agricultural aid. Agricultural aid in January, 1938, showed an increase of 103 per cent over January, 1937. Of the January, 1938, total on agricultural aid, approximately eighty-nine per cent were located in Saskatchewan. Those are general figures, covering the entire dominion.
It seemed to me there might be some advantage in breaking down those figures of the unemployed on relief in the various geographical and industrial areas of the country. I believe I shall be able to convince the committee of the significance of such a break-down. It lies in the fact that we have conditions operating in British Columbia different from those in the maritime provinces, and conditions in the prairie provinces during the last seven years have been entirely different from those obtaining, let us say, in the great industrial provinces of central Canada.
I have had this statement prepared in order to show the changes which have taken place in these different areas from January, 1936, to January, 1937, and again from January, 1937, to January, 1938. I have divided Canada into four economic zones, namely the maritime provinces, central Canada, the prairie provinces and British Columbia, and I suggest there are sound reasons for so dividing them. The total numbers of all domestic classifications of persons on aid in January, 1938, compared with January 1936, showed reductions in three zones. There was a reduction of thirty-two per cent, or about a third, in British Columbia; 49-7 per cent in the central provinces, and 83-6 per cent
Relief and Agricultural Distress

in the maritime provinces. Only the prairie provinces showed an increase, and one to the extent of 49-7 per cent.
Material aid-that is, aid exclusive of agricultural aid-showed reductions in all areas, with the exception of the prairie provinces. The dominion reduction was 38-7 per cent. That in British Columbia was 29-7 per cent; in central Canada it was 45T per cent, and in the maritime provinces, 78-4 per cent. Agricultural aid showed a net increase for the dominion, from January, 1936, to January, 1938, of twenty-nine per cent. This was wholly accounted for by farm distress in Saskatchewan. The net increase in the prairie provinces over the two years was 83-8 per cent; but the three remaining areas showed reductions in agricultural aid of 44-9 per cent in British Columbia, 88-1 per cent in central Canada and 97-1 per cent in the maritime provinces.
With respect to these different areas, it is quite clear that particularly in the maritime provinces there has been what might be termed a virtual return to normal economic conditions. We have here a reduction, since this government took office, amounting to over eighty per cent of the relief problem, and it may be recalled that in the speech from the throne delivered in Nova Scotia this year, the explicit statement was made that there had been a reduction from 75,000 on relief in Nova Scotia in 1933 to 6,500 at the present time. Surely that is a remarkable improvement.
In New Brunswick direct relief is no longer being given. That province, however, is giving assistance to unemployed in need through what might be termed a works-test program, to which the dominion government has given a contribution.
The problem has been reduced by one-third in British Columbia during the period I have indicated. In the last two years the problem in the central provinces has been almost cut in half. In the prairie provinces, of course, there has been this unfortunate increase in the numbers receiving agricultural aid. And may I say this, while referring to conditions in the prairie provinces, that of course the increase in those receiving relief has been mainly due to the prolonged drought. The problem in the western provinces has never been susceptible to general economic influences, in the sense in which it has in the other provinces. I believe it is important that we recognize that fact.
As I said this afternoon-and it is acknowledged by everyone-there is every reason why

we should seek the truth in these matters; but we should be sure it is the truth, and we should not speak of an unemployment problem as one including those suffering from continued drought conditions. We should not feel that we are not making progress with respect to employment simply because there is a continuance of those receiving agricultural relief in the drought areas.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hope the minister does not intend to convey that there is no unemployment relief in the western provinces.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No; I am, coming to that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a relief problem, not an employment problem.


Mr. BARBER:: Is it not true that large numbers have left the dried out area in the last few years and moved to other parts?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Quite a number have-some to British Columbia and some to the other provinces. One must hope that with improved conditions, or even with the prospect of improved conditions, there may be a return movement of those people to the farms which have been abandoned.
The point I was trying to convey to the committee was that in the western provinces the problem is one of relief, as the leader of the opposition has said; it is not an unemployment problem. When one comes to the cities of western Canada-and I think I understand to some degree their plight; for I have been in most of them, and from day to day I am brought into active contact with conditions prevailing there-one concludes that the employment in those cities is, to a large degree, a reflection of the persistent drought.


Charles Avery Dunning: Absolutely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not wholly.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is comparatively
little manufacturing in western Canada- again I have the figures here, but I shall not weary the committee by giving them now. I have, however, figures which show that in those western provinces the bulk of unemployment in the cities exists in what might be called service trades, distributing trades or retail trades. Of course, where there is manufacturing, we have unemployment. But my point is that in western Canada we have had conditions-and they existed also during the time of the late administration-where improvement depended upon climatic factors, upon nature, if you like, and-


Charles Avery Dunning: Rain.

Relief and Agricultural Distress


Norman McLeod Rogers: -rain, yes, as the Minister of Finance has said. These are conditions which we must meet as a national emergency, and upon the basis of giving subsistence and further aid where they may be wisely given; this government has met this emergency upon that basis. I am not going into that aspect of it because the Minister of Agriculture has dealt with it already in one connection and will do so again. But we have met that situation and we have provided the drought areas of the west with subsistence. We have also given assistance toward the planting of the new crop which, given sufficient rain, is the one thing that will restore normal conditions in these western provinces.
Let me say further that the persistence of these abnormal conditions in western Canada and the withdrawal of ten of thousands-I am putting it conservatively-of our people from the production, of income have had a natural reflection upon industrial activity in other parts of the country. When we consider the figures to which I referred a moment ago in the light of the fact that the great wheat producing area of the dominion has been largely out of production for seven years, I think we have reason for confidence and not for pessimism.. We must all trust that the west will once more return to production. When that happens, there will be a quick reflection of these conditions upon such unemployment as does exist in western cities and upon employment conditions in central Canada.
It is well that these great industrial provinces should remember that although they are now required to assist the west, in earlier years they were aided in their development by the growth of the western market. It is very easy to forget that in these days, it is very easy for people to say that the east is supporting the west, but the west with its great primary industries has helped the east materially. I know of factories in the maritime provinces-and the same is true throughout Ontario and Quebec-that have been established or expanded upon the basis of that great western market. The east is as much interested in the revival of western Canada as is western Canada itself. Instead .of each asking what the other is doing for it, it would be infinitely better for this country to realize that its different sections, no matter what their industrial occupations may be, are bound together by an economic connection, and that what benefits one, in 51952-127
the long run tends to benefit another. Our policies in relation to relief and unemployment must be policies motivated by a desire to preserve and restore national unity. It has been said on all sides of this chamber that this is the great problem confronting us at the present time; I have no desire to add greatly to what has been said on this matter. There is good ground for confidence in the existing situation in Canada, and if we are able to avoid sectional differences and cleavages there is no reason why this country cannot meet every problem with which it may be confronted.
In relation to this unemployment question I confess that sometimes it has seemed to be the labour of Sisyphus. If I may change my figure of speech, there have been times when we seemed to be ever climbing up a climbing wave. At that period I tried to be as frank as I have been to-day in presenting the actual truth of the situation. However, when we survey the record of substantial advancement during the past two years, we should accept it as ground for encouragement for the future. I believe we have made some mistakes and miscalculations, but on the whole I think we can look back upon what has been done in the past two years as a substantial contribution to the alleviation of our unemployment situation.
I do not think for a moment that any Minister of Labour, whoever he might be, could be satisfied with conditions as they exist to-day. He could not be satisfied in the light of the unemployment that still exists. But I believe we have pursued a sound policy and I think we may claim credit for having avoided some unsound policies. Upon the basis of what we have done, upon the basis of what we are still ready to do, I believe we may still ask for and receive the full confidence of the people of this country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I think the committee will appreciate the careful and comprehensive review of the activities of his department which has been given us by the minister. I note that in the resolution before us we have included the alleviation of both unemployment and agricultural distress. It seems to me to be unfortunate that these two matters should have been included in the same motion. For the greater part of his time the minister dealt almost entirely with relief questions, but toward the end he gave us the impression that the relief which was

Relief and Agricultural Distress

necessary was caused largely by natural conditions on the prairies. The minister recognized in the earlier part of his speech that economic security was the most important question before the people of Canada. That is true; yet the Department of Labour, which deals with a great variety of questions relating to economic security is a minor spending department.
Until the latter part of his speech, the minister spent nearly all of his time in dealing with the problems of relief. He did not go into the question of the causes of unemployment. When he attempted to say anything about remedies for unemployment, he fell back very largely-if I can remember all of his three-hour speech-on the tourist trade and matters of tariff.
I believe the minister was right when he referred to the improvement that had taken place by getting rid of the relief camps as they were being conducted. But we still have the problem of the single homeless man. A number of these men have been taken care of under the farm placement scheme, but after all this has been rather a cheap way of boarding out these men. A great number of these single homeless men can be regarded as casualties of our industrial system. Instead of having our industrial system care for them, if necessary out of its reserves as has been suggested in the textile commission report recently tabled, we are throwing them out on their own or asking that they be taken care of in the agricultural districts. I do not think that is the way to handle a great problem of that kind.
Again, it is true that the department has made some progress with its home improvement plan, but I suggest that it has not been on a sufficiently large scale either to take care of the mechanics who have been displaced by the depression or to provide the necessary housing accommodation for our people.
The minister has told us that the government has adopted a broad coordinated program, but notwithstanding his lengthy speech I must say that he has not divulged to us very clearly the nature and terms of such a program. I really could not discover that he has told us just how the government proposes to solve this great problem. I do not want to be unkind, for I respect the minister very highly, but it seems to me that he spent a considerable part of his time in trying to tell us why we could not do anything. He raised the old constitutional objections as a reason why it was quite impossible to adopt the main recommendations of the commission.

The commission was appointed, we all remember, nearly two years ago. It was to help solve a pressing problem. Two years have gone by. There has been extreme distress in many parts of this country, and the distress is not confined to western Canada. I happened to be in New Brunswick only last week, and although they have withdrawn relief I find that the unemployed people in Saint John are complaining bitterly about the scheme that has been adopted, to which we have just been told this government is giving some assistance. According to the reports I heard, the scheme is far from satisfactory. So, although I am a westerner, I do not want the committee to get the impression that unemployment is confined to the west, because those of us who are closely connected in any way with the labour movement have it impressed upon us almost every day through our correspondence that there is still a vast amount of unemployment throughout the country.
In the two years that have elapsed since the commission's appointment there has undoubtedly been a certain recovery; but the commission has been so long in reporting that already, even before the commission's report was laid before us, we are apparently heading into another depression. The work of the commission has dragged along until it has got past the time when it could have most favourably reported, and we are already facing, as the leader of the opposition warned us the other day, a new depression. Worse than all, even according to the minister's own statement, the government cannot implement the recommendations of the commission until we have before us the findings of the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations.
Really this appointment of commissions seems to be an excellent way of getting nothing done. The government appointed the national employment commission two years ago and asked them to advise us what to do on this problem of unemployment. They go on for two years, and before the end of the two years another commission is appointed- the commission on dominion-provincial relations. Then, when the national employment commission reports, it tells us that we shall have to await the findings of this new commission! The minister himself says he cannot accept the findings of the national employment commission until he has before him the findings of the second commission, and I suppose it will be another year or more before that commission reports.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The textile commission, too.

Relief and Agricultural Distress


James Shaver Woodsworth: That was over two years ago. I am referring now, not to the textile commission, but rather to the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations. According to the minister, we cannot have the recommendations of the national employment commission implemented until the other commission reports.
I should like to raise what may seem like a very small matter, but it is extremely difficult for us to follow easily this rather complicated final report of the commission partly because, among other things, of the extremely involved sentences. I tried to go over the report over the weekend and I found considerable difficulty. Take this sentence, for example. I am inclined to think that two letters have been transposed and that for "on" before "statutory," we should read "no" in paragraph (b) on page 28. It reads:
(b) the qualifications for unemployment insurance (which involves a statutory right for the recipient), or for unemployment aid (which involves an exgratia allowance based on need carrying on statutory right for the recipient because no contribution has been made), can be made clear and precise, susceptible of proof and capable of being determined by a dominion employment service: stated briefly, they would be-having been self-supporting; having been employed; and/or being now capable of employment though unemployed.
I shall have to take a breath after that. Or take this sentence on page 30:
In the latter ease the burden of providing for unemployment need in the case of those not covered by the insurance fund or for those who have exhausted their benefits, thus placed upon the provinces and/or municipalities, will only add to the popular agitation for extended insurance benefits the interested pressures of these provincial and municipal governments.
It is not the minister who is to blame for this, but I would suggest that someone be set aside by the government to step down these phrases into terms that could be comprehended by all of us.


Angus MacInnis: Get another royal commission to do it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Again, I think there are some rather artificial and arbitrary distinctions drawn in the report. For instance, aid; assistance; relief; voluntary aid-one needs to get the meaning of these terms very clearly into one's head if he is to understand the pages and pages of discussion that follow. Or, take the distinction which the minister himself emphasized between an apprenticeship and a learnership. I think the minister had hard work to explain to us the constitutional difference that sets the two so far apart. I am inclined to think there was a constitutional difficulty first; then a question of policy, and that these words were almost
51952-127J
invented in order that the government might approve assistance to "learnership" although it would not approve assistance to "apprenticeship."
The main recommendation, I take it, of the commission was that the dominion government should become responsible for at least a part of the program for dealing with unemployment. That is why some of our more reactionary newspapers are condemning the report of the commission; and perhaps their opposition is one reason for my thinking there is something good in the report of the commission. The minister says he agrees in principle, and I suppose he speaks for the government, but I should like to know what it means to agree in principle and yet not be prepared to implement the recommendations or to do anything except, as he says, give them very careful consideration.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It does not mean a
thing.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I agree with the
hon. member for Davenport that "It does not mean a thing." I wish the minister could take time during this discussion to tell us just what he considers it means when the government says it "agrees in principle" with this recommendation that places a certain definite responsibility upon the dominion government. I know it is stated that there is a certain functional responsibility. Again, that is a purely arbitrary arrangement. In any case, if we cannot carry out that functional responsibility because of the British North America Act; if the dominion government will not take any definite steps to see that the dominion has the power to alter it, and if the government refers the matter to the provinces under such conditions that it is practically impossible that all the provinces will agree to its endorsation, then what does it all mean?
We are back where we were two years ago, before the commission was appointed. It seems to me ridiculous that, with the distress there has been for some years in Canada, and with the fuss about the appointment of a royal commission, and the very heavy expenditures involved in the appointment of that commission, when the report comes in, almost all that is vital in it should be agreed to "in principle," but the committee should be told that really the government cannot do anything about it. It is just a case of "as you were."
The commission recommends that there should be certain changes in administration. The commission had no administrative functions; it was purely advisory. On page 43 it

iteliej and Agricultural Distress
is suggested that we should have a small administrative committee to be entrusted with the practical application of national employment commission recommendations as approved by the dominion government. Apparently that recommendation is not to be accepted. We are to have a national system of unemployment insurance. Of course that cannot be accepted. Then we are to have an interdepartmental committee of officials, and apparently the minister considers that nothing more is necessary than that which we already possess. Under those circumstances it was high time, I think, for the commission to fold up. It was rather an inglorious ending. The minister was quite laudatory as to the great services which the commission had rendered to the department; yet in the earlier part of his speech he appeared to suggest that before the commission got under way the government had done almost everything that had been done. I do not know whether that is correct or not; but for the life of me I cannot see, from what the minister has given us to-day, what advancement is to come because of this report. There are, of course, certain small ameliorative projects. For example, we are to have training of girls for domestic service. That is fine. I do not quite know why it is that the dominion government should enter into that field-a domestic field if anything is a domestic field-but that is to be done. Again, we have the training of young people to a certain extent. They must not be apprentices, but they may receive some general training, especially along recreational lines.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is my hon. friend opposed to that?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No. I think that
is excellent. But I suggest that there is no valid reason why the dominion government should enter into spheres of recreation and general training when it refuses to give grants for carrying on either apprenticeship or technical work.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If I might just correct my hon. friend, I do not think he is stating the matter quite as I put it this afternoon. Under the agreements we can assist in giving occupational training. We are doing so in a number of provinces. My point was that I did not think it was wise that the dominion government should enact legislation dealing with apprenticeship. That was the point.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite so. Well, I am not particular whether the dominion government enacts that legislation or not, but what I do suggest is that if it is possible

through a cooperative effort to provide recreational centres in the provinces, it is surely possible through another cooperative effort to provide technical training for other young people in the provinces-


Norman McLeod Rogers: We are doing it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -and to do it on a larger scale. But we are constantly up against this: It seems to me-and I do not want to be unfair-that when the government does not want to do a thing, immediately this old constitutional question is trotted out.
I protest decidedly against the delay involved in the government doing precious little, awaiting the report of a commission. Take the case of the textile commission to which the leader of the opposition referred. It was appointed nearly two and a half years ago. Why? Because nearly a thousand men were thrown out of work in Sherbrooke; because the town council of Sherbrooke had called an emergency meeting to consider the situation. We have to wait for two years and a half before we are told that there was no need whatever of a lay-off at that time. And we did not get that information until last week.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And it cost $174,000.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It cost $174,000, and we did not get it for two and a half years. That is an absurd way of doing public business. When, as in this case, a commission reports and we are told that we cannot implement its report until yet another commission reports, it is a still more absurd way of doing business. In the meantime the people suffer. The hungry sheep look up and are not fed. That is the trouble. I came across in my old files only a few days ago a plea from certain miners of Cape Breton, nearly two thousand of them, who at that time were out of work; a miner wrote in to me:
The stomachs of the men, women and children demand prompt action, and I thought the government might help.
Deluded man! He "thought the government might help." Oh, no. We must appoint a royal commission, and a second royal commission, and then seek some great changes in the constitution. "I thought the government might help." I would say, "deluded people," generally, and I am not putting it in an exaggerated form when I suggest that if we do not improve our ways democracy itself will show itself bankrupt. I am not one who wants a dictatorship, of either communism or fascism, but I say that they haw come in different countries because democracy has

Relief and Agricultural Distress
not been tried or has failed, and unless we can deal in a much more practical way than we are doing with the pressing problems that face us in Canada, democracy is bound to fail in this country as it has failed in some others.
I wish to point out some of the actual situations that prevail. I shall cite first the conditions in my own city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba. It is not very often that in this house I have set forth specifically matters affecting my own city or my own province; I have tried to deal more largely with general questions. But I make no apology for taking up this question, because to-day our city is almost bankrupt. They are wondering whether or not they can draw on their sinking funds in order to give relief to the people and keep the schools open. The banks tell them that they are not to draw on their sinking funds, and I suppose, from the standpoint of sound finance, that is quite proper. They are trying to cut down on their school expenditures, and the school board says they must not do that because surely the children should not be made to carry the load. They are trying to cut down on their ordinary services all along the line; they are right up against it; that is shown clearly in the newspapers of the last few days. Now, as I have listened for three hours to the Minister of Labour as he has been expounding this report which it has taken nearly two years to prepare, I have been wondering what help there is for my city of Winnipeg and for the large numbers of people who are there unemployed. Let me read a passage or two from the Bank of Canada report. I think it is worth while doing this. I quote:
But when the province suffered from six consecutive years in which the net value of its production was little more than half of that of the preceding period, discouragement and strain throughout the province were inevitable.
And again:
The initial proposal was for a one per cent income tax and a sales tax, but the sales tax proposal was dropped and the income tax raised to two per cent, making it the heaviest income tax in North America in relation to small incomes.
On the side of expenditure, further cuts were made in highway maintenance, education, and other items, reducing total ordinary expenditures for the year 1933-34, in spite of another increase in debt charges.. Capital expenditures ceased entirely.
Again, at page 22:
We believe that during most of the period under review, and specifically during the last five years, the government of the province of Manitoba has made strong and commendable
efforts to keep its budget balanced, and avoid unnecessary increases in debt, by imposing taxation on a scale at least as high as that of any other province in Canada, and by restricting expenditures as far as it was possible to go without curtailing services to an extent which would not have been in the public interest.
What more can we do in that province? Again:
Notwithstanding this advantage and the efforts of its government, which, as we have indicated, have been very considerable, the province is either not in a position to carry on, or is able to do so with assurance for no more than a short period, unless some unexpected favourable factor should appear.
I ask the minister, What does he propose to do in that contingency? Here is the Bank of Canada making its report in which it says that the province is not in a position to carry on, or is able to do so with assurance for no more than a short period unless some unexpected favourable factor should appear.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Was that report prepared before or after the crop season of last year?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Before. The Bank of Canada's report far the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan was made public on February 15, 1937; March 15, 1937; and April 7, 1937, respectively.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There has been some improvement since then.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes; but one crop does not alter the situation any more than one swallow makes a summer. Let me give two other quotations, and I do so because I do not believe the members from the eastern and central provinces realize yet the situation in the drought area or the condition of the people in the industrial centres of the west. I quote from page 16:
Some 84 per cent of all direct relief expenditures in the province have had to be made in Winnipeg and suburbs; including relief works expenditures the proportion is 74 per cent. Although Winnipeg's net debt was relatively low, the major portion of the provincial tax revenues were derived from the city, and there was little margin for increasing municipal revenues. Consequently, greater Winnipeg was early forced to rely on the province for assistance in meeting its share of relief costs, and by the end of the fiscal year 1936 had borrowed $3,500,000, or 95 per cent of total municipal borrowings from the province, excluding the drought area.
One other quotation:
Of the $24,000,000 spent or loaned for relief purposes by the province, the dominion will have advanced $19,000,000 and will have paid an additional $20,000,000 for its own share, making with the municipalities' $9,000,000 a grand total of $53,000,000 relief expenditures by all agencies.
Relief and Agricultural Distress

When we have figures like these it is high time that we gave a little more attention not only to relief on a much greater scale than has hitherto been contemplated but also to the question behind relief, of how we can provide against unemployment.
I wish to deal with one or two points with reference to the constitutional question, and I turn to Manitoba's case as presented recently to the Rowell commission. I propose to quote from page 41. May I say that we cannot wait until the Rowell commission reports before we deal with these problems. I am taking the case as submitted to that commission because it contains figures which I assume will be accepted by the government. Under the heading "Amendment of the Constitution," there appears the following:
It may be said from the above that the original conception and the present position of the constitution of Canada are poles apart. It has been interpreted in a way which it can safely be said would have caused consternation in the minds of those who framed it.
It will be apparent from the decided cases in such matters of the grayest national importance as unemployment insurance, weekly rest, minimum wages, hours of labour and other great social services, that we in Canada are practically at an impasse. The dominion, according to the decisions referred to above, has not the power to pass legislation in relation to such matters. The provinces alone have the power to pass such legislation, but they cannot in practice deal with such matters satisfactorily, as from their nature only national action in regard thereto can really be effective. In addition, to repeat what has already been emphasized, the provinces have not at present the powers of taxation necessary to meet the outlay for said matters and matters of similar import.
Let me quote one short paragraph further down:
Hence one is led to the irresistible conclusion that our constitution as it stands at present has ceased to be an effective instrument of government. It should be amended so that the defects which have been pointed out can be removed, and so that it will meet the needs of to-day and will cease to be an obstacle to social progress and national development.
The minister has referred to constitutional difficulties, and I simply give this extract from the case as presented to the commission to show its practical bearings. But what does the minister propose to do? In theory he is very much opposed to grants in aid, and possibly that is correct from the purely theoretical standpoint. But what are we going to do in circumstances such as these? Are we going to wait another two years until the Rowell commission reports, when the city is on the verge of bankruptcy, and the people, if the city cannot give relief, will be faced with actual starvation? Is there nothing that

can be done about the matter? I do not think we can simply allow the government to give us general and vague phrases and go on for one year more.
Last year the situation was bad enough. Everything reported by the Bank of Canada existed then, but the government had to hurry over to the coronation and participate in the ceremonies there; that was infinitely more important than caring for the people here! Therefore nothing was done last year; and now when this year we ask for some action, we are told that we must wait until some other commission reports or until all the provinces are agreed to constitutional changes. If some of the provinces are satisfied with the existing situation, very well; but some of us have to .take action and to do so in the not too distant future. I have always done my best to frown upon anything like the advocacy of secession, but I say that people are being driven to despair by the situation that prevails. Secession would be a political move to try to solve an economic difficulty, and I do not think it would be successful in itself. But I urge that something must be done if we are to have that unity which the minister has pleaded for to-night. That unity must mean that the sections of the community which are in difficulties can have their difficulties met promptly and adequately.
I should like to give just one quotation from another section of this brief, dealing with federal monetary policy. I am afraid, however, that in making my notes this particular passage was not brought down to my desk. I am sorry; I should like to have quoted it. It appears on page 1 of part 3. Perhaps some other time I shall take occasion to read this quotation. Undoubtedly that monetary policy has borne very heavily upon the people of the west. They had to sell abroad, and the exchange relationship that existed worked a very great hardship on the western people. Further than that, one should remember the tariff policy, into which I shall not enter at this time; and still further than that, the difficult position of the school districts, even in Manitoba. To-day we heard a plea for the school districts of Saskatchewan and Alberta, but there are large numbers of rural schools in Manitoba in a serious predicament. Are we going to allow the education of our children in this country to be subordinated to other and lesser considerations?
What is the government prepared to do? Under the restrictions imposed by their charters and by the British North America Act the municipalities and some of the provinces are

Relief and Agricultural Distress
unable to provide for the unemployed. In the circumstances what are we going to do? That is the question I should like to ask the government. Let me repeat that my own city at the moment is almost on the verge of bankruptcy. It is in a very difficult position. It does not know which way to turn. The province is in a difficult situation. It does not know which way to turn. What is to be done to meet the situation?


Mr. DUPUIS:: Has the hon. member a suggestion to make to the committee?


James Shaver Woodsworth: If the minister has no suggestion in all the time he has considered the problem, I do not think the hon. member can expect me to make one at the moment.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will my hon. friend permit me to offer just a brief observation? The dominion government has not been at any time indifferent to the position of Manitoba or any other western province. I think if the hon. gentleman looks back over the record, he will acknowledge that. He has referred particularly to the city of Winhipeg. I am aware that the city of Winnipeg has been in a difficult position. Equally, other municipalities have been in a difficult position; but, as I have had occasion to point out before, there are two ways of meeting the situation. One is for the municipality to receive powers of taxation other than levies upon real estate. I believe an attempt was made in the case of Winnipeg to secure from the provincial legislature additional powers of taxation, but that attempt was only partly successful. I am quite sure that when my hon. friend speaks of the municipality being bankrupt, he does not mean that the people of that municipality are in a bankrupt condition; for the problem rests in part upon the relation between provincial and municipal finance. I do not suggest that as the whole story; but I think if he is putting a position before us, he should not forget that the city of Winnipeg did make certain proposals to the provincial legislature, and that those were only partly met.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not very much impressed by what the minister has said. I do not say that everybody in Winnipeg is bankrupt, but I do say that from the statement made by the Bank of Canada the minister can understand that we are in a pretty bad way in that city. Already we have taxed ourselves to the limit. I cannot see how most people can do anything further. I referred previously to the real estate tax,
which has been terrifically heavy, so that many houses have had to be tom down because the owners could not afford to maintain them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And they told the legislature they could not carry on.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes. You reach a certain point and you cannot go any further. What is to be done? And what are the unemployed to do? Are they to be allowed to starve?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There has never been any suggestion of that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is no suggestion of it; but if you read the Winnipeg papers for the last few days, you will realize the position of that city. There is no suggestion, the minister says; but what is your alternative? We have cut down our services to a point beyond which it is not in the public interest to cut further.
This government cannot escape responsibility for that situation. My colleague suggests that the city increased its relief debt by $10,000,000 in seven years. It is a serious situation. The minister made an eloquent appeal for unity; he pleaded that the eastern part of the country would realize what the west had done in the past. Well, the west is up against it to-day, and about all the minister can say is, "Why don't you tax yourselves a little more heavily?"


Norman McLeod Rogers: No; my hon. friend is certainly misrepresenting what I said.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not want to do that.


Norman McLeod Rogers: We have been dealing with the western provinces from the very beginning on the basis of grants in aid, to assist them in dealing with the unemployment situation. Not only that; but in the city of Winnipeg, as my hon. friend is aware, the late administration as well as this government made extraordinary provision in connection with the establishment of a sewage disposal plant. The expenditure there ran very close to $4,000,000, and the dominion government either advanced or loaned the money to the province and municipality. I do want the hon. gentleman to understand that we have not been indifferent to the situation in Winnipeg.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No; the government may not have been indifferent to it, but I do want-


Norman McLeod Rogers: Then why not state what
has been done?
Relief and Agricultural Distress


James Shaver Woodsworth: What I want the minister to understand is that to-day the situation has become almost impossible, and that nothing he has mentioned this afternoon or this evening as far as I can recall would give us the faintest glimmer of hope that this government is going to assist in that situation. That is what I want to bring out. Further I ask what the unemployed are to do under those circumstances. Are they to starve? Are we to wait until there are riots? That has happened in some cases in the past. Let no one say here that I am advocating riots, but I do urge that sometimes the dominion government has waited until riots occurred before it paid sufficient attention to the situation which existed.


Vincent Dupuis: That is a nice suggestion
to put in the minds of the people.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Just a moment; a little later I have a suggestion to advance. But, first, what are the minister's suggestions? One is that we should encourage the tourist trade; at least that is the suggestion which the minister takes over from the commission. Further, the commission suggests that we could sell articles to tourists at reduced rates. Well, now, is that to be one of the important parts of the relief program, to bring about the solution of the unemployment problem in this country; to encourage tourists and sell things to them? I suppose if we build enough highways, we could place all the unemployed along them and set them to work selling trinkets to the tourists; probably the trinkets would be made in Japan, but of course they would be made to look, like Indian souvenirs. Really, I do ask the minister whether he is serious in telling us that for the solution of these things we have to depend upon the development of the tourist traffic. Are we to be employed largely in selling little things to tourists; are we to become a nation of wayside shopkeepers and hotelkeepers? Is that our ambition for this country? Surely the minister has not made much of a case for the policy of the government in developing the industries of the country, developing its natural resources and putting the Dominion of Canada on a self-reliant basis.
A moment ago an hon. member asked for a suggestion. I offer this, as a bare suggestion : The minister himself has emphasized the advisability of more housing. I think that is quite correct. It serves two purposes: It provides for the needs of the people-

and we have need for more housing from coast to coast-further, it is generally conceded that almost immediately a large number of mechanics are employed. There is no one policy which would stimulate general activity more than increased activity in the building trade.
The commission has given some consideration to the low-rent housing scheme. I urge the government to consider it more carefully. The minister was very cautious in his statement; he said some such scheme was being considered. But wie want something more than long term "consideration." We have had a commission, and we have heard its advice. Many of us would now like to have action! What the people want is not more commissions, more bureaux, more research; what they want, above all, is work,-work! And the government must give that work.
Some one may say: Why do the people not look out for their own jobs? We grew up in a pioneering country, where it was possible for a man to find a job for himself. But to-day I believe that with the exception of the farming industry about 85 per cent of all people who work for a living are working for somebody else.
Who must provide work? The people who have money say they cannot invest their money in productive enterprises so as to bring in a profit; so they are investing in bonds, if they can, or their money is lying idle. Under these circumstances it seems to me the government will have to step in and provide for the housing of the people, or set up other schemes of a similar kind.
The minister referred to the SI5.000.000. the amount which I believe was put into the home improvement plan last year by the government. But that plan touched only the middle-class people; it did not touch the people who most needed homes. It did not provide for the clearance of slums which have existed for twenty-five years in Montreal, in Saint John, in Toronto-in almost all our cities. I would suggest that the government could not do better than place an estimate before the house for something like 8100,000.000 for slum clearance, and the provision of low rent housing. Someone laughs! What is wrong with that? If last year we could provide
836,000,000 for national defence and $34,000,000 this year-some of it to be spent on useless armouries-I wonder why we cannot provide 8100,000,000 to house our people and to provide work for the unemployed.
When I think of the enormous sums which have been spent in Canada for relief pur-

Relief and Agricultural Distress
poses, just thrown away, as it were, I wonder why we could not have some return! Somebody may ask: Where shall we find the money? I think it would be comparatively easy to find the money. Half that amount could be easily obtained through added income tax on incomes in the higher brackets. The minister says: Let the people tax themselves still further. I suggest that we impose a tax which would bear more heavily on those people best able to pay. And if the government do not wish to provide the other
S50,000,000 in this way, then I would suggest that they might provide it by issuing new money.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hear hon. members to my left in the social credit group agreeing with that. This is one instance in which I think new money might be issued to advantage. It would not bring about inflation, so far as I can determine, and so far as I can learn from consultation with people who know more than I do about financial matters. We have taken such action before in this house, and there is no reason why we cannot do so again. A program of that kind could be carried out without constitutional changes. That is one practical suggestion I would offer.
I quite agree with the minister that we must have a broad and comprehensive program. No one measure will accomplish the complete results. I have mentioned housing because in Canada there have been the strongest representations urging the necessity of a housing scheme. On the other hand, we still have a vast amount of unemployment which, at least in part, could be taken care of by a scheme of this kind. In turn, as the minister has pointed out, it would stimulate general activity across the country.
In closing, I wish to emphasize that, after reading patiently the report, and listening to the minister, it does seem to me that we have been given nothing which would seem to bring about any immediate solution of this pressing problem-certainly nothing that would meet the needs of the people who have been suffering throughout these years.
The minister talked about improved morale; but I can take him to the welfare agencies in this city, or, indeed of any of our cities, and the welfare workers will tell him that to-day morale is at a very low ebb. I suggest that the sums which might be involved in carrying out extensive employment schemes are very small, compared with the good which might be accomplished in the national interest of Canada.


James Earl Lawson: To an audience less informed than members of the House of Commons, an historic review of the different measures taken to cope with the unemployment problem, such as was given by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) this afternoon in the first hour of his address, would indeed have been intensely interesting. He intimated .the steps which had been taken by a previous government and by the present government to meet the problem. I have no desire to express commendation of one government or condemnation of the other.


Mr. THORSON:: You are in the reconfederation cabinet.


James Earl Lawson: That is .the third time I have heard that, but I have not yet found out what it is.
To my mind the unemployment problem far transcends any question of party politics or political controversy. Let us say that the camps to which the minister referred were a temporary expedient to meet the needs of a particular time, and let us say that the employment commission, which has functioned, has collected some valuable data and has presented in its report some better ideas respecting the classification of unemployed and unemployables than we had before. But the question still remains: If every recommendation made by the employment commission was implemented by the present government, which apparently it is not going to do, we would still have an unemployment problem. I do not think the minister would suggest seriously to this committee that the implementation of those recommendations would prove a solution of our problem. As I said a moment ago, let us take it for granted that they gave us some valuable data, but I am sometimes doubtful of that.
This afternoon the minister gave some figures in connection with the unemployed. It was pointed out by him, I believe as a result of a question asked, that the figures referred only to the unemployed on relief. Recently I had brought to my attention an instance of how inaccurate such figures may be. The municipality of the township of York is in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. According to the latest figures there are supposed to be 750 young people between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one who are unemployed in that particular municipality which has a population of something less than 700,000. There happens to be a very active youth movement in that municipality, as the minister knows, composed of several youth organizations. A little while ago they undertook to make a canvass of
Relief and Agricultural Distress

every house ia the municipality. Up to last week their voluntary job was two-thirds finished; but their census showed that instead of 750, there were 2,150 young people between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one years in that one municipality who were seeking employment.
I regret that the minister has not intimated that the bill to be founded upon this resolution will contain definite provisions for an effort, other than those which have been made, to meet the problem of unemployment. The minister dealt at some length with the home improvement plan and what it had accomplished. I would be the last to suggest that it has not provided some impetus and stimulus to and caused, considerable expenditure in the building industry; but may I say to the minister I am convinced that so far as the promoting of the building industiy in this country is concerned, it has but scratched the surface. The great impediment to progress in the building industry, as I see it, is the tremendous burden of municipal taxation which is now placed upon property. Until you 'relieve that burden you will not make any real progress in our building industry.
Some one will say that the municipality is a creature of the province; that this is a matter within the jurisdiction of the province, but it seems to me that there is a material and substantial contribution which the government of the Dominion of Canada could make to the solution of this problem. They should do that which almost everyone admits now should be done, namely, take off the municipalities and the provinces the burden of maintenance of relief of the unemployed.
I suggest that this is a concrete suggestion which will have two results. First, it would ease the burden of municipal taxation now upon the home owners and farmers in this country by eliminating that proportion of taxes which is now assessed against them by reason of the direct relief contribution being made by the municipalities. It will provide relief to those provinces which are unable to pay their way as they go and to which we are already advancing money to meet their share of the cost of unemployment relief. It will be noticed that I am distinguishing the unemployed from the unemployables. I say that by doing this you will make a great contribution, both to the stimulation of building and to relieving the burden of taxation upon those provinces and municipalities which are now in difficulties.

At one point in his speech the Minister of Labour announced that for two years the government had had a policy leading to the development of natural resources so as to secure further income for the future and thus provide more employment, rather than a program of artificial public works. By artificial public works I mean public works carried on for the purpose of providing employment. I was hopeful that before he had finished his remarks he would have told us something of wdiat the government proposed to do in that regard. However, his remarks amounted to nothing more than the old, old, oft repeated policy of my friends in the Liberal party- trade, trade and the extension of trade.


Vincent Dupuis: That is a nice song.


James Earl Lawson: My hon. friend is a good
songster and I would like to hear him sing it.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is a little off key.


James Earl Lawson: I realize that there will be always a division of opinion in this country as to the extent to which we benefit by trade agreements which throw our export and import trade out of balance. I am not going to attempt to argue at any length that age-old question of the benefits of expanding trade irrespective of the effect it may have upon our secondary industries as against the policy of protection for industry and equal opportunity for Canadians in their own market. However, I want to point out that nothing can be more misleading or less effective in argument than the mere recitation, such as the minister gave this afternoon, of increasing exports year after year, when one fails to give side by side with those figures the increasing imports or increasing world trade.


Mr. MARTIN:: They both go together.


James Earl Lawson: Of course they go together; they are inseparable. I can readily understand the argument by which one advances an increase of exports over imports as tending to show that a trade agreement is beneficial. I can readily understand the argument that an increase in imports may be beneficial if we are a creditor country and the imports come from a debtor country. Such an increase would indicate that at least we are getting payment of our debts. But to merely cite increases in exports without relation to the other factors which I have mentioned, is no evidence or proof of benefit to this country.
Had I anticipated speaking on this resolution I would have obtained certain figures to present to the minister. I am confident that if I had got them from the bureau of statistics

Relief and Agricultural Distress
they would have illustrated clearly the fallacy of stating merely an increase in exports as an argument in support of what the minister was saying. I remember in 1933 or 1934 when I spoke during the budget debate I advanced an argument which may not have been accepted by many but which I still think is sound. I took the world trade figures in 1929, and in the year in which I was speaking, and showed that whereas world trade had decreased 68 per cent and that of our great neighbour to the south 65 per cent, nevertheless in Canada, under the policies of protection inaugurated by the Conservative government then in power, our trade had decreased only 60 per cent, and I suggest to my hon. friend that if he would take the percentage of increase in world trade to-day over the world trade when the government of which he is a member came into power, and then compare with that Canada's increase in trade, he would find, I am confident, that these trade agreements to which he pins his hope for solving the unemployment problem in the future have not resulted in the benefits which he would lead us to believe.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I hope that when we have the bill before us it will contain some more concrete suggestion for a contribution to the solution of the problem of unemployment in this country than was indicated by the minister this afternoon, and I suggest for his very serious consideration that if he desires to bring about a great increase in the building industry-and I agree with him that a substantial increase in the building industry would make a greater contribution to the solution of unemployment than anything else I can think of at the moment-then this government must lead the way in taking off the home owner and real estate owner some of the burden of taxation which is now imposed upon them.


Mr. W. A. WALSH (Mount Royal):: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the resolution before us, I notice that it is worded:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance-
I would suggest that it has been expedient to do that for over two years, and that the thought of the government in considering the present time as expedient is a very long overdue thought.
As we all remember, this government came into office after having promised the people of Canada they would do what they suggested the previous government had not done, after having promised the people that they were the only party which could bring about
an alleviation of the distress caused by unemployment because of their very close association with the then provincial governments in this country. Now, after two and a half years of office they at last suggest that it is expedient that something should be done.
I am sorry to have missed the introductory remarks of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers); but as I listened to him during the early part of this evening I was almost reminded of the days I spent in the lecture theatre, and was almost ready to commend him for his academic style of delivery and for the academic words of wisdom to which he gave utterance. Unfortunately, however, the problem with which we are dealing cannot be solved by academic utterances or by academically well-turned phrases.
I also notice that the resolution reads that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance "towards the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress." I would suggest that unemployment and agricultural distress should not be grouped together as they have been in this resolution. I assume that agricultural distress refers to the conditions which prevail and have prevailed for some time in western Canada; but I do not think it is fair to those farmers who are suffering through no fault of their own, not because of any economic ills that have come to the world and to Canada in common with other nations, but merely through an act of providence, through the workings of nature, to place those farmers who are suffering just as intensely as the unemployed in our cities and towns in the same category with them. I think the two groups should be kept separate and distinct, and those who are suffering agricultural distress should be treated separately and distinctly from those who are unemployed from other causes than have brought about the unfortunate conditions which prevail in that western country. Judging by the utterances of last year, I thought that this year we would see those suffering from agricultural distress treated separately from the rank and file of the unemployed; that we would have separate figures in respect to them and separate legislation to deal with them at this present session. Unfortunately the government has not seen its way clear to bring in legislation of that nature, and so we must deal with the situation as we find it.
Listening to the minister this evening, I did not hear anything which would lead us to believe that any concrete measures will be
Relief and Agricultural Distress

brought before the house to deal with unemployment in any definite way. I feel reasonably certain that if the unemployed had listened to the Minister of Labour this afternoon and this evening, and then had supplemented what they had heard by a careful reading of the report of the national employment commission, they would have gone away from this house very little comforted and with very little hope for the immediate future. As they pick up their paper to-morrow morning or to-morrow afternoon and read the utterances of the minister representing this government, I cannot see that they are going to catch that ray of hope they would naturally expect as a result of two and a half years' work on the part of such an important commission, whose labours they hoped would result in something more fruitful, which would be implemented by the government at present holding office.
The minister in the course of his remarks pictured in glowing terms the recovery that had been made by Canada, in more glowing terms, I think, than actual conditions at the present time warrant. I am not a pessimist, but in the present situation I for one cannot assume such an optimistic tone and outlook as the minister assumed in his remarks to-day. I feed absolutely certain that if we compare the recovery figures for Canada, to which the minister referred from time to time, with the recovery figures of other nations of the world, and with the figures for the world at large, we should find that Canada had made no more rapid strides on the road to recovery than many other countries of the world or, indeed, than the average country of the world.
As someone speaking in this debate has pointed out, the minister has made many suggestions, but not many suggestions of what could actually be done. He has pointed to what it would be impossible to do under present circumstances and conditions, but he has not been at all definite in showing the way to those who are looking for a lead in this connection.
When, some two years ago, I first spoke on a similar measure, I suggested that the minister was ill-advised in burdening this country with the expense of a commission to solve unemployment. I suggested that what he hoped to do through the efforts of such a commission could very well be done with a little reorganization within his own department, at far less expense and with much greater expedition than has been the case as a result of the appointment of this commission. I do not wish to say anything derogatory of the commission. They have done a nice piece

of work; they have gathered together facts and statistics and made accessible material which was perhaps not previously available, but this could have been done by officials of the department with probably as much competence and a great deal more quickly than it has been done by the national employment commission. The result of the appointment of that .body is that for over two years a practical solution of the problem of unemployment in this country has been delayed. When we get the report we find, blocking the way to dealing properly with the problem, a reference to another commission. One commission prevents anything from being done as a result of the report of another commission for which we have been waiting some two years. Evidently the present government have little or no intention of effectively dealing with the unemployment situation. What the government is doing is passing the question from one commission to another, hoping that, during the lapse of time between the reception of these reports and the giving effect to any recommendations they may have to make, world conditions will improve and reflect themselves in Canada; then this government will make an effort to persuade the people that they are responsible for an improvement which came about naturally in process of time.
These commissions entail a tremendous expense to the Canadian people. I hope during the course of this parliament to place on record in Hansard a complete list of the commissions that have been appointed, with their expensive and high strutting counsel, so that the people will know what a commission form of government really costs in the way of taxation, and what a so-called Liberal government is doing in the way of governing this country, not as a government but through the instrumentality of commissions, one appointed after another.
There is another point to which I wish to take exception. This lengthy report, containing as has been pointed out, somewhat laboured phrases and sentences, was tabled in the house on Friday; yet members are asked to give consideration to it on Monday. I ask the Minister of Labour, who, like myself, has been a teacher


An hon. MEMBER:: A professor.


William Allen Walsh: A professor, if he prefers the more dignified term to the word " teacher."


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am quite satisfied with
" teacher."


William Allen Walsh: I think he, like myself, is
quite satisfied with the word I used. We would not suggest, to even a fourth year

Relief and Agricultural Distress
honour class in a university, to take a report of that nature and over the weekend read and digest it and be prepared to come back on Monday and discuss it in class. But here the minister has tabled a lengthy and important report on Friday and asks consideration for it on Monday, hoping that in the meantime hon. members, with our limited mentality as compared with fourth year honour students, will be able to give it real and genuine consideration.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend will permit me, there are fifty pages in the report itself apart from the appendix. I would not have considered it too heavy an assignment over a weekend.


William Allen Walsh: I must tell my hon. friend
that I was not in the privileged class of a Rhodes scholar, and that I deliberately endeavoured to assimilate this report over the weekend, but, I assume on account of age and other infirmities, I found it almost impossible to comprehend it, let alone thoroughly digest it and come here prepared to discuss it properly. In my opinion this report could have been and should have been brought down at least one week earlier and hon. members given the opportunity, to which they are justly entitled, properly and effectively to consider a matter of far-reaching importance to the country as well as to parliament. The report is one of the most important documents which could be tabled in this house, and I am sure that the time which has elapsed between the tabling and the discussion of it has been far too short to permit a logical and comprehensive study such as is necessary to discuss it in detail and with a view of doing something for the people who most need our help at the present time.
I noticed-and I compliment the minister upon the fact-that during the course of the first three hours of the discussion, for the most part of an academic nature, he was quite willing to answer questions and receive information. Unfortunately, when he got away from an academic discussion of this report and proceeded into the realm of politics, he at once dissociated himself from that more favourable atmosphere and refused to answer questions. He himself refused, and his satellites who sit in the immediate vicinity, the yes men who echo the sound of his voice from time to time, answered for him "no, no"; the questions were not answered, and the minister continued his tirade in the field of politics. That was not a commendable effort on his part. Possibly if he had taken his seat at the end of the three hour discussion and had
refrained from continuing another hour and delving into politics, his remarks on the report under discussion would have been received with a great deal more approval, not only in parliament but by the press and the people of Canada. I know that in what I am about to say I shall be out of order; but the minister, according to his own suggestion, was not out of order when he brought political and economic details of trade and commerce and considerations of fiscal policy into this discussion, so I assume that on the same principle I should be held to be in order if I asked him a question regarding his suggestion that the past government withdrew into economic nationalism and founded their fiscal policy on the wrong principles. I endeavoured to ask him this question when his satellites interrupted.


An hon. MEMBER:: And this is non
political!


William Allen Walsh: This is dealing with the political aspect of a discussion into which politics should not have been brought. Would he characterize the trade agreement of 1932, passed by the previous administration, as "economic nationalism?"


Norman McLeod Rogers: I said that "economic imperialism" would perhaps be a better term. I hardly know how to answer my hon. friend, because apparently I am either academic or political, and in either case it is bad in his judgment. Offhand I should say that the agreements in the first instance did contain features which extended the idea of an exclusive trade policy operating within the empire. I think that at least in some particulars they have been improved by the revision with respect to the bound items.


William Allen Walsh: As regards the empire trade agreement, I hardly think the minister could refer to the previous government as continuing a policy of economic nationalism in view of that important legislation, which apparently not only met with the commendation later of the present Liberal government but was given an extension of time during which it was kept in force. I would also make this suggestion. I believe the minister will agree that the previous administration did make a serious effort to conclude a trade pact with the United States. Is that economic nationalism? Is it blocking the channels of trade to endeavour to make an agreement of that kind?
The minister goes on to take to task the preceding administration for not concluding a trade pact with the United States. I suggest to him and to the government in all seriousness that the previous government were
Relie] and Agricultural Distress

prepared to conclude that trade pact, as has already been overemphasized, but they were not prepared to pay the price which the present government has paid in order to secure that agreement with the United States. It is very much like the case of a man who told me over the weekend of his endeavours last summer to purchase a house. He was offered the house at $10,500; but he was not prepared to pay that price, and last week the owner called him up and offered the house for $8,500 so as to get rid of it. Would that man have been justified in the first instance in accepting the first offer in view of the fact that he has now been offered it for $8,500. Well, the present government took the United States offer and sold out certain interests in Canada in order to conclude that trade agreement with the United States, and it is under that agreement that wre are living to-day. I suggest to the government that that very agreement will eventually aggravate the unemployment situation and make it well nigh impossible for any government to deal satisfactorily with the question of unemployment. I want to give this warning to the government. If they propose to enter into a trade agreement with the United States, they will further aggravate and further increase unemployment in Canada owing to the importation from the United States of goods which could just as satisfactorily be manufactured in this country, giving employment to people here.
When the minister was speaking in glowing terms of the economic condition of those engaged in fishing, particularly in Nova Scotia, I noticed a strained look on the countenance of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Kinley). I could see that he was listening intently, waiting for some ray of hope as the minister pictured the conditions of the fishermen and told us how their lot had improved as a result of the enactments of the Liberal government in the last two and a half years; and then the hon. member fell back in his seat with a disappointed look; for he knew that what the minister had just said was not a reality in that part of the country from which the hon. member had just returned.
I would suggest to the minister that he be more careful in making statements as to conditions unless he has firsthand information. If my information is correct, the lot of these fishermen in Nova Scotia and in other parts of Canada is not too happy at the present time; they are among those who are only

partly employed and therefore are in a worse position than those who are altogether unemployed.
I was pleased to hear the minister suggest that there would be new roads to our national parks. I am sure that the members from Prince Edward Island will immediately call attention to their various home towns and point out that there is need on that island of some new and improved roads in order to bring the proposed national park in Prince Edward Island into contact with the larger centres of Summerside, Charlottetown and other larger places on the Northumberland strait. There is some ray of hope there, and I trust the Minister of Public Works or the minister who will be in charge of that particular project will see that the suggestions of the Minister of Labour are implemented and that during the course of this summer we who are fortunate enough to spend a few weeks on the island will have an improved road over which to travel to our destination.
I am glad that the minister is so confident as to the future. I, too, am confident, just as confident as the minister; but I want to make this observation, and I do so not by way of political gesture but sincerely:	I
would be more confident if there were a different government in office. I would not care whether that government happened to be called Conservative or even if we had a Liberal government in power so long as it had a different set of leaders, who would actually give a lead to the people of Canada, leaders who would not equivocate, who would not just stand on the side-lines and hope for the best but who would give a very well defined lead. Under those circumstances I would say that there might be ground for the minister's optimism.


An hon. MEMBER:: Whom would you suggest in place of the present government?


William Allen Walsh: When the people of Canada have an opportunity to express themselves, I hope they will be wise in their choice and will elect a government which will be well and effectively directed, so that they will know that they are being led in the right direction, and that the problems with which we are confronted, of which unemployment is only one, will be satisfactorily handled instead of being referred to commissions that are merely trying to kill time.
Progress reported.


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

National Defence-Halifax
Tuesday, April 5, 1938