1938-04-28

Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current) moved:: That the recommendations contained in the first report of the special committee on electoral matters, presented to the house on Tuesday, the 26th day of April, 1938, be now concurred in.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to protest against the expenditure involved in bringing counsel here for the purpose of dealing with this matter. For a long time we have had counsel employed by this committee; it was the subject matter of some discussion, not to say criticism. Information from all parts of the world has been gathered and
collated. Just why additional expenditure should be incurred at this time by bringing a representative of the legal profession down to assist the committee, when the bill has been drafted, the evidence collected and the information made available, is beyond me. I suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) that this is a wholly unnecessary public expenditure.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Mr. Speaker, during the past two years the committee has had the benefit of the services of Mr. Butcher, who has done a great deal of work in collecting information relating to other countries and presenting it to the committee. He also had something to do with the drafting of the act now before the committee, and is able to explain the reasons for every change which may be made in that act. I understand also that he had something to do with Bill No. 90, which is also before the house, and is able to give invaluable information regarding it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Biggar is said to have been the author of that.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I do not believe he is the author of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Prime Minister said so the other evening, but perhaps he does not know.


Charles Edward Bothwell: As I understand the situation he is not the author of that bill. Although the Prime Minister may have referred to the fact that eminent counsel had been retained for the purpose of drafting that bill, the reference may not have been to the same person.
It seems to me the committee itself should be the best judge of whether or not counsel is necessary, and the report that was presented yesterday dealing with the retention of counsel, or containing a request to the house that counsel be retained, was unanimously adopted by the committee. I think possibly the committee could get along without counsel, but we are endeavouring to bring into the house a measure which has been considered over a period of many years. Since I have been a member I think the elections act has been revised on three different occasions, and now we are endeavouring to bring in an act that will not need revision for some years to come.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I did not get my notice of the committee meeting until after that meeting had been held. I do not say this was any fault of the clerk of the com-
Elections and Franchise

mittee, but it was an unfortunate circumstance; the notice was in some way mislaid and I did not receive it in time, so I did not know that the committee was meeting yesterday. I must say that in my opinion it would be-I was going to use a harsh term

rather a waste of money to retain counsel for the purpose of advising the committee in connection with the act at this stage. During the last two years the committee have been studying the matter with the assistance of Mr. Butcher, the chief electoral officer and Colonel Thompson, the franchise commissioner. In my opinion these three men have more knowledge of the electoral laws of Canada than any new counsel, I care not how learned he might be in the law, could possibly acquire during a full sitting of this parliament. It would take any new counsel, however learned he may be, a great deal of time to familiarize himself with the. technique of the electoral law.


Charles Edward Bothwell: It is the same counsel; Mr. Butcher is the man referred to.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I had not heard the report, but I gathered there was a change. If it is Mr. Butcher I would certainly approve of his being retained for this session, because he has acquired a knowledge of the law which would be invaluable to the committee. However I was not before the committee, and I took it for granted a new counsel was being retained. If it is Mr. Butcher, I would certainly support the motion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Swift Current was out of order in speaking to this resolution, and had he-


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: And so
are you.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and that is the
reason I say it. I had thought when he moved the motion I would be able to deal with one or two matters he mentioned. However, I have only this to say:	So far as I
am aware, when a bill has been introduced, as a bill, there is no precedent for the engaging of counsel. There is precedent for such engagement in the preparation of it. I have never known of a bill referred by this house to a committee involving the retaining of counsel, but I have frequently with relation to the preparation of it. That is quite a simple matter. But after the government has launched a measure and it has been offered to the house, I cannot recall any occasions-there may have been some-on which that has happened. After a measure has been
[Mr. Stevens.J
crystallized into a bill, I must say the suggestion that counsel be retained is entirely new to me.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I am in the happy position of being in order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite.


Ernest Lapointe: It may be only seldom, after a bill has been read the second time and referred to a committee, has counsel been appointed. I believe however that it has been done. There is nothing in the rules to prevent it. Under the rules a committee has power to summons witnesses and to appoint counsel in respect of any matter referred to the committee. The fact that the bill has been referred after second reading does not alter the situation in any way so far as the power of the committee is concerned. On the merits of the matter I suggest the house should accept the opinion of the committee on a matter of this kind. I have no doubt that this will have the consent of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I direct the minister's attention to one thing: He realizes, of course, that both these bills were introduced on message. [DOT]


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Therefore they represent the policy of the administration. While the minister has been speaking I have been thinking carefully, and I cannot recall any case in which after second reading of a bill based on a message counsel has been engaged by a committee.


Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I can say that without the assistance of counsel in the past two years we would have had great difficulty in committee. Only yesterday when the committee was discussing the terms of the bill it was found that the information given by counsel was of considerable assistance. But further than that several of the clauses were reserved because the phraseology employed was not exactly what had been anticipated by members who were formerly on the committee. Those were referred to counsel in order that they might be presented in proper form. In the ordinary course of events they would have been sent back to the Department of Justice. I have heard several remarks which were not very considerate of the Department of Justice-

Questions


Richard Bedford Bennett: The law clerks- not the Department of Justice.


James Allison Glen: I am sure of this, that there would be a great deal more satisfaction in the committee if the phraseology of the bill were examined by the counsel who has been mentioned. I am satisfied that the members of the committee are of the opinion that in obtaining the services of the counsel named we have one who has devoted himself so assiduously to the work that w'hen the bill is brought to the house it will be received without any of the acrimonious discussion which formerly obtained, and will be a measure acceptable to all parties.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I believe a reference to the terms of reference to the committee might clear up the matter. I would direct the attention of hon. members to the terms of reference as they appear in votes and proceedings of April 5. After indicating the names of the hon. members comprising the committee, the motion states that they be appointed to consider:
1.	A certain bill intituled: "An act respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members to the House .of Commons," and to make such amendments thereto as it deems advisable;
2.	A certain bill intituled: "An act respecting political expenditures," and to make such amendments thereto as it deems advisable;
3.	Such other proposed legislation relating to elections as may be referred to it by this house;
4.	The methods used to effect a redistribution of electoral districts in Canada and in other countries;
5. The evidence and report of the special committee appointed in the session of 1936 and reappointed in the session of 1937 to study the Dominion Elections Act, 1934, and the Franchise Act, 1934;
With power to call for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses and to report from time to time.
It will be seen that there is a very much wider reference involved than merely a single bill. It seems to me the committee have a great deal of work to do of an intricate legal character, and if they unanimously desire to reengage counsel they have had in previous sessions, I do not believe, despite my desire to save .money, that I can enter any objection.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; on division.
Motion agreed to on division.



OYSTER BED LEASES


Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask, under standing order 68, that the petition of Ellsworth Gillis, tabled on the twenty-sixth instant, be now read.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(The Clerk Assistant read the petition as follows):
To the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in parliament assembled:
The petition of the undersigned Ellsworth Gillis of EUerslie, Prince Edward Island, humbly sheweth:
That his Most Gracious Majesty's privy council rulings of 1898, 1913 and 1917 in respect to fishing in the tidal waters of the dominion points out that the Fisheries Act granting fishery leases for oyster beds or fishing grounds to private interests in the tidal waters are ultra vires of the dominion.
Your petitioner therefore humbly prays that all leases of oyster beds in Prince Edward Island tidal waters to private interests be withdrawn, and if this request is not granted that the question of leasing the fishing privileges in tidal waters of Prince Edward Island be referred to the privy council in England for decision.
And as in duty bound your petitioner will ever pray.
Dated April 12th, 1938.
Ellsworth Gillis,
Secretary of Fishermen's Union, Station No. 8, EUerslie, P.E.I.

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

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: How many names, on letters, telegrams or petitions, were received by the Minister of Transport either objecting or assenting the increase in radio licence fees?


Mr. HOWE:: Objecting, 1,246; assenting, 14.


CECIL DUNCAN
Mr. PARENT (Quebec West):: 1.	Is there a Mr. Cecil Duncan employed in the Finance department? If so: (a) in what capacity; (b) what is his salary?
2.	How many days per year has Mr. Duncan been away from his work, as government employee, to attend to personal outside activities?
3.	Have any deductions been made from his salary for such absences? If so, what amount?
Questions

4.	Has any correspondence been exchanged, to the knowledge of the government and on its time, between Mr. Duncan and the various sporting organizations with which he is connected? If so, has such time been taken off his salary?
5.	Has the department taken any steps to control such abuses, if any?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Yes. (a) Departmental accountant grade 1, acting as assistant chief of the mechanical division of the treasury office servicing the Department of Pensions and National Health; (b) 32,220.
2.	Absences during the past ten years, other than on annual and sick leave, are: Special leave with pay for extended trip, in accordance with general minutes of civil service commission, was granted as follows:-Fiscal year 1931-32 , 30 days; fiscal year 1936-37, 15 days. Special leave without pay was granted in accordance with the regulations of the civil service commission as follows:-Fiscal year 1931-32, 30J days; fiscal year 1936-37, 9i days; fiscal year 1937-38, 25 days.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	No correspondence has been exchanged to the knowledge of his superiors between Mr. Duncan and sporting organizations, during office hours, and it is a matter of knowledge that Mr. Duncan has taken exception to any telephone calls on hockey matters being made to him during office hours. Mr. Duncan states that all of his non-government correspondence is conducted from his home and after office hours.
5.	Answered by above.


BERTHIEB, QUE., WHARF
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	Who was in 1936 and 1937 the superintendent of the work performed at the wharf of Berthier, electoral district of Bellechasse?
2.	Who recommended him for that position?
3.	What was his salary, and what was the total amount of money paid him by the government for his services?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Edmond Mercier.
2.	District engineer.
3.	(a) $5 per day. (b) $686.25.


POST OFFICE-ILLEGAL LOTTERIES-EMPLOYMENT OF A. F. MENARD
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Was Mr. A. F. Menard relieved from his special duties as inspector or postal employee

specially charged with the supervising of lotteries (Army and Navy), etc., in the postal service superintendent's office at Montreal during the years 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936 and 1937? If so, on what date?
2.	For what reasons, and upon instructions from what authority ?
3.	Who is his successor?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Yes, in January, 1937.
2.	During the years in question the work pertaining to illegal lotteries was under the personal supervision of Mr. Menard. In January, 1937, on the amalgamation of the post office and district director's staffs into one unit the Postmaster General instructed that this work should be dealt with in the enquiry section of the Montreal district office which is the section dealing with the fraudulent and illegal matter sent in the mails.
This work has been assigned to Mr. Boileau, a clerk of that section, under the direction of the head of the section, Mr. Chartrand, who is responsible to the District Director of Postal Services, Montreal.
3.	See answer to No. 2.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. MASSEY:: 1.	Has W. J. Lindal, K.C., of Winnipeg, Manitoba, been employed by the government or any department since November, 1935?
2.	If so, in what capacity?
3.	What moneys has he been paid to date, giving details of such payments?
4.	Are there any fees now owing the said W. J. Lindal, K.C.?
5.	If so, how much, and for what?


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the refunding of matured, maturing and callable financial obligations of the Canadian National Railways and for the issue of securities guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada in respect of such refunding to an aggregate principal amount not exceeding $200,000,000.

Relief and Agricultural Distress
He said: His Excellency, the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CHARLES PARENT (Quebec West and South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the attention of the government and particularly the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) to an increase of seventy-five cents per ton on anthracite coal which has been put into effect throughout the province of [DOT]Quebec. It is said that this increase is necessary because of an increase in transportation and insurance rates as well as in the wages paid to the coal miners. We have had a lot *of trouble in the province of Quebec in previous years in connection with this coal situation, and I submit an investigation should be .made immediately to see whether this increase is justified. It seems to me to be extraordinary that the increase should be applied to the whole province, and I do hope the Minister of Labour will look into the matter and try to stop this increase, if possible.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): The hon. member for Quebec West and South (Mr. Parent) was kind enough to give me notice of this question. My present information is that the increase to which he has referred, in the price of anthracite coal, is due to a corresponding increase in the price of British anthracite. However, I shall be very glad to look further into the matter.


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker I should like to direct a question to the right hon. the Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Lapointe). At the request of the minister, Bill No. 10, which stands in my name on the order paper, and was debated at length, was allowed to stand on February 17. I am willing to have this bill stand over during this session as the minister intimated that he would bring in a government bill. Can the minister give us any information soon
as to when this bill will be brought down and if it will cover hit-and-run drivers? There have been thirty-one killed in our city since February 17, when the bill was up before, and the deaths from this cause in Ontario have increased for 1936 and 1937 from 221 to 304, or an increase of 37 per cent. Will the bill also include an offence for unlicensed drivers who are also causing many accidents?


Ernest Lapointe: I am able to satisfy in part the curiosity of my hon. friend. I expect to be able within the next two weeks to introduce a bill to amend the criminal code. I can only say that this bill will contain some provision with reference to the matters covered by the bill of the hon. gentleman, but he will understand that I am unable to disclose to-day the extent to which these matters will be covered.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 105, to assist in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when the resolution which preceded this bill was before the house I gave a general statement covering unemployment conditions and the various measures adopted by the government during the past year to deal with those conditions. In view of that statement and the debate which followed during the greater part of the week before the Easter recess, I think it would meet the convenience of the house if I simply made a formal motion for the second reading of this bill at this time in order to advance it to the committee stage. I Shall only say in addition that this bill does not differ in any material respect from the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, 1937, which expired on March 31 of this year. It provides the authority by which the government may make expenditures, subject to parliamentary appropriation, either directly or under agreement with the provinces, for the relief of unemployment and agricultural distress.
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to detain the house, but I had no opportunity of speaking during the committee stage of the resolution. The resolution which preceded this bill is not the same as the bill itself. That is my first

Relief and Agricultural Distress
objection. My second objection is that there is no amount named in t'he bill, and my third objection is that it contains the same principle as previous bills of providing for contact only with the provinces, but not with the larger cities and towns. Last year we had in the bill a clause dealing with industry, but not a thing was done. Our apprenticeship problem could be solved if we had a proper contact with industry, the only agency that can aid in the solution.
Under the rules of the house the proper time to object to the principle of a bill is when it is up for second reading. May day comes next Sunday, and I do not think this bill will appeal to employers, the unemployable unemployed or the employable unemployed. The bill does not create any new jobs in Canada for Canadians. Instead of the municipalities being given some comfort in this bill, the larger cities like Montreal, Hamilton and Toronto are told that they must go to see the provincial authorities; we have no contact with you. We had commission No. 1 appointed and now roving; commission No. 2 has been appointed and we shall probably have its report after two or three years, at which time it is quite likely that another commission will be appointed.
I want to protest against the principle of this bill inasmuch as it grants no power to the government to make agreements with the larger municipalities that are suffering. The unemployed in industry are to be found in the cities and the towns, in the townships and the counties; they will not be found in the parliament buildings in the capitals of Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia and the maritime provinces, the only people with whom the minister will make contact. All jobs in those places are patronage.
The bill itself is defective. There should be federal loans to industry, and a system of bonuses, subventions and subsidies should be established for certain key industries, just as we did with the coal industry, steel and iron to a moderate degree, and agriculture, with stabilization and other funds. On the second reading I cannot discuss the bill clause by clause, but the bill speaks of making agreements with industry as it did in 1937. No sur'i agreement has been made, so that is a mere paper clause; any agreement made, I suppose, will be about on the same basis as last year, and as a result nothing will be done. The amount for the whole bill is not named. It is to be left, no doubt, to considerations of political expediency because, as I said and as my leader said, there are politics mixed up in many of these votes for public works
rMr. Church.1
for relief. Some of the provinces get the votes and others do not. To those who vote properly shall be given, and those who do not vote properly shall not be given a five cent piece, as was said a few years ago with respect to unemployment relief in Ontario. That is the kind of treatment we are getting to-day.
These loans to the provinces, and the agreements under which they are made, are of no value because the province can take the money and do what it likes with it. The auditor general has no control over its expenditure. We know how the money is spent. There has been a certain amount of chiselling in connection with relief grants. In Ontario on one occasion they struck off fifteen per cent, and in addition they took away income tax from the municipalities by two raids, first, federal, and then, provincial, 'by the economic raid and the financial raid. The cities and towns have had income tax from confederation down to 1918; but since then two raids were made on them, one by the province and the other by the dominion. That revenue would otherwise have gone to help take care of the relief bill, hospital and social services, in the city of Toronto, which was 851,000,000 in the last seven years, and the taxes had to be put on real estate. Of that amount, $20,000,000 is paid by the city and the balance by the dominion and the province. That is a very heavy burden for real estate to carry, and the result is that the building and construction industry is almost at a standstill. This bill will afford no comfort at all to those engaged in that industry and to the industrial workers. They are asking for something, and the government gives them nothing; they ask for bread and are given a stone. There are to be no loans under this bill to the provinces unless there is a' certified statement made.
When you look at the votes for public works you find there are votes to build uneconomic roads away back in the north country. It is just a straight hand-out to a certain few contractors and those who attend the good roads meeting for the building of uneconomic roads in the back districts to Hudson bay where nobody who is an industrial worker can work. What about fifty per cent of the industrial workers of the country who will not share in any part of these votes for uneconomic roads? These votes are a direct subsidy to the oil ring and motor car industry, which is competing with the railways and taking business away from them. This bill extends the same principle. In my opinion the principle is wrong and should be remedied. There was a debate in the Ontario legislature on this subject, and the leader of the opposi-

Relief and Agricultural Distress
tion there said that this bill was very largely "headlines." The leader of the government of Ontario said not only that it was "headlines" but "headaches" as well. It will give the unemployed and the municipalities a headache too on May 1 next because under this bill there is no relief provided from the intolerable conditions of last year, no relief for real estate or the cities and towns and no relief for the construction and building industry' in this country. The relief being provided is only for a certain few.
Summing up the government's policy, in my opinion it is one largely of inertia, coma, vacuum, somnolence, and May day will show that I am correct. The government have no contact with the unemployed at all. The only contact they have is with the provinces, whereas the agreement should be made with the municipal authorities where relief is being paid out on the ground by the cities and towns. The government has done nothing but waste time for two years by appointing the Purvis commission. That commission did nothing but talk. Its report has come out, with a blue cover on it; but.on next May 1, I am afraid the unemployed will say it should have a black cover on it, because it provides no relief for the unemployed industrial or agricultural workers who will still be carrying the black flag. This is not a practical house or a practical government, or such a state of affairs would not be tolerated.
What did they do in the United States? Compare the principle of this bill with what was done in the United States, with a population of 127,000,000 people. There, one man, Mr. Hopkins, spent 88,000,000,000 on relief for
15,000,000 people, unemployed and some of them employable. What did the United States senate tell him the other day? They passed a resolution of thanks for his great work in the past five years in the United States. The United States ten years ago had prepared by surveys and reports for those unemployment conditions. Here in Canada ten years ago, when we were sitting in opposition, I urged the government to appoint a commission after the fashion of the Couzens commission of that year in the United States. In Washington they had appointed a senate commission, and the result was they were prepared for the unemployment situation when the great crash came. They had their unemployment surveys and agencies, and all these other agencies, some of which are now recommended in the Purvis report, and I might add that some of the recommendations in the 1'eport of the Purvis commission are taken from the report of the Couzens commission re employment agencies, youth, public works and apprenticeship. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that instead of this whole question being sent to a commission, it should be handled by a committee of the House of Commons. You have reports these days, and very good ones, from committees of this house, and especially the mass buying committee of 1935 that was appointed by the present leader of the opposition. Take, for instance, the report of the Bennett mass buying committee, over which the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) presided. That commission did more work than the Purvis commission, or the Rowell commission, or any other kind of commission; the money spent on it was the best spent money this country has ever had, and the Conservative government did the work well. It showed the people and the unemployed what could be done by careful consideration by this house of this great economic problem and the real facts. The solution of unemployment should be a responsibility of the house and not of any commission, and the house should not be the slave of any commission. Are we to sit here, 245 members, and admit we are slaves to whatever commission is appointed? Are we going to admit that any commission can usurp our functions and powers, take them out of our control without the consent of the majority of the 245 members of this house? The present commission and the last commission may collect all the statistics they like and from whom they like, and gather up the fragments so that none may be lost, but they will be no closer to a solution of the problem of providing jobs for Canadians on relief. The relief problem cannot be solved by these commissions or by any maelstrom, or through a carnival of collecting facts and statistics. The unemployed on May 1 next are not going to depend upon the report of a man who is at the head of duPont's, General Motors and Canadian Industries, one of the directors of the British American Oil Company and of many other Canadian industries that are going to benefit by the policy of the government in building these uneconomic roads away in the back concessions and up around Hudson bay for the oil and motor companies as a subsidy. AVhat. benefit is that going to be to the unemployed industrial and agricultural workers? If you thus grant the oil ring and motor car companies a subsidy, so should there be subsidies, bonuses and subventions to industry and the municipalities.
As I say, the policy of the government seems to be to balance their budget, to collect income money from the municipalities, and

Relief and Agricultural Distress
also to enable the provinces to balance their budgets at the expense of the hungry and unfortunate unemployed. There was a million dollars in this bill in 1937 for youth, and by contrast there is in the same estimates an amount of three and a half million dollars for the health of animals. All that is done for vouth is little or nothing. In my opinion there is no basic difference between losing one's home on a farm in Saskatchewan by the drought route, and losing one's job at home by the unemployment and foreclosure route, which is the way the industrial worker is losing his home. This parliament puts one section, Saskatchewan, on a preferred basis compared with other provinces where the industrial workers are. We are supposed to legislate on a fair, just and equal basis for the whole dominion. But this parliament places agriculturists in a preferred class. I do not object to what has been done out there; far from it; but I object to the treatment meted out to the outcast and forgotten man under confederation, the industrial workers, comprising fifty-one per cent of the population of Canada.
Further, parliament imposes all kinds of taxes. It has raided the income tax field. Now, after two years' delay, the government is back to where it started. It has collected all the facts, but the unemployment situation is very little better than it was before. True it is that there are a few more men in casual work and some other occupations; but it is seasonal, and there has been no proper count made of the unemployed; some of them find work for a short time; but as for any real improvement, I fail to see it, and many listed as employed are so only for a few weeks and are yet employable unemployed. In the Couzens report and the Washington senate committee's report I find several clauses which make some attempt to deal with conditions as they found them; but as for this blue report, we find it of little value. I hope this is the last we shall hear of it, because all this Purvis commission has been is just a humpty-dumpty commission, leaving the unemployed out in the cold. The lady member of the commission seems to be the only member who has a sense of humour. She refers in her minority report to the commission suggesting a method of partition requiring the wisdom and the law of Solomon-with apologies to King Solomon. With such a report as this we have seen, I hope, the end of that vainglorious humpty-dumpty commission. I opposed its appointment two years ago. I believe that my honoured leader has hit the nail right on the head as regards the way to deal with unemployment; a committee of this

house could have met a committee of the provinces around a table and settled the whole question instead of the government appointing a string of royal commissions to act in the way they have done.
I also believe that the kind of agreement about which there was some discussion yesterday, a sort of quasi free trade with twenty to twenty-four countries, tends to the ruin of the home market and the industrial worker. The industrialist cannot figure where his business is going to wind up, because of the taxes imposed upon him and the conditions he has to meet. The way the tariff is being administered now, the tariff has a great deal to do with the matter.
There was a long discussion yesterday with regard to fisheries. I sympathize with the poor people engaged in the fish trade in the maritimes. We know something of what the trawlers have had to meet; yet there is not one word in this report about the fish industry, large and small; not one word about a national coal supply, or anything else that will help the country out; nothing about protection for all these workmen, that would create work for thousands. They could well afford to have had a survey made of the fish industry. I remember in 1924 when hon. members opposite laughed at the idea of a national coal inquiry; Sir Henry Thornton said I was proposing a lunch-counter system of freight rates with subventions and subsidies and bonuses for coal; but to-day three million tons of coal move economically from the maritimes to the head of the lakes as a result of that sound policy with work for thousands. I would apply the same policy of bonuses and subventions and subsidies to industry and agriculture, to protect these primary industries. In England the government has taken over the coal mines. I am not prepared to say that we in this country should go so far as that, but I believe a survey Should be made to see what could be done to arrange for a national coal supply, in relation to national employment, so that all the coal we use in this country will create employment for our people; that is, it will be mined under the British flag either in Alberta and the maritime provinces or in Wales. The same policy could be adopted on behalf of the fisheries, the small man and the trawlers.
We are told in the report of the Purvis commission-and the bill admits it-that nothing can be done to give effect to these recommendations of the commission until this larger and vaster commission than has been has presented its report. I saw some of them

Relief and Agricultural Distress
in Toronto on Monday morning, these gentlemen with all the secretaries, counsel, advisers and others. Talk about King Solomon in all his glory; he was not arrayed like unto these. They paraded up to the parliament buildings there, where Attorney General Conant in the legislative chamber was ready and delivered an address of welcome, after his leader in the house had said only a month ago that a lot of this government's policy for relief and employment was a "headline and a headache." Now this commission arrived at the parliament buildings to be welcomed by the Ontario administration with applause, this commission which is just doing work that this house could have done; they could find the same information in the library in books and stacks of volumes of reports. If all these commissions were lined up here in front of the parliament buildings on one of these fine days, parading two deep, with all the employees, secretaries, counsel, advisers and others, and the private members associated with them, and with all their briefs stretched out, they would reach one-third of the way to Lansdowne park.
What is this new, vaster than has been, commission doing? My resolution which was discussed in t'he house at the time when this Purvis commission was appointed, proposed an investigation in connection with the British North America Act and of constitutional and parliamentary law and cabinet reforms which are wrapped up in this particular question. At that time I was told by the responsible minister that it was intended to appoint this vaster commission. The commission was appointed a year after. Instead of dealing with the British North America Act they are going all over creation. They have had as a witness a former chancellor of Germany over here. Dear knows how long they will go on with all the witnesses they are calling, from all over the world; yet all they can do is to give this parliament advice and collect data, with no power to act or go places. You should see the parade of them into the legislative chamber; there were more there than the whole of the legislative assembly to hear these wonderful commission people, including Doctor Dafoe, who was criticizing a while ago the waste of natural resources. Doctor Dafoe seemed to be the gloomy dean of the commission. It was only ten years ago, when I sat in the house, that the said doctor- I do not know what he is doctor of-was in the gallery on a visit to Ottawa about the time when the Siftons by the Ottawa canal bill were trying to get the whole Georgian bay and all the natural resources and water
powers of the Ottawa river given over to them by a Liberal government, in the spring of 1927. I say that is the answer to the reference by one of the commissioners to the waste of natural resources, which has no doubt caused considerable unemployment.
This new commission is dealing with the very thing which is covered by the Purvis report. In fact, the Purvis commission seems to be the lower house and the Rowell commission the upper house in connection with this whole question. After a review of the Rowell commission I would call them the doomsday commission; -when all the reports they are collecting have been assembled they will be known as the collector of the modem doomsday book. The doomsday book of 1086 was a real report. It is the first economic report we have. It counted up every man, woman and child in England; it enumerated every town, house, lot, farm, horse, pig, cow, sheep, it was a real report and it gave some information. It was not like some of our modern commission reports for which the minister is responsible. In the minister's department the unemployment situation is dealt with by means of an index system; a few letters are written to industries inquiring as to the number on the payroll, and so on. That is not the sort of report that will get us anywhere. I know of one industry in Canada presided over by the chairman of this commission. What did he do in the very week during which this report was signed and presented? What did this representative of the duPont dynasty do?-this gentleman who is supposed to have the interests of the Canadian working class at heart? I will tell you what he did in one industry. He and bis fellow directors and managers introduced into the industry of which he is the head a machine that put out of employment seven or eight men who in all their lives had never been off the payroll. That is one thing he did in one of the industries of which he is a director and it indicates how he solves the unemployment problem.
I can tell the minister that there will come a day of reckoning for the government on account of these royal commissions they have appointed. Yes; there will be a day of reckoning for the way in which they have mishandled this whole problem. Compare what these roving commissions in Canada have done; compare the way in which this government has handled the unemployment situation, with the work that has been done in the United States, by one man, Mr. Hopkins, in a country with a population of
Relief and Agricultural Distress

127,000,000. He had the power to do something and he went ahead and did something practical. The other day he was congratulated by the United States senate upon the manner in which he had dealt with the question not only in connection with housing and slum clearance, but in other respects as well. I do not approve everything that has been done in the United States in this regard; far from it, I know that they have made mistakes, naturally; but they have done a good deal nevertheless for those on relief and for the municipalities. They have done good work in many ways in dealing with the unemployment problem.
In Canada a good deal of unemployment has been caused by the failure of the government to put on dumping duties and tariff protection and thereby give industry a chance. We have been here now for three years, this is the third session. The first year we went away without having accomplished anything; the second year a commission was appointed to make an investigation; and now the matter is still being investigated. We have had one report, and by the time the whole thing is disposed of, it will be found that nothing has been done. The very object of appointing the Purvis and Rowell commissions has been to prevent the House of Commons from doing anything practical; they have simply hindered the House of Commons in its functions. That is the purpose for which these commissions were appointed, as the government do not want to solve things, and the result is that the unemployed are still idle. The government's present policy will get us nowhere. It seems for the unemployed to be based on the principle that a commission a day will keep the bailiff away. The government's policy has been simply this: it has mistaken the babble of the Purvis and Rowell commissions for the voice of the people of Canada on these social and industrial questions.
I asked certain questions in regard to slum clearance, and housing, and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) also made certain inquiries along that line, but we have not received any very definite information. The leader of our party when in power appointed a committee of the house to look into the question of some slum clearance, and housing, and that committee sat for weeks and got somewhere on the motion I introduced in 1935.
In reply to questions asked by the hon. member for Greenwood in 1935 as to what had been done in regard to housing, we found

that nothing had been done. They did not have a place even to house Duncan Marshall's famous bull and it died.
On April 6, I asked the following question with regard to the recommendations of the housing commission:
1.	Have any steps been taken by the government to carry out the recommendations of the special committee on housing in 1935 in their final report?
2.	Will any federal slum clearance program as set out in this report be considered or brought down this session not only for the cities, but for the country?
In answer to the first question the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) replied in the affirmative. He seemed to be the only minister doing anything in connection with the Dominion Housing Act. Under the housing act a lot of money has been spent, and I admit it has helped some people and given them a good bargain; but the unfortunate part of it is that though the act is dominionwide it has been of little benefit to those who have no money. It is only for those possessed of some assets and employable. As for any general scheme to help the industrial worker, nothing whatever has been done to give him work from industry by the bonus and subsidy policy. The industrial worker does not want any favours; he simply asks for equality of treatment with others as in Saskatchewan. He wants to get equal treatment with the agriculturist. If the government had set up a committee of the house three years ago we would have got somewhere. To return to the work done by Mr. Hopkins, what did he do? He himself ascertained the extent of unemployment among a population of 127,000,000; then he asked for the necessary money that would enable him to act, and he did act. Before he took charge-just one man in that vast country-people stood in the bread line for hours, and many were foreclosed. Now conditions there are not what they used to be. But what is being done in Canada?
The minister referred to the tourist trade and he gave an estimate of what it would amount to. He talked about three hundred millions, but that seems to me to be altogether too extravagant. At any rate, how that is going to help the unemployment situation I do not know, and where does the estimate come from? No doubt it creates some work.
In England the government, through its responsible ministers, addressed the unemployed and the youth of the country, saying to them: "You young people are on the dole. Would it not be far better for you to work for the government and for your country

Relief and Agricultural Distress
on land and sea and in the air and be independent, serving for five years and on a voluntary apprenticeship? You will learn a trade and will receive from $1 to 81.50 a day and you will get your food and clothing, and splendid recreation, not in crowded camps but in good housing accommodation. You will live the life of an ordinary civilian in this volunteer service.'' That was what the government did in England, and the result is that a large number of the youthful unemployed have been taken off the relief rolls. The movement has been twice blessed; it has helped to rearm England and it has been a great boon to industry and to employment. We were told that this government, if elected, would end unemployment, but after three years they have done nothing. All they have done has been to submit to the law courts the wise, social legislation passed by the former government; yet they are ready to criticize the one government that did do something for the industrial workers of Canada. The former Prime Minister, now leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), got a raw deal because he was the first Prime Minister since confederation to explore all the paths of trade and commerce and to adopt practical measures to cope with the unemployment situation. But we find now that these roving commissions appointed by the present government simply move around the country like an opera company and minstrel show, crowding all the hotels and trains, and reaping the benefit of the work done by the mass buying committee and commission appointed by the late government to investigate these very problems that these commissions are now looking into. When their report is presented you will see that it will be merely a paraphrase of the Couzens report, after the fashion of the report of commission No. 1. The Purvis commission was the retail end of it and the Rowell commission is the wholesale end of the commission trade.
Now I wish to refer to the situation of the city from which I come in regard to unemployment. The government say they are sick and tired of hearing about life-saving stations. Well, they had to call upon the United States life-saving crews frequently in order to save Canadian lives on the upper great lakes; I can give you the pictures if you want to see them. If we created our own national life-saving service and training for the navy and merchant marine, it would help create employment and would be of benefit to shipping and empire defence. This government sent representatives to the last imperial conference. There New Zealand and Australia 51952-Hr
learned something about how to relieve unemployment through shipping, but what did we do? Our representatives sat there and did nothing but veto every proposal for a shipping solution. New Zealand and Australia got something out of it. I have here a return from the city treasurer of Toronto showing that over $51,000,000 has been spent in that city in direct relief, hospitalization, social services and things of that kind. In the last seven years this government have taken from the province of Ontario over $250,000,000 by way of income tax. The figures for each year are as follows:
1931		$34,713,000
1932		 30,268,000
1933		 30,681,000
1934		 28,613,000
1935		 32,104,000
1936		 40,156,000
1937		 58,162,000
This is from the last monthly statement of the Bank of Canada, the white book which is published monthly. In other words, during these seven years this government took from the industrial province of Ontario the sum of $254,697,000 in income tax, and for 1938 it will probably amount to $72,000,000. What did they spend on relief during that time? For the whole of Canada they spent only $203,000,000 on direct relief. In other words they collected $51,000,000 more in income tax from Ontario then the total cost to them of relief in Canada. That shows the extent to which Toronto and the other large industrial cities of Ontario are soaked, and they can get no relief. One of the results of these employment commissions is that they create more unemployment. Unemployment is caused by the government appointing commissions to meddle in domestic and economic problems. In all this I see the decay of parliament and the decline of the House of Commons. The report proposes no new remedy for Canada's problem of distribution or for restoring private property, as it was held by the people in the days of Macdonald and Laurier. I contend that if the Purvis commission had made a survey along the lines of the survey made by Hon. Mr. Brown, Minister of Labour in England, a great many of these young people who were taking the dole would have welcomed the opportunity of learning a trade under the apprenticeship system that I suggested some time ago. Two years ago, when discussing the appointment of the Purvis commission, I told the house something of what had been done by the British board of education along this line, and Miss Perkins,



Relief and Agricultural Distress
secretary of labour in the United States, has adopted some features of that English educational system of apprenticeship.
The other evening a special grant of some $2,000,000 was made to Saskatchewan, most of it for education. That is one of the difficulties under the present state of affairs. Does the house know that the city from which I come spends about $12,000,000 on education, and receives from the province only from nine to eleven per cent of that amount? In other words about ninety per cent of that amount has to be paid by the taxpayers of Toronto. There should be concurrent jurisdiction in regard to education; the dominion should contribute something also for education for each municipality. That would create employment, and the same would apply to public health. We hear talk about the road problem; the government are going to do something about these uneconomic, wasteful roads, which are nothing but subsidies to the oil and motor car industries. The roads should be -built somewhat around the industrial cities and counties where the unemployment problem centres most.
The decision to give work instead of a dole to the unemployed is a bold experiment which has national sympathy. All recognize the demoralizing effects of idleness, and the improved morale that comes with work. There is agreement that the unemployed and destitute must be cared for in a humane manner, and that this had much better be done by providing work at fair remuneration than by any system- of gratuitous public support. The real question is whether so vast an undertaking to provide employment under government auspices will realize the hopes that inspire it. From the standpoint of -the rest of the community it must be regarded as an additional problem and burden at a time when each and every household is beset with new problems and difficulties of its own. Granted that there is a social obligation to care for the helpless, there is a primary obligation for every person to provide for himself and his family dependents in so far as he can do so, that he and -they may not -be a burden upon others. It is the individual's own sense of this obligation and of his failure to meet it that causes the humiliation and moral deterioration resulting from the continued receipt of public relief. All social obligations are reciprocal; no one owes more to another than the other owes to him, and self-respect requires of all of us that we impose no unnecessary burdens on each other.
The right to work is real in a proper sense. It is right that everyone should have an
'Mr. Church.]
opportunity to work, but as one person's claim on his fellows it is subject to limitations. It cannot be said that he has a right to any particular kind of work, or work at any particular rate of pay, or at any particular place, fior obviously it might not be possible for every person -to be supplied with work on his own terms. The rights of an individual are limited by the equal rights of all other persons, and regard for the general welfare must be the guiding principle.
These considerations require that the policy of aid to the unemployed shall have regard for industrial recovery. First in importance to the common welfare is the maintenance of the economic system in at least its present efficiency, and its restoration- to normal capacity as quickly as possible. The monetary system is the very heart of the economic system, and the solvency of -the nation is dependent upon both. A breakdown of the monetary system would paralyze industry and plunge the nation into chaos. I have referred to the standing menace of currency agitation and the relation of -an unbalanced budget to -this peril is the very crux of the problem. Unless favourable results from the policy are evident, the treasury deficit will naturally become -a matter of increasing concern among investors and business men considering long term commitments, the very class of business in which revival is most needed in order to revive industry.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that coming from -the industrial city of Toronto I am very much disappointed in this bill now before the house. However, there is one provision in it of which I think advantage should be taken. It is the provision concerning agreements granting financial assistance to industry. I believe if we applied bonuses, subventions and subsidies not only to agriculture but also -to industry, some result might be achieved. I believe also there Should be large grants to the larger municipalities in order to help them solve their real estate problems. The province is taking $11,000,000 from Toronto by way of income tax, and only about two and a half million is given back. As a result the city is out about $9,000,000. The receipts from that income tax would go to take care of -municipal services of all kinds, which have been starved for the past six years. In Italy they have solved the problem. They are advancing money to the municipalities for the relief of unemployment, to be used in the construction of schools, courthouses, hospitals and public works of every kind, taking care of their needs for the next forty-five years. I am suggesting that these

Relief and Agricultural Distress
loans -be made in a lesser degree to the municipalities. We will' remember that in 1919 a loan of $21,000,000 was made to municipalities for housing purposes. Almost every dollar of that money was paid back. In fact the municipalities seem to be the only organizations which pay back to parliament. Does the Quebec harbour board pay back, or do other harbour boards pay back money advanced? No, they do not.
For these reasons I believe the bill is not adequate and does not provide an adequate remedy. It does not provide enough and will be only a small source of comfort to the unemployed next May day. We have sat here and failed to do anything. We appoint commissions which do nothing. The onus for the solution of the problem is on the government, and so long as they form the government hon. members opposite must accept this great responsibility, a responsibility with respect to which they have fallen down all along the line. They have attempted to transfer the responsibility to a roving commission which appears in Vancouver to-day, Calgary tomorrow, Toronto the day after, and dear knows where they may be before they wind up.
This is not the responsibility of a commission; it is that of the House of Commons and the government. One point further: I believe the right hon. the leader of the opposition will be remembered by the people of Canada for many years to come. He was the first man who ever tackled social problems and trade and commerce, and who ever attempted to dissect sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act. He would have had this matter discussed around a table by the dominion and the provinces and got a quicker solution. He did the spadework, and got nothing but abuse for it. Although my right hon. leader may not be the head of the government, certainly he is de facto the leader of the House of Commons in matters of legislation this and last session. Certainly the government would have been better off if it had accepted his constructive policy of meeting around a table here in Ottawa, of hearing the views of the provincial governments and attempting to bring about the solution of the problem when all information was available.
I see no hope at all for the municipalities. They are outcasts. The federal government will not deal with them. One might think that they had some sort of legislative disease. This government will not deal with the mayors and boards of control of Hamilton, Toronto, Montreal and other cities. It says, "You may go to the provincial governments. We will 51952-147J
have no contact with you." That is a wrong policy, and one which has been found wanting in many respects. The matter is being handled in England, New Zealand and Australia, but we sit here day after day and do nothing but act as a lot of slaves for these useless commissions.


Mr. J. A. MARSH (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to be brief in the observations I have to make on this measure which has for its purpose the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress. After studying the contents of the bill one must conclude that in scope it seems to be broad enough; it seems specific enough in its clauses to meet that problem which, I believe we must all admit, is one of the greatest problems confronting our people.
But I am mindful of the fact that we have on our statute books measures which, while considered wise when they were passed, have failed to remedy conditions, because of poor administration. For that reason, and because the present measure is not dissimilar from the bill of last year, I am much concerned as to the possibility of proper administration.
Much of the discussion in the house thus far respecting unemployment-and I must plead guilty to contributing my share-has dealt chiefly with the extent of the problem. We have failed in our consideration of what we must do to cure the ills of unemployment. I wonder if we can look forward, not back. I wonder if we can forget the things that have been done in the last few years in an effort to solve the problem? I wonder if we will devote our attention to the problems of today, and if we will deal with them. We must, too, be mindful of the problems of to-morrow. I do submit, however, that so much of our discussion concerns yesterday and yesterday's problems that, for the most part it is futile and useless.
When the resolution upon which this bill is founded was in committee stage some weeks ago, the minister said that we should avoid excessive pessimism. I heartily agree, because I dislike the pessimist and avoid him as heartily as I do those little black and white animals we meet occasionally on the back roads. I believe the biological name is mephitis mephitica-and that is not the name for a cat. I do not like the attitude of the pessimist, but I suggest we cannot be blamed for being conscious of, alive to and aware of the tremendous distress throughout the country to-day. That consciousness is not pessimism; pessimism is the refuge of the craven. Rather than being pessimistic I suggest we are simply being aware of the hardships being


Mr. ROGERS:: I do not think my hon. friend intends to misrepresent me. I did see the mayors' association, not once but on several occasions.


John Allmond Marsh: I did not mean to say that the minister did not see the association; I know that he did. What I meant to convey was that the Minister of Labour has not seen fit to bring in any legislation that would lessen the load, that would proceed along the lines suggested by the mayors. If we can create in the man who owns a home the urge to keep that home; if we can make it possible for a young man and woman to own a home without being staggered by the burden of taxation and being forced to say, "What is the use, it will be confiscated in a few years?" then I submit that we shall be doing something for unemployment.
I wonder if it is possible that we as a parliament are thinking too much internationally; that we are thinking of international problems, of the place of Canada in the empire or in the world of nations. Are we thinking too much about big projects and neglecting the biggest thing we have to-day in the Dominion of Canada? What is that? It is a man. Take that John Citizen and multiply him a few hundreds of thousands of times and you have a nation. We should get down to fundamentals and think in terms of men and women, of young men and women. When we think in terms of the individual, then we shall be thinking in terms of national prosperity.
I should like to read an article that appeared in a magazine called Canada's Business. I think it is so fine and deals so clearly with this situation that it should be read into Hansard. The title of the article is "Taxes Retard Building" and it reads:
During the last eighteen months the federal government has been priming the building pump through its public works, H.I.P. and home building legislation. Only recently another dominion-wide architectural competition has been announced from Ottawa but even in the

Relief and Agricultural Distress
low-cost-home field, which this latest contest is designed to assist, there is another factor that would seem to need urgent consideration by governments-taxation on property. In 1934, for instance, about one-third of Canada's tax revenue from all sources was derived from taxes on real property.
The Rowell commission inquiry is bringing to light many interesting facts and that brief presented by Winnipeg's real estate board, while only one of the property owners' voices that will be beard, bears comment. In Winnipeg, to take a particular ease, property owners pay 92 per cent of that municipality's revenue in levies on real property or in charges connected therewith and revenue from other sources in most municipalities is likewise com-paartively small.
I would interject to say that in the case of Toronto the percentage is 90 per cent, and in the case of Hamilton, approximately 89 per cent. I quote:
While rents vary with the times, the property owner goes on paying static or increasing taxes, meanwhile, the property tax bears no relation to earnings from that property, although this tax basis is enjoyed by Great Britain.
But property owners in Winnipeg comprise less than one-third of the voting population of that city. Thus the people who pay 92 per cent of the taxes are outnumbered two to one by other voters. Is this an unfair burden on a minority of the voters who have a minor voice in electing those who dictate tax rates and tax spending? The vast amount of property taken over by the city for tax arrears shows how little encouragement there is, for people to build their own homes.
Moreover, in the nine years from 1928 to 1936 city taxes on 23 representative commercial properties in Winnipeg averaged 37 per cent of gross revenue from these properties or over three times the respective wage bill.
What is the best way to make a good Canadian? I submit that the best way to make a good Canadian is to give him a stake in the country. If I ask one of my fascist friends to tell me about fascism he cannot do it; there is not one in a hundred who can. If I ask my communist friends to describe communism to me, there is not one in a hundred who can do it. But if I ask any one of those men if he understands what it means to lose a home, what it means to be discontented, he will soon say, "amen" and give me a complete peroration on what it means in the way of human hardship to lose a home.
Discontented men and women provide fertile fields in which the fascist party-I think their numbers have been greatly exaggerated -or the communist party-likewise exaggerated-can sow their seed, which may be nurtured and grow to be a real danger to our democracy. What can we do? We can make
real estate attractive to private capital. I do not think the erection of public buildings is a solution. The solution would be to spread that money around by way of lessened taxes on those who have property and thus give encouragement to young men and women who want to 'buy homes. At the moment private capital considers that an investment in real estate is throwing money down the sewer.
For the last two or three years the civic administration of the municipality that I represent has hewed close to the line. The city of Hamilton is a business man's city and it has been run as such. Expenditures have been wisely made; we have been paying as we go. Two and a half years ago the city of Hamilton was nearly bankrupt; to-day it is solvent. But what encouragement do we get? In the last three years the basis upon which relief has been paid has been increased from 20 per cent to 37jj per cent. We cannot plan; we cannot budget successfully when we do not know what we shall have to pay for relief. It will be impossible for us to remain solvent if we have to continue to bear the present load of 37i per cent of relief expenditures.
The minister may say, " Where am I going to get the money "? Perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) will want to know that. As I said on one other occasion and as stated in this chamber many times, the municipality is extremely limited in its scope of taxation. The provincial government has wider powers of taxation, but the dominion government has the widest powers of all. We as a government have no money? May I assure you the home owner has none and we are trying to take from him the little he has, namely his equity in his home, the only thing that keeps him a good Canadian.
There are natural difficulties in the way of the successful administration of this legislation. There are problems that might be said to be provincial. There are provinces to the west of us which in years gone by have contributed to the granaries of the world. They have been mighty provinces and they will be mighty again. I am not bragging; I am simply stating a fact when I say that in Ontario we have no destructive acts of God. Our acts of God are blessings. We have no catastrophes; we have no famines. Our problems to-morrow will be substantially what they are to-day, and our problems to-day are pretty much what they were yesterday. But the fact remains that old Ontario has paid millions and millions of dollars to the west. We are glad to have done so and I wish we could do more; but if the province of Ontario is to

Relie; and Agricultural Distress
remain solvent; if it is to continue to be the financial anchor upon which the other provinces may depend in times of stress, then the province and the municipalities in Ontario must be given a break.
Just a word about youth reestablishment. I am asking the question:	What has youth
received in return for the two million dollars that was voted last year? I am not asking it in any sneering way, because I am not sure but what the minister has done as much with that two million dollars as he has been able to do; but I am cognizant of the fact that 1,606 young men were put into either learner-ship courses or apprenticeship courses to farmers, and that approximately 1,100 young women were put into training in this or that vocation or into the home.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is my hon. friend speaking of Ontario? His figures must be for one single province.


John Allmond Marsh: Yes; I was speaking of Ontario. I am subject to correction, but I understand that the number was 1,606 young men and over a 'thousand young women. Might I suggest that that vote has merely scratched the surface. Great problems in the past have been sometimes met with the theory that the end justifies the means, and therefore we have to do it. I do not like to talk about war; I hope we may be spared a war, and yet the time may come when we shall have a war. If a war were to start, and if the very existence of Canada were at stake, this parliament, I venture to say, would vote a few hundred millions of dollars just like that, and seventy-five per cent of the members sitting here would vote yea. Is it possible that this problem of youth reestablishment is one of which we can say that the end justifies the means. Let us forget about the emotional and sentimental part of young men and young women, forget for a moment their spiritual needs and the ideals that are so common to youth, and think just for a moment of the problem as a financial one. I am told that it costs $7,000 to bring a child into the world, and to bring him or her up through the tender years of childhood through public school to high school, pay doctors' and dentists' bills, and pay the contribution we all have to make for living in organized society, and turning him out at the age of sixteen into the professional, mercantile or industrial world. Now seven thousand times the number of young men and young women of sixteen years of age who are out of a job represent the substantial sum of several hundred million dollars, and that is an investment which is yours, Mr. Speaker, and mine, and which we should protect. I

hope the minister has in mind appealing to
this parliament for a substantially increased vote for the reestablishment of youth.
And now may I ask that this government deal with the realities and be not too much concerned with the supposedly big things? What are the realities? Home, the individual, young men and young women. These are the things which contribute towards the wealth of this country, and it is the only wealth about which we as a people are justified in boasting.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I offer no apology for speaking once again on this subject. It will be recalled that I spoke on it when the resolution which preceded the bill was before the house. At that time we did not know what the bill would contain, but judging from the resolution itself I took the liberty of suggesting *that the bill would not visualize a forward step in dealing with this great problem.
I do not apologize for another reason, and it is this, that this is the most important measure to come before parliament this session-the most important measure, bar none. It represents the full measure of the government's appreciation of the great problem of agricultural distress and unemployment and their duty towards it; and realizing that, I cannot remain silent. In the face of this bill I must express not only my disappointment but in perhaps more precise terms my criticism of the course which the government has pursued.
One would think that parliament, and indeed the government, were unaware of the fact that we are actually in a new economic era. We have been passing through a veritable revolution during this last ten years. It has been a bloodless revolution, for which we should be duly thankful; nevertheless it has been a real revolution. The conditions that obtain to-day and the major economic factors dominating our life are such as never existed before, nor shall we ever return to the conditions and the dominating factors of ten years ago. Scarcely a day passes that one does not hear some business man- I qualify that because, thank heaven, there are a great many who to-day are coming to realize the situation; but you hear some fairly prominent business men talking as if we were going to turn back the wheels of time to the conditions that preceded 1929. I think parliament ought at least to come to this fundamental decision, that we shall never go back to those conditions again.
My hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Marsh) very properly suggested that we

Relief and Agricultural Distress
should look at the problems as they are today and as we anticipate them to be tomorrow and in the days to come, and that we should forget the past. I would not like to go that far because I do believe that from the experience of the past there are very many valuable lessons to be learned. But to base our legislation, the measures we are adopting, upon the assumption that by a turn of the wheel we are going to wake up some time and find ourselves back in the halcyon days of 1928 and 1929 is sheer folly. Indeed, I feel to an extreme degree the responsibility that rests upon me as an individual member of the house; and to a much greater degree does that responsibility rest upon the shoulders of the government. There never has been a leader of the government in Canada who has been louder in his advocacy of responsible government than the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), but I want to say this to him-I am sorry he is not in his seat-and to his colleagues that it would appear-I hope I may be wrong-that they are basing their legislation and their discharge of their duty upon an evasion of responsibility rather than upon an acceptance of it. That is the situation developing in this country, as I see it, and I am hoping that before this session ends we may find the government giving some leadership in accepting responsibility in some of these matters.
Let me turn for a moment to the bill. This bill is supposed to be, on the implied assurances of the minister, at least, and his colleagues, the fruition, shall I say, of the labours of the commission that has been sitting for two years. That is what this bill is supposed to be, because two years ago when we were asked to vote for the appointment of the commission we were assured that it was necessary to set up the commission in order to explore the ground, and that when the commission had performed its duty that would be the time when we might expect measures to give effect to recommendations made after a careful study of the conditions. I again remind the minister that when the commission bill was before the house I warned the government that we should wake up-after eighteen months, I said; I find it is two years now-with little or no progress made. The preamble of that bill, chapter 7 of the statutes of 1936, closes with this sentence:
Whereas it would appear that such nationwide cooperative effort can best be effected through the appointment of a representative national commission, with power to cooperate with the provinces, municipalities and other agencies in respect of unemployment relief, and in an endeavour to provide work for the unemployed. .	..
As I pointed out the other day, the net result as far as the commission is concerned is a report which shows that the commission had become acquainted with the various problems, and it makes certain recommendations and suggestions. That in itself is somewhat disappointing, but the bill that the minister now bases upon the commission's report is nothing more, in effect, than the bill we had two years ago, three and four years ago, and certainly a year ago, and is simply carrying on the same old form of temporary cooperation with the provinces. Indeed it goes a step further down the scale by saying -that the dominion "should continue for a further period to support and supplement the measures of the provinces." The word "supplement" is introduced for the first time. The government is accepting an even lower position of responsibility than it ever did before, by implying, through the introduction of the word "supplement," that the measures must be instigated or originated by the provinces and that this parliament will provide for supplementing such measures.
Surely parliament must be alive to the position in which we now find ourselves. The commission appointed two years ago has studied this question, yet now we are merely asked to do exactly what was done two years ago and a year ago and other years preceding them; there is nothing at all in the nature of progressive measures, no recognition of the possibility of a solution of the problems, no recognition of the fact that there are definite, permanent problems. I wish I could impress that point upon the mind of the minister, that we are confronted with definite, permanent problems and not merely an emergency such as we thought, about nine years ago, was all that this condition represented. When the collapse of the New York stock exchange occurred in the fall of 1929, and we were faced with a serious recession of industrial and financial activity all over the continent, there was naturally a condition of emergency; then unemployment occurred, and it swept through the country. But surely now that it has lasted for nine years, and along with that experience we have, goodness knows, literally mountains of reports, in the United States and Canada as well as from other parts of the world, showing the existence and the causes of this problem, it is most deplorable that we find ourselves just where we were at any time during this depression period, and virtually no further advanced; a little provision made for a few men here and there, but no attempt at a solution.
Let me say one other thing before I refer further to the report itself. As I said when I

Relief and Agricultural Distress
spoke on the resolution, it is rumoured that the government intends to bring in a list of appropriations for public works. I submit to hon. members that that list of appropriations should have accompanied this bill or should have been tabled with it, so that we could give fair weight to whatever effect they may have on existing conditions. As I have already said, it may be that these appropriations will disclose something startling, but from my survey of the government's approach to the question I do not anticipate anything of the kind. I think what it will probably amount to is a list of public works, such as post offices and buildings and dams, scattered over the various constituencies of Canada, which will have a tendency to act as a sedative to local disturbance and agitation. It is possible that there will be included in the appropriation some lump sums for cooperation with provinces in road building and a few other activities of the kind. That is about what one can visualize. I would say that this bill should not pass its second reading until the minister tables the appropriations referred to in the bill and upon which the efficacy of these measures depends. All through the bill, it will be noted, such language as this is used, that the government may enter into agreements with provinces and depending upon expenditures such as are "made out of moneys appropriated by parliament." I suggest to the minister and to the government that before parliament is asked to give sanction to the second reading of this bill there should be tabled the list of appropriations referred to in this bill.
Having said that, I wish to discuss the matter in a little more general way. One would naturally expect that the bill would give effect to what I consider to be the somewhat meagre recommendations of the commission. No one can say that this commission ran wild. No one can criticise it on the ground that the measures it suggests are too extravagant. They are extremely cautious and conservative: in my opinion they do not go in any sense far enough. But the bill which represents the action of the government falls short of the report itself. It does not implement that report to any extent. I find very little in this bill which deals, for instance, with the tourist trade. I do not know that there was much in the commission's suggestion, except that this is an important activity and should be exploited and developed. Already we have a body to do it, but one would have thought that some attention might have been given to the matter. Take the question of housing, which was dealt with in such an interesting way by the hon.

member for Hamilton West (Mr. Marsh) and was referred to in the interim report. Here again the commission were exceedingly cautious, but they do recommend a definite attempt to promote and encourage housing. I have spoken on this so often that I do not intend to labour it, as my views are very well known. It is not a solution of the economic difficulties which are the background of our problem-not at all, but it is one of the things which would lend itself to a most substantial reduction of the number of unemployed. A day or two ago I was reading a report from the United States in which it was stated that the value of the ordinary dwelling houses of the people of that country is greater than that of all other forms of construction put together. I am not prepared to assert that as a definite statement of fact, but I have no doubt that the aggregate value of the dwelling houses of Canada is a tremendous single asset.
We do know, and the most casual, the most indifferent observer cannot but be impressed with the fact, that in the realm of housing, particularly in the cheaper classes, the lower rental classes, Canada is lamentably behind the times and in arrears in construction. I know that very often hon. members on the other side, if they do not voice the feeling audibly, at any rate intimate it in other ways, that no suggestions are forthcoming. They say, " What suggestions have you to offer "? Well, in the first place it is not our business to make suggestions; I may have ideas but I am quite without the power of giving them effect. It is the business of the government to give leadership in these matters. I am prepared, however, to make some suggestions, as I have done on other occasions. Again I refer to the remarks of my hon. friend a moment ago because they were very much to the point. He pointed out, as I did two or three weeks ago, that the weight of taxation upon real estate is one of the chief impediments to normal housing construction in Canada, let alone a program of rehabilitation in the housing situation. To the maintenance of normal housing conditions in Canada one of the main obstacles is the weight of taxation. There is scarcely a city in the country that has not on its hands, according to its size, from hundreds to thousands of parcels of land that have been taken in on tax sales-yes, and in many instances buildings too.
Now there we have two important factors. We know that housing is of tremendous importance from the economic standpoint. It is one of the largest assets we have. We know also that it is lamentably in arrears in ordinary construction, and we know that one of the chief causes is the burden of municipal

Relief and Agricultural Distress
taxation. I am going to make one suggestion to the government, a suggestion which I am prepared to elaborate, though not at the present time. It is something to which I have given a good deal of study. I think the federal government could and should offer to pay in the form of a subsidy to every municipality in Canada a sum equal to twenty-five per cent of its taxes derived from real estate on the condition that that municipality shall not increase its assessment rate or its assessments during a stated period of years-


Mr. DUPUIS:: They are already too high.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, they are too high, and I was about to suggest that they should be reduced by twenty-five per cent, and that the dominion government should pay a subsidy to compensate the municipalities for the reduction of twenty-five per cent. That, in my opinion, would remove at once the main difficulty by which rehabilitation in housing through ordinary channels is now prevented from proceeding. If we can start in this country a general, nation-wide movement in housing it will take us thirty years to catch up. Leaving aside growth, expansion and increase in population, it will take us thirty years to catch up with the necessary housing in the cities and towns of Canada; and I hope we can carry it at an early time to the farms of Canada, particular^' in the backward districts of the old provinces and in some of the newer districts of the newer provinces, where housing conditions are indeed deplorable.
Not long ago a survey was made in a large section of Saskatchewan, the northern section, -it did not cover the whole province-by the university of Saskatchewan, and it was found that in many homes, a very substantial proportion of them, there was no manufactured furniture. It was found that in many others there was very little, and in most instances they were four or five years behind in the purchasing of furnishings and clothing, to say nothing of machinery. With a known condition of that kind we are faced in Canada with economic problems that ought to be focussing and demanding the attention of the house to the exclusion of other things; yet this afternoon we have had a very desultory attendance in the house, an extremely poor attendance, when the most important measure of the session is before us, a measure vitally affecting this matter. I see three ministers in their seats.


Mr. GARDINER:: How often has the hon. gentleman been here this session?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have been here constantly since my return.


Ernest Lapointe: Once every two weeks.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I have been here constantly since returning from a trip abroad. If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will go back over the last twenty-seven years that I have been in this house he will find that very few members have attended the sessions of parliament more closely than I have done. I believe the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who is the only older member in the house than I, will at least accord me that. True, I was away in the early part of the session when I was absent from the country; but what I am saying has reference to this particular occasion and the discussion of this bill. I am not speaking of the discussion of ordinary estimates or of any pro forma matter; but here is a bill, the most important measure before the house this session, and there is comparatively little attention being paid to it.


Mr. MARTIN:: Particularly on the opposition side, as the hon. gentleman will agree. Just look!


Henry Herbert Stevens: In all parts of the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Look opposite; it is pitiable.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In all parts of the house. If the statement gives offence to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Agriculture I want to assure them that it is not said in any offensive spirit. I mention it merely because I am interested in this measure.
Coming back to the question of housing, I make the suggestion which I have submitted because in my opinion it is one of the things that will go a long way in the direction of reducing the number of unemployed in Canada and it will give the greatest impetus to the development of business; because anyone who has studied the question knows perfectly well that money spent in the construction of houses finds its way into so many industries that it is one of the best ways in which money can be spent.
If you will proceed to an examination of the report you will find on page after page many suggestions and conclusions on the part of the commission. I find one that deals with land settlement. In my opinion, here again is a very prolific source of assistance to a solution of the problem. They suggest that there be a survey of unoccupied lands and a careful selection of persons eligible for assistance.

Relief and Agricultural Distress
They suggest that a survey be made of improved lands available for settlement and that financial assistance be accorded settlers wishing to move from poorer districts, and so on. Something is being done in that regard now, and I am willing to give the Minister of Agriculture credit along this line. But we are not moving along national lines; that is the point I am impressing upon the house. Turn over the page and you will find suggestions along other lines. For instance, on page 18 I find some conclusions dealing with the way in which the commission recommend that the government should proceed. There is no evidence in any of these measures that the government has even taken notice of these matters. And so on through the report. In many parts of the report numerous suggestions have been made which are not reflected in the legislation before us, and to my mind it is a lamentable thing that this should be so.
I wish now to make one or two general observations. There is nothing wrong with Canada. I have no sympathy whatever for the calamity howlers who tell us the country is going to the bow-wows. The only thing wrong with Canada, as far as I can see, is this: We, the people of Canada-and we who are in parliament must take more responsibility than those outside, because we are in a position of leadership-are not giving leadership to the country. I would put it this way: In the realm of industry I question if those who are the leaders of industry to-day are giving real leadership along the lines of the new economic life that has developed in the industrial realm. I need take only one illustration; it is commonly known, yet nothing is done. In the last few years machinery has displaced literally tens of thousands of workers. That is a platitude; no one Should be entitled to any credit for having said it, but the fact remains that neither the leaders of industry, the leaders of parliament nor the leaders of finance are paying much attention to those hordes of people thrown	out of	work;	nor are	theyattempting to solve the problem of distribution or the social problem that arises therefrom. We know the	situation but	we are doing
next to nothing to face the fact. So I say there is a lack of leadership in the realm of industry.
I think also there is a lack of leadership in the realm of finance, because we find that the outstanding economic phenomenon of modern times	is the	extent	to which	thecontrol of capital has	been	narrowed	into
fewer and fewer hands, by a perfectly natural

process. Publicity; the rapidity of transport and communication between cities and international communications have made it possible for capital to be gathered under the control of smaller and smaller groups. You have your great insurance companies, for instance. I remember that in my boyhood days not very many people had life insurance. To-day it is almost difficult to find anyone who has not life insurance. What does that mean? It means that in the intervening period familiarity with life insurance has increased and the laws concerning it have become so improved that nearly everyone is insured, and that great mass of capital comes under the control of a very small group. I am not saying whether that is bad or good; I am saying dt is a fact. Then take our great banking system, of which we are so jproud. We have a right to be proud of it, because it is one of the most stable banking systems in the world. Here again, however, is there given to the management and control of credit and finance in this country that degree of consideration in regard to public policy that the control of such an immense amount of credit would warrant?
I have given these few illustrations to indicate that there is a lack of leadership, and I had hoped that the government might do something in that regard in view of this report *and the analysis which it contains of the economic conditions of the country, because the report does devote a considerable number of pages to quite an interesting analysis of the economic factors that enter into this problem of unemployment. I had hoped that in view of that report the government might have come before parliament with some leadership in dealing with -these problems. Can we be surprised, as I have said on other occasions, if in a province such as Alberta, for instance, there comes forth a gentleman who leads a certain movement along the line of the control of credit, when he knows that the people of his province, as in many other provinces, are suffering under the pressure of an unbearable debt, personal and public? Should we be surprised if -the people follow someone who at least offers some hope, when other authorities do nothing? That is why I think parliament should have given a great deal more study to these problems than has been given. So I say that in my opinion we have failed lamentably as a parliament; for the moment I shall not speak of the government, which is the leader of parliament and the leader of the country. I will say that parliament, including myself and every member of it, is failing in -this very session, as I think

Relief and Agricultural Distress
we have failed to perhaps a lesser degree in the past, to give leadership in these matters to this country.
These are serious statements, I grant, but they are warranted when we look at the unemployment and distress in this country which is capable of sustaining fifty million people just as easily as not. There is no question about that. We could feed and sustain fifty million people with perfect ease, but what is wrong? In the short time at my disposal I am not prepared to analyse all that is wrong, but we know that certain things are wrong and it is our duty as leaders- every member I see before me is a leader in his community-to find a solution to these problems.
I have already referred to the matter of Canada being capable of sustaining a very much larger population than we have. There is nothing wrong with this country. What I think business men are looking for from the government in the way of leadership is some evidence of stability in business. I think the working classes are looking for security, and I would include, of course, the great agricultural community. They are looking for some degree of security, and as the referee between conflicting industrial, economic and social groups in this country it is our duty as a parliament to see that the game is played fairly, but we are paying little or no attention to it. This measure before the house to-day, which ought to have given the people of this country hope; which ought at least to have given effect to the suggestions contained in the report, is simply a repetition of the acts which we passed in 1936 and 1937, as the minister said when he introduced the bill. I thought that was perhaps one of the most lamentable admissions of defeat to which we could possibly have listened; in the few words with which the minister introduced his bill he said that it did not differ in any essential degree from the acts of last year and the year before, and that is perfectly true. But the minister has had training in these matters; he is young and virile, and when he came to parliament his friends and others looked to him for leadership in this very realm. Can he sit complacently in his seat and feel that by the introduction of the bill that is before us this afternoon he has discharged his duty? I am sorry that I have had to express myself on this matter in strong terms, but I feel that unless we protest vigorously against this inertia, this evasion of responsibility, there is not much chance of stirring either the government or parliament to the action necessary to meet the situation.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, when the minister presented the resolution preceding this bill I did not take part in the discussion; I preferred to wait until the bill was brought down in order to see what he had to offer to the thousands and thousands of unemployed in this country. I happen to be one of those who represent ridings which contain great numbers of people. Unfortunately, altogether too many thousands of the people in my riding are unemployed, and naturally it is my duty to present to this house what I believe to be their hopes in regard to obtaining employment. I want to tell the minister in the kindliest way possible, because I am one of those who have a very high regard for him, that I am tremendously disappointed in this bill. As one who has been associated with labour and employment problems, to the extent of employing thousands of men, I confess I can see very little in the measure which would give employment to those thousands of men who are unemployed. Possibly the minister intends to bring down another resolution or another bill which will indicate what is to be done.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is the hon. member aware that the present bill provides authority under which expenditures are made to deal with unemployment and agricultural assistance? Expenditures may be made directly by the dominion government or through agreements with the provinces; but there is no restriction whatsoever as to the . purposes for which expenditures may be made. They are dealt with, of course, in the supplementary estimates.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Having in mind that the same kind of resolution has been presented in the last two years, and that those resolutions were followed by bills, and knowing how little resulted from those resolutions and bills, what can I expect from the bill now before the house?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I hope the hon. member will be disappointed if he expects little.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If we do not get more from the present bill than we did from the last ones, it will be too bad for the country. I have before me a document pointing out the platform of the Liberal party during the last campaign, the first clause of which states that it will set up:
A representative national commission to administer unemployment relief and provide work, and a national system of unemployment insurance.
A commission has been set up-we are commissioned to death, as I have said before, and as I am sorry to say again. But despite that fact, much work has not been provided.

Relief and Agricultural Distress
I see one or two rays of hope in the bill from which I would hope some results might come. If the minister has a good understanding of industry, and the manner in which industry can be encouraged, a good deal of employment may come from that clause in the bill referring to the assistance of industry.


Mr. STEWART:: The commission has
been dissolved.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes; but I believe
the government could go ahead and implement the recommendations in the bill which have to do with assistance to industry. That has been done in other countries. No doubt the minister is thoroughly familiar with what has been done in the United States. I cannot say that their efforts have been wholly satisfactory.


Norman McLeod Rogers: They certainly have not
stopped unemployment.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Quite true. They may
not have attacked the problem in the proper way. But I hope our minister will do it properly, and I am going to suggest to him a way in which industry can be assisted. We know that industry is being materially assisted in France, thoroughly assisted in Germany, and tremendously assisted in the old country.
I do not know whether or not the minister had the privilege of being in the old country last year; but I had that privilege, and while there I made a thorough survey into the assistance given industry by the British government. I was able to take note of the benefits derived in industrial areas, and I am pleased and happy to say that I found tremendous industrial activity. If the clause in the bill involves an assistance to industry anything like that which I have in mind, or that which has been done elsewhere, well and good.
During the course of a survey I made, I found some information with respect to a factory in Canada, the name of which I should not give, but whose circular I have before me. It is a large industrial institution in Toronto. I am happy to say there is a similar plant in Quebec, one which reflects great credit on our compatriots in that province. Those two companies are now manufacturing in Canada a large piece of equipment for the crushing of stone and the screening of it in one operation. A representative of one of these companies interviewed me in reference to obtaining consideration from the government to assist in the production of these machines. I asked them to what extent the assistance would be required. I was told that blue-prints had been brought in from the United States; that 
Canadian engineers have made thorough surveys of them; that Canadian draftsmen have prepared plans, and that Canadian technicians, toolmakers, engineers, machinists and other workmen have been successful in producing the equipment to manufacture these machines in Canada, one company in Quebec and one in Toronto.


Mr.   S@: And putting a lot of day
labourers out of work. They are depriving the labouring man of his work. That is the general complaint in Quebec.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Manufacturers of these
machines provide a lot of labour.


Mr.   S@: That is the old slogan.


John Ritchie MacNicol: On the other hand, if
they are not manufactured in Canada they will be brought in from the United States. Last year eight large machines of this kind were imported from that country.


Mr.   S@: The labouring men are
complaining about that, every day.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well, I would much
rather have those eight machines, which were manufactured last year in the United States, made this year in Canada by Canadian workmen. If any men were put out of work, then they were out of work because of American and not because of Canadian machines.


Mr.   S@: They are the same thing.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Developing that point
farther, may I say that there are thousands of pieces of equipment now imported which could be made in Canada, in the same way as the machines about which I have been speaking are now being made. In the making of that equipment many thousands of men would be given employment in all walks of activity in industrial institutions. The hon. member has said that machines put men out of work. I do not dispute that fact. But when the machines have to be made, and are imported, I would much sooner have them made by Canadians in Canadian plants than have them made in United States plants by workmen of that country.
If that is part of the minister's proposal, then I will say it is a good one. They have followed that procedure in England. If the minister had been in London last summer, and had visited the industrial areas at Slough and South Wimbledon, he would have seen large numbers of new factories. Some of those are branch factories. I visited one which was a branch of a factory in Toronto, which manufactured steam traps. Those articles are now being made in England, because

Relief and Agricultural Distress
the English government saw to it that before the industry received the benefit of the industrial support given by the government, the industry must manufacture to the extent of fifty per cent in England. I found in the plant about seventy-five men who were engaged in the manufacture of steam traps of one kind or another. I inquired of the manager where they were shipping the material and he replied that a great deal of it was sold in England, and that a certain portion went to the Scandinavian countries and to Germany.
That equipment was formerly made in Canada. Why cannot we take a leaf out of the book of the ministries of industry and boards of trade-some are ministries and some are boards of trade-of other countries, where industry is assisted. I had hoped in reading the bill that an attempt was to be made to assist industry, and I said to myself, "There is one thing I can support, even if there is no good in a lot of it." I shall go farther, and say this: I cannot name one line of industry which does not benefit agriculture. Last June Sir Harold Hartley delivered a most enlightening speech at Southport, near London. The subject of his speech was "Agriculture as a potential source of raw materials for industry." That seemed to me to be an extremely good subject and I took particular pains to study what Sir Harold had said. He was dealing with the automobile industry only. I see the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) is in his seat.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am always in the house.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I compliment the hon. member on being a regular attendant. I was in his riding a few days ago, not to do any injury to him but to make a survey of a great automobile plant in that riding.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You were well received, but your cause was not.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I believe I am right in stating that the Chrysler plant is in the hon. member's riding.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Their production this year is the highest it has been in the history of the automobile industry.


John Ritchie MacNicol: When I get through saying what I have to say, the hon. member will have another guess coming. Will he just wait until I finish my remarks? I made a survey of that great plant and I found that there are some 2,800 men employed. This is due to the fact that at the moment there is a fairly substantial demand for the cars made at the Chrysler plant. However, I have been told-
I want the hon. member to listen to this- that were it not for the fact that 16 per cent of the lower priced cars coming into this country last year were made in the United States by workmen other than Canadians, there would be considerably more employment in the automobile plants of this country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no question about that. Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the hon. member will just sit down for a little while I finish what I have to say, I have not much time before the house rises at six o'clock and I am anxious to lay before it the opinion of Sir Harold Hartley as to the connection between agriculture and the automobile industry. He was dealing only with Ford cars manufactured in the United States and the figures he gave had reference to a unit of a million cars. He stated that to manufacture this number of cars, 89,000,000 pounds of cotton were necessary, which represented the production from
558.000	acres of land. Cotton is not grown in Canada, but there are other commodities produced here and other lines of industry to which these figures would apply. I am simply giving the figures that apply to the manufacture of cars in the United States. This consumption is a direct benefit to agriculture in the United States. The cotton was used for upholstering, for the production of brake linings, timing gears, safety glass and so forth.
Half a million bushels of maize-I assume he means corn-were required, representing the production from 11,280 acres, for rubber substitutes, butyl alcohol and other solvents. Next, 2,400,000 pounds of linseed oil, representing the production from 17,500 acres of flax, were required for paints, core oil, soft soap, glycerine, et cetera. Next, 2,500,000 gallons of molasses, representing the production from 12,500 acres of sugar cane, were needed for anti-freeze, shock absorber fluid and other solvents. The production from
800.000	sheep, equal to 3,200,000 pounds of wool was needed for upholstering, gaskets, anti-rust liquids, floor coverings and lubricants.


Mr. DONNELLY:: That was to pull over the eyes of the farmers.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. gentleman is known all over the country as an unvarnished free trader, but he must realize that every man at work offers an additional home market to the farmer.


James J. Donnelly: How much do these automobiles cost in Canada?

Relief and Agricultural Distress


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member can find that out just the same as I can. The next item is 1,500,000 square feet of leather, the production from 30,000 head of cattle, for upholstering and glues. Perhaps a lot of those cattle were raised in Saskatchewan, and the farmers there were probably pleased when there was a market for the hides of
30.000	head of cattle.


James J. Donnelly: The motor car people say that all the hides are obtained from the Argentine.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The next item is 1,000,000 pounds of lard, the production from 20,000 hogs, for lubricants, brushes, etc. I do not want to get down to the narrow view of this problem; I want to see something done for the working men and women, of whom I have
45.000	in my riding. The next item is 350,000 pounds of mohair, the production from 87,000 goats, for fabrics and upholstering. I do not know where these goats would be raised. It is suggested to me by an hon, member that there are some in the House of Commons, but I doubt that very much. The next item is 2,000,000 pounds of soya bean oil, representing the production from 10,000 acres, used for enamels.
Some hon. members have tried to interject some levity into the discussion of this very serious problem of unemployment. I cannot go home to my riding without the verandah of my house being crowded with people who come to see me to ask if something cannot be done to relieve unemployment. If the minister desires to assist industry, a golden opportunity is given him at the present time. Earlier in the session I made reference to what I had heard during my visits to munition, steel and gun plants in the United Kingdom. I suggested that the government get in touch with the British government in order to encourage the removal of some of these great plants to Canada. One of the ministers, I have forgotten just which one, laughed at the idea. However, during the last few days there have been reports in the newspapers about the suggested manufacture in this country of airplanes for war purposes. According to press reports the British commissioners are now in the United States and the suggestion has been made that seven, eight, or perhaps ten thousand airplanes will be manufactured. I am giving an arbitrary figure; the actual figure may be less. I for one would like to see these airplanes made in the great plants of this country. Every thousand men put to work making airplanes would be a thousand less to provide for in connection with unemployment relief and an increased home market

would be provided for our Canadian farmers. I hope the minister will do everything he can to encourage the production of airplanes in this country.
There are other industries that might be encouraged to come over here. Any one who knows anything about the industrial areas realizes how congested they are. Slough, South Wimbleton, Port Talbot, Manchester and other areas are all extremely congested. If these areas were destroyed, it might prove difficult for the British government to carry on a war. If these industries were moved to Canada, they would be two or three thousand miles further away from possible attack by bombing planes.
I had hoped that something would be in this bill about the proposals which have been submitted by the Ontario government to this government with reference to flood prevention; that we would have heard something about the proposals of the Ontario government to eliminate floods on the Grand river. The hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald), a very capable member of this house, exceptionally capable when he gets up and gives a good tariff protection speech for the industries and industrial workers of that great industrial city of Brantford-and when he does that we are ready to welcome him over here for he is fighting for the working men of Brantford-after he had interviewed a number of the ministers of the cabinet, said:
While I cannot say definitely what action the government will take I am satisfied that the commissioners convinced the three members of the cabinet that the scheme was one that was needed.
If the minister would assist the Ontario government in commencing that great scheme of flood prevention and would commence with the Grand river; then if the government receives any commendation from the public, I would say more power to its elbow as long as it is doing its duty, and I am satisfied that in preventing floods on the Grand river it would be doing good work. That is only one river, but what would it mean in connection with the Grand river alone?
The area of the Grand river north of Galt, which is in the riding represented by the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Edwards) is 1,360 square miles. Apparently, in submitting their figures to the minister, the Ontario government used the identical figures I used a year ago as to the cost of water conservation on the Grand river. I do not say that they used my figures, but their figures are identical with mine. I had estimated, on the records of a water conserva-

Relief and Agricultural Distress
tion survey, that the cost would be approximately $2,000,000; I am not sure that $2,000,000 would do it; but the Ontario government, after no doubt going into the matter carefully, have come to the same conclusion. Their figures would likely be based on what was generally accepted as the standard when floods are bad, that is a three-day rain flood. A three-day flood would cover the whole of that area on that basis, if the water remained on the land to a depth of approximately 2-75 inches, and during the course of such flood about 8,700,000,000 cubic feet of water would fall. To provide for the retention of surplus water so that it would not cause damage at Brantford and the other towns on the banks of the river would create work for 3,700 men for four months, who would be directly engaged in the work of conservation, and I am satisfied that it would provide work also for another 3,700 men making the cement and steel and all the other materials and equipment entering into the construction of the necessary conservation works. If the minister has anything like that in mind, I say more power to his elbow. After having tested it out on the Grand river, if he finds it satisfactory, he could extend the operations to the other rivers which are in flood every year all over this country. Everyone has read of them during the last few years. I shall read only a few headlines on articles describing these floods: "Port Hope facing acute situation from flood waters"- "Port Hope faces its fifth flood this winter"- "Waterloo in danger"-"Galt main street under water." One town after another along the banks of the Grand river was in danger from floods. The same thing occurred with the Thames river. It was not the case so much with the Saugeen, but the same thing happened along the Kettle river which flows through St. Thomas and down into lake Erie. There was a flood there last spring which caused a good deal of trouble.
I believe there is a real opportunity for the sound investment of money and the providing of a lot of employment. Every one of these floods causes not only deaths as a rule but a lot of property damage, and any money which this government invests for the purpose of eliminating property damage necessarily does not cost the country anything. I do not know where you would get the money, but I am sure, if the minister directs that these works shall be done, the money will be found to do it.
There is another way in which money can be spent as a national investment, not as a matter of cost at all, and that is in the construction of good roads. I may be asked
where the money would come from to do that. Money can always be found for a real investment, and money spent on good roads is a national investment. Last summer-I dislike referring to thjg because I do not like talking about things I have seen, except that one can always explain better something that he has seen than something he has read of -I made a little survey of road-building in Germany, and I saw their new concrete roads with eight lanes, accommodating four cars on each side of a boulevard, and with concrete so thick that the heavy tanks of the German army can speed over them at sixty miles an hour. I am not asking this government to provide roads over which tanks can speed at sixty miles an hour. We want to be free from tanks in this Country. We hope that war will never occur. But what did road-building do for Germany? Just what did it mean to Germany last year? It is almost incredible but nevertheless a fact that road-building in Germany in a single year resulted in the removal of earth from the roadways on which concrete was later to be poured of a greater quantity than was removed in the building of the Panama canal. In building the Panama canal the United States engineers removed 220,000,000 cubic metres of earth. In building the roadways of Germany last year, the brawn of German youth removed 250,000.000 cubic metres of earth, so that the concrete could be poured. Subsequently they poured 10,000,000 cubic metres of concrete, and it took 260,000 cars to deliver the concrete. So in doing that work Germany did go a long way towards relieving or eliminating unemployment. In fact, I did not see an able-bodied young man on the streets of Berlin between the ages of 16 and 20. A lot of them were probably in camps, and a lot in the army and navy, but a lot of them were making roads. One of the ministers with whom I discussed roadbuilding told me that they had hundreds of thousands of their young men engaged in building roads.
In this country we have been giving the dole and little else to our young men. A young man does not want the dole. He wants work, and if he gets work building a road, and receives fair wages for doing it, he is giving the best possible return to the country because good roads are a national asset, and if road-building is in the minister's program I am behind it one hundred per cent. If the minister will support the province of Ontario in building really good roads, going the shortest distance between two points, he

Relief and Agricultural Distress
will be helping to create a national asset and do a great deal in the way of providing employment.
I do not know that there is much more that I can say. I had no intention of speaking at any length. The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) mentioned housing. Let me mention just one example of housing that I saw last summer, to illustrate the fine work which this country can do in improving housing conditions in this country. If the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), under whose jurisdiction the Indian department is, I believe, were in the house, he might be interested in what I am going to say. I have made a survey of many Indian reserves, but I have particularly in mind the Muncey reserve, west of London. I doubt if anybody who has not been there could believe that the conditions on that reserve are as they are. I went to one residence occupied by an Indian; I had a letter from him to-day. It was a hut, if I remember correctly, nine feet wide by twelve feet long. I could see out of every corner of it. In many places the rain could come through the roof. In the hut were two small bunks, not beds; that was the accommodation for the Indian, his wife and his four children. The day I was there his daughter, one of the four children I referred to, had returned from the Indian school, which I assume is at Muncey; it is not far from the mounted police headquarters. At that school the young woman had been taught all that white children are taught; she had received the tuition to make her an educated young lady; she had reached the age when she had to leave the school, and she returned to this hut nine feet by twelve, where you could see out of every corner and the rain could come through the roof in several places, and where there were just two bunks. The Indians were the original owners of this country. It may be that they are not entitled to any consideration through a building program; but we all know that whites require such a program, and that the aborigine, not being able now to defend and provide for himself, requires our help. I saw several huts on that reservation and other reservations where conditions are no better than in the one I have described, and I contend that conditions like that should not be allowed in any civilized country, whether the sufferer be a white man or an aborigine.
Although I intended to speak on this bill, I was unable to find time to prepare much to say because my tame yesterday was taken up with a delegation from Toronto, including

a returned soldier. The returned soldier had been a prisoner of war in Germany for three years. He with six of his comrades had been captured while they had been hiding in a dug-out. The division to which they belonged had been surrounded; the German army had gone away beyond their position, but in searching through the trenches some Germans came upon these men and threatened to bomb them unless they came out. The Germans, being three in number, decided that six prisoners were too many for them to take away, and were discussing whether they should shoot them when an officer came along and said "no shooting," as a German says it, and the six men were saved. That poor fellow was here yesterday trying to get some adjustment of his pension. Before he came here, so that I could make myself conversant with his circumstances and what he was up against, I visited his little cottage on Salem avenue, Toronto. I venture to say there was not more than fifty dollars' worth of furniture in the cottage. How anybody lives in it I do not know. I am sorry that such conditions are allowed in Toronto; but doubtless there are many such cases, and the municipal authorities, there as in the great city of Montreal, have a heavy task. If the minister intends to proceed with any housing scheme, such conditions would warrant and certainly would require almost any amount of money that he is willing to spend. As an hon. member remarked a few minutes ago, it is the lack of building more than anything else that is holding things back in this country. It may not be economic to spend a large amount of money; but if the cabinet, knowing the situation as they do, undertake to spend a substantial amount to provide cheaper and better homes for the average worker, they will receive unstinted praise, and the minister likewise.
That is all I can say at this time. I did not rise in any spirit of criticism, but rather I wanted to try to encourage the minister to go the limit towards providing employment for the unemployed in this country.


Mr. A. H. MITCHELL (Medicine Hat):: I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) upon the excellent sequel he gave to his previous address on the resolution upon which this bill is based. This is the second reading, on which we are asked to agree to the principle of the bill. The social credit group, to which I belong, are not opposed to the principle of this bill; but we are opposed to this government's attitude of defeat concerning the underlying cause of the break-down in our

Questions
economic system, of which this unemployment problem is simply an evidence. We are asked to agree to the principle of this bill, and since there is nothing better offered us we must agree to it. At the same time we are being asked to agree-against which I protest-to the principle of distributing money to people in the most morale-destroying, self-respect-destroying method yet devised by man. The group with which I am associated are heartily opposed to that. I am sure that the government itself must also be opposed to it.
Rather than let people starve, since there is no alternative, and since the people who are to receive the benefit have appetites, come by just as honestly as mine or any other hon. member's, I would urge the early passage of the bill. I have not referred particularly to that part of the bill which deals with agricultural distress, because agriculture is only one of our industries. But I should like to point out to the house and the government, that an adequate economic system would absorb automatically the consequences of such unavoidable natural failures, without the degradation of relief. I submit that the government should be bending every possible effort towards accomplishing that purpose.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: We are near six o'clock; but before I move the adjournment of the debate, it is my intention to protest against the statement of the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) when he said that parliament did not do its duty with regard to unemployment. Members of this house are in daily contact with the unemployed. They meet them each day in their constituencies during the recess and do all they can for their relief. Ou behalf of the members of this house, on behalf even of the hon. member for Kootenay East himself, I protest against what he has said in that respect.
Mr. Speaker, will you please call it six o'clock. I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, April 28, 1938
The house -met at three o'clock.

Walter Edward Foster: I have the honour to inform the house that the clerk of the house has received from the chief electoral officer certificate of the election and return of the following member, viz:
Of James Lester Douglas, Esquire, for the electoral district of Queens, Prince Edward Island.


NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED
[Stage Direction]
James Lester Douglas, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Queens, Prince Edward Island, introduced by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Hon. Charles A. Dunning.

[Stage Direction]
Sir EUGENE FISET (Rimouski) presented the second report of the standing committee on railways and shipping.
He said: As the second report of the standing committee on railways and shipping deals with only four special items in the estimates, I move, with the unanimous consent of the house, that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved:
That the estimates referred to and approved of in the second report of the standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, namely items 427, 428, 437 and 438, be referred to the committee of supply.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. McPhee.

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

Mr. MASSEY:: 1.	How many patients were there in Deer Lodge military hospital as at March 1, 1937?
2.	How many medical officers are there on the staff?
3.	Who are the part-time medical officers?
4.	What are the salaries of: (a) the full-time medical officers; (b) the part-time medical officers?
5.	Who are the full-time medical officers?
6.	What are the dates of their appointments?
7.	What are the duties of the part-time medical men?
8.	Is Dr. J. D. Adamson on the staff of the hospital? 'If so, what are his special duties, what hours does he spend at the hospital, and what is his salary?
9.	Is Dr. J. D. Adamson medical director of St. Boniface hospital and medical director of St. Vital sanatorium?

Questions


Mr. POWER:: 1.	Treatment	171
Veterans' care	  23
2.	Full-time medical	officers	
3Part-time medical	officers	
102.	Of such exports, what portion went to: (a) the United States; (b) the United Kingdom?3.	During each of the same years, what was the total value of our imports: (a) from the United States; (b) the United Kingdom?


Mr. EULER:: 1.
		13	Fiscal years ended	
3, 4, 5 and 6.	March 31	Domestic exportsFull-time medical officers	Salary	Date of appt.	1933	
1934	.. $ 528,064,278 . .. 665,954,071Dr. A. R. Taylor	. $4,620	1- 7-19	1935	
756.625,925Dr. W. Leslie	. 3,900	16- 4-32	1936	. .. 849,030,417Dr. W. J. Blakeney	. 2,220	1- 7-36	1937	.... 1,061,181,906Part-time medical officers	2.	Proportion toDr. P. G. Bell	. 2,700	12-11-19	Fiscal years ended	United UnitedDr. F. A. Young	. 3,000	10- 6-19	March 31	Kingdom StatesDr. W. A. Gardner.. .'. .. .	. 2,400	5- 8-19	Per cent Per centDr. J. D. Adamson	. 1,800	10- 3-22	1933	
34-9 37-4Dr. D. F. McIntyre	. 1,800	1- 6-19	1934	. 43-3 33-0Dr. J. R. W. Nicholson	. 3.000	8- 6-18	1935	.. 38-4 40-3Dr. J. A. Gunn	. 2,400	14- 8-19	1936	. .. 37-9 42-4Dr. T. H. Cuddy	. 1,800	1- 8-31	1937	.. 38-4 41-0Dr. J. M. McEachern	. 1.800	30- 5-29	3.	Imports fromDr. W. Creighton	. 3,420	9- 6-21	Fiscal years ended	United United7. To conduct medical	examinations on	March 31	Kingdom States
patients applying for treatment at Deer Lodge; to order appropriate treatment, and see tlhat it is carried out; to visit patients in Deer Lodge hospital, out-patient clinics, Winnipeg general hospital and St. Boniface hospital, and to complete reports for departmental records, or ipension purposes. To examine civil servants for civil service commission and to carry out medical requirement for applicants to war veterans' allowance board.
8.	Yes. To examine and prescribe treatment for cases of tuberculosis or suspected lung disease, in Deer Lodge hospital; to carry out pneumothorax treatments on out-patients; to determine what cases of tuberculosis need transfer for treatment to St. Vital sanatorium; to carry out appropriate treatment at St. Vital. "
Two mornings per week-9.00 to 12.30, plus any additional time required to cover the needs of the patients.
$1,800 per annum.
9.	Dr. J. D. Adamson is on the staff of St. Boniface hospital, but is not the medical director. He is the medical director of St. Vital sanatorium, a subsidiary of St. Boniface hospital.
1933		 $ 86,466,055 $232.548055
1934	
105,100,764	238.187,6811935	
111,682,490	303,639,9721936	
117,874,822	319,479,5941937	
129,507,885	393,720,662


TITULAR ADDRESS OF MEMBERS OF ONTARIO LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the attention of the government been called to a resolution passed in the legislative assembly of the province of Ontario on Thursday, April 7, 1938, to the effect "that in all matters of address, titular distinction, formal correspondence, official proceedings and all similar matters having to do with coming under the jurisdiction of the legislature of Ontario, the members of the legislative assembly shall be entitled to the designation 'member of provincial parliament' and its abbreviation 'M.P.P.' "?
2.	Has any declaration of policy thereon been considered by the government?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No.
2.	No.


DEPARTMENT OF MARINE-INVESTIGATIONS OF WRECKS IN CANADIAN WATERS
[Stage Direction]
EXPORTS AND IMPORTS, 1933-37 Mr. LACOMBE:
1. What was the total value of our exports during each of the fiscal years of 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, and 1937?
[Mr. Massey.l
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many wrecks were investigated in Canadian waters by the wreck commissioner or other officers of the Department of Marine?
2.	What were the names of the ships in each case, and the number drowned or injured?

Radio Broadcasting
3.	What were the findings of the wreck commissioner succinctly in each case?
4.	What were the complete findings in the Sand Merchant case?
5.	Was the said ship sea-worthy, and had it wireless equipment?
6.	Were the owners of the ship "Sand Merchant" prosecuted under the criminal code?
7.	How many men of the department are engaged in life-saving work under federal authority, and at what cost?
8.	What aid has been furnished by American life stations to distressed ships of Canadian register in recent years on the great lakes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This question cannot be
answered without going back to the days of confederation. To answer it in full would mean filing a number of documents which would be of no interest. Could the hon. member give me a date to which he would like us to go back in supplying this information?


Thomas Langton Church: I shall be satisfied with any information the minister can give for three years. I could give 'hiim a list of the seventeen instances when American life stations have aided his people at the head of the lakes.


SASKATCHEWAN FARMERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) whether he has any information with respect to the distribution of seed and feed at Cardross, to which I referred the other day?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have no information with regard to individual places, but I have received a wire from the Saskatchewan government indicating that by the middle of this week the matter would likely be moving along to the satisfaction of all concerned.


RADIO BROADCASTING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: The broadcast in question is in the form of a discussion of two sides of a controversial question, a type of broadcast which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is disposed to favour. Whether the British Broadcasting Corporation carry this broadcast will be a matter for them to decide. There is no possible way in which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation can impose this debate upon the British people, unless the British Broadcasting Corporation feel it is a proper subject to be rebroadcast in England. Therefore, I see no objection to this debate being broadcast here.


Thomas Langton Church: Who asked for it? Who
selected the speakers? Who asked for all this pan-Americanism when we have no army, navy or fleet to do anything about it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The program committee of
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has arranged a number of debates in which speakers take opposite sides of a question. I take it that this debate is a part of that program. I have no direct knowledge of the situation, but I have no doubt that the staff of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, with the consent of the board of governors, chose the speakers in this instance.


Thomas Langton Church: You had better send for
a life-saving station.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was the consent of the government sought?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not sought or
given?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: No, that is right.
C.N.R.-Refunding


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:	1
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the refunding of matured, maturing and callable financial obligations of the Canadian National Railways and for the issue of securities guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada in respect of such refunding to an aggregate principal amount not exceeding $200,000,000.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Mr. DUNNING:: The legislation now on
the statute book with respect to the refunding of Canadian National obligations was enacted in 1935. It was for the same sum as will be embodied in the bill which will be founded on this resolution. The amount of the authority remaining is just over $6,000,000, and therefore it is essential to have further authority to deal with these maturing and callable obligations of the Canadian National.
I may say that under the authority of the last act the refunding which has been accomplished resulted in an annual saving in interest charges of approximately $3,900,000. I think that is all I need say at this stage, unless someone wants specific information with respect to any particular issue. I shall be prepared, both now and during the different stages of the bill, to answer any questions regarding the refunding which has occurred.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I thought possibly the minister might give us a list at this stage of the refundings that have been made. I was also going to ask him whether any steps had been taken, and if so what, with respect to the perpetual high rate of interest obligations, both of the old Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Railway. I realize that with respect to the Grand Trunk we are under obligation to pay an annuity in the terms of the interest on the obligations that were taken over when we secured the system, but with respect to the other obligations there is a fine question, which the minister no doubt has considered. We are not guarantors with respect to some of these securities upon which interest is paid and there is a question whether or not this country should place itself in the position of guaranteeing the interest upon these securities. I am sure that this is a matter that has engaged the attention of the minister, as it did of previous ministers. For instance, 
certain of the income certificates were settled by the administration of which the present Minister of Finance was a member. Undoubtedly in that instance we took a course which we were not obliged to take; we assumed financial responsibilities which were not written in the bond. On the other hand there is a question whether we as owners of the properties can escape the payment of the interest. This is a matter in connection with which different opinions have been held from time to time by various people. I am expressing no opinion of my own at the moment because I desire to leave the matter an open question.
I have looked at the report a great many times in my lifetime and I have looked at it again to see whether or not these six per cent perpetual securities, for instance, might be retirsd. There may be a question whether or not this can be done on terms that would be sound financially, because many of these securities are not on the market and to buy them would mean having to pay a high price. Then if you bought them at a high premium you would not be making any money if you substituted for them a low interest rate security. In the main it is fair to say that the securities have been selling on the basis of the present rate for money, and therefore nothing would be gained by it. That is one of the difficulties the minister has to consider. If he has any information on the subject I think this would be a very appropriate time to give it to the committee.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is rather difficult, Mr. Chairman, to give an opinion which might be regarded as official by the Minister of Finance with respect to some of these old railway obligations because any opinion expressed by me would, of course, have a significance in relation to the supposed value of the security probably out of all proportion to its merit.
The matters to which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has referred have of course engaged the attention not only of this government but of at least three of its predecessors, and I think every government has worked out the particular problem which could be dealt with during its period of office to the best advantage of the Dominion of Canada, having regard to the circumstances of the time.
There is one issue of perpetuals, four per cents, which is now callable. Obviously the only question there is one of judgment as to when and under what conditions to take advantage of the call privilege.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or whether it should be taken advantage of at all.

C.N.R.-Refunding


Charles Avery Dunning: Or whether it should be taken advantage of at all. With respect to the six per cent perpetuals, which are a very sore subject with me, as they have been with every Minister of Finance, the question is difficult legally as well as financially, and I would not care to express any opinion in this house at this time that would indicate to anyone that those securities are either very good or very bad. My right hon. friend will agree as to the unwisdom of taking such a course.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can say, however, that we are not losing sight of the desirability of still further reducing the load of Canadian National interest payments on refunding by means of calling, where calling is possible, or of the desirability of undertaking under proper circumstances negotiations in cases where we do not appear to have callable rights. I am not acknowledging in that statement that we have not callable rights in certain cases where we might be presumed not to have them. I know this is a little involved, but it is a very, very involved subject and I am anxious not to give any impression to holders of these securities which would either enhance their value in the eyes of their holders or depreciate the credit of Canada. That is about as far I think as I can go at the present time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Were the minister's remarks regarding the six per cent and four per cent perpetuals relative to the old Grand Trunk, or were they Canadian Northern issues?


Charles Avery Dunning: I was intending to include all of the perpetuals in my statement.


Mr. HARRIS:: I wonder if the minister could tell us what "matured, maturing and callable financial obligations" are at present guaranteed by the government.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am inclined to think I shall have to read the whole list, which is very extensive, in order to give that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It might be desirable to have it on the record If the list is very long, with the consent of the house perhaps it might be put on Hansard.


Charles Avery Dunning: My statement is not precisely in the form requested by the hon. member, but perhaps if I were to make arrangements to put on Hansard the information in the form he desires it, that would be satisfactory.


Joseph Henry Harris: Yes, quite. It would assist very much in considering this matter. We could1 then dismiss those that are at present guaranteed and give our attention to those not guaranteed.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have a number of provincial securities guaranteed, particularly of Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, maturing within the next few years, prior to 1943. I will engage to put on Hansard as part of this record all of the securities which mature, say, prior to 1943. Will that be sufficient? I will put the whole list on, indicating by whom they are guaranteed if guaranteed.
The table follows:
Canadian National Railways Funded Debt Maturities by Years
Call or Maturity Date	Company	Interest Rate	Guaranteed by	AmountCallable at 6 months' notice	% 4 5 2 3*	$ cts. 60,833,333 33April 1, 1938	Rail & River Coal Co	916,000 00 13,400,000 00 6,725,485 13May 1, 1938	Canadian National	June 30, 1938	Can. Northern Ontario	Jan. 22, 1939	Total maturing in 1938	21,041,485 134 4 4 4 4 4	Saskatchewan.. Saskatchewan..	9,874,062 00 8,029,999 99 2,430,000 00 5,586,665 64 7,004,997 27 3,000,000 00Jan. 23, 1939	Feb. 25, 1939	G.T.P. Branch Lines Co	Feb. 25, 1939	Canadian Northern	June 1, 1939	Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific	July 1, 1939	Canadian Northern	Total maturing in 1939	35,925,724 90
C ,N.R.-Refunding

Canadian National Railways Funded Debt-Continued Maturities by Years-Continued
Call or
Maturity Date
Jan.	15,	1942Feb.	15,	1942.Feb.	16,	1942Sept.	30,	1942.Feb.	15,	1943..Oct.	22,	1943..Feb.	1,	1944.May	1,	1944July	1,	1946April.	2,	1950April	2,	1950July	1,	1950Oct.	1,	1950Dee.	15,	1950Sept.	1,	1951.Feb.	1,	1952Feb.	15,	1953July	10,	1953Feb.	i,	1954.Jan.	i,	1955.April	i,	1955April	i,	1955.April	i,	1955June	15,	1955Feb.	1, 1956Sept.	1, 1956July	1,	1957July	20,	1958May	4,	1960May	19,	1961Jan.	1,	1962Jan.	1,	1962June	1,	1962
Company
Interest
Rate
%
Canadian National	
G.T.P. Branch Lines Co.
Can. Nor. West	
Halifax & South Western
4
31
Total maturing in 1942
Canadian National	
Can. Nor. West	
41
Total maturing in 1943	
Total maturing or callable before December 31, 1943	
Canadian National Canadian National
3
Total maturing in 1944 Canadian Northern	
Canadian Nor. Pacific.... Canadian Nor. Pacific....
Grand Trunk West	
Montreal & Province Line Canadian National	
41
4
Total maturing in 1950
Canadian National
Canadian National.
Canadian National. Canadian Northern
Total maturing in 1953.
Canadian National	
Grand Trunk Railway	
Grand Trunk Pacific	
Grand Trunk Pacific	
Grand Trunk Pacific	
Canadian National	
Total maturing in 1955
Canadian National	
Pembroke Southern	
4
4
41
4
Total maturing in 1956
Canadian National	
Canadian Northern	
Can. Northern Alberta-
Can. Northern Ontario-
Grand Trunk Pacific....
Grand Trunk Pacific....
St. John & Quebec	
31
31
4 4
Total maturing in 1962
Guaranteed by
Amount $ cts. 20,000,000 00
Dominion.
Alberta...
Alberta...
Dominion, Alberta...
Dominion	
Dominion	
Dominion.
Brit. Columbia. Brit. Columbia.
Dominion	
Dominion.
Dominion.
Dominion
Dominion
Dominion
Dominion
Dominion
Dominion.
Dominion.
Dominion.
Dominion.
Dominion, Dominion New Brunswick
1,153,764 00
6.424.000	00
4.447.000	00
32,024,764 00
55,000,000 00 2,799,997 73
57,799,997 73
207,625,305 09
15,500,000 00 35,000,000 00
50,500,000 00
24,238,000 00
16,412,001 13 8,614,000 00 10,964,416 00 200,000 00 50,500 000 00
86,690,417 13
50,000,000 00
20,000,000 00
25,000,000 00 9,359,996 72
34,359,996 72
50,000,000 00
16.000.	092 00
9.963.000	00 10,206,000 00
7.533.000	00
50.000.	000 00
93,702,092 00
70,000,000 00 150,000 00
70,150,000 00
65,000,000 00
7,896,544 54
3,149,998 66
34,229,996 87
34,992,000 00 8,440,848 00 2,727,977 40
46,160,825 40

C .N.R.-R e funding
Canadian National Railways Funded Debt-Concluded
Maturities by Years-Concluded
Call or Maturity Date	Company	Interest Rate	Guaranteed by
July 1, 1969			% 5	
Oct. 1, 1969			5	
Feb. 1, 1970		Total maturing in 1969		5	
		4* 5	
			
		5	
it		4	
it		4	
it		6	
it		4	
it		4	
it		4	
it		4	
	Total Perpetual			
Amount
$ cts.
60,000,000 00 60,000,000 00
120,000,000 00
18,000,000 00
400,000 00
20,782,491 67 13,252,322 67 119,839,014 33 1,449,979 67 70,566 66 44,943,019 40 8,724,113 20 5,250,369 26 4,252,503 06
218,614,379 92
Serial Equipment Issues	
Other Serial Issues	
Issues subject to redemption by annual drawings	
Other indebtedness payable optionally or at various dates.
Total Miscellaneous	
41,681,000	00 4,709,664 14 23,369,290 47 1,519,887 85
71,279,842 46


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister
would, between now and when the bill is in committee, look into the following questions and have answers for them.
On page 19 of the Canadian National Railways report there is reference made to five perpetual issues of the Grand Trunk Railway. I should like to know whether any of them are callable, and if so, when and on what terms. I have a fair memory with respect to some of them, but the question often arises and I think it might be desirable to have the information on Hansard to show that some of these cannot be dealt with by any government, however much it might desire to deal with them, in the absence of agreement on the part of the holders to have them dealt with. The five per cent stock we assumed responsibility for as a term of the transfer of the Grand Trunk to this country, and I apprehend that very little can be done with respect to it.
On page 20 of the annual report there are certain issues under the title, "Other issues," four of which are perpetual four per cents, some Canadian Northern, some Canadian Northern Ontario, some Canadian Northern
Quebec, and some Quebec and Lake St. John Railway. In addition to that, there is an issue of Grand Trunk six per cent third preference bonds, but the issue is so very small that possibly it could not bear the expense of considering it, except that it is an eyesore to see it there. It is only $70,000. Perhaps the minister would also give us that information before we come to deal with the matter.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There arises the other question which is constantly before the minister, and that is the guarantee given by the provinces. We have never released the provinces from their obligations, but in point of fact when Saskatchewan and Alberta were called upon to make payments we did repay them the money they paid. That is true in both cases. Now the obligations that mature at a not too distant date with respect to these provinces would seem to me to afford an opportunity to the federal government to treat them as a factor in dealing with the financial situation between the dominion and the provinces; because undoubtedly what we
C.NJt.-R e funding

have done is to relieve the provinces of a burden that would have absolutely involved bankruptcy on their part had they been called upon to make payment.


Charles Avery Dunning: Do not confine it to those two provinces alone.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the western provinces.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have assumed liability with respect to all the provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not assumed.; we
have not called upon the provinces to pay. The point I am trying to make, and it should be kept constantly in mind, is that there has been no assumption on our part of liability.


Charles Avery Dunning: Quite. But no province has been called upon to pay.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the point I am making. We have assumed no responsibility but the company has discharged the liability with money Obtained from the federal exchequer from year to year. That is, the guarantee by the province has not been implemented, nor has any request been made to implement it, but the interest charges on the securities guaranteed by the provinces have been treated as a general continuing obligation of the system and paid for accordingly, whether it is part of the deficit or-


Charles Avery Dunning: That is true of all provinces save two.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not know there were two, because I did not know that the earnings of the Canadian Northern Ontario were sufficient to enable it to pay its obligations.


Charles Avery Dunning: I was thinking only of
those provinces which gave no guarantees. They are, I think, Quebec and New Brunswick-no, Prince Edward Island.


Richard Bedford Bennett: New Brunswick did
give a guarantee.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is only one province, then, Prince Edward Island, which did not give a guarantee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the only one of which I have any knowledge. Under those circumstances possibly the minister may be able to give us a clear statement when the bill is in committee, indicating just what the provincial obligations are. The great bond companies have issued a pamphlet every year giving that information very fully, but I think that for the purpose of having it on Hansard as a permanent memorial for the benefit of all members of the house-


Charles Avery Dunning: "Memorial" is good.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, "memorial" is good, -it may be very desirable that the minister should make that statement; and any comments I desire to make on the matter can be made later.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course the information referred to is in the annual report of the railway, but if my right hon. friend would like it on Hansard I shall see that it is placed there when the bill is in committee. In the meantime I can give some general information to the hon. member for Dan-forth (Mr. Harris) with respect to guaranteed and unguaranteed-that is in bulk. In 1937 the funded debt of the Canadian National Railways outstanding in the hands of the public consisted of $970,697,190 guaranteed by the government of Canada and $251,030,209 either guaranteed by provinces or entirely unguaranteed. At the moment I have not the figures separated as between the amounts guaranteed by provinces and the amounts unguaranteed by any government; but that, at all events, will be a piece of the information for which my right hon. friend is looking.


Mr. TUCKER:: If, as I understood it was remarked by the right hon. leader of the opposition that we cannot deal with these perpetual bonds unless we can get the holders of them to agree to give them up, I at least should like to express my dissent from- that position. I believe that under our powers to legislate with regard to railways, we can provide that they shall be callable at a date we fix, and if we fix the date at say five years from now, we could call them at that time. There is another way in which certainly they could be dealt with-a similar suggestion has been made by the leader in Saskatchewan of the party to which the right hon gentleman belongs, so I assume he would not quarrel with it-namely, that all interest over and above three per cent per annum should be taxed back again by this country. I suggest to the Minister of Finance that he consider one or the other proposition; and I also ask him to place on Hansard, if he will do so, a statement of these so-called perpetual debentures and the rates of interest which they bear.


Charles Avery Dunning: That will be included in the statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I understood. I see that the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) is not quite appreciative of what I said. I did not say that you would have to deal with all of them, because some of them are callable, but I did point out what is the main thing, to be found at page 19 of the report of the company, namely that the

C.N.R.-R e funding
perpetual obligations of the Grand Trunk Railway issued from, 1875 to 1883 were assumed by this country as a part of the purchase price of 'the Grand Trunk Railway-which is an entirely different condition from that to which reference has been made. The bargain by which we got that railway was to pay to the people who 'held those securities the interest on them in accordance with the terms of the securities themselves. It will be recalled that when the arbitration was before the court the evidence indicated that we made an additional offer, which they declined, which would have given them something for the common stock-which the tribunal found was worth nothing. It is not a question of our dealing with them; it is a question of their having been given an underbaking by us that we would pay a rental-it amounts to that- in the form of interest payments on perpetual securities to the holders thereof for taking over the railway from them, which we did by statute. That is an entirely different thing from the issue of an ordinary perpetual security by a railway with respect to which we have assumed obligations to service, but which might be dealt with by many methods if we so desired.


Walter Adam Tucker: I fail to see why, when we made an agreement that now is proving unconscionable from the standpoint of the people of this county-


Charles Avery Dunning: We did not make an agreement.


Mr TUCKER:: -it can be said that we cannot do anything unless we get the other party to agree. Obviously it would be found that people who hold agreements like that are none too ready to give up the rights they have; but I do sincerely suggest that we should deal with this question at once. When this country is now paying six per cent on an obligation which is outstanding-I do not care how it arose in the past

it should be dealt with without any further delay. These obligations could be made callable at any period in the future; I would suggest a period of five years. If that is not deemed the best way to deal with it, the other proposition should be considered; anybody who has an income in this country is subject to be taxed. These people got an agreement which is a little too good to those who benefit by it, and I suggest that to tax people on income from bonds bearing a rate of over and above three per cent is a fair way of dealing with the matter.


Charles Avery Dunning: Lest there should be an impression go abroad which in my judgment would be harmful to Canada, I must dissent from a suggestion of any intention on the part of this government to do anything which would involve the breaking of the pledged word of the Dominion of Canada. I want that distinctly understood. At the same time I deprecate discussion of this kind because of the fact that it does hinder bona fide negotiations between parties who may mutually desire to make an arrangement; I mean, by debtors and creditors sitting down together and working out their problems. So far as this dominion is concerned, to have any idea go out from these halls that we were contemplating deliberately breaking our word, either directly or by any device, could not possibly do any of the population of Canada any good and certainly would do the dominion as a whole a great deal of hianm.


Walter Adam Tucker: I take issue with the suggestion that if you 'tax an income that is probably unfair from the standpoint of the body politic-and I submit that six per cent on a government obligation is unfair from the standpoint of the people of this country- you are breaking your agreement with anybody.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not intend to imply any such thing. As is well known to all hon. members, we do tax income at the present time. There is no question about that. But if I understood the hon. member correctly, his suggestion was that we single out this particular income and tax it on a scale that we are not taxing other income of a similar kind. If that is the method suggested, then obviously it is an indirect method of getting out of an obligation for which we might otherwise be liable, and I deprecate any idea going abroad that any government of Canada would contemplate breaking directly or indirectly the pledged word of the country.


Mr. NEILL:: I understood the minister to say that the dominion had never released the provinces from what I might call the original liability of the provinces, although the dominion had taken over these bonds in actual fact and had paid the interest on them many years ago. As far as British Columbia is concerned we have always understood there that there was a distinct arrangement, that the dominion had absolutely released the province from their liability under the bonds; [DOT]the quid pro quo being that the province released the dominion from the obligation of the railway company to build a line from, I think, the neighbourhood of Red pass down
C.N.R.-Refunding

to Vancouver, and agreed that the Canadian National Railway should use their own line instead of building this extension demanded under the bond, so to speak.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have no recollection of any release at any time of any province with respect to its original liability under its provincial guarantee. I shall be pleased, however, to verify that between now and the time the bill is before the house.


Mr. YOUNG:: This matter was before the special committee which has been sitting these last few days. As a member of that committee I said something about the interest which we found was payable on these perpetual bonds, and lest I may be misunderstood as more or less acquiescing in the opinion that we should continue to pay this interest I want to make this statement.
I quite agree with the Minister of Finance that this country should do nothing which would affect the general credit of Canada. At the same time we must recognize that these bonds that we took over were originally not between this government and certain people but between the Grand Trunk Railway and those people. Had we allowed the Grand Trunk Railway to go into bankruptcy, as it undoubtedly would have done had the country not stepped in and taken it over, the holders of the bonds would undoubtedly have suffered. In my opinion an interest rate of six per cent cannot be justified, and I would sincerely ask the Minister of Finance to explore every reasonable avenue to see that the burden of this very high interest rate is in some way removed from the shoulders of the Canadian National system and the people of Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is unfortunate that this question should have come up without any notice. I do not blame the minister, but had notice been given of it there is a phase of the subject that I should like to have discussed. However, I will take it up when the bill is under consideration.
Considerable reference has been made to the possibility of negotiation for better terms in connection with these bonds, and reference has also been made to the arbitration and the Grand Trunk purchase by the dominion. I believe the statement was made that there had been an offer to the Grand Trunk shareholders which they rejected. I am informed, however, that those who were particularly concerned, and who ultimately suffer, did not have a proper or legal opportunity to vote upon the question whether or not that offer should have been accepted. This bill, when

it comes in, will probably afford the minister a chance for negotiation in connection with these very much disputed claims.


Charles Avery Dunning: Claims?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes; I am not prepared to discuss that matter to-day.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member is not now referring to the bonds?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not to the bonds on this list, but to other claims which were affected by the settlement made by the arbitration. I would make this suggestion to the minister. None of these securities come under the British securities act-I believe that is the name of it.


Charles Avery Dunning: The trustee list.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The trustee list is the
common phrase. It might be possible in the negotiation between the government of Canada and the owners of these bonds to arrange that the British government should place on the trustee list such as are suitable, which would immediately command a much lower rate of interest and be acceptable to the holders of these securities, and which I think would induce them to surrender the higher priced bonds for the lower rate of interest that is current in connection with trustee list securities. That is a phase of the situation that should be explored.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. gentleman
means that the new bonds issued in exchange would be on the trustee list but the old ones would not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The old ones would not; the old ones are not at the present time. There may be some of them but I do not think that any of them are. I repeat, it is rather unfortunate that the matter should have reached this stage of discussion without previous notice. There is one phase of it that I should like to discuss, but I will content myself with these remarks and when the bill is up for second reading there will be an opportunity, if the minister will permit it to stand long enough for us to study the list which he has kindly agreed to put on Hansard.


Charles Avery Dunning: In any case the annual
report of the railways will give it much more completely than I can.


Mr. HEAPS:: I was pleased to learn that
the minister was exploring every possible avenue in an attempt to reduce the interest load on the Canadian National railway system. I notice that by the refunding of the present loan approximately S3,000,000 is to be saved.

C.N.R.-Refunding


Charles Avery Dunning: No; 83,900,000 has been saved under the authority of the act which has now been exhausted. Perhaps I conveyed the wrong impression.


Abraham Albert Heaps: 
Charles Avery Dunning: Six and a half per cent?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes; it will be found in the Canadian National report. I believe that that represents some $25,000,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Abraham Albert Heaps: I remember there was a loan of approximately that amount bearing an interest rate of six and a half per cent. I do not think that any government guaranteed loan ought to bear an interest rate of six and a half per cent. It is far too high. The minister will recognize that. Personally I should like to see the Department of Finance use every means at their disposal in an effort to get the interest structure down to a level where there shall be no outstanding loans at more than three per cent per annum. That is a fair rate to pay. When we begin discussing questions of economy in connection with the railways, that is the first place where in my opinion economies should be effected.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I have no desire to discuss this question to-day or to do anything that would embarrass the minister in his negotiations, but when he suggests that anyone who makes a plea for a change in existing arrangements is guilty of urging the government to break its pledged word.-


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not say that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -then I challenge that statement. I do not like that high moral tone assumed in the ease of perpetual bonds while on the other hand the people of Canada are allowed to suffer under an injustice simply because someone speaking for the government
years ago committed this country to certain obligations-call it obligations if you like- that were unjust and unwarranted. It does not seem to me that we should take the ground that simply because certain legal obligations were incurred at that time there is no way of getting out of the difficulty. A good many people are suggesting that some way must be found-


Charles Avery Dunning: I agree with that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -^and I do not think that we ought to be told that we are immoral-


Charles Avery Dunning: I must take exception to that; I never used such a word-


James Shaver Woodsworth: I know the minister did not.


Charles Avery Dunning: -nor did I intend to convey any such implication. So far as I am concerned the imputation should be withdrawn.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I gladly withdraw it. But the minister took very high moral ground when he said that we must maintain our honourable obligations, and so on. That is hardly fair in a matter of this kind. We should not have had perpetual bonds. No one should be permitted, in the name of the country, to put this country under tribute as it is under tribute to-day. There are certain ways of adjusting these debts on a fair basis. We have had examples in the west, under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, in which very definite changes in arrangements have been made. If it could be done with the small mortgage holder it can be done with the larger mortgage holders that we call bondholders, whether resident in this country or outside.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend suggest that we should put the railways into bankruptcy?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The railways should have been put into bankruptcy many years ago, before they were taken over.


Charles Avery Dunning: That may be so, but in order to make a parallel with the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, bankruptcy proceedings are involved.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not suggesting that it is an exact parallel, but I do suggest that it is one instance in which the people of this country, finding themselves in an impossible position, discovered a way out, and we shall have to do something of the kind in connection with the railway debt. There have been revolutions in other countries; why? Simply because there seemed to be no legal
C.N.R.-Refunding

way of getting justice. Not very long ago Mexico seized the holdings of the great oil companies and then the government began to negotiate with regard to what compensation should be paid. This has gone on the world over. Violent revolution, or illegal seizure, if you like to call it "illegal" has come simply because of the breakdown of constitutional and legal ways of dealing with realities. We have a right to urge that the people of Canada should not be called upon any longer to pay a tribute of this magnitude. I feel quite confident that if the ground is strongly taken-and it is a reasonable ground-that some way out must be found, then some way will be found. The minister may deplore the use of indirect means. I do not much care whether the means are direct or indirect, but we have to find a way of easing the burden under which the people are now labouring.


Charles Avery Dunning: One further word, lest an impression should go abroad throughout Canada that the Canadian railway debt carries a very high rate of interest. The matters which are now under discussion represent a portion only, and a relatively small portion, of the Canadian National indebtedness. It is well for the people of Canada to know that the average rate of interest being paid to-day on the total indebtedness of the Canadian National Railways approximates four per cent. I say that lest there should be an idea that we are paying six or seven per cent on vast sums of money. But that does not lessen the necessity for any government to do everything it honourably can to reduce the interest burden. I again use the word "honourably." If the government is not the seat of honour, where are we going? I make no apologies for saying that the government should go as far as it can go honourably in making arrangements to eliminate excessive interest rates wherever they exist. I do not take second place even to my hon. friend in that regard. But I believe that the good of the people of Canada is best served by keeping their pledged word, and negotiating within that limit. I do not believe that the example of Mexico or other places is a good example for Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister has just repeated the kind of statement to which I rose to object. If we advocate some other policy it is not because we are any more lacking in honour than the minister-


Charles Avery Dunning: Quite right.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I say that very distinctly. In a few minutes we shall come to the discussion of unemployment in this

country, and knowing as I do of thousands of young men to-day who have no chance whatever in life, some of them being driven to lives of crime by the necessitous circumstances in which they find themselves, and knowing that this government is not living up to its pledged word on which it was elected to power, I want the minister to be very careful in claiming any higher degree of honour than the rest of us in this house.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is too
adroit for me. I did not claim any higher degree of honour than anyone else; I was speaking, not of my honour or the honour of my hon. friend, but of the word of the Dominion of Canada, pledged by Canada's duly authorized representatives at any particular time. If it will please my hon. friend, I doulbt whether my own standard of honour would equal his.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not a matter of personal honour; I was not in any way reflecting on the minister's personal honour. But I do protest against the conception, which is very prevalent, that a government's pledged word to one class of people is superior to the government's pledged word to another class. Take the example of a returned man who met me yesterday, asking for a hand-out. When the government asked men to go overseas and risk their lives in the service of this country it pledged its honour to care for them on their return. And I am not saying that the government has not done a great deal. But there are scores of those poor fellows to-day who have no opportunity of living a decent life. I admit that this is all part of a very involved question but I take this opportunity of urging upon the government that the care of people of that kind is just as much' a debt of honour as the carrying out of the terms of any financial document to which the government has placed its signature.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a more important debt. We may differ as to the manner of dealing with some things, but we do not differ as to the relative importance of those debts.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad to hear that.


Charles Avery Dunning: Unquestionably the debt of the people of Canada, as represented by their government, to humanity comes first; there is no question about that. My hon. friend cannot put us in that position.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has been so treated by all governments.

C.N.R.-Refunding


Charles Avery Dunning: It has been so treated
by successive governments.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Oh, no.


Walter Adam Tucker: In regard to the point taken by the Minister of Finance that there is something wrong about a special tax, I do not think there is anything wrong about a special tax if such is necessary to do justice. The Minister of Finance introduced such a bill since I have been a member of this house. At the time the civil servants had their pay reduced by ten per cent it was regarded as a breach of the country's obligation to reduce the salaries of judges, of military officers and of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; accordingly a special tax of ten per cent was .placed upon their incomes. I suggest it will be no more unfair to place a special tax on the holders of these railway bonds to reduce their rate of interest to a reasonable rate.
I suggest that something should be dome in this resolution to give power to deal with these bonds. The wording of the resolution is:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the refunding of matured, maturing and callable financial obligations of the Canadian National Railways. . . .
I assume that these obligations which are under discussion, these so-called perpetuals, are neither matured, maturing nor callable and so are not covered by the resolution. I suggest that the government should deal with these without further delay, and that power should be taken to deal with that type of obligation.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no question about our having power to negotiate. The government have power to negotiate with respect to any matter.


Mr. LEADER:: It may be a delicate matter for a farmer to venture into the realm of finance, but I could not sit here representing a part of this dominion without taking the opportunity to state here as not only my opinion but that of my people back home that we should not fail to take advantage of every chance that occurs for refunding these obligations at a lower rate of interest. I do not think there is an hon. member in the chamber who does not believe in his heart that that is long overdue. When we look back and see the hardships that the people have suffered on account of these high interest rates, the homes that they have lost, the children's educations which have been sacrificed, we are reminded that the people of Canada have kept on paying this interest through all this time of turmoil and stress.
The Minister of Finance knows well that Canadian National bonds bearing as high as seven per cent interest were refunded last summer.
I am just as jealous of my word and the word of Canada as any hon. member; but is it imposible for us to make arrangements with the bondholders without violating our pledged word? We have waited many years for the bondholders to take one step towards offering to do this, and they have not offered. I say an arrangement might be made without violating that word, and I will give an example. In 1897 Canada pledged her word and paid four million dollars to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to enable them to build a railway line. In turn the Canadian Pacific pledged their word and signed an agreement to the effect that they would never charge more than a certain rate on commodities coming east, and commodities going west. In 1922 I was a member of the house when, by action of the house, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company were allowed to violate that agreement. Perhaps I should not say "violate"; they were allowed to amend the agreement in such a way that we lost the rate that we had paid for on commodities going west. I give this as an example of one instance where Canada did make an arrangement with a certain company and then changed the agreement. I do not think we violated our word.
I say in all sincerity to the Minister of Finance that I know the troubles he has, but we should seize the opportunity we have here to-day to issue an invitation to bondholders to see if they will not consent to a reduction in their earnings as other people of Canada have had to do.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: Mr. Chairman, has the minister communicated with the holders of perpetual bonds to ascertain their opinions? I know that the province of Alberta wrote letters to the bondholders asking for their cooperation with a view to handling the debt situation in that province, and received no answer. The bondholders of Canada, particularly bondholders in connection with provincial governments, do not wish to cooperate; they do not wish to negotiate with a view to solving the debt problems of the provinces. The same holds true of the municipalities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) and the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) are both under a misapprehension with regard to interest rates. With respect to the six per cent interest, there is only $70,000 of principal outstanding, and the saving of three per cent on that is about
C.N.R.-Refunding

$2,000 a year which is a substantial sum, in one way. There are seven per cent securities outstanding with respect to only $86,000, so that we have with respect to the Canadian National an obligation of $156,000 bearing a higher rate of interest than five per cent. That is point number one
Number two is that this country did not issue those perpetual securities The difficulty is that member after member has suggested that we undertook to issue a perpetual security The only perpetual security which has been issued in this country, so far as I know, was one which was issued a few months ago by the Minister of Finance and is now selling at about 88 or 90.


Charles Avery Dunning: A three per cent perpetual, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and that is the first one this country has issued, so far as I know. The perpetual securities to which reference has been made, and which carry an interest rate beyond three per cent, are perpetual securities issued by the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway-that is, the Mackenzie and Mann railway, and the old Grand Trunk. Those companies did issue perpetual securities, the same as the Canadian Pacific Railway four per cent perpetual debenture stock, which, of course, has been sold in the markets of the world, largely in Great Britain. I think practically the whole of these perpetual securities of the Grand Trunk are held in Great Britain, and a great many of them are held in family trusts. But it would not make any difference if that interest rate were reduced to one per cent; it would not save us a dollar

not one dollar- because we have agreed to pay the Grand Trunk the equivalent of that much money. That is the point I wish to make, and that is the whole difficulty.


Charles Avery Dunning: And we did that by act of this parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, by statute of this parliament. It is not a question of interest at all; that might all be taken away to-morrow and they would have to get exactly the same sum of money. It is covered by statute.
Reference has been made to what has been done under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. I may say it was the view of the tribunal which considered the question that the Grand Trunk was not insolvent with respect to these securities. That is, it was worth in any event the amount of money that was represented by these securities. Hence it was that the country, instead of going on the market and borrowing, simply undertook to

pay the Grand Trunk a sum of money which serviced these perpetual obligations. And if the rate were two per cent we would still have to pay the same sum of money. This matter has come up without notice, and I will have to give from recollection what knowledge I have of it, because I have not looked it up for years; but that is the position as I understand it. This has nothing to do with common stock. It has no connection, except with these perpetual securities, and I believe this was designated in the statute which dealt with it. That is, it is an annual payment which amounts to sufficient money for the purpose of servicing those perpetual obligations.
There is one other six and a half per cent security outstanding-and I always think the people who bought those securities in New York took advantage of our great difficulty. It was a time when this country was in a tremendously difficult position, and money was demanding a very high price. I was not in the House of Commons at the time of the transaction, but I know we paid six and a half per cent for it, which was an exceedingly high rate. It matures in eight years.


Charles Avery Dunning: Seven years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that if you will compare the average interest rates of the National railway system with those of the other great railway systems on the North American continent, you will have reason to feel proud of them. As a matter of fact if you will look at the figures in connection with similar securities in Great Britain you will have good cause to hold up your heads. Leaving out the $70,000 and the $86,000, and the $24,000,000 issue of 1921, all of which pay a rate higher than five per cent, you find that some are two per cent, some are three per cent and some are four per cent, the usual rate that is being paid for these securities. That is the basis of what was to be a very valuable security, especially with respect to perpetual Grand Trunks, for the reason everyone knows, that we have undertaken as a country to pay sufficient money to service those obligations at the rate provided. If we had a rate of one per cent we would still have to pay the same sum of money.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) is a very sincere member, and I am sure he does not wish either here or in the country to give a wrong impression. I am not referring particularly to any observation he made, but rather to the trend of the discussion, and the idea that with respect to their Canadian

C.NJi.-R e funding
National obligations the people of this country are paying an unconscionable rate of interest.
I would like to point out to him that it is my job to work at that problem every day. I have conscientiously endeavoured to do it every minute I have been in office. Some of the results, not only of my work but of that of other men equally conscientious who preceded me, are contained in the public accounts so that he who runs may read. But the people will not read them. In the estimates before the house is a reduction in the interest charge on the public debt of this country amounting to about $5,500,000, as a result of taking advantage of such opportunities as come in connection with money markets and in connection with maturing obligations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We saved $14,000,000 on one conversion.


Charles Avery Dunning: I might point out further that it is not a partisan matter. Any man who occupies this position is supposed to give of his brain and experience. He should endeavour to manage the finances of this country in such a way that the load upon the people shall be as light as possible. Any man in this position who does not do that ought not to occupy it. May I point out that in spite of the fact that the public debt of Canada is to-day one billion dollars higher than it was in 1924, the debt charges to-day are just about what they were in that year That is not a testimony to myself alone; it is a testimony to the fact that the men who are serving us in the Department of Finance and the ministers who have sat at this desk have continuously both in and out of season, used their best business and financial judgment in managing the public debt, even though they have not been very successful in preventing its abnormal increase. I want to mark that particularly.
This house votes the increases in public debt. These are probably necessary for any one of a thousand things, particularly during such periods as those through which we have just passed. If the financial management of the country has been such as to take care of a billion dollars of increase in the public debt and it is not costing any more in interest to-day than it did when the debt was a billion dollars less, surely that fact ought to be known by the people of Canada. It should also be known that the average rate at this moment on the Canadian public debt is less than three and a half per cent. I am not speaking by the book, in fact it might be three and a quarter per cent,
but it is somewhere between three and a quarter and three and a half per cent. I would like you to look at the public debts of all the countries of the world and tell me how many of them can show an average debt charge of less than three and a half per cent. Remember we have a high public debt in relation to our population. The body that creates the public debt is this parliament and the financial management of the public debt must be in the hands of the government of the day. I know my hon. friend will say that the initiation of increases in the public debt rests with the government of the day. Of course that is true, but it is also true-


Mr. CAHAN:: Public pressure.


Charles Avery Dunning: We all know that there is public pressure behind all of us. As a matter of fact I believe the functions of parliament have changed completely. As originally constituted, parliament was a gathering of the commoners representing the taxpayers to prevent the king from spending too much of their money. Listening to speakers from all sides, it would seem to-day that the character of parliament has been reversed; parliament gathers for the purpose of persuading the king to spend ever more and more of their money.


Harry Leader: I appreciate what the minister has said, especially his reference to myself, but I fail to see where the saving in interest rates during these last ten years or more has been any remarkable achievement. I should like to ask the minister this question: When he refunds a maturing public debt at a lower rate of interest, is he not just renewing our note at the current rate of interest? Is that not only a business proposition that any of us would carry out?


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course it is only a business proposition. However, there is a new aspect to the matter which has arisen in recent years. This country has determined that the control of credit and currency should rest with this parliament, through the government and the Bank of Canada. That fact has an important bearing upon these great refunding operations, in ways which I cannot discuss in this house or indeed on any occasion publicly. However, it is my responsibility. I can assure my hon. friend that there is another important matter to be considered, the choosing of the market, the time and the terms.
Why have I not called these Grand Trunk fours? Perhaps I am wrong, but my judgment is that they should not be called at
C.N.R.-Refunding

the present time and I have so advised my colleagues. Why? Because as a result of long experience in handling these matters I believe that there will be a more advantageous opportunity than the one at present available. If I am wrong, it will cost this country quite a bit of money and will probably bring me a lot of criticism from some of the hon. gentlemen who have been criticizing to-day. It is a matter of business judgment in handling very large and involved transactions. One cannot just go out and say, "Lend us $150,000,000." It cannot be done that way. It is not like walking into a bank where your credit is good and asking for a loan of $100. These are tremendous transactions.
As the right hon. leader of the opposition said, there was a saving of $14,000,000 in one transaction. I dio not recall the particular transaction, but I know that some of them have been enormous. They have involved the mobilizing of investment funds, not by the big interests but by the people who have their little to invest. That is really the backbone of the investment market in these times. I believe we have come through 1937 with larger refundings than Canada ever undertook previously. If it were as easy as my hon. friend suggests, why do we have highly paid men with technical training in these matters to advise the Minister of Finance?


Harry Leader: I do not know.


Charles Avery Dunning: Speaking as a farmer,
I can assure my hon. friend that a group of farmers could not do the job. I have to have the best experts with technical training that it is possible for me to get.


Walter Adam Tucker: In his remarks the minister dealt with the question of callable obligations. What I had in mind was the perpetual obligations and the attitude which has apparently been taken that if the holders of these obligations are not willing to agree to give them up, there is something wrong about saying to them that we are not going to pay six per cent interest, or five or four and a half per cent interest, in perpetuity, regardless of changed conditions. I protest against the suggestion that there is something wrong in taking the attitude that we may properly reduce the interest on a perpetual obligation.
The leader of the opposition has said that this parliament obligated itself to make those payments and that we cannot save anything. The first thing I would suggest in that regard is this:	When parliament passed a statute
twenty years back it surely did not obligate this country for all time regardless of changing conditions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then we will have to
hand back the railway to the Grand Trunk.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is not necessary
either. This parliament nans this country, not the owners of the railway. We do not have to hand things back to anybody.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But if you break a bargain.


Walter Adam Tucker: We have the right to legislate in regard to the railroads of this country and we are not going to hand the railroads back to anybody at the behest of anybody.
In connection with these perpetual obligations I suggest that if parliament made a mistake and entered into an obligation which in the light of subsequent circumstances, is proving to be ruinous, then there is a duty on subsequent parliaments to change that obligation. That would not be repudiation; it would not be doing anything dishonest; it would be recognizing our high duty to legislate in the best interests of the people.
The suggestion has been made that if we changed the rate of interest we would not save a cent. I submit that if we passed an act appropriating a reduced amount of money, the equivalent of a certain rate of interest, deemed fair, that would not change the essential facts of the situation-or differ from what has been suggested. We can reduce the amount of money payable just the same as we can reduce the rate of interest. That is what has been done in connection with the farmers, as the hon. member for Portage la Prairie has pointed out. The people of western Canada to-day are paying money in freight rates that it was definitely agreed they should not have to pay. The Crowsnest Pass agreement was abrogated by this parliament, and if an obligation to western Canada in regard to freight rates can be abrogated by this parliament, then our obligation to pay money to the bondholders can also be cut down. One is not more sacred than the other.
I cannot sit in my seat in this house, Mr. Chairman, without protesting against the attitude that unless we can get these bondholders to agree to a change we should sit down and do nothing, that if we can not successfully approach them directly we are doing something wrong if we do it indirectly. I submit that if we have a right to legislate to change conditions in regard to freight rates and break a solemn agreement whereby the people of western Canada were promised they would not have to pay more than a certain amount of freight rates on goods shipped into that country; if we can give the

C.N.R.-Refunding
right to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to charge more than that agreed rate, then we can say to the bondholders: After a certain time your bonds are going to be called; if you want your money you can take it, but if you do not, we are going to pay no more than three per cent interest. I submit that there is nothing morally wrong about that, nothing dishonest, and I cannot sit in my seat in this parliament and take the defeatist attitude that unless we can persuade the bondholders to give up the present rate, we can do nothing about it. We sitting here in this parliament of the Dominion of Canada have full legal rights over the matter. When they took these bonds they knew we bad the right to tax them, cancel them-I am not suggesting that we cancel them-do what we saw fit with them. I submit that we shoulS legislate in the light of present day conditions, and fix a rate of interest that will be fair under present conditions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It might be well to remember that the Canadian people have shown a very great interest in these matters, and when they were asked to convert their high interest rate securities to lower rates they did so to the extent of 1640,000,000. That at least indicates that the people are quite as well aware of the circumstances as we are in this house, and are quite as anxious as we are to do what can be done. I happened at the moment to be at the finance department, and I was told by the bankers that it was not likely 'that the people would do any such thing; yet the people were so willing to do it that they took $640,000,000 of their high interest securities and converted them to a lower-interest-bearing security. That indicates that the people are interested in the matter and are concerned about it. And they were not the big interests that have been spoken of. You would be amazed, Mr. Chairman, to know that they were people who bought securities in small sums, $5,000, $10,000, some $25,000 and some $100,000, and they took a lower rate of interest because they were willing to help their country at a time of great depression.
I cannot get into my mind how a member of my profession would suggest that when a bargain has been made between two parties by which one of the parties sells his property for a sum of money, and that sum of money is represented by obligations which carry a rate of interest, the other party to the transaction can suddenly say: I am not going to pay what I have agreed to pay you, but I am going to keep the property just 'the same.


An hon. MEMBER:: Fanners' Creditors Arrangement Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly, I put the bill through, and it was based on the bankruptcy judgment of the privy council. The foundation of it is that the man must be insolvent, and all it does is to take his assets and ratably divide them among his creditors, which is bankruptcy.
Now it is suggested that we should say to the Grand Trunk, whose property we bought: We are not going to pay the annuity we agreed to pay you, and we are not going to give you back that road, but we are going to give you a lesser annuity than you agreed to take for it. Nobody has ever suggested that the price paid for it was exorbitant. In fact the common shareholders have always contended that the price was ridiculously small and that they were not fairly treated. Please bear in mind that this was a case in, which we bought a certain property and agreed to pay an annuity for it which was sufficient to carry the interest on the obligations created by the railway company; and for us to say to them now that we are going to break that bargain would necessarily involve their chance of taking back their property, if we say we will not pay what we agreed to pay. That is the story'; but it is not the whole story because it involves also the Grand Trunk Western in the United States, where certain other considerations would have to be taken into account. We bought that as part of the Grand Trunk system, and the contention is that we bought it too cheap. That has always been the contention. That is what the Grand Trunk shareholders say in England, that we did not give them what it was worth and that they should have something more.


Charles Avery Dunning: They want the right to sue us at this moment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are asking for a fiat, not only to set aside the Lovibond award, but they contend, as the member for Kootenay East has said, that for some reason their own directors did not enable the common shareholders to vote on the offer we made to them, and which they declined to accept. Let us keep in mind that this is not a question of interest rates at all, but a question of a bargain we made with a company with headquarters in England, the pioneer railway company in this country. We agreed to take their property and pay them am annuity sufficient to pay the interest on their securities, and if we broke that bargain, if we relieved ourselves from our obligation, we would have to contemplate their getting the property back.

C .N.R.-R e funding


Mr. JAQUES:: May I suggest that this is more a question, of common sense than a question of honour. You cannot pay increasing debts unless you have increasing supplies of money, and if the government would implement its pledge to issue currency and credit in terms of public need-


Charles Avery Dunning: We are doing that now.


Norman Jaques: -we might then be able to defend not only the integrity of our honour but the integrity of our pockets.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: I should like to refer to two remarks made by the Minister of Finance. He takes the stand that the obligation entered into some years ago is still binding on this parliament, and that any attempt at a compulsory settlement is a breaking of faith. During the great war .Great Britain entered into certain financial obligations with the United States, but after the war economic conditions were such that it was impossible for Great Britain to carry out its obligations. As a result for some years now Great Britain has been making interest payments not in gold, as the obligation called for, but in silver, and it has never been suggested anywhere that that was a breaking of faith. They were simply facing the realities that had to be met.
The minister also said that it was not a question of simply the big interests being involved as shareholders, but that there were people who held small blocks of bonds who must be taken into consideration. Yet in both Great Britain and Australia the governments appealed to the patriotism of their citizens.


Charles Avery Dunning: So did we.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Exactly. And their people responded in a splendid way.


Charles Avery Dunning: So did ours.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is no reason why the people holding these bonds carrying a high rate of interest, 6i and 4 per cent, should not now be prepared to show their patriotism.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend understands that these people are not in this country but in England.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And they are paying the highest income tax on the interest they get from these securities of any people in the world.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The fact remains that Australia took steps to compel these people living outside the commonwealth.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh no, they did not compel them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They set a limit of time within which they could either reconvert their bonds or cash them in.


Charles Avery Dunning: That applied to Australia, not to outside Australia.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They put a limit on people residing outside, too.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I may be
misinformed, but I understood they did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They made a conversion in London.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. As a matter of
fact I can give the hon. member the information. The compulsory feature applied only to Australian holders; ninety-seven per cent of the bonds, to the best of my memory, came in voluntarily as a matter of patriotism, and it was necessary to apply the compulsory feature with respect to only three per cent. But with respect to the London obligations it was a matter of conversion by arrangement and bargaining in the same manner in which we proceed under similar circumstances.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But is it not true that the Australian government said that unless they accepted the voluntary arrangement it would be made compulsory?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There was no intimidation at all against the foreign holder.


Charles Avery Dunning: There was no intimidation against the British holder.


Joseph Henry Harris: 
Charles Avery Dunning: No, in addition to it.


Joseph Henry Harris: -in addition to the $978,-000,000-originates with the provinces, and what portion consists of bonds of a kind to which no dominion or provincial responsibility or guarantee or mortgage is attached.
51952-149}
Relief and Agricultural Distress


Charles Avery Dunning: I will see that that information is available on the bill.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 107, respecting the Canadian National Railways-and to provide for the refunding of matured, maturing and callable financial obligations. '
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
[Stage Direction]
^The house resumed from* Wednesday, April' 27, consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Rogers for the second reading of Bill No, 105, to assist in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, at page 2318 of Hansard of yesterday, the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) is reported as follows:
, So J that in my opinion we have failed, lamentably as a parliament; for the moment 1 shall not speak of the government, which is the leader of parliament and the leader of the country. I will say that parliament, including myself and every member of it-
Every one.
-is failing in this very session, as I think we have failed to perhaps a lesser degree in the past, to give leadership in these matters to this country.
I register the strongest protest against that statement. The other day, on April 7, the hon. member for Huron-Perth (Mr. Golding) asked, as reported at page 2112 of Hansard, the following question of the hon. member for Kootenay East:
^I'- Golding:	What did the hon. member
SaI i°	f,or fiye years when he was in
office? What hope did he give them?
That is, the unemployed.
Mr. Stevens:	If the government and the
people of this country had paid attention to, what I said, they would probably have been, further ahead than they are to-day, but they did not pay attention. I am going to say to-day ' what 1 said before the last election, and what;
I sat on the treasury benches andJ after I left them.
Mr. Golding: Say it now.
Mr. Stevens: I am going to say it now if my hon. friend will let me. The cause of the unemployment of fifty, sixty or seventy thousand railway men is not a falling off in external trade; it is a change in economic conditions which has been wholly ignored in connection with this matter.
[Stage Direction]
Relief and Agricultural Distress
The hon. member for Kootenay East did mot tell the whole story. I took the trouble to *check the index of Hansard for every session including the first session of 1930, and I will read the record of the hon. gentleman, first as a heckler when he was on that side of the house before the election of 4930; in the second place as a minister of the crown from 1930 to October, 1934; and in the third place as a gentleman of leisure as he is now.
On April 1, 1930-it was April Fool's day- he opposed the fair wages and hours bill, as will be found in Hansard of that date at page 1143. On March 31, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps)- moved the following amendment to the motion to go into supply:
In the opinion of this house the government should take immediate action to deal with the question of unemployment.
On April 1, the hon. member for Kootenay Hast, who represented another constituency [DOT].at the time, interrupted the then Minister of Labour by his heckling, as will be found on -eight pages of Hansard. I did not have the time to count each one of his interruptions, but the house can find them on pages 1172-3_4-5_8-9 and pages 1180-1 of Hansard of April 1, 1930. One of his interruptions at page 1179, the second column, while the then Minister of Labour was speaking, was as follows:
Mr. Stevens:	Are the minister and his
colleagues aware of any unemployment problem which exists in Canada at the present time or which has existed during the past three months? Mr. Manion: Certainly not.
Let us turn to a book published under the *authority of the hon. gentleman when he was Minister of Trade and Commerce in the defunct government. I refer to the Canada Year Book of 1931. At page 775 of this book, published under the hon. gentleman's authority, there appears the following.
In Canada, as in other parts of the world, *there was a general slackening in industrial ;activity during 1930 resulting in a lower level [DOT]of employment than in 1929, and also than in [DOT].some months of 1928. With these exceptions, jhowever, the general index was higher than an previous years of the record.
That is the first quotation. I quote the next paragraph on the same page:
Employment showed partial recovery at the beginning of February from the year end losses, but in the next two months the trend was downward. From May 1 till July 1, steady improvement was recorded and the situation on August 1 showed little change. From the beginning of September, however, curtailment was «£ain indicated-
[Mr. PouliotJ
The hon. gentleman was then a member of the government at that time in power.
-and on December 1 the index was nearly three points lower than on January 1-
Mark you!
-although it was higher than the average for the years 1921-1927.
Before the hon. gentleman was informed, before the election of 1930, he said that there was a lot of unemployment, but after he was better informed he saw that he was mistaken in that statement and said that there was no unemployment at the time he said that there was.
Henry Herbert Stevens: That statement does not say so.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have read it, and my hon. friend can learn it iby heart; I have no time to read it again. In 1930, on April 3, the same gentleman heckled again during the Prime Minister's speech on an amendment to supply moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. At page 1224 of Hansard of April 3, 1930, the Prime Minister made the statement that there had been 146 interruptions on the previous day in the course of the speech of the Minister of Labour. The hon. member for Kootenay East thereupon said that the minister had invited them. Now I come to the story of the five-cent piece and I will read it to the house. On pages 1227 and 1233 there will be found some interruptions by the hon. gentleman. From page 1227 I quote the following:
Mr. Mackenzie King: May I conclude what I have to say? So far as giving money from this federal treasury to provincial governments is concerned, in relation to this question of unemployment as it exists to-day, I might be prepared to go to a certain length possibly in meeting one or two of the western provinces that have Progressive premiers at the head of their governments-
Some hon. Members: Oh!
Air. Mackenzie King: -but I would not give a single cent to any Tory government.
Air. Bennett:	Shame!
Mr. Stevens:	Shame!
Mr. Mackenzie King: Do my hon. friends say "Shame"?
Mr. Bennett: Yes, shame!
Mr. Mackenzie King: What is there to be ashamed of?
Air. Stevens:	You ought to be ashamed of
that.
Air. Alackenzie King: My hon. friend is getting very indignant.
I am glad to see the hon. gentleman laughing to-day. Apparently at that time he was making a joke at which he is only now laughing. The Prime Minister continued:
Something evidently has got under his skin. Alay I repeat what I have said? With respect to giving moneys out of the federal treasury

Relief and Agricultural Distress
to any Tory government in this country for these alleged unemployment purposes, with these governments situated as they are to-day, with policies diametrically opposed to those of this government, I would not give them a five-cent piece.
Mr. Cahan:	Why give it to a Progressive
government ?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
The point is that at that time there was no unemployment at all according to the official statement published by the hon. gentleman in his official capacity. There was nothing of the sort; and was it a shame for the Prime Minister of the time to say that he would not give a five cent piece to the Tory government for alleged unemployment or for Tory propaganda? That is the point.
Let us come now to the record of the hon. gentleman on unemployment relief as a minister of the crown. It is very short. I have it on one page for the four years he sat as a minister. At the 1930 special session on September 11 he interrupted the present Prime Minister, as indicated at page 90 of Hansard of that session, and during the special session on the same day he interrupted the Hon. Mr. Ralston, as reported at page 118. His contribution during the special session of 1930 was to interrupt my leader and Mr. Ralston, a former minister.
Let us pass along. Time marches on. On June 4, 1931, the hon member for Winnipeg North, during his speech on the debate, had the honour to be interrupted by the hon. member in question, as reported at page 2320 of Hansard of that year. And there was another interruption of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth)., who has probably forgotten or forgiven it. That was on August 1, as reported at page 4454. Therefore the hon. member was following the very good policy of making two interruptions each session. He made two in the special session of 1930, which was a short one, and he made two in the regular session of 1931, which was a long one.
Let us come to the session of 1932; March 10, pages 984-5 of Hansard. The hon. member interrupted the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), probably because he comes from his own province but does not share his political views. On March 15 the hon. member in question made his first speech on unemployment. He had been sworn in as a minister of the crown for nearly two years, and this was the first time he expressed his views on unemployment. That was in the debate on the resolution for continuance of unemployment and farm relief,
just a defence of the blank cheque. At page 1124 of Hansard of that year he is reported as saying:
The situation which confronted the government was this:	Undoubtedly there was a
national emergency, the nature of which a year ago it was impossible to define in precise terms.
"A year ago" was March 1931, or nine-months after the government of which he was a member had taken office. Before that there was no unemployment. The crisis came when the hon. gentleman was one of the colleagues of the leader of the opposition. He could not say otherwise, on account of his official statement in the Canada Year Book for 1931; he had to be logical with himself; therefore he had to show that unemployment began from the time they were in power, and when he was so indignant with my leader for saying he would not give a cent to Quebec or the Tories for propaganda, then there was no unemployment at all according to himself. Do you know, sir, why the hon. gentleman is smiling? He may belong to the Oxford group and decided to make his confession, and, as I proceed, it brings him relief. The hon. gentleman continued:
Indeed, in any such emergency there are bound to be conditions which cannot possibly be foreseen, and yet it is of prime importance that such conditions should be met when they arise. Therefore, I say a year ago the government was faced with a national emergency due largely to two causes, namely, unemployment and crop failure.
Twice he repeated that it was a year ago,, or a year prior to March 15, 1932, that unemployment started and the government of the time was faced with an emergency.
There was no constructive suggestion in that speech. Even with a magnifying glass one could not be found.
On April 1 of the same year he interrupted a speech of my leader on the Unemployment Continuance Act, as reported at pages 1624,. 1625, 1628 and 1629 of Hansard. At page 1628 the present Prime Minister gave certain quotations, and the hon. member suggested it was a distortion of the position taken by the then Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). I could use those words to qualify his interruption when he was so indignant about the statement of my leader as to refusing to give anything for propaganda to the Tory governments which have since then disappeared.
On May 25 the hon. member gave some unemployment statistics to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, as reported at page 3383. On the same date he interrupted


Mr. LECLERC:: He might have excepted Granby.


Jean-François Pouliot: Because the hon. member is the mayor and a very wise administrator; but he is a Liberal, too.
As reported at page 2115 the hon. member for Kootenay East says:
But I disagree with the idea of the dominion government and the dominion parliament taking the responsibility, because in my opinion the whole question narrows itself down to one of economics and not to a dispute about constitutional authority.
As reported at page 2115 the hon. member is not in favour of the dominion parliament taking responsibility. All right. He has changed his views about his leader; it did not take him long to change his views about that.
Let us turn to page 2116, the last paragraph of which reads as follows:
I am going to say quite frankly that unless some step is taken-and the leadership must come from here-there will be a serious time ahead for the cities and municipalities of this country.
On one page he disagrees with the idea of the dominion parliament taking responsibility, but on the next page he says "leadership must come from here." When was he right? Was he right at page 2115 or at page 2116? Any hon. member can check it in Hansard. I would direct the attention of

Relief and Agricultural Distress
anyone interested to the third paragraph in the second column on page 2115, and to the third paragraph in the first column on page 2116.
He spoke very modestly about housing:
Since 1931 I have consistently taken a strong stand on this question of housing throughout Canada.
On June 19, 1935, and never before-I have checked the indexes of Hansard and there is nothing about housing until this date-the hon. member for Kootenay East began to speak about housing. He spoke on the third reading of a bill to establish the trade and industry commission, and on that occasion was called to order by Mr. Speaker, and did not proceed further.
Then, at page 610 of Hansard of 1936 I find two-thirds of a column in the report of February 27. I find one and one-quarter columns at page 1826 of Hansard of April 6, 1936. There is nothing in Hansard for 1937.
In the speech delivered on April 7 of this year he makes some observations about the tourist business and, finally, in the peroration of his speech he said he had heard rumours to the effect that the government proposed to introduce a long list of public works to be scattered throughout the various constituencies, as a contribution towards the solution of this problem. He made this comment:
If that is done, all I can say is that it is an indication that an election is in the offing.
I do not wish to impute motives to anybody, but I assume the next Conservative convention which takes place immediately after the close of this session, had something to do with the speeches the hon. member made on unemployment.
I have almost concluded what I wanted to say, with the exception of one further point. I have given the record of the hon. member with regard to unemployment, since the beginning of 1930, including the time he was a cabinet minister and the time he has been a gentleman of leisure. I shall give my own record, not in order to boast but just to show the hon. member for Kootenay East that his statement about parliament was most unfair to each member of the house. I shall not repeat his remarks as they are already twice on record. On March 15, 1929, the select standing committee on industrial and international relations studied the problem of unemployment. At that time figures were given which interested me very deeply. I started to make a study of the minimum wages paid to men in the province of Quebec, and I found that the

workingmen in my province were being paid less than those in other provinces. I considered that to be most unfair. My task was not at all interesting at first and I am thankful to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for the assistance he provided at that time in helping me to compile and classify these statistics. I also had the help of the staff of the Department of Labour, especially of Mr. Ward, a very competent man who was then deputy minister.
If the hon. member for Kootenay East will look at pages 3654 to 3659 of Hansard of June 12, 1929, he will find a number of tabulations with reference to wages paid in Quebec and other Canadian cities. The minimum and maximum wages paid in Montreal and other Canadian cities are shown. On March 21, 1930, as reported at pages 853 and following of Hansard, the member for Temiscouata made a speech in connection with minimum wages paid to men. He was interrupted by several Tory members. He was interrupted by Mr. Macdougall, who was defeated in Inverness by the present member (Mr. Mac-Lennan); by Mr. Short, who has since died; by Mr. Irvine, who was then a Cooperative Commonwealth Federation member, but who changed his colours quite often; by the Hon. Mr. Chaplin, who has since died, and by Hon. Mr. Geary, the former Minister of Justice. On March 31, 1930, as reported on pages 1132 and following of Hansard, the member for Temiscouata was interrupted again by another Tory who laughed at him when he told about the misery of the unemployed. That was Mr. Ernst, who was afterwards selected as Minister of Fisheries by the then Prime Minister, probably because he was so light. That interruption did not prove a good vote catcher in Nova Scotia.
On April 30, 1930, during the debate on the third reading of the Fair Wages and Hours Act, the member for Temiscouata praised the then Minister of Labour for bringing in that legislation, against which the hon. member voted. I had a complimentary letter from Mr. Tom Moore, then president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, dated June 18, 1929. I shall not take the trouble to read it, but I keep it on my file. Mr. Moore praised that legislation.
I have in my hand a voluminous report dealing with the settlers on relief in one part of my constituency, which report I can show to anyone who desires to see it. This report concerns a number of men who have suffered considerably. These men come to see me when I am home, and I call to see them

Relief and Agricultural Distress
when. I am in their vicinity. Such visits are a sorrow rather than a pleasure because these men live under such poor circumstances. I have been working for these men; I have been pleading and arguing their case in the house; but what happened? I was made a laughing stock by the Tory gang when I defended these poor settlers who were starving.
Not only that, but I was grossly insulted by a man now employed by the provincial government. At one time he was a member of the press gallery but was expelled because he was a drunkard and a scoundrel. He had space in a room of one of the Tory members where he wrote defamations, calumny and insults in connection with Liberal members, and especially the member for Temiscouata. I called that man by name in the house; but what happened? That man had been evidently inspired, because when I called him a scoundrel, the terrestrial almighty had my words struck from Hansard. This was against all the rules of the house, as we are free to call anyone a scoundrel who is not protected by the rules. I made this statement at that time because I was most indignant, but the hon. gentleman did not defend my action. I was doing my duty in trying to improve the lot of the poor settlers in my constituency and throughout the north, but I was insulted and laughed at by the supporters of the previous government. I am not saying that my hon. friend laughed at me on that occasion ; but he knows those who did, those who jeered at me when I referred to the misery of these men. That may be the reason why he left them. If so, I congratulate him.
Your Honour was in the house at the time and will remember the trouble I had in trying to obtain the previous occupations of the unemployed. I do not know if it is true, but I have been told that an order was then given not to hand out any figures in connection with the unemployed. Figures could be given out only in connection with the employed, but that is an altogether different thing. I could not get any information until the mayors of sixty-two of the most important cities in Canada came to Ottawa. They compiled this information and sent it to me. I had it classified with the help of just one person, and I distributed copies of my report to the members of the house and of the senate. This was declared to be out of
order by the chair as it did not suit the pleasure of the then government. However, I supplied this information in order that the then government and the country should be forced to know something about the previous occupations of the unemployed.
It is utterly impossible to do anything for the rehabilitation of the unemployed unless their previous occupations are known. We must know what they can do and where they can be found. That is why I found the report of the employment commission to be far from satisfactory. The hon. member for Kootenay East has said it is a splendid work, but I consider it a rotten piece of work.


The DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I must remind the hon. member that he has exhausted his time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.
Mr. POULRfT: I offered to do this work, and the only cost to the country would have been the payment of four or five competent employees in the service. Hon. members will remember that was the only condition attached to my offer. If I had done the work, my report probably would have been less extensive; but it would have indicated the previous occupations of each class of unemployed in each important city of Canada, and even in the smaller municipalities, showing what classes of men have suffered from unemployment. That is the only way in which you can draft a sane policy for the rehabilitation of the unemployed. That is my point, Mr. Speaker, and I am not going to continue longer. I thank the committee, and if I have said anything disagreeable it is only because of the respect I have for the truth, my respect for parliament and my respect for my colleagues.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) protests very vigorously against the member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) stating that parliament is not doing its duty. I for one want to say that I think parliament is not doing its duty, and that no member of this house can return to his constituency without feeling somewhat ashamed of the small amount of work that 245 men have to show as a result of their deliberations for, now, three sessions.
Referring to the bill now before the house, one cannot estimate its value by itself. That
2350	COMMONS
Relief arid Agricultural Distress
can be done only by examining the policies of the Liberal party as advocated before the election and the policies they have pursued since coming into office.
On February 27, 1933, the leader of the Liberal party set forth in this house the policy of his party with reference to unemployment. Without quoting, one may say that it consisted of four things: (1) Unemployment was to be treated as a national problem; (2) there was to be set up a national employment commission to administer relief in cooperation with the municipalities and in an endeavour to provide work for the unemployed; (3) there was to be set up a system of unemployment insurance; and (4) as a permanent measure the government was going to stimulate internal and external trade.
I ask the house to look very briefly at what has been done and what is now proposed in this bill as an answer to those policies. First of all, may I point out^that the question of unemployment is not being dealt with as a national problem. For the past three sessions we have been told again and again that the direct responsibility lies with the municipalities and the province, and there has been no attempt to come to grips with the problem as the direct responsibility of this parliament and the federal government.
Let us look at the second plank in their platform with reference to unemployment- the setting up of a national employment commission. The idea of a national employment commission was conceived in the mind of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in 1933. It came to birth in 1936, but it was not the kind of child that had been visualized by the Prime Minister. Originally the national employment commission was to be a commission that would cooperate with the provinces in the administration of relief, but the commission that was appointed had no such power, and never has had any such power. It had no power to put a single man to work, no power to administer any relief. As the minister (Mr. Rogers) himself said, it was an advisory commission whose main function was to collect statistics and submit advice to the Minister of Labour.
This commission, conceived in 1933 and bom in 1936, died on February 1, 1938. Shakespeare in Julius Caesar has Mark Antony say, "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." This parliament has come to bury the commission, not to praise it. The 
commission is dead; it no longer exists. Having submitted its report, which cost the people of this country in the neighbourhood of $300,000, it now ceases to exist. Why? Is there no longer any need of advice in dealing with the problem of unemployment? Has the problem of unemployment been solved? Even the Minister of Labour would be the first to say that the fact that you have collected statistics regarding unemployment is not removing unemployment, and that an analysis of the situation is not a solution of the problem. Here we have a national employment commission that was to be the bulwark of the Liberal policy for combating unemployment, a commission that was brought into existence in 1936 and died in 1938. But what is most significant of all is that I find, in a return to an order of the house brought down for my colleague the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), that the commission was dismissed before the report which it had submitted had even been considered by the government.


Norman McLeod Rogers: May I correct that? I know my hon. friend wants to be fair. I think he will see that the statement is to the effect that the report was considered, as it only could have been considered, after it had been submitted, and the commission itself was dissolved after it had submitted its final report-its "final report"; I emphasize those words.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The government gave consideration to the final report after its submission, it is true; but the fact still remains that by that time the commission itself had been dismissed, and, strange to say, twelve of the employees whose services with the government had ranged from one to sixteen years, four of them having served for fourteen years and over, were dismissed at the same time. That would look to me, Mr. Speaker, as though there was very little sympathy on the part of the government with the report submitted by the commission. Certainly they have shown no enthusiasm for its recommendations. I ask the house now to look at page 20 of the report of the national employment commission, where will be found a summary of the commission's recommendations. As I intend to speak for only a short time I would ask, with the consent of the house, that this be placed on Hansard.

Relief and Agricultural Distress
SUMMARY OF COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS (Other than those in Connection with personnel)
Subject Matter
Recommended to Minister
Action taken
I. Registration
For a national registration of relief recipients	
June 30, 1936.
II.	Employment Service
For the national administration of the Employment Service of Canada.
For consideration of Commission recommendation without regard to cost to Dominion of transfer of expense from Provinces to Dominion, this in view of vital importance in handling employment and Aid problems.
III.	National Advisory
Committee
For composition of, and personnel for, Committee.
IV. Homeless Adults
For a Dominion/Provincial co-operative policy in connection with winter employment of homeless adults and for a Farm Improvement and Employment Plan to carry out that policy.
For supplementary plans to carry out the policy in certain Provinces:-
Manitoba	
Alberta	
British Columbia	
Saskatchewan	
New Brunswick	
Ontario	
For a national parkway in the
Gatineau	
For an extension to April 30th of the Farm Improvement and Employment Plan.
V. Housing
For a Dominion government housing policy, including a detailed Home Improvement Plan, and basic principles to govern a low rental housing plan.
For a detailed low rental housing plan	
For draft legislation to embody the low rental housing plan.
August 11, 1936 January 29, 1937
August 25, 1936 October 19, 1936 December 7, 1936
August 27, 1936.
October 20, 1936. November 5, 1936. November 5, 1936. December 4, 1936. December 17, 1936. January 23, 1937. September 2, 1936.
February 10, 1937.
September 2, 1936.
February 10, 19371. March 25, 1937J
VI. Training and Re-conditioning
For use of balances available under Technical Education Act for training girls in certain Western Provinces.
August 28, 1936.
Approved July 4, 1936.
No action.
Partially met by appointments made to Women's and Youth Employment Committees.
Approved September 9, 1936.
Approved.
Approved.
Approved.
Rejected.
Approved.
Rejected.
No action.
Approved April 15, 1937.
Approved September 9, 1936.
No action.
Approved August 29, 1936.
2352	COMMONS
Relief and Agricultural Distress
SUMMARY OF COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS-Continued (Other than those in Connection with personnel)
Subject Matter	Recommended to Minister	Action takenVI. Training and Re conditioning -Continued For cooperative Dominion/Provincial	December 3, 1936	# Commission advised Januaryaction in youth re-training plans:- (a)	National Volunteer Forestry Service. (b)	Young men's urban training centres. For financial provision during fiscal	February 18,	1937)	18, 1937, that in accordance with reference in Speech from the Throne, authorization had been given to Minister to confer with Provinces, but without regard to any definite sum. Appropriation for partial fulfilment of plans later provided under Vote 308. No action.year beginning April 1, 1937, for a	February 24,	1937)	definite program to increase by reconditioning measures the "employability" of relief recipients of all ages; this in substitution of the present practice of indiscriminate Grants-in-Aid. For a Dominion policy for appren-	February 23,	1937	No action.ticeship and learnership including basic conditions to be embodied in plans therefor, and extent of suggested Dominion/Provincial participation therein. For Dominion requirement that Prov-	March 25, 1937	No action.inces shape their suggestions for such Dominion/Provincial cooperative works projects as are developed for relief purposes along lines which would increase "employability" of relief recipients. For training centres for urban, and	May 20, 1937	Partially met by provisions ofextension courses for rural young women. For the carrying out of training projects under Vote 308.	May 5, 1937 May 28, 1937	Vote 308. Embodied in agreements withVII. Public Works For a basis to govern the Commis-	June 10, 1937 June 12, 1937 December 4, '	936	Provinces. Approved December 15, 1936sion's duties in relation to the public works program and to public works projects for the coming fiscal year. For an over-all contraction in the	January 8, 1937	but not put into practical operation. Action taken to extent indicated1937-38 public works program. For further consideration of Commis-	February 9, 1937)	by estimates for new fiscal year. No action.sion's previous recommendations in	February 18, 1937j	view of developments; along with a clarification and amplification of those recommendations. VIII. Agricultural Relief For Dominion/Provincial conferences	December 8, 1936	Approved December 15, 1936.with Provinces of Ontario and Quebec to develop the situation regarding so-called "farmers" on relief, including a detailed plan of action to be considered at such conferences.	Conferences not yet held.
{Mr Douglas, 1

Relief and Agricultural Distress
SUMMARY OF COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS-Concluded (Other than those in Connection with personnel)
Subject Matter	Recommended to Minister	Action taken
IX. Audit of Relief Expenditures		
For a current audit in the field to		Approved April 15, 1937.
replace the present post-audit at Ottawa.		
X. Organization and Coordination of Aid		
For conditions to be attached to	March 20, 1937)		Partially approved June 23, 1937; balance under consideration.
future Dominion Grants-in-Aid to the Provinces, including a complete plan for the better organization of Aid to which the Dominion contributes.	March 25, 1937)	
I ask the house to look at that summary. In. the third column, under the heading, "Action taken," appear the words "Approved July 4, 1936." That was with reference to the registration. Opposite "Employment service" it says:	"No action" "National
Advisory Committee:" "Partially met." "Homeless Adults:" "Approved." "Housing:" "Approved," so far as the first part is concerned, and as to the second part: "No action." "Training and Reconditioning:" "Approved." Then follows a long list opposite which appear the words: "No action," "No action," "No action." "Training centres:" "Partially met." "For the carrying out of training projects:" "Embodied in agreements with provinces."
The thing that impresses me is that, after having paid 8300,000 to secure advice from the best commission the Minister of Labour could get in this country, we find that the term which occurs most often in the third column is, "No action," or "Partially met." I want to suggest that if we are going to bury this commission, we might inscribe on its tombstone the words: "No action," partly as a memorial of its short life, and, second, as a monument to the masterly inaction that has come as a result of its work.
I ask the house to look at some of the things which it did do. Take No. 5 on the statement, "Housing." A great deal has been said in this house about the need of a housing program. But here again we find evidence of what has occurred throughout the government's attempt to meet the problem of unemployment, namely, meeting the shadow of the problem and avoiding the substance. We
have a housing problem and we have a housing scheme, but how much has that scheme benefited the people of Canada? How much has it benefited the people who live in the province from which I come? I find that in Saskatchewan under the dominion housing scheme two houses have been built, at a total expenditure of $8,200. Is it any wonder that the unemployed in Saskatchewan feel that the dominion housing scheme is not an answer to their problem? Certainly two houses will not put many carpenters to work or very much money in the pockets of the merchants and the unemployed.
I turn to another scheme, and one which was a little more successful: The farm placement scheme. Under it there were 42,633 placements and cancellations of 4,752, leaving, I assume, a balance of 37,881. In Saskatchewan, which was the .province which probably most needed it and certainly took the largest advantage of it, there have been 26,858 placements and 4,559 cancellations, leaving 22,299. It is amazing that almost twenty per cent of placements in Saskatchewan under that scheme later had their applications rejected.


James Garfield Gardiner: What year was that?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This past year. I have before me the answers submitted by the department on that point, relative to the year ended March 14, 1938. When I came to Ottawa last January I was convinced that the whole 4,559 that had been rejected in Saskatchewan were in my constituency, so many people having come to me in connection with this matter; but I have since met

Relief and Agricultural Distress
some hon. gentlemen opposite who seem to be equally convinced that the whole 4,559 were in their constituencies, because so many have been rejected throughout the province.
This was the position, particularly in communities in which there were large families. The father and mother, and one or two members of the family could carry on the farm operations quite easily. They said "Here is an opportunity to put some of our young people out to work"-young people who had been on the relief rolls for several years. They were placed, only to find later that their applications were rejected and they had to come back home. I do not wish to be derogatory of what the minister has tried to do. I appreciate very much the objective he had in mind in the formulation of this scheme. But I think that whoever in his department was responsible for the regulations should be presented with a wooden medal carved out of his own head, because some of these regulations are nothing but sheer nonsense.
I have examined the rejections-there is quite a large number of them-which have come to my hand, and they fall roughly into four classes: First of all, those who were rejected because they were not homeless; that is, their parents resided within a radius of twelve or fifteen miles. Of course that is absurd. These young people had to be placed where they could find some farmer who would take them. The fact that their parents lived twelve miles or a hundred and twelve miles away made little or no difference as to whether or not they were carrying on the work that was intended under the scheme. Others, strange to say, were rejected because they had never been employed and therefore could not be considered employable. We in Saskatchewan have had very severe conditions since 1931. Many of these people left school in that year and have been unemployed more or less ever since. How long does a young man or a young woman have to be unemployed before he or she is considered employable? If conditions like this continue, you will find young men beginning to grow a beard and yet able to say that they were never employed and are therefore unemployable.


Norman McLeod Rogers: How many fall into that category.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Of course 1 could not give the minister any statistical information, but I would say a large number who have come to my attention are in that classification. Others were rejected because, it was said, there was not enough work on the farm. I should like to see, and I am sure

the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) would also like to see, a farm where there is not enough work for a hired man at a time when there is stock to look after, chores to do, machinery to get ready and, in cases where they have it, seed to clean during the winter. But these people were rejected because, it was said, there was not enough work to warrant the hiring of a man.
One other classification refers to relatives. I have mentioned to the minister during this session the case of a young man whose sister lost her husband and was left with a small family on the farm. This young man left his job and took over his sister's farm, managed it; but that year he had no crop; he made application to the Saskatchewan government, was accepted, and for two years was under the farm placement scheme, the authorities knowing perfectly well that he was a relative of the employer. Last year he was cut off. He has loyally stayed with his sister and helped her manage the farm and look after her small family, but is not paid, as are other boys in the community doing less work than he does. Mr. Molloy, who is administering the act in Saskatchewan, and Mr. Parker, the minister of municipal affairs, said that there were a number of such cases and that they had made strong representations to the Minister of Labour and the federal government asking them to change that regulation in the direction of making it more elastic, but they could get no response. I suggest that the men in the several provinces who are administering the act are in a much better position to set these regulations than is someone in Ottawa who is not actually in contact with the problem.
I come now to another matter which is dealt with under this bill, namely agricultural aid, or as the bill says, " alleviation of agricultural distress." Of course the tragedy is that after three years of a bill like this agricultural distress is still present in some parts of the west in an even more acute form than before. I left my constituency last Saturday after visiting farms on which there was not a single kernel of feed or seed; the farmers had lost half of the horses.-and they were not old horses-which they sent to the Carberry pasture. One man who had weighed two horses which he sent to Manitoba found that they had each lost in the neighbourhood of five hundred pounds. Farmers with moisture conditions such as they have not had for years, and with a good price, are facing the spring almost destitute, with no feed for their horses with which to get their land into shape and, prior to last Saturday at any rate, no

Relief and Agricultural Distress
seed at hand. One of the amusing things is the attitude of some of the men who are responsible for administering this system. I wrote to the manager of the grain and fodder branch of the Saskatchewan government, after having taken up the matter with the federal Minister of Agriculture, with reference particularly to chicken feed, and I received a letter in which this striking paragraph occurs:
We are of the opinion that the majority of farmers should secure sufficient feed from the screenings of their seed grain to take care of their poultry feed requirements.
They are to take the screenings from their seed grain to feed their poultry; but if they have not any seed, what are they to do? One can take screenings from seed; but if there is no seed, where are the screenings to come from? That is the situation with regard to agricultural aid, a condition which is sad in the extreme. People are depending upon the government for seed which is not there, and when it gets there the benefit will not be what we have been led to believe, because we are told that repairs will have to be deducted and that the seed will have to be cleaned, this being another deduction of ten or fifteen per cent from the total amount. The result is that the farmers will face the summer with weakened horses, poor stock, and very little seed with which to seed their land.
I come now to the third plank in the Liberal policy with reference to unemployment, and that was the setting up of a national system of unemployment insurance. In this regard there is only one question that I would ask: Where is this promised system of. unemployment insurance? This is the third session of parliament and we have not yet seen this national system of unemployment insurance. True, we shall be told that some of the provinces would not agree. But that was not what was said in 1933 in this house; that was not what was said in 1935 on the hustings. We were not told then that the provinces would have to agree. In fact, on the night of the election the present Prime Minister in his speech to the people of Canada over the radio said:
The whole-hearted cooperation of the Liberal premiers and governments of eight of the nine provinces of Canada was an exceptionally significant feature of the campaign and one which may be expected to contribute in no uncertain way to the solution of many of our country's perplexing problems.
We were led to understand then that with Liberal governments in a majority of the provinces and with a Liberal government here at Ottawa, there would be no difficulty in giving the people of Canada what had
been promised, namely, a national system of unemployment insurance. But where is that national system of unemployment insurance?
I have here a piece of campaign literature published by the Edmonton East federal Liberal association, entitled: "Let us get going again." There is a picture of the Liberal candidate. Beneath, it says: "Read the Liberal government's record of promises and fulfilment." On one side there appear the promises and on the other side is the fulfilment. I will not read them all; but this is No. 9, unemployment insurance. That is the promise. Here is the fulfilment:
A national system of unemployment insurance has been introduced .	. . but the Alberta
Social Credit government has refused to cooperate.
A national system has been introduced! Where is it? Well, I have read through the order paper with a normal amount of intelligence, and I cannot find in it any bill providing for a national system of unemployment insurance; yet here are the people of Edmonton East being told in a by-election, in a pamphlet officially issued by the Liberal party, that the system has been introduced. We have heard a great deal this session about making politics clean, taking bribery out of it, and so on, but I want to know how you will take this kind of thing out. People were actually led to believe during the recent byelection that a national system of unemployment insurance had been introduced, when no such thing has been done at all. And judging by the indications, it does not look as if it is going to be introduced. Of course, the Minister of Agriculture, who commanded the government forces on the field of battle there, may be able to give some explanation; but certainly I cannot find any in the legislation which the government has submitted this session.
The fourth plank of the Liberal party's platform with regard to unemployment, and the one which the Minister of Labour emphasized the other day, was that as a permanent measure to solve the unemployment situation they were pinning their faith to the stimulation of internal and external trade. While there is a measure of truth in that, this is also true, that any country which to-day pins its faith to external trade as a means of solving the unemployment situation is leaning on an extremely fluctuating factor. You have only to look back over the export trade of Canada in the last six months to see how unstable a factor it is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely it is a very necessary condition.

Relief and Agricultural Distress


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, but the hon. member did not tell his constituents in 1935 that that was the only condition.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No one has suggested that in this house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have outlined four things and none of the first three have been fulfilled. The only promise that has been partly fulfilled is the last one, the expansion of external trade, and that is a fluctuating factor which has been decreasing in the last few months rather than increasing. But even an expansion of external trade will not meet the problem of technological displacement which is constantly going on in industry. I have in mind several men of my own acquaintance who used to earn on railway pumps between $125 and $150 a month. They had been working for from fifteen to twenty years for the railways, but the automatic pumps came in and they have been unemployed since 1931. They spent the best years of their life at that work. You cannot make them motor mechanics or radio builders or aviators.


Mr. WOOD:: If a man has been working for twenty years, getting from $150 to $180 a month, has there not been some obligation on him to provide for a period such as this?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: To begin with, I said $125 to $150. But is the hon. gentleman suggesting that any man who has been working for fifteen or twenty years for $125 a month could have saved money out of that to keep him the rest of his days and to take care of his family?


George Ernest Wood: Many have done it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am sure the hon. gentleman is not suggesting that has constituents should all try to do it. The fact is that in consequence of new machinery, men are being displaced to-day and labour is not sufficiently mobile to allow them to be transferred suddenly from the industry in which they were engaged to the production of the new machines that are displacing labour. You have therefore a class of labour that cannot be absorbed through the normal expansion of trade, and nothing to date has been suggested or done by this government to meet that situation.
The cry is constantly made that certain groups in this house criticize but offer no suggestion. Without going into the matter in detail, I want to remind the government that suggestions have come constantly from this comer for three consecutive sessions. For instance, we suggested a building program, a program for the removal of slums, not only urban but rural slums. I have had the

privilege at different times of visiting most of the larger cities of the United Kingdom and the United States and some of the cities of Europe. I assisted at one time in drawing up a research survey regarding the lamentable housing conditions in one of the largest cities of the United States. But I have seen housing conditions in western Canada, let alone eastern Canada, that almost beggar description. We have in Saskatchewan the unenviable distinction of having the smallest number pro rata of houses with sanitary conveniences in all Canada. In northeastern Saskatchewan, in the town of Crooked River, where they have a huge lumber mill turning out millions of feet of lumber a year, within 300 yards of where the lumber is produced there are the worst shacks I have ever seen.
We have suggested not only the clearance of slums but the building of low rental homes. We have suggested the need for building schools and hospitals. One has only to see the country schools, with cracked plaster, insufficient warmth for cold days, broken seats, dilapidated floors, to realize that people could be put to work all across Canada in the erection, not of useless buildings, or buildings that are almost never used, such as some armouries, but schools, hospitals, libraries and decent homes. Roads need to be built. The other day I came across a statement in the Liberal paper in Regina, the Leader-Post. It is not often I agree with what it says, but I am in hearty agreement with this. It is headed:
A Tragedy
Can anyone doubt the point that it would be better to spend even more money and get something in return rather, than spend what is being spent to-day without anything being done except to proclaim to the world that thousands of people are living on direct relief and must take their living without working? The millions of dollars that have been spent to keep people in idleness will remain one of the tragedies of the non-production period in western Canada. It is not too late to make a start.
I recommend that to the Minister of Labour. It is not too late even yet, half-way through the teirm of this parliament as we are, to make a start to put people to work, to pay them wages which will enable them to buy goods at the stores and send some orders to the warehouses and factories. We have suggested pensions to take care of the aged and those physically incapable of supporting themselves and their families.


George Ernest Wood: Would the hon. member recommend that the pensions be contributory?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We can discuss the details at some better time. My

Relief and Agricultural Distress
friend knows I have only a few minutes left. I suggest that they be contributory where that is possible, but they cannot be contributory where people have been unemployed for seven or eight years.
We have suggested that money be paid to the farmers; that, instead of relief, a bonus be paid to a farmer to put his land into grass, or that $3 an acre be paid to farmers to strip-farm their land. During this summer, with a maximum of 250 acres set for seed, some of these farmers with one or two sections of land are going to have hundreds of acres standing idle. If that land is allowed to blow, we know what the result will be; if it is allowed to grow to weeds, the situation will be even worse. These farmers could be paid S3 an acre and supplied with feed for their horses to keep that land in condition, thus giving them purchasing power, instead of continuing to dole out relief. When I think of how some hon. gentlemen used to complain that unemployment insurance meant the dole, I wonder what they think now, when we are actually giving the dole and getting nothing for it except broken morale and a people with despair in their hearts. We in this _ corner have suggested putting both our agricultural and city unemployed to work on water conservation programs, the building of dams and dug-outs, projects on which the farmer and his son would be hired, and use their horses where they have horse power; in this way we would give them money which would come as wages, which would not be placed against their lands as a lien on the next crop. These are matters we have asked this parliament to consider.


Mr. EVANS:: Has that not already been done in southern Saskatchewan?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes; it has been done in a way similar to the dominion housing scheme; two houses for Saskatchewan. The same thing has been done in reference to water conservation; it has been done on a penny-ante basis-


Charles Robert Evans: Last year there were thousands of farmers hired.


James J. Donnelly: If your people are not taking it up, it is their own fault.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is not being done in the hon. member's constituency. I just came through there.


James J. Donnelly: Yes, it is.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I hope the hon. member will be able to go back and . tell that to his constituents.
We suggest one thing more: That is, that the minister should consider seriously the continuation of the farm placement scheme throughout the summer. Many of these men who are now being released at the end of April have no place to go.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In competition with ordinary farm labour?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They are not going to be hired; what are the farmers going to hire them with, in the drought area?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Twenty thousand stayed on last year, on a basis of being employed by farmers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And in many cases were not paid, because the farmer could not pay them, having had no crop. Many stayed on with the promise of getting something if the farmer got something. I suggest to the minister that in view of the fact that there is a lot of work to be done on farms, keeping them in shape, trying to put them in grass, strip farming, if these men could be kept on the farms at least until we see what this year's harvest will be, they would be prevented from drifting to eastern Canada.
In closing, I say to the minister in all seriousness that I cannot feel satisfied that either this parliament or this government, if they are to be measured by the bill brought before us, are seriously grappling with this problem. Unless we do so, there will arise in Canada groups and parties advocating a much less desirable form of government. None of us want that; we want democracy; but we want a democracy which can change its methods to meet a changed situation, and has the courage to tackle a problem which is nationwide.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. C. B. HOWARD (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few observations respecting Bill No. 105, a measure to assist in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress, introduced by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). I trust it is wide enough to permit the government to do that which, in its own judgment, it believes should be done to handle the present situation.
From the experience I have had I am going to make some suggestions to-night which I would hope, if put into effect, so far as my own



Relief and Agricultural Distress
section of the country is concerned, would be exceedingly beneficial and would prevent handouts and bonuses. From my acquaintance with the people of my constituency I know that they want work, not doles. The lumber business, with which I was connected for many years, coupled with the pulp and paper business, gives more employment than any other single industry in Canada. I believe, if there could be some stimulation given to lumbering, and at the same time if there were a possibility of accomplishing that which I shall suggest, we would go a great way towards relieving unemployment in my section of Canada.
For several years the Dominion Housing Act has been on the statute books of Canada and, so far as it has gone, has worked splendidly. But in order to avail oneself of the privileges extended under the housing act one must have twenty per cent of the amount to be borrowed; otherwise he cannot come under the act. In that way a great proportion of the population is eliminated. There is the further criticism that in many communities almost two years elapsed before the act became effective. That condition arose because the trust companies were not keen on availing themselves of the privileges of the legislation. They realized that when they accepted the government's proposal under the Dominion Housing Act, it would mean that their interest rates on other loans would have to be reduced. Even during the depression years between 1930 and 1935 those companies still thought that interest rates of seven per cent or six and a half per cent were not too high. Therefore some time elapsed before the act came into real operation.
Otherwise it has worked well, and is possibly doing what the government had in mind when the act was passed. Now, when a good loan comes along, the trust companies take it up entirely, and it does not come under the housing act. It would seem, therefore, that the measure has only had the effect of persuading the trust companies to make more loans for housing purposes.
The other measure passed by this government was the home improvement plan. Certainly the home improvement plan has given a considerable amount of work, has stimulated business in communities and, much more important, in some measure has encouraged the banks to make individual loans. Certainly that is beneficial to the community.
But a great part of the population did not derive the benefits of either of these pieces of legislation. If you can stimulate the lumber

business; if you can create homes for working men, without cost to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) or to the country, and if you can make those loans self-liquidating, the government receiving interest on its money, you will have a worth-while project.
I am suggesting to-night that, under Bill No. 105 now before the house, a workman's housing scheme should be inaugurated, the details of which I shall outline.
Much of what I shall say will be confined to observations respecting conditions in my home town. Between the years 1930 and 1937, a period when we experienced the greatest depression through which we have ever gone, besides paying its way the city of Sherbrooke reduced its capital debt by $654,700. Therefore that city is in a financial position which would make it possible to cooperate under the scheme I shall suggest. A further matter to which I direct the attention of the house is that in 1937, out of a population of 32,500 people, six thousand hands were employed in twenty-eight of Sherbrooke's industries. One company which in 1934 employed 438 hands now employs 1,200; another formerly employing 570 now employs 650; another formerly employing 370 now employs 725; another formerly employing 433 now employs 500, and another formerly employing 971 now employs 1,150. I give these figures, not to boast, but to prove that a great proportion of the people of Sherbrooke are in the category of working men.
I am suggesting that we inaugurate a workingmen's housing scheme, so that people such as I have mentioned, earning from $18 to $30 a week, can build homes of their own and be enabled over a number of years to become the proprietors of those homes. Someone may say that at those wages such a scheme is impossible. May I point out that a company with which I was connected before 1929 built fifty homes, without any cash payments, and sold them to fifty home owners. The records show the results of those loans. In passing, may I state that the scheme was carried out with money drawing seven per cent interest. The principal sums were paid in monthly payments extending over eighteen and a half years. There were only seven losses on the fifty homes, and some of those losses were only partial. I shall not take time to give the reasons for the losses, but I am satisfied that in a future scheme they could be eliminated.
First, we must agree on the principle that the working man with the desire to own his own home can pay for it only on the condition that the payment does not exceed one week's wages in each month. If a man is

Relief and Agricultural Distress
drawing $18 a week during the year, he is able to pay up to $18 a month towards owning his own home. In other words, so long as the payments for home ownership do not exceed twenty-five per cent-they are better at twenty per cent-the scheme is perfectly feasible, without loss.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is that inclusive of
taxes?


Charles Benjamin Howard: \ es. I would fix a maximum value of $3,000. For $3,000 a frame structure, complete, with concrete foundation, can be built. In fact, including the lot, it can be done in Sherbrooke for as little as $2,300. In this connection I should like to place the exact figures on Hansard. Allow $2,300 for the house. Then, if you built a duplex on a $500 or $600 lot, it would mean you would allow $300 for the lot for each house, or a total of $2,600. I would propose that the federal government advance to the city of Sherbrooke the necessary money at three per cent. The city of Sherbrooke would guarantee the money; they would supervise the construction; they would handle the situation and charge the home owner three and a half per cent. In other words, the city would get one-half of one per cent on the money loaned for looking after things and standing one-third of any loss that might occur.
Mr. ST. PERE: What is the real estate tax?


Charles Benjamin Howard: Eighteen mills. Three and a half per cent of $2,600 is $91. A payment of $50 on the capital would bring this to $141. The tax at eighteen mills, eleven mills for municipal purposes and seven mills for schools, would be $36 on a $2,000 valuation. This would make a total payment of $177 for the first year, which would mean a monthly payment of $14.75 to cover interest, capital and taxes.
The mayor of the city suggested the other day that if a housing scheme could be put into effect to give employment to plumbers, roofers and carpenters, to take up the unemployment in Sherbrooke practically one hundred per cent, they would give a five year exemption from taxes on all workingmen's homes constructed under the scheme. I doubt whether they have the right to do that, but the chairman of the finance committee told me that in any case there would be a three year exemption from taxes. However, I would not consider this in the scheme. If the city was not to impose taxes for three or five years, I would suggest that the taxes be included in the monthly payments and a reserve fund created against future payments until such time as taxes were charged.
Without going into detail, if the house cost $2,500 and the lot $300, the monthly payment would amount to $15.33. On a $3,000 maximum cost house, the monthly payment would be $16. This would include interest on the money borrowed, taxes, supervision by the city and payments on the principal in order to make the loan self-liquidating.
Mr. ST. PERE: That is on houses of wooden construction.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Of wooden construction. This would stimulate the lumber industry and create employment in the woods and sawmills of the country. Employment would be given to tradesmen of all kinds in the cities, and the local store trade in nails, cement, roofing and commodities of that nature would be stimulated.
This scheme could be put through without costing the country a single cent. It would be a great improvement over handing out money to people who can find nothing else to do but stay at home. The people in my constituency do not want doles; all they want is a chance to work. I hope the government will put such a scheme into operation so that homes may be provided for our workingmen. I shall not go into the other side of the picture; but we all know what it would mean to Sherbrooke, to the townships and to all of Canada, when our working people have equities in their homes. After a man has made his payments for five years and his wife has fixed up the grounds by planting flowers and so on; after he becomes a proprietor instead of a rentee, the whole future is changed. You have a different condition existing when people have a stake in the country instead of being at the mercy of employers.
I have another more serious suggestion to make. In my opinion we should immediate.1''' take up the question of slum clearance. In all the cities of Canada-and Sherbrooke-is no exception-we find fine paved streets and all the necessary accommodations for comfortable living. More and more as the years go by we find our cities cleaner and more beautiful. But in every one of these municipalities we find a certain proportion of homes, not only below standard but some not as good as the place where some people keep their horses. They are unfit for human habitation. We intend to spend money to create employment, so we should start immediately to do away with some of these unsatisfactory conditions in our cities.
These slum areas are not large. In the city of Sherbrooke there are possibly no more than one hundred homes unfit for
^360

Relief and Agricultural Distress
human habitation. Someone will say immediately, "Oh, well, you have a statute; you can condemn these homes." I would reply that if a family is renting such a place from the owner at a low rent and you condemn the property, you will have quite a proposition on your hands. What I would suggest is that the property be condemned as unfit for human habitation. Then the owner should be supplied with a plan of reconstruction and the place either burned down or torn down. Of course, before that is done the family would be taken out. Then a new home would be built according to government plan and, when completed, the previous tenants would be moved in. The owner would be subsidized to the extent of say fifty per cent of the difference between the municipal valuation and the cost of the new construction. Before the new house was commenced, .a contract would be made with the owner to provide that the rent would not be increased for the same family for from two to five years.
There is another side to this situation. It so happens that in these one hundred homes there is a greater population of children per home than in any other section of Sherbrooke. If children are to be allowed to grow up under these conditions, our future generations will have to pay. If the situation is corrected immediately, we shall be creating a future asset. I do not advocate this because I want to spend money; I do it because I want every citizen to have a chance. I feel our workmen have a right to a chance to own their own homes. The farmer has the right to rebuild his home at decent rates of interest. We could stimulate employment throughout the length and breadth of this country and, I believe, eliminate the dole system one hundred per cent.
There is one other side to this slum clearance question. Some will say that this is paternalism, but I know whereof I speak when I say what I am going to say. In each of these communities there should be appointed, in addition to the health officer, a fully *qualified woman to supervise these new homes and the families living therein. The homes should be inspected for cleanliness and a watch kept over the progress the family is making. This woman would be the contact point between the family and the community. If this were done, within a few years time we would see a difference in the younger generation in our country.
I have one thing more to say and then I have finished. In every one of our cities there is a shortage of playgrounds and parks.

If there is one class of work which with others could be done under this legislation to advantage, it is the improvement of city parks, national parks, and the playgrounds of Canada. The longer the hours our people work who are employed in the cotton and silk industries, and the textile industries generally, as well as other classes of industries, and the more members of the family employed in them, the greater is the need for open spaces throughout the community for recreation. So, Mr. Speaker, I leave with you the consideration of these suggestions. One plan is one hundred per cent self-liquidating; the other will not cost this country very much money; it is in any case one which will provide work, instead of the dole, and it is a work that could well be done under this Bill No. 105 of the Minister of Labour.


Norman Jaques: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to attempt to embarrass the government in any way or to hinder the progress of this bill. I realize that at the present time it is either this bill or nothing, but if I am in order I should like to make a few general remarks on the subject of unemployment.
Unemployment is a comparatively new thing in Canada, but it is an old story in Great Britain. It dates in its present form from the industrial revolution and the development of what is known as orthodox economics. It is not too much to say that the original orthodox economists regarded unemployment as not only inevitable but as a necessity because the industrial revolution was based on cheap production; cheap production means cheap wages, and the surest way to keep wages down is to take away all *protection from the worker so that he must either work or starve. The economist Ricardo, in his Iron Law of Wages, said that the wages of the labourers must be such that one with the other they could reproduce their numbers without increase or decrease, and he thought the probability was that they would be less rather than more; but when their sufferings and privations had so reduced their numbers, then by that very decrease their wages would rise to the subsistence level. Not only was that doctrine accepted by the economists, but it was accepted by the church, by religion itself. Malthus wrote many books *on the subject, and he was fully of the opinion, as were the majority of religious people of those days, that the only possible use for the labouring classes was labour, and that if they produced more children than there was a market for, the proper method of dealing with the problem was to starve them to death. That is literally true, and

Relief and Agricultural Distress
any suggestions that those conditions could be improved for the victims of the system were met with ridicule or contempt.
A hundred years ago in Great Britain children six and seven years of age were worked fifteen hours a day, mainly to reduce the wages of their parents, and when people objected that it could not be right to work children in that manner they were told that Satan finds mischief for idle hands to do, very much as we hear to-day.
Roughly one hundred years ago the then government in Great Britain was faced with a very nice problem of deciding the standard of relief. If they put the standard of relief any lower than the standard of wages, then the recipients of relief would have starved to death. But if not lower, then the workers would say: Why should we work when those on relief are getting as much as we are. So the government of that day set their economists to work to find ways and means of administering relief in the most objectionable and degrading way. Any amelioration of the condition of the poor of Great Britain was due, not to the economists or to the church, but to the efforts of a few men who refused to believe that any such practice was necessary to keep any system going, and that if it was necessary, then the system itself should be done away with.
I have heard many members say that what the people want is work. I should like to say that from my observations in the country, what the people want is security, and that is not quite the same as work. What they want is worth-while work and worth-while wages, and not work for work's sake.
I am perfectly in agreement with any scheme of house-building. In fact, there is no reason in the world, since we have the labour, the materials, the machinery and the knowledge, why we could not rebuild Canada from one end to the other. There is no real reason why we could not do it, although I know that according to the canons of sound finance it cannot be done because we cannot find the money. I think the experience of Great Britain over the last one hundred and fifty years is proof enough that there is no solution for the problem of unemployment under orthodox economics and sound money. In fact, the one is the outcome of the other. There are palliatives such as the dole, and so on, but there is no cure for unemployment under the existing system.
There are a great many contradictions which I have heard mentioned in this house and which, of course, one finds in all books dealing with orthodox economics.
Let me emphasize that the object of industry is not work and wages; its only objects are goods and services. Anybody who ever had1 a job of production to do knows that he must produce the greatest possible amount of goods with the least possible amount of labour. Under the competitive system, if one is to survive it is necessary to cut labour-costs. When we do that we reduce purchasing power, so that those who produce the goods are unable to consume them ; hence the drive for foreign trade and foreign markets. That is one contradiction.
Then I find contempt extending even to-recipients of old age pensions. I cannot see why it is that a man who has worked faithfully and steadily for a lifetime should be-regarded, when he becomes too old to work,, as an object of charity. On the other hand, people who have never done a useful day's work in their lives, and never intend to, but happen to be the fortunate recipients of private money, are regarded with every mark of respect. At the same time any suggestion to distribute purchasing power to the people in general seems to be regarded as a threat to the morals of the country; it is said that we want to demoralize the people. Yet the object of any person who provides his family with insurance is that his family, so far as he can make it possible, shall be granted economic security, so that they cannot be put to work but they can put themselves to work, which is a very different thing.
I might mention the quintuplets, who are regarded as the most valuable children in Ontario and perhaps in Canada, and are the objects of the provincial government's greatest and most careful regard. Everything has been done to safeguard the welfare of those famous children. Already, at their tender age, they have been provided, I understand, with a fund of 8100,000 apiece. If that is good for the "quints", because $100,000 means economic freedom; if that is the best and the finest thing which the government can do for those five children, why is it the finest thing for poor children that they shall be-destitute and forced to work under any conditions?
I have spoken of work for work's sake. Last summer there was a road rebuilt in Alberta^ from Edmonton south. In order to employ' as many people as possible they scrapped a lot of machinery and put numbers of men to>
work with picks and shovels. They made a splendid road; but when the taxpayers saw the bill there was such a fuss made that the government was forced to appoint a royal commission to inquire into the cost

Relief and Agricultural Distress
of construction, because, instead of using machinery-and that is what machinery is for-they put as many men to work as possible.
We are very fond of praising thrift. Thrift is regarded as one of the greatest of virtues. People are told to save; that is, to consume less; at the same time they are told to work harder, which, of course, means to produce more. How can the same lot of people continue to produce more and to consume less?
Finally, while the government and other agencies are putting men to work, science is putting them out of work as fast as it can. The whole thing is a contradiction.
In 1931, during the time that Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister of Great Britain, that country was threatened with being driven off gold. In order to preserve the gold standard, Mr. MacDonald and his government approached the hankers of Paris and ILondon for the purpose of borrowing gold. One of the main conditions of the loan was that the social services of Great Britain should be reduced, the dole be cut and the administration of it made as nauseous as possible. All social services were diminished. What was the consequence? For one thing, a mutiny of the fleet occurred, and there was such an outcry that the government was forced from office and the country driven off gold. And when the gold standard was done away with, better times and more employment followed immediately.
As I said before, what the people want is security; and as they are British people, with that security they desire freedom. But if they are driven far enough they will forego even their freedom in order to get security. That has happened in Germany and Italy, and it will happen here if we continue the way we are going.
As I see the matter, there are only two solutions. The one is enforced labour-put the people to work. That means fascism; it provides security, but also it involves loss of liberty. The other is, so to alter and adapt <our financial system that anything physically posable and desirable becomes financially possible, to the end that the people of this ^country can consume to the limits of their desires or of their powers to produce. In that way the people will not only gain security but will retain their liberty.


Mr. VITAL MALLETTE (JacquesnCar-tier):: If this hon. house will bear with me for a few moments, I shall endeavour to submit a few observations on one of the suggested cures for unemployment. It is
[Mr. Jaques.l
difficult, of course, to find an absolute corrective to do away with this scourge in just a single operation. It would be so nice to launch an attack on the entire front and keep it up until the enemy had been driven out of the country. But it is evident that only the combination of the best means, where each can achieve the best results, will bring about the desired success.
It is not necessary to point out to hon. members that one of the worst causes of the depression is due to the desertion of the land. Steps must be taken first to stop this desertion and then to go on with colonization.
The national employment commission gives, on page 8 and following of its report, a list of practical measures to increase employment, and in that list, at page 12, it recommends rehabilitation through land settlement. In my opinion we have there a proposal that deserves the best consideration of the house and of the country, a proposal that should be thoroughly explored because it harbours great possibilities of permanent relief for a considerable number of people. No one will object to my statement that Canada was a good deal more prosperous when there was a better balance between the proportions of urban and rural population. Let us see just what has been the trend of population in Canada. I have here figures taken from the Canada Year Book, French edition, for 1937, the figures covering the last five census periods. In 1891, the total rural population was 3,296,141 and the urban population only 1,537,- 098, or about half. In 1901, the rural population had increased to 3,357,000 and the urban population had gone up to 2,000,000 in round figures. In 1911, there was a further increase in rural population but not quite so large as in the urban population, because the figures for 1911 show that the rural population in that year was nearly 4,000,000, or, to be exact, 3,933,696, whereas the urban population had gone up to 3,272,947. In 1921, conditions were still more serious because the rural population had risen to 4,435,000 and the urban population was 4,352,000. In other words, they were just about equal. The last census in 1931 showed that the rural population was 4,800,000, while the cities had risen to 5,572,000.
If hon. members will look at the increase by provinces they will find the same thing proportionately. For the information of members from the province of Quebec I shall give the figures for our province. They show that in 1891 the rural population was about twice that of the cities, whereas in 1931 the rural population was 1,060,000 in round figures

Relief and Agricultural Distress
and the urban population was 1,813,000. With the permission of the house I shall put these figures on Hansard in tabulated form: Population of Canada
Year	Rural	Urban1891	
3,296,141	1,537,0981901	
3,357,093	2,014,2221911	
3,933.696	3,272,9471921	
4,435,827	4,352,1221931	
4,804,728	5,572,058Population of Quebec Province Year	Rural	Urban1891	
988,820	499,7151901	
994,833	654,0651911	
1,038,934	966,8421921	
1,038.096	1,322,5691931	
1,060,649	1,813,606
These figures reveal an evil situation. They are appalling and should impress everyone with the absolute necessity of stopping the desertion of the soil. In my humble opinion there should be no delay in arranging a plan of colonization more vigorous than heretofore. I do not think much can be expected in getting settlers from the cities. It is difficult to convince men and women who go to the cities from the rural districts of the advisability of returning to the land. My suggestion is that farmers' sons shoidd be encouraged to take up land for themselves, because they would be better qualified than any other portion of the population. They have the necessary training and would succeed more easily than people sent to the rural districts from the cities, sometimes at great expense. It so happens also that in the farming districts a large number of farmers have large families, and of course one farm can be passed on only to one son. If the farmer has four or five other sons, they too should be helped to get farms; otherwise they drift to the cities and increase unemployment. They should be given every chance, and no doubt the national employment commission had that in mind, because on page 13 they make the following suggestion:
_ Assistance to be given in three ways, namely in the form of:-
(a)	Roads, bridges, schools, guidance and advice in their work, to be a free gift to the communities of settlers and not repayable.
(b)	Bonuses for clearing land, and bringing it under cultivation, not to be repayable but to vary inversely with the value of the timber removed.
I submit that this matter should be gone into thoroughly and some arrangement made with the provincial governments to carry out a plan of this sort, because I am sure that in the extension of such a program we shall find a safe way of providing permanent relief for a considerable number of people.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I wonder if the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) would mind if, before I begin my remarks in connection with this bill, I were to congratulate him upon the excellent and constructive speech he delivered earlier this evening. I hope the government will take note of it, because there are many suggestions in it that are worth while, suggestions that would help, not only to overcome unemployment, but also, as he has pointed out, to make this world a better place to live in.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), when moving the second reading of the bill, said that it was similar to the one passed last year. That, in my opinion, is one of the most serious objections to the bill. I have been in this house since 1930, and we have had a bill similar to this one in every session beginning with 1931. This is the eighth bill that has been introduced here to do what this bill is supposed to do-to deal with unemployment relief in its various aspects. I admit that in the earlier days of the depression there was some reason for the belief that unemployment as we then had it and as it now exists was really a temporary matter, and that the bills introduced for the first few years were to meet a temporary emergency. There was some valid reason for that, although I believe a close analysis would indicate that it was only what we could expect. But I submit that after eight years of such conditions as we have had, we ought to have something of a more permanent nature to deal with unemployment and the effects of unemployment than has as yet been placed before us. And particularly have we a right to expect something more from this government. I have, as I said, been in-this house since 1930, and I remember very well that the matter for which the former government was criticized the most was the temporary nature of their measures for dealing with unemployment. To-day there is no valid reason for considering the situation brought about by the depression of 1929 as something requiring only temporary remedies. As long as our present system continues, there is every reason to consider the depression as a permanent condition.
I have been surprised, as I am sure other hon. members have, at the poverty of legislation on the order paper during this session, when so many pressing problems are facing the country. I am sure that the people throughout the dominion are becoming alarmed at the lack of any measure for dealing with their problems. A few days after I [DOT]arrived in Ottawa to attend the session a newspaperman came into my office and asked about the news from the west. In the course

Relief and Agricultural Distress
of our conversation lie made this statement, the truth of which has become more and more apparent to me as the session continues. He said, "You cannot get news or anything that *makes copy these days in Ottawa. When Bennett was in office he was always doing something; you might not like what he was doing but he was doing something. This government does not do anything but sit and think. Come to think of it," he said, "they do not even think; they just sit." As I have sat here day after day since the beginning of the session and watched the order paper and its poverty of constructive legislation, I am more and more convinced of the truth of what my newspaper friend said. The government act as if nothing of a serious nature confronted us. They seem to have a sort of childlike faith that things will right themselves, if they only wait long enough; that trade conditions will improve. That is the most childish idea of all. It indicates that they believe trade is the cause of economic activity. Trade is not the cause; it is the effect of economic activity. This government, as I have pointed out on one or two occasions during the past couple of years, were fortunate in coming into office at a time when trade all over the world was increasing, and they were not slow to take credit to themselves for that increase. But to-day trade is declining. During the last six months there has been a significant decline in the trade of Canada, especially our export trade. Does the government accept responsibility for the decline? There came to me from the bureau of statistics recently a compilation of figures showing the trade of Canada by months for the last fiscal year ended March 31. I noticed in that return that there has been a substantial decline in our export trade for six consecutive months from October, 1937. In that period the aggregate decline as compared with the same six months of last year was over $82,000,000. That means an average decline of over $13,000,000 each month for the last six months.


Mr. McNEVIN:: Does the hon. member think the drought had anything to do with that?


Angus MacInnis: I have no doubt it had something to do with it. But if we should happen to have a bumper crop in western Canada this year and they also have bumper crops in other parts of the world, prices will be so low that there will be a further decrease in our trade figures. That would not be due to the drought, it would be due to too much production. So it does not do to put too many of our burdens on the Lord, because He is not altogether responsible.

The total decline in trade has been substantial, and there is no assurance whatever that that decline will not continue. To support that contention I will quote briefly from the monthly letter of the Canadian Bank of Commerce for April, 1938. Reviewing general conditions in Canada, the letter says on page 3:
Indeed, the seasonal gains have this year been so small and confined to such a narrow field that business activity as a whole is now about fifteen per cent below that of the early spring of 1937. A lesser rate of decline would of course be evident were it not for the new fears and uncertainties arising from the European political situation which have spread to this country, as they have to every other part of the world .	.	.
It has now become clearly apparent that the hopes of maintaining business activity at its present level are pinned on domestic agricultural conditions, especially those in the western grain belt, for it is unlikely that any other important stimuli can be felt before the late summer or early autumn.
As I said before, even if conditions are good in the western grain fields this autumn, we can expect no improvement unless conditions are bad in the grain fields in some other parts of the world.
I would have waited until this bill had gone into committee before making any extended remarks on it, were it not for the fact that the situation in my own city is causing the authorities there grave concern. They have made their difficulties known to the federal government and also to the provincial government. They are greatly alarmed as to what may happen in Vancouver, because of the number of single men without employment now congregated in that city. The unemployment figures for March 1 of this year in Vancouver show that there were 6,878 cases on relief. That is about a thousand less than there were last year. These are heads of families, single unemployed men and unemployed women who are on relief, and the dependants of families are not included. When the dependants are included, the number on relief amounts to 21,094. This, again, is lower than it was a year ago. But a year ago we were beginning a very rapid economic improvement, and this year the tendencies are all the other way.
To-day there are in Vancouver about 5,000 single unemployed men who were working on forestry projects during the winter months. I am told these men will have a small amount of back pay to keep them going for a week or two. But about the first or second week of May that back pay will be used up, and so far no provision has been made for these men. The city feels that it is not in a

Relief and Agricultural Distress
financial position to cany them. Unless something is done quickly, trouble will ensue.
I have before me a copy of a letter I received from the acting mayor. In it is quoted a telegram sent to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). A telegram was forwarded to me about the same time, but when I asked a question of the minister in the house I was not given an opportunity to read that telegram. Writing to me on March 24 in connection with the telegram to the Minister of Labour, the acting mayor said:
On the 23rd instant, after a long discussion by the council on relief matters, the following telegram was dispatched to the Hon. Mr. Norman Rogers, Minister of Labour:
"The relief problem as submitted to the Vancouver city council by the provincial government (particularly with respect to the single unemployed), is beyond our financial power to carry out, and your government's help is urgently needed, if serious trouble is to be avoided."
Amplifying the telegram the acting mayor goes on to say:
The resolution which authorized it directed that letters be sent by air mail to the Vancouver members at Ottawa apprising them of the desperate situation which has made necessary the sending of the above telegram. The seasonal relief problem confronting Vancouver, which during the last several years has been serious due to the large number of transient single men, has been aggravated to unprecedented proportions this year by the enforcement of the terms of the new federal-provincial relief agreement. The effect of this agreement is that the provincial government, facing reduced grants in aid from federal sources, has passed participation in the financial responsibility in several new categories to the city of Vancouver. The extent of this financial burden has not yet been determined, but it has been estimated to range from between $25,000 to $30,000 a month. For several years the city, as you are aware, has been pressed to the extreme to meet its proportion of the relief load which has been carried, and now comes the addition of the categories mentioned above. . . .
Two courses of action are open to the city. That is, the further reduction of necessary public services already seriously curtailed, or the refusal to grant assistance in any form to large numbers of destitute persons which will, of course, lead to serious disorders with accompanying loss of property and possibly life. Might I reiterate to you that we are not overemphasizing the extreme seriousness of the problem as faced by the city to-day, and its utter financial inability to meet it from its own resources.
This is a situation which has periodically faced Vancouver during the last five or six years. In 1933, 1934 and 1935 men were taken to the camps, and then would either be released from them or simply leave them and come to the city. While in theory the
camps have been abolished and the men put to work on other projects, when those projects are completed or closed down temporarily the men come back to the city, and the problem is renewed.
Now the city fears that the care of these men will become a permanent charge, and one which it is absolutely unable to carry. On March 8 of this year the union of British Columbia municipalities laid their case before the provincial cabinet, and I should like to read briefly from their presentation. They said:
When the provincial government passed to the local areas, through the medium of the municipal act, the burden of caring for their destitute and indigent it was transferring a duty imposed upon it by the federal government, through the British North America Act. In pre-depression days this burden was only nominal but, as a result of the eight-year period of relief, the entire problem has been changed. Contributing factors are:
I should like the Minister of Labour and other members of the government to take notice of the contributing factors in British Columbia:
(1) The influx into British Columbia municipalities of large numbers of transient families and individuals, whose previous domicile was outside of the province. Many of these whose almost entire residence in British Columbia has been established while in receipt of public assistance, are now municipal responsibilities, under the Residence and Responsibility Act.
Particularly in the case of single men, during the period of federal administration of relief camps, assistance was granted without reference to residence. British Columbia, with its more attractive climate, drew large numbers of handicapped or near unemployable types who, being unfit for camp, were maintained in municipal areas, and who will now be left in the wake of unemployment relief, as a municipal heritage.
The brief of the union of municipalities goes on to deal with other matters, but I shall take time to quote only one further paragraph:
Many of these persons who are now termed unemployable are casualties of an economic war which has taken a toll as definite as any military campaign, and their care is equally a national problem as the maintenance of "burnt-out" veterans of the great war.
That is something we must keep in mind in dealing with the question of unemployment and unemployment relief. When we speak about unemployables we must realize that the greater percentage would not be unemployable in times when industry was functioning normally. If a person is not in good condition, both mentally and physically, four years of enforced unemployment will make him in almost every case unemployable.

Relief and Agricultural Distress
In dealing with this matter I suggest that the government keep this in mind and try not to put these men in the same position as that in which indigent persons would be put in normal times.
During his speech yesterday, the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) referred to the fact that no leadership had been given in parliament, or for that matter outside parliament, in connection with the problems with which we are confronted today. The hon. member was criticized to-day for the statements he had made and I do not intend to add anything to that criticism. However, I should like to point out that if we are to provide leadership that will bring about any constructive action, first of all we must be agreed as to what is the cause of our difficulty. We may be lost, but if we cannot agree upon the path that is to lead us out of our difficulty, there is no hope of our getting out. There can be no effective leadership in this parliament as long as the government with their overwhelming majority will not be convinced that something must be done. As long as they believe that a policy of laissez faire will get us out of our difficulties there will be no use in trying to provide leadership. The hon. member for Kootenay East went on to refer to the cause of our present day difficulty in these words:
I need take only one illustration;-
He was referring to the change that had taken place during the last few years of our economic life.
... it is commonly known, yet nothing is done. In the last few years machinery has displaced literally tens of thousands of workers. That is a platitude; no one should be entitled to any credit for having said it, but the fact remains that neither the leaders of industry, the leaders of parliament nor the leaders of finance are paying much attention to those hordes of people thrown out of work; nor are they attempting to solve the problem of distribution or the social problem that arises therefrom. We know the situation but we are doing next to nothing to face the fact. I
I quote from page 2318 of Hansard. That point has been brought to the attention of this house, not only by the members of the group to which I belong, who have continually harped upon it in the last eight years, but by members on all sides. Economic literature everywhere is full of it. However, we act as though we were living under normal conditions. As the hon. member for Kootenay East said yesterday, never again can we hope to go back to the conditions that existed prior to 1929. It would be just as easy to go back to those times as it would be for a chick to go

back into the shell, once it is out. The hon. member said also that an economic revolution had taken place.
Referring again to the monthly letter of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, I note they point out that the improvement in employment during the last few years has not kept pace with the increase in the population. While there has been a twenty per cent increase in the population, I believe from 1928 to the end of 1937, the increase in employment was only seven per cent. If there had been no depression at all, we would still have thirteen per cent more unemployed than we had in 1928.


Mr. HARTIGAN:: That would make it look rather bad for the type of immigrant who was coming into the country.


Angus MacInnis: Yes; I would say it would look exceedingly bad for immigrants coming into the country, if any were foolish enough to come. There are not many coming in at the present time.


David James Hartigan: The hon. member said there was an increase as compared with 1928.


Angus MacInnis: In the working population.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is my hon. friend referring to adult population? Otherwise his figures would not be comparable.


Angus MacInnis: I shall quote from my authority, as follows:
Since 1923 the number of potential workers has increased. In addition there are those who, owing to years of enforced idleness or other causes, are no longer classed as wage earners. As compared with 1933, the rate of increase in employment has been more than double that of available labour, but we are still far from the favourable situation in 1928 (when, according to the calculations of the bureau, there were 60,000 unemployed, the post-war low record) for the labour population has increased since by about twenty per cent, while the rise in the number of employed has been less than seven per cent.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The labour population.


Angus MacInnis: The labour population. I think I have made that point quite clear. I am sure that the Minister of Labour, for whose intelligence I have a great respect, is well aware of the tremendous changes that have taken place in the mechanism of industry during the last twenty years. No one can be unaware of those changes who has paid any attention at all to what has been going on around us.
During the Easter holidays I paid a brief visit to the United States, to the New England states, and browsing through an old book store in Boston I came across a diary of the date

Relief and Agricultural Distress
of 1837. Boston to-day is a city of about 800,000, but there are large manufacturing and residential sections surrounding it bringing the total population up to about two million. The population of Boston in 1837, as given by this diary, was 45,000. If we want to get an idea of what has happened during the last one hundred years and a clear picture of what is wrong to-day, we should realize that the population of the United States in the last one hundred years has increased from a comparatively few million to about 130,000,000 to-day. And not only has that happened, but a whole continent has been transformed from primeval forest and virgin prairie into cities with their teeming millions, belts of steel, railroads amounting to 142,000 miles, and roads of concrete-a vast network all over the country. The same thing has been taking place on a lesser scale in the Dominion of Canada; but does anyone believe that during the next one hundred years we can build on this continent cities like New York, Chicago, Philadelphia or the other huge cities they have in the United States? We cannot, and because we cannot there is no possibility of our resuming or going through a period of economic activity such as this country has gone through in past years.


David James Hartigan: Is imy hon. friend not aware that at the present time in the larger cities surrounding Boston there is desperate poverty and people are pauperized owing to conditions in the cotton industry?


Angus MacInnis: I agree. We are all
pauperized except the few who own everything, and they do not know what to do with it. I saw just as much poverty, perhaps more poverty, there than I have seen here, and I also saw more wealth there. Wherever you have great wealth you have great poverty.


Mr. REID:: Is it not possible that a country like China with its hundreds and hundreds of millions of poor people may wake up and require for the next fifty or one hundred years the things that we have in our western civilization, and so bring about the situation which my hon. friend says will not arise?


Angus MacInnis: My hon. friend's question is this: Is it not possible that a country like China with its teeming millions of poor, lacking many things which we have in our western civilization, may one day wake up and demand a higher standard of living and industrialize their country? That is quite possible; but let me remind my hon. friend that with world machinery in the state it is in at the present time, the building up
and industrializing of China would take only a comparatively few years, and what would happen then? We would then have an industrialized China with its teeming millions competing with the rest of the world. So there is no escape in that direction. Let us not fool ourselves that we are going to better our present position by 'building up competitors to compete for the dwindling world markets which we are trying to get. That is the folly of the point of view of my hon. friend.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is a good Tory speech.


Angus MacInnis: No Tory could ever possibly think of it.
I was in the relief administrator's office a few days ago, and I saw there an illuminating chart of the trend of unemployment since 1931 or 1932; I am not quite sure of the year. I would suggest that hon. members who are interested in the problem should call on the commissioner of unemployment relief and see this chart. It is ten or twelve feet long, and the lines are so striking that one cannot fail to see them. One line shows unemployment, the drought areas included. The other shows unemployment outside the drought areas. The peak was reached in April, 1933. Then there was a slow zigzag until at the beginning of 1937 the line came down, making almost a complete diagonal; buit then, beginning this fall, the line starts to go up again. I have forgotten the exact figures; but the line came down to indicate approximately 500,000 people receiving relief, and now it has gone up again in the last six months until the figure of those receiving relief has reached the million mark, and the two lines make a complete "V." So long as that condition remains; so1 long as we are subject to these sharp fluctuations in employment, we cannot pretend that we have dealt satisfactorily or comprehensively or definitely with the question of unemployment.


Walter Edward Foster: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but he has exhausted his time.


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) says that I have not yet taken forty minutes, but I shall take your word for it, Mr. Speaker.	-
Mr. J.-A. BONNIER (St. Henry) (Translation) : Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I do not share the views of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) on the subject of housing loans. It has always been my contention that such loans are prejudicial to the interests of

Relief and Agricultural Distress
present owners of houses. In the city of Montreal, there are a great number of dwellings that have been built especially for renting purposes. We had numerous owners of three or four dwellings. Not a few of them have lost their houses and those who still hold theirs find it hard to meet their obligations, which bear interest at eight, seven or at least six per cent, while the government would loan money at only four per cent. Therefore such a scheme would create competition for the existing property owners, who have laboured hard to keep their houses and would have to continue paying interest at seven per cent, while the new ones would pay only three or four per cent.
I think there would be a more logical method of doing away with direct relief. Particularly in Montreal, a great amount of work could be undertaken in the interest of the entire country. The hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh) appeared to be opposed, earlier in the session, to the completion of the railway terminals. I think he is wrong on that point, because such terminals should be completed without delay.
I do not think there is in all Canada such a decrepit railway station as the one we have in Montreal, the metropolis of the Dominion. -In all smaller cities you will find a neat-looking station adapted to the needs of the place. Montreal is the only city to have such a terminal as Bonaventure station, built over a hundred years ago.
The hon. member for Mount Royal said the other day that the proposed completion of the terminals was an election promise. I shall tell him in reply, Mr. Speaker, that this work was undertaken many years ago, at a time when there could not possibly have been any thought of a by-election in the electoral division of St. Henry.
As to the long-projected tunnel, I think it is in 1906 that Mr. F. D. Monk mentioned the need of a tunnel at that place, and it is in 1929, if I am not mistaken, that by order in council a certain sum was made available for its construction. Therefore, it is not a new project, it is not an election promise, but a promise made as a result of reports submitted more than fifteen years ago which established the absolute necessity of such an undertaking. In Mr. Monk's time, about 15,000 persons lived beyond the canal, instead of
35,000	to-day, not including the 25,000 residents of Verdun, about one-third of the population of that city, who are obliged to cross the bridge. Is it not the government's duty

to build this tunnel which the people of the neighbourhood have so long needed? Of all the bridges crossing the Lachine canal, none is more inconvenient than the one situated in my constituency. Boats drift down the stream for about three-quarters of a mile before arriving at the bridge, the current not being swift at that point because of the locks situated 300 feet from the bridge. The ships advance very slowly to enter the locks. Quite frequently there will be another boat coming out of the locks at low speed, and people have to wait at each end of the bridge. After a fairly long wait the other day I decided to pass to the left and count the vehicles waiting to cross. There were 128 vehicles and three street cars stopped at one end of the bridge.
Does that not prove that it would be possible to undertake a great amount of necessary work in Montreal, in order to do away with the famous direct relief which was initiated by the former government, but which should never have been? Would it not be possible to give employment to those who need it? Why kill their liking for work by giving them unemployment relief? If we are to maintain the present system, it will soon be impossible to find apprentices, workers, bricklayers or carpenters to undertake necessary work in future years. To my mind, such essential projects as the completion of the Montreal terminals, the taking away of railway tracks which block the traffic and the canal in St. Henry, the building of a tunnel to enable people in that district to travel to their work with more ease, should be completed without delay in order to alleviate the burden of unemployment relief, and without creating competition for certain classes of our population.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I hesitate to participate in this debate because, after all, it seems to me a shame to find fault with what is being so honestly attempted. Yet one cannot speak on this occasion without finding a certain amount of fault, and that is a habit quite contrary to my nature. Perhaps if I put the matter clearly, it will not be so objectionable.
In the first place, in my judgment this bill is a complete disappointment; it is a failure; it offers the people of Canada a stone when they ought to have bread, and I see very little excuse for it. This country is perhaps better off, better fitted for progressive action, than any other country on the face of the earth. There is no excuse for such a lagging policy with respect to our

Relief and Agricultural Distress
economic life as we are now debating; and I maintain that our policy is lagging; it is second rate or third rate or fourth rate or worse. This may sound rather harsh, but I believe that under the circumstances it is certainly not too harsh.
One thing which worries me, which I have mentioned once or twice in this house, is that we have become completely deceived. I came into the building this morning with a gentleman who fell into step with me and who told me that he comes from the maritime provinces. Before we parted we developed a certain measure of heat between us because he maintained stoutly that there were plenty of jobs in this country if people were ready to take them. Now, whenever a man says a thing like that in my presence, after what I know and what I think any one with sense in his head ought to know, it is beyond my power to comprehend his state of mind. I challenged him to find jobs and he said, "They are here," and with a toss of his head he went on. What passed through my mind was the supercilious, the deliberately indifferent, callous attitude which the people are reported to have taken before the French revolution, and as a result of which they ignored apparently the most obvious signs that anybody ought to have been able to see. I fear there is too great a tendency towards that very thing in our public life throughout Canada, and every bit of contact I have with it makes me anxious. I beg the minister's pardon then for making an observation which might be somewhat distasteful. I was a little displeased When he stood up, with all the intelligence which I know he has, and in all apparent sincerity endeavoured to make it appear as though the Liberal party's policy had been responsible for the recovery in Canada. I am reminded of an account which I read not very long ago of the election of 1896. The background of that election, or the economic situation attendant upon it, was something like this. For a generation or two prior to 1898 there had been a great scarcity of money in the world, and because the people had the gold mentality they thought that if they did not have gold it did not make a particle of difference how many goods and services they had; they simply had to go hungry because they had no gold. In 1896 a Liberal government was elected on this side of the line, and a Republican government with exactly opposite principles was elected on the other side.


Mr. GRAY:: And a great period of prosperity succeeded 1896.


John Horne Blackmore: In 1896 the Liberals are reported to have used as one of their battle-cries, perhaps not the all important one, but one of their battle-cries, "Kill the tariff and trample upon its carcass." The Republicans used just the opposite battle-cry. They put their policies into operation as far as they felt they could, I suppose, and then in 1898 there was a discovery of gold in the Klondike. As a result of that discovery and of similar discoveries in other parts of the world, there was a great influx into the world's stream of gold, consequently a great increase in the world's money and consequently a rise in prices. And, would you believe it, sir, both the Liberal administration on this side of the line and the Conservative administration on the other side of the line claimed credit for the pick-up in business.
That sort of thing I look upon as a real danger. If I have not said often enough to satisfy my hon. friends that I have no desire to be political, I hope I shall impress them by saying it once more. Whether or not the Liberal party or the Conservative party succeeds makes not the slightest difference to me; what I am concerned about is Canada. Therefore, an attempt to give a twist to improvement in world conditions; to put upon it an interpretation that is not justifiable, is, I believe, exceedingly offensive to all of us because it helps us to blind ourselves to the truth.
I am going to read a quotation from a very respectable authority.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: Does the hon. member not think that along the line of his argument the premier of Alberta is trying to capitalize on the oil industry.


John Horne Blackmore: The question is far removed from the subject under discussion.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: The hon. gentleman was talking about the Liberal government of Canada taking credit for the results of the gold mining boom of 1896.


John Horne Blackmore: I wish to give a quotation from World Finance 1935-1937 by Paul Einzig, who is an economist of recognized standing throughout the world. What he says is more respectable than anything that I might say bearing -on this particular subject. Before I read this quotation, may I observe that the apparent increase in prosperity in Canada to-day is not by any manner of means due to any policies that may be applied in Ottawa or Washington. To some

Relief and Agricultural Distress
extent it is probably owing to the expenditure of money by President Roosevelt, and the recession which is on us now seems to be due to the fact that he is not spending so much.


David James Hartigan: Will the hon. member give credit to the government for the expansion in trade?


John Horne Blackmore: If the hon. gentleman will give me a chance to say my say without incessant interruption, he will enjoy it better and so shall I. I am not talking social credit now; why should I be interrupted every half minute as I was the last time. On page 303 of this book I find the following words:
Needless to say, countries which do not play an active part in the rearmament race also enjoy its beneficial effects, without suffering its disadvantages in the form of a considerable increase of their public debt. From this point of view the British dominions and Latin America have been in a particularly favourable position since the beginning of the rearmament race.
Hon. members will notice what bearing that is likely to have on Canada.
It was mainly the large demand for raw materials in connection with rearmament that broke the back of the economic depression. All the reflationary efforts of President Roosevelt and other statesmen until about 1935-
It was just about that time that the Liberals came in.
-did not produce any results comparable with those brought about by the rearmament during 1935 and 1936. The frozen commodity stocks which even in 1935 consituted an important problem and a major obstacle to genuine recovery have become liquidated within a relatively short time. In some instances there is now, in fact, an excess of demand, and the restrictions imposed upon production since 1929 are being gradually abandoned.
The whole continent of South America has recovered economically and financially during 1936, far beyond the most optimistic anticipations.
Hon. members may feel entitled to credit for the pick-up in Canada; but I do not suppose anyone, even on the Liberal side would claim credit for what is happening in South America.
Even Chile, which, after the crisis of 1931 was considered to be the darkest spot on the gloomy world, shows signs of becoming prosperous and solvent. No wonder, since her two main articles of export are nitrates and copper-
At page 304 we find these words:
Could we view the situation without regard for its political, social and humane aspects, we might arrive at the conclusion that by breaking the back of the depression, rearmament was, in fact, a blessing in disguise.

We further learn from the same part of the book that even Brazil and Argentina, under influence of increased demand, have begun to relax restrictions against trade.
We are not discussing trade to-night; but in order to be realistic in facing the question of trade, there are one or two observations that, I think, should be made. There are many people who say that we ought to get together and break down trade barriers, because it is the trade barriers that are causing all the trouble. But the facts clearly indicate that the trouble is causing the trade barriers. Now the question as to what is the trouble is what we are engaged in answering to-night. Without an attempt to answer that question, talk on this subject is idle. I would call to the attention of the house the fact that this rearmament program has been financed, not with savings, but with new money. Hon. members have heard me declare that until I know they are tired of hearing it; but they must hear it again and again; for in that principle lies the only hope of salvation for this country and other countries of the British Empire. And that new money has been created by bankers. So I hope that next time the minister stands before us and introduces a bill, he will not try to claim for the Liberal administration all the credit for any improvement in conditions. No one in this parliament has been more ready to grant credit where credit is due than I; I think my speeches as reported in Hansard will bear out that statement. But if we are interested in arriving at the truth, let us refrain from statements which merely becloud the issue,
I shall not accuse the minister of the attempt, but it seemed to me there was an attempt to make our apparent recovery a little more glowing than it really is. I am just as anxious as anyone to see the doughnut, but it is well to know there is a hole in it, how big the hole is and how near we are to the edge of it. I grant that there was considerable pick-up in the business of the country; yet as the horn, member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) pointed out by reference to a monthly letter of one of the banks, there is now such a falling off that it is alarming. Let me quote briefly from the letter of the Bank of Montreal of April 22, 1938. On the second page the economic situation of the various provinces is discussed:
Quebec-While the volume of wholesale trade shows little change from that of last month it is below a year ago. Retail trade continues quiet. Collections are fair. The steel industries have benefited from recent large contracts for railway equipment and improved demand for mining machinery and agricultural implements. Many of the silk and rayon mills have

Relief mid Agricultural Distress
further curtailed output. Cotton factories are operating well below capacity. Furniture manufacturers have reduced operations on account of lessening demand. Lumber markets have been dull but in general stocks are not unduly burdensome. Pulpwood is in light demand, with prices weak. Newsprint mills are still operating on substantially reduced schedules.
I leave Quebec to deal with Ontario:
Ontario-Wholesale and retail trade was comparatively quiet during March and volume was below that of a year ago. With the arrival of warmer weather, however, business has shown moderate improvement. Collections are slow to fair. Knitting, textile, woollen and worsted mills as well as canners, shoe manufacturers and rubber tire companies generally, are on shorter hours with reduced working forces, although hosiery mills and rubber footwear factories remain busy. A number of steel companies report increased activity as the result of large orders for railway, mining and transportation equipment as well as war materials, and aircraft companies are very busy. Mining activity continues at record levels.
These last statements tend to show that it is rearmament which is causing the apparent prosperity. On the third page the maritime provinces are dealt with:
Maritime provinces-Wholesale and retail volume is running somewhat below last year's levels. Collections are fair. Raw fur sales have been disappointing and prices show a sharp recession. Dried fish markets are quiet. Canned lobster is moving slowly, with heavy stocks on hand. The market for long lumber is weak and prices have declined. I
I think that is sufficient; I shall not read any more. The situation in Canada is not nearly as bright as the minister seemingly has forced himself to think it is. In this house we should face conditions as they are. I do not believe the Liberal government are alone responsible for this situation. They have gone out and got more markets; I grant that. But without a change of system, the policy of neither the Liberal nor the Conservative party can cure the difficulties of this country. I am confident that this will become more and more apparent as the days go by. I only hope it will become apparent to a sufficiently large number of people before it is too late to do something. But the opportunity is passing. Conditions in many places in this country are positively terrible. That gentleman who talked with me this morning and so glibly assured me that there are plenty of jobs, came from an area not far from where this letter was written. This letter came to me personally, with no idea that it would ever be read in parliament. It comes right from the hearts of men who are in the midst of this terrible misery in a time when we are soothing ourselves into the idea that conditions are
reasonably good. It comes from Nova Scotia.
(Quotation immediately following stricken out. See ruling of Mr. Speaker at page 2372.)


Mr. ISNOR:: Will the hon. member be good enough to tell the house from what city or town in Nova Scotia the letter comes?


John Horne Blackmore: I would say to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor>
that I can give it, undoubtedly. It is here; but I do not think it is fair that all the details of a private and personal letter should be read into Hansard. But here they are, on my desk, and the hon. member may see them.
/ Mr. ISNOR: In view of the statement that 500 go to the soup kitchens in the town of Yarmouth, I think we should know who wrote the letter, and from what section of Nova Scotia it comes.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not.


Mr. BAKER:: Is it or is it not true?


John Horne Blackmore: The letter is right here, and it can be read.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: We would like to check it.


John Horne Blackmore: It does not need to be put into Hansard.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member cannot quote from a document without giving its source. The rule of the house is clear on that. If he reads a letter in the house he must state from whom it comes. When the hon. member makes public use of it in the House of Commons, it is no longer personal. The rule is clear.


John Horne Blackmore: Once before I read a letter, and after a good deal of discussion it was expunged from the pages of Hansard. If that is the will of the house, it is all right with me. We will proceed with the speech.


Walter Edward Foster: The name of the person from whom the letter came should be given. The hon. member should give the name of the person who wrote it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: And the address.


John Horne Blackmore: I think it is not fair to give the name of a writer, simply because of the fiendish kind of treatment people like this get, if their names are known.


Richard Langton Baker: Who wrote it, then?


John Horne Blackmore: Only one thing can be done; if it is contrary to the rules the whole thing can be expunged from Hansard. But I refuse to give the name of this person to the house. I have it here, and any hon. member who is interested may read it; it is genuine, and it is in front of me in its original form.

Relief and Agricultural Distress


Walter Edward Foster: When the hon. member reads from a letter he ought to be in a position to disclose the name of the person who wrote it.


John Horne Blackmore: I am.


Walter Edward Foster: But if he is not at liberty to do so, he should not read from it.


John Horne Blackmore: All that is necessary, if it is contrary to the rules of the house to leave the letter on Hansard, is to expunge it from the record. I cannot give the name; or, at least, I do not believe I am justified in giving the name.


Richard Langton Baker: He had no right to read it then.


Ernest Lapointe: Do I understand the hon. member is willing that the letter be expunged?


Walter Edward Foster: Do I understand the hon. member to say it is his wish that the letter be expunged from the record?


John Horne Blackmore: If those are the orders of the house, all right.


Walter Edward Foster: I think it would be better if it were expunged from the record.


John Horne Blackmore: Very good. I would much rather have that happen, now that hon. members have heard it, because, after all, I am more concerned with having hon. members in the house know about existing conditions than I am that the letter appear in Hansard. I am not going to expose a man who writes a letter like that to me.
All right; having said this much, I wish to pass on to another consideration. I have heard a good deal since I came to the house about those fine old virtues of hard work and thrift, and stern, stubborn self-help, faith in the future, and all those things.
On those principles our country was builded. There are a number of people who so far deceive themselves as to think that we social crediters do not believe that. No bigger piece of delusion can be conceived by man. We cannot build a state or a strong community without hard work, thrift, stern and stubborn self-help, faith in the future, patriotism, unity and democracy. I maintain that the greatest condemnation of the government in power to-day is that it is rendering those very virtues utterly impossible for a large part of the population of Canada. There is no successful contravention of what I say. We have hundreds of thousands of people throughout Canada who cannot get work at all, much less hard work, of profitable value. They will do anything to get work.

The one thing, sir, we cannot afford to lose in this country is the productive value of the human being. We are ignoring it, neglecting it, spurning it and rendering it utterly futile. We have been doing that for nine years. Surely, if this has not proved the absolute ineptitude of the present system, I do not know how much proof hon. members need. How many generations of failure must we have before we become convinced the present system cannot work any more?
Thrift! How can men save when they cannot get enough to keep body and soul together? Hon. members know that hundreds of thousands of people in Canada find it impossible to have any kind of meagre savings, from the contemptible incomes which they derive. Where, then, is the training for thrift? How is it possible? We must change this system, or no more shall we have genuine thrift in Canada.
The incomes sufficiently large to enable people to save to any great extent are being drawn by only a very small proportion of our population, and that proportion is steadily decreasing.
Stem, stubborn self-help! Men have thrown themselves against walls of reality until their bodies and spirits are bruised and broken, in their attempt to get along without assistance. Finally, they fall back in utter helplessness. How can people have faith in the future? From the very letter, a portion of which I have already read, I could read a statement indicating that these people are beginning to wonder what it was they fought for. We aire building up a fine public attitude, a splendid morale, to go through another test, such as the last war! We are forcing the very kind of youth who, twenty years ago, sprang together to defend the country, into sudh disgraceful and degrading conditions, degrading to both body and spirit, that they have no heart whatsoever to fight. They say, "What have we to lose?"
I say if we are interested in the welfare of Canada-and I am sure every hon. member is-we simply must make a change, so as to give these people, these youth who are growing up, confidence that Canada is a land to love, and not a land to oppress them. We are oppressing them, disgracefully.
We hear a great deal about unity. We hear a great deal about the need for patriotism and democratic principles. When I hear that, I am reminded of a person who, suffering from rheumatism, applies some salve and hot flannels, and draws near the stove. He does anything and everything but try to remove the cause. The measure before us

Relief and Agricultural Distress
to-night is nothing but a palliative. There is no attempt whatsoever to find the cause of the difficulty, much less to remove it.
Some people would say: "What would you do about it?" In the first place, let us be sure that we must do something more than we are doing now. Just as soon as hon. members are agreed that what we are now doing is not sufficient, just that soon will we be ready and humble enough to go to the trouble of using some other methods. I shall read from the words of a man for whom I believe every hon. member has at least a measure of respect, namely Mr. Anthony Eden. If hon. members will permit me, I shall take the liberty of making comments as I read, because I believe this article contains a grave message for us in Canada, as it does for Great Britain and for all democratic countries. It has a direct bearing on what I was saying a few moments ago about unity and democracy. The Ottawa Citizen of Wednesday, April 27, quotes Mr. Eden as saying:
It would be foolish, perhaps fatal to the very survival of democracy, to ignore the stupendous achievements realized under other forms of government. A truly immense effort has been made in the last few years by autocratic states for the fulfilment of the purposes they have set before them.
Their methods cannot be ours, but we should not fail to note the passionate fervour with which they are being realized.
Contrast the passionate fervour which they are demonstrating according to Anthony Eden with the lethargy which is manifested in this country, with the disposition to let things ride and wait for something to turn up! I continue with the quotation:
If we are to uphold our idea, our conception of life, both national and international, if we are to see them prevail, then a comparable effort must be made by us and an equal spirit be roused. This is a time when every endeavour should be made to promote national unity, for it is only as a united nation that we can give of our best.
Party warfare for its own sake should have no place in the scheme of things to-day. A united effort for the spiritual and material rearmament of the nation is the need of the hour.
It would be hard to find words that are more appropriate to conditions as they exist at this moment. I maintain that we are not taking such measures as will build up the spiritual and material resources of this country. We all hope it may not be so, but we all fear that we are approaching a most dreadful time of testing when practically every part of our being is unprepared. People will say, "What will you do about it?" First of all, I say that we are going to do something.
Then it will be asked, "What will that something be?" I have been much interested in the proposals which have been made. I was particularly interested in the speech of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard), and I think it did him great credit. I have been interested in the proposals of hon. members who have suggested that we should conduct irrigation work; that we should have extensive reforestation and road construction. These suggestions are all perfectly sound. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Marsh) made a most entertaining and interesting speech yesterday, as did the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens).
But in each instance I am sure hon. members felt that we have only so much money; that all we can get is what we can tax from the people or borrow. It would not be wise to borrow any more. We want to balance the budget if it lies within our power, and we should begin to pay off our debts. We are taxing our people to the absolute limit. Well, then, they would say, "Hon. member, which one of the things upon which we are now spending money would you have us curtail? If we cannot curtail in any respect; if we cannot get money in any other way, then how in the world do you think we can finance these projects?" That is what it amounts to as surely as we are here in this building. Where are you going to get the money? I am not going to make any extended comments to-night. I am not going to talk about social credit in any detail as some hon. member would rise probably to a point of order and oppose my remarks. Without any reflection upon those who preside, I must say it seems strange that those who are called to order are the ones who try to offer suggestions which would really improve matters.
I want to remind hon. members that the money with which the war preparations are being financed is credit; it is not savings. Let us get that thoroughly into our thinking. Where does that credit come from? Undoubtedly the bankers all over the world are producing it. Is the Canadian banking system producing any part of it? If it is, then can we not arrange things so that our bankers will be able to produce the credit which we need to improve conditions in our country? The minute we begin to think along that line, we shall begin to see a way out of the difficulty in which we find ourselves. I say earnestly and frankly that if the Dominion of Canada would begin an earnest study of the principles of social credit, a way could be found out of our difficulties.



Relief and Agricultural Distress
I think I can safely venture to say that if wisdom and industry were used in the application of these principles, the Minister of Labour would never again be humiliated by having to bring down, a bill such as this. There would be no further need for a bill to relieve unemployment in this country. If anything more is needed, I am willing to say it. I have such confidence in the principles of social credit that I feel sure that would be the result. Absurd? Of course it sounds absurd, but everything new sounds absurd.


An hon. MEMBER:: How long would
that exist?


John Horne Blackmore: The new system
would exist until such time as there were other changes in our economy. That might be twenty-five, thirty, forty or fifty years as things move so fast these days. The point is that we are in a hole right now and do not know it.


Richard Langton Baker: When and where has your
theory proved successful?


John Horne Blackmore: There is a lot of
wisdom behind that question! You could ask with equal pertinency, when did the airship succeed before the Wright brothers proved they could fly. When was the alternating current successful before William Stanley came along? You can go back through the history of world development and ask the same question about every great advance.


Walter Edward Foster: I am sorry to have to
interrupt the hon. member, but his time has elapsed.


John Horne Blackmore: May I read just this
one sentence? I should like to quote the words of R. F. Irvine, professor of economics at Sydney university for twenty-five years. I have quoted these words three times already and I shall quote them many times more. He said:
I believe that the principles put forward by C. H. Douglas are not only sound but that they provide the only practical way of escape from the tragic fate which otherwise awaits the whole of western civilization. I
I submit that is the only way out of this devastating and threatening situation of unemployment.


Charles Avery Dunning: What is the proposal?


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, you will note I am answering questions. There are three proposals. The first is that state-created money shall be used.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have that now.
Mr. Blackmore.]


John Horne Blackmore: I wish you would use it.


Charles Avery Dunning: We do all the time.


John Horne Blackmore: I wish you would use it more extensively.


Charles Avery Dunning: You have some of it in your pocket right now.


John Horne Blackmore: That is the first
principle. Next, in order to prevent inflation; in order to make sure that the money is properly distributed; in order to make up for a lack of wages when men cannot work, you have dividends. By means of these dividends you distribute money to the very people who need it in order that they may buy those goods which the industries are unable to sell.


Ross Wilfred Gray: How?


John Horne Blackmore: It would be just as though the government sent them the equivalent of a cheque every month.


Charles Avery Dunning: You would print the money and give it to the people monthly?


John Horne Blackmore: No; you would not print the money; you would do it through the banking system.


Charles Avery Dunning: How would the people get it?


John Horne Blackmore: The bankers would issue it to them. Suppose it is $25 a month. The banker would put $25 to the credit of every person in the area he serves who was qualified.


Charles Avery Dunning: How does the banker get the $25?


Jean-François Pouliot: Might I ask a question in order to help the hon. gentleman?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is the hon. gentleman in favour of stopping the sale of our gold outside and keeping it here in order to cover part of a new issue of money?


John Horne Blackmore: Oh, yes; that should be attended to.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Where does the banker get the money?


John Horne Blackmore: That is a very fine question. I did not expect all this questioning, but it is excellent; that is just what I am here for. Remember what I said a few minutes ago, that these great rearmament programs are not being financed with savings.

Relief and Agricultural Distress


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend said a moment ago that we must start with state-created bills; that is Bank of Canada bills, and he says that these bills are to be got to the people through the ordinary banker. How does the ordinary banker get the state-created money in order to give it to the people, if he is going to give it?


John Horne Blackmore: Let it be understood, Mr. Speaker, that I am not giving anything but illustrations. I am not going to set down a plan here to-night, because that would be manifestly absurd. If I were to come before this audience to-night, and none of you had ever seen a power plant where electricity could be generated-


Charles Avery Dunning: It is money we are talking about.


John Horne Blackmore: Just a minute. I know; I was not born yesterday. Suppose I wanted to prove to this audience that you could establish a power plant with which you could convert the energy which is pouring down a stream into electricity with which you could light your buildings and heat your homes and do the hundred and one splendid things that we do with electricity, assuming for a moment that we had never seen that done; just project yourself back a hundred years to a point where they never had seen it done; suppose it is our great, great grandfathers who are here, and that one of them is trying to demonstrate to the rest that it is feasible to establish a power plant to create out of this energy in the water electricity which could be used for various purposes-


Ross Wilfred Gray: But grandfather always paid for that power. .


John Horne Blackmore: Very fine, but the
hon. member has not let me go far enough yet. If that were fully demonstrated by whatever reasoning was necessary, would the men in that audience expect the demonstrator to proceed to tell them all about the fuse plugs, the stepping down apparatus, and all that kind of thing?


Charles Avery Dunning: They would expect some electricity to be delivered. My hon. friend said a few moments ago what is being repeatedly said by his party: We will give purchasing power to the people in the form of state-created money. Surely we have a right to ask how that state-created money is to reach the people without the people doing anything in order to get it. That is all we want to know. It is a simple question.
51952-151$


John Horne Blackmore: Very good. But first of all I wish to say this, that anything which I say here which goes into Hansard without a lot of explanation might easily be misinterpreted. All hon. members know where my room is, and if anyone wants to come up to me for an explanation I shall spend hours and hours with him explaining things.


An hon. MEMBER:: Tell it now.


John Horne Blackmore: Oh, no; we won't
do anything so foolish as to tell it now. I would simply say this, just as an illustration. We established, when we were having our debate some time ago, that the Bank of Canada can take one dollar of gold and can create against that four one-dollar bills. We even had it established without any serious opposition that the Dominion of Canada could create bills without gold. It was also demonstrated and acknowledged that, having once created four one-dollar bills against one dollar of gold, the Bank of Canada could transmit one of those dollar bills to the banking system, we will say to the Bank of Montreal, and if the banks in the banking system were all working together in step, so that one would not get out of line by varying the policy the others were following, then the banking system could create ten dollars of credit against that one dollar bill.


Charles Avery Dunning: The Bank of Canada
does not give these bills to the chartered banks.


John Horne Blackmore: We know that. We do not say they give it to them, no. But the point is they can create four dollars against one, and when the banking system has got the one dollar bill it can create ten dollars of credit.


Ross Wilfred Gray: The Minister of Finance
offered you all the facilities you are speaking of, and you refused to accept them.


John Horne Blackmore: No; I dad not refuse.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I heard him offer all these facilities, and you refused them.


John Horne Blackmore: If the hon. member will read my speech, he will find there was no refusal.


James J. Donnelly: Why don't you take it?


John Horne Blackmore: For the reason I gave quite clearly in the answer that is in Hansard, and you will not find any flaw in it. I told the house a few moments ago that if the Bank of Montreal went ahead with ten to one, and the other banks in Canada extended

Relief and Agricultural Distress
only five to one, the Bank of Montreal would get into difficulty. They have to go forward in step, and once they do that they can create ten credit dollars as against one dollar bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would the hon. gentleman be in favour of the prohibition of the sale of our gold outside Canada, in order to have a larger gold reserve for the issuance of paper money?


John Horne Blackmore: It should be quite sound to keep our gold at home if it is gold we need to back our money. If it is, undoubtedly let us keep our gold at home.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does the hon. member think we need any more gold to back our money?


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to have the privilege of going into the details before making a statement on that. When the hon. minister asked me his question before, I said that we would call in the banking authorities in this country, and the question which the Minister of Finance has asked me I would unquestionably ask of these gentlemen as being authorities upon it. Suppose I said to them: I want to extend the credit of Canada $500,000,000, as being the amount necessary to put our farms and factories into operation again as they were in 1929.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member has exhausted his time.


John Horne Blackmore: Very good, Mr. Speaker, but I was just answering questions. As the Minister of Finance has asked me the question, perhaps I might be allowed to finish my answer. I say I would call in the banking authorities and ask them: Do you think we ought to have more gold? If they said yes, we would surely keep it. If they said we did not need it, I would say that they are the authorities.


Charles Avery Dunning: May I repeat my original question? My hon. friend concluded his speech by stating that this problem could be solved by the adoption of social credit principles and by state-created money. I have asked him how he would get state-created social credit money

that was his own expression-out to these people who need it. That is what we are here to do. That is what my hon. friend says he will do. I just want to know how. Surely, before we vote for that thing, we ougjht to know how he proposes to get the money to the people who need it.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, I said, Mr. Speaker,-you will excuse me since I am

answering the hon. member's question-having once established that the banking system of Canada can create credit enough to put the people of Canada to work, we would then arrange matters so that they could make loans-


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, "loans."


John Horne Blackmore: -as they used to make them. That would be the first move; loans to get your production going.


Charles Avery Dunning: But these were not loans. They were dividends, my hon. friend said; that was the expression he used.


John Horne Blackmore: Before you can safely give dividends the first thing you create is credit for loans with which to produce goods and services. Then the banking system can be so managed that working with the government it can advance credit as dividends with which to consume surplus goods and services.


Charles Avery Dunning: The Minister of Justice says that it is against the rules for me to question the hon. member.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not mind. I shall gladly go on talking all the minister wishes, because I am simply full of the subject.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Jean-François Pouliot: Just a word to explain
why I said that the report of the employment commission was rotten. It is because the figures contained in the twenty-ninth tabulation of statistics at the end of the report do not indicate the previous occupations of the unemployed. They refer to the last time the unemployed had any occupation; they give some information about the ages of the unemployed, their capacity or incapacity to work; but they do not tell what those unemployed did before they became unemployed, or where they live. For those reasons the statistics published in the report are absolutely useless, although quite a lot of work may have been involved in compiling them. Besides that, what I find foolish is the calculation of the percentage to one-tenth. It was absolutely absurd.
I strongly objected to the appointment of Mr. Purvis as the chairman. My contention at the time was that no one knew better the problem of unemployment than any member of this house who has occasion to meet unemployed persons either during the session or during the recess and to be in contact with

Relief and Agricultural Distress
them. Mr. Purvis has no occasion to meet any unemployed. He may shake hands at times with the men who are working in the numerous institutions of which he is a director, but on the other hand he never meets any unemployed. Therefore he knows nothing about their real lives and their troubles and miseries.
There was one thing that struck me. When the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe asked the Minister of Labour two years ago what salary was to be paid to Mr. Purvis, the minister gave an evasive answer; he did not at the time answer yes or no. The member for Temiscouata repeated his offer to do the work of classification for nothing, providing that he could take a few civil servants at his own choice to assist him in that compilation. Afterwards Mr. Purvis was put to shame and said that he was not charging anything; in fact, he received, I admit, nothing apparently in gold or in paper money or in social credit money. But, on the other hand, he did something which was most unethical and for which he should be deported at once as undesirable. There are two reports, one on unemployment and one on employment. As to the large report on employment, which contains data of January, 1937, about those engaged in industry, it should not be forgotten that Mr. Purvis, the chairman of the national employment commission, is also chairman and managing director of Canadian Industries Limited, president of the Dunlop Tire and Rubber Company Limited, and of numerous other institutions. Therefore Mr. Purvis as head of the commission secured confidential information about all industries, some twenty-seven or twenty-nine of them. That report is more fully detailed than the report on unemployment, and especially on the chemical industry, the industry of chemical products, and on the industry of rubber products, in which he is interested.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But the data was secured
from all industries for public purposes.


Jean-François Pouliot: And especially those industries which are mentioned in that report. There is the rubber industry; he is president of the Dunlop Tire and Rubber Company, Limited.


Richard Langton Baker: That is no crime.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is a commercial industry. I wonder if my hon. friend is not a large shareholder in that industry.


Richard Langton Baker: I do not hold one share, and never did, but it is no crime for that man to reach that fine position.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will ask my hon. friend
kindly to keep quiet and shut up. If he wants to ask me a question, he will rise in his place and ask me if I am willing to let him ask the question. If not, he will sit down-


Richard Langton Baker: I would not be bothered.


Jean-François Pouliot: -and not say a word; otherwise I shall ask the chairman to call the hon. gentleman to order. It may hurt him; but I am telling the truth, and I know more about it than he does, because he is a capitalist.


Richard Langton Baker: That statement is not true. I am not a capitalist.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: On a point of order, possibly the hon. gentleman himself might observe the rules a little more strictly than by asking an hon. member to "shut up". I think he might request-


Jean-François Pouliot: Exactly. I shall ask the hon. member to keep silent; and I mean it.


Richard Langton Baker: I take exception, Mr. Chairman, to the statement made by the hon. member that I am a capitalist. I am not a capitalist, and never was.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is it an insult to call the hon. gentleman a capitalist? I think he belongs to the social credit group if he is insulted when I call him a capitalist.


Richard Langton Baker: No. Not guilty.
Mr. POULIOT He might change his seat. He might go to the left.


Richard Langton Baker: Let the hon. member go on with his statement and not bother about me.


Jean-François Pouliot: No; I do not bother, but I worry a lot. Leaving aside these futilities, I must resume my argument. What I said was that Mr. Purvis, as president or chairman of the Dunlop Tire and Rubber Company Limited, was most interested to know everything, even of a confidential nature, in the rubber industry. Also as president and chairman of Canadian Industries Limited he was highly interested to know what was going on in the chemical industry. He knew it all. Perhaps that is the reason why he was exhausted after his report was tabled. I find it, sir, most unethical for a man, who stated he was asking nothing to do that work, to take advantage of his position as chairman of a public body to secure private information for which other industrialists would be ready to pay half a million or a million dollars That is one point.

Relief and Agricultural Distress


Norman McLeod Rogers: The information was used for public purposes.


Jean-François Pouliot: For public purposes. But he took personal advantage of it; and private replies, mentioning the names were sent to the commission by the industries concerned. The figures that he gave did not disclose the information that he had, because he gave them for the Dominion of Canada and for the province at large, not naming a single industry, when personally he had that information. Tom Moore said nothing on that. I objected strongly also to the appointment of Tom Moore, whom I did not name in 1936, for the reason that he has done nothing in his life and cannot teach others how to work. Moreover, the conclusions of the report are silly. One of them is to amplify the employment offices, to give a job to Tom Moore. If he was in distress he could secure direct relief. And the social insurance, which he has advocated as chairman of the trades and labour congress every time he appeared before the government, in the eyes of the national employment commission seems to be a plan to secure a job for Tom Moore-quite an expensive undertaking.
Sir, I will say nothing more for the moment on this matter than this. Why did the government have to appoint the national employment commission instead of naming a parliamentary committee of the House of Commons to study the matter of unemployment? Was it not because in the very Department of Labour the minister did not have the assistance that he was supposed to have from all his officials? I have nothing to say about the unemployment relief branch; I have the highest respect for three gentlemen who occupy prominent positions in that branch, Mr. Hereford, Mr. Houston and Mr. Carter, and some others who are doing good work in minor positions. The former deputy minister of labour was at one time a railway man, a man with a good education and a good knowledge of railway problems, and in the discharge of his duties he rendered good service to the state. Imagine that man being replaced by a man who was a former private secretary of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, who had several years' experience as private secretary to ministers, and whose only experience with regard to the unemployed was six years in the remission branch of the Department of Justice dealing with convicts. It seems to me a shame that Mr. Ward was forced to resign to give place to that man, a man not qualified. The minister may deny that; but I am sure that if he had had, as deputy minister of labour, Mr. Ward, who was a very capable man, whom I knew

personally, and who helped me in some work I did on behalf of the unemployed, we would have had no employment commission. That is all I have to say for the moment.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have expressed at various times my admiration for the independence of the hon. member for Temiseouata, but at this time I wish to take strong exception to some of the observations he has just made. I will say this very definitely, that from my contact with the members of the national employment commission, each and every one of them accepted the responsibilities of that commission with a keen sense of public obligation. My hon. friend has referred particularly to Mr. Purvis, who was chairman of the commission. Mr. Purvis accepted the chairmanship of the commission at the request of the government. Naturally the government was responsible for his selection, and so far as I have had association with Mr. Purvis as chairman of the commission I am absolutely convinced that he gave honestly and wholeheartedly his best effort to the task in hand. My hon. friend is entitled to take exception to any or all of the recommendations of the commission; but I do not think there should be any imputation cast upon the motives either of the chairman of that commission or of other members of it, and I think that applies equally to the members of the public service of Canada. I wish to make that statement immediately so that there shall be no misunderstanding of my position.


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not impute any motives; I stated facts.


Richard Langton Baker: I have no brief whatever for Mr. Purvis. I have not the pleasure of knowing him; but if I have his history, he is a self-made man who employs people; and what astounds me so much is that people who, as far as I know, never employed any one at all, 'have the impudence to criticize a man of that type.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have no desire to follow along the lines pursued by the hon. member for Temiseouata. I have nothing against any of the gentlemen mentioned, and I think it is sometimes unfortunate that aspersions should foe cast upon people who are not here to defend themselves. I have never met Mr. Purvis in my life and I would not know him if I did meet him, but I believe he is an honourable man and that he acted in an honourable capacity. I might disagree with the conclusions he arrived at and with the recommendations submitted to the government, but that would not prevent me from

Relief and Agricultural Distress
at least giving him credit for being an honourable .person. And so far as Tom Moore is concerned, I think the remarks that were made are entirely undeserved. Mr. Moore used to work as hard as any member of this house. He was by trade a carpenter until he was made a paid official of the trades and labour congress, and I cannot understand what the hon. member for Temiscouata has against him in his capacity as a member of the national employment commission.
However, I want to get down to something definite in connection with the matter before us. I do not wish to discuss personalities in a matter of such far-reaching importance as unemployment relief. I want to deal with one aspect of the question of relief which has come to my attention in the past few weeks. It is the attempt which is being made in Winnipeg, and probably in other parts of Canada, to reduce the standard of relief being given to persons who are unfortunately the recipients of public assistance. Not only is an effort being made to reduce the standard of relief given, probably in order to save costs to the national and local exchequers, but there are also new regulations being put into force, which in my opinion will have an extremely serious effect upon the general standard of living of the persons involved. In Winnipeg, those who determine the kind of relief are putting into effect certain regulations which provide that when a person is working he will be allowed to spend only so much of his salary per week or per month, and the balance is to be put away for a time when he may find himself in the ranks of the unemployed. The amount allowed to be spent in Winnipeg is not much more than the amount they receive when on relief. At the present time people on relief have exhausted practically everything that they have, and they will not be allowed to replenish anything; they will be compelled to live on a basis not much better than that which they experienced when they were recipients of public relief. It means that these people are going to be driven to a very low standard of living, so that they drag down the higher standards that others may have attained as a result of many years of endeavour. I cannot too strongly condemn regulations of that kind. I want to know if that is the policy of the government or whether they acquiesce in a policy of that kind being adopted by public authorities.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My answer to my hon. friend is that the dominion government has not in any way brought pressure to bear upon
provincial governments with respect to any change in relief scales. We have from time to time altered our grants in aid to provincial governments; in doing so, we have been influenced by improvement in the unemployment situation in those provinces and to some extent by improvement in the financial position of certain provinces. Those have been the two factors which have always governed grants in aid by the dominion to the provinces. But there has been no pressure ol any kind in respect of relief scales. That is something which, as my hon. friend is no doubt aware, is dealt with entirely by provincial governments in conjunction with the municipalities. There is no uniform relief scale throughout the dominion; there is not in the municipalities in a province; it varies not only between provinces but as between municipalities in the same province.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does not a representative of the Department of Labour confer with the authorities in the different provinces and in that way control in some measure the scale of relief being given?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No. The only possible connection that might exist between the dominion government and relief scales is a clause in the agreements covering the last quarter of the past fiscal year which stated that the relief allowances should not compete, so to speak, with the prevailing wage in a municipality. I have mentioned that before in this house. That is the only clause of the agreement that I can recall at the moment which would have any effect upon relief scales as applied in any particular municipality.


John Charles Landeryou: Some time ago I asked the minister some questions in reference to the highest relief scale paid anywhere in Canada and the relief scale which was competing with wage scales in any part of Canada. Could I have an answer now?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I remember the question, and I think my friend will recall that I stated that I doubted the wisdom of giving the relief scales prevailing in each city. It is not a matter which is within the control of the dominion government; it is determined wholly by the municipality in question. As for the other information asked by my hon. friend, I shall be glad to take note of it and see that it is made available.


John Charles Landeryou: I did not want the minister to give me the locality; I just wanted the highest relief scale.
23S0

Relief and Agricultural Distress


Norman McLeod Rogers: I can secure that information, and shall do so. I thought the hon. member wished me to state what particular locality had this high relief scale.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The minister says that the department has requested the provincial authorities that relief scales shall not compete with prevailing rates of wages. I think in that they are taking a dangerous step. I could understand that, assuming relief scales were extremely high, the departmental officials might think that people would not be anxious to accept work at prevailing rates. They might claim that. I do not know of any relief scale in Canada that competes with what I would call fair rates of pay. The minister and other members of the committee will understand that there is a difference between what might be called prevailing rates and fair rates of pay. The prevailing rate in some area might be fifteen cents an hour; I know of instances of men working a whole week and at the end of the week getting the magnificent sum of $9 to maintain themselves and their family. I do not think there is any hon. member who would blame a man if he would not work for fifteen cents an hour. But if that happened to be the prevailing rate of pay, it might occur that a person having no alternative but relief would be compelled to accept it or have the relief allowance reduced accordingly. The department cannot avoid responsibility for conditions of that kind. A few months ago there was brought to my attention a place in Canada where that low rate of wages was being paid. In the case of Winnipeg I know what the relief rate is; I think I referred to it just prior to the recess. For a married couple, if my memory is correct, it was about $20 a month, or even less than that. I know it was extremely low. I am afraid that the tendency will be to reduce the scale still further, lowering the standard of living and wages as well. I want to prevent that. I do not want to see people on relief in Canada; I am one of those who for years have deplored the fact that the government has been compelled to give relief to people out of work. I would far rather see the government undertake a vast scheme of public works across this country to provide work for those in need, with a scale of pay in conformity, not with prevailing rates, but with either union rates or fair wages as determined by provincial regulation.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But my hon. friend on one occasion condemned that solution of the problem. I take it he has not changed his mind on that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: As a final solution, I still say no. But I think we agree that although a scheme of public works is not a final solution, it at least alleviates the condition. It would be far better for the people who are to-day receiving relief to be performing some useful work.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, April 29, 1938