1938-06-09

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 146, respecting the High Commissioner for Canada in the United Kingdom.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: It has been the practice for some years to pay a part of the salary of the High Commissioner for Canada in the United Kingdom, under the statutory authority given by the High Commissioner's Act, and a part of it as a vote in the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. The principal object of this bill is to repeal the statutory authority contained in the High Commissioner's Act, so that the whole of the high commissioner's salary may, in future, be included in the departmental estimates. This change will establish a uniform practice with respect to the salaries of the representatives of Canada abroad.
As certain other minor amendments to the High Commissioner's Act were also desirable, it was considered advisable to repeal the existing statute and to renact it in the revised form, which would bring it into conformity with present usage and terminology.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Narcotic Drugs



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. FERLAND:: How many persons in Canada are actually forbidden the use of the mails?


Mr. EULER:: It is difficult to furnish a definite figure, as the number fluctuates continuously. Upon evidence being received indicating that the mails are being used for the transmission of illegal matter, mailing facilities are withdrawn from the person or organization concerned. When this action is taken the illegal enterprise is either abandoned, or discontinued in so far as the use of the mails is concerned, or an endeavour is made to circumvent the post office action by use of different or fictitious names. As the new names and addresses connected with illegal uses of the mails are ascertained mailing facilities are withdrawn.
During the twelve months ending May 31, 1938, instructions were issued withdrawing mailing privileges in Canada from approximately 1,450 persons and 50 organizations. During the same period mailing facilities were restored in about 150 cases.


NARCOTIC DRUGS
[Stage Direction]
ArPROVAL OF CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN DANGEROUS DRUGS, SIGNED AT GENEVA, JUNE 26, 1936
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the Convention of 1936 for the suppression of the illicit traffic in dangerous drugs (Geneva, June 26, 1936), signed on behalf of Canada by the plenipotentiary named therein, and, that this house do approve of the same.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the convention was brought down only yesterday and I have not had a chance to study its provisions as carefully as I should like. Perhaps it would not be asking too much to have the motion stand for approval until to-morrow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quite
prepared to have it stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not get a copy
of it, and my colleague says that he did not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say to
the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) that the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power), at the time
of introducing his bill respecting opium and narcotic drugs in February last explained the convention very fully. The bill was in the nature of legislation to implement Canada's undertakings with respect to the convention. At that time the house, I think, had before it the convention, which I have since tabled.
I shall be pleased, however to see that copies are sent to the leader of the opposition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think it was
printed. It was tabled yesterday, was it not?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I formally
tabled it yesterday, but I thought it was before the house at the time the minister introduced his bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A reference was made to it, because my memory is that the completed document was not before the house until yesterday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That may be
correct, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I looked among my
papers this morning and could not find a copy, and thought it might have been overlooked, but the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) says he has not one, so possibly it has been overlooked.
Motion stands.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR International labour conference, $15,000.
Mr. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): When this vote was before the committee previously, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) asked a question regarding the amount of the expenditure on the Washington textile conference. The item was before the committee for only a few moments, and I promised I would secure that information. The amount voted for the special conference at Washington was 85,00b. The amount actually expended was $3,355.71. As I explained to the committee before, this conference was in the nature of a preparatory conference for the international labour conference *which was held in June of last year.


Mr. CHURCH:: What duplication is there in this item? The provinces do similar work. What does the dominion do?


Mr. ROGERS:: There is no duplication in this item. It is pertinent .for my hon. friend
Supply-Labour

to suggest that there may be duplication in certain other items of the estimates before the committee. This item is intended to meet the expenses of the delegation from Canada which attends each year the international labour conference which meets in Geneva.


Mr. MacNEIL:: Who are the delegates at present?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The government is represented by a delegate and advisers; the workers and the manufacturers respectively are represented in the same way. Each year we make the selection on the basis of nominations which come to us from the trades and labour congress of Canada, for the workers in Canada, it being the most representative labour organization, and also we accept nominations from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association with respect to the delegates of the employers. The government delegates, of course, are ^ appointed upon recommendation of the Minister of Labour. The government delegates this year are Mr. Hume Wrong, who is 'Canadian representative in Geneva, and Mr. Gerald Brown, the assistant deputy minister of labour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Anybody else?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The manufacturers' association is represented by Mr. Goldie, of Hamilton, who has attended the conferences for a number of successive years. The trades and labour congress -of Canada is represented by Mr. Be-ngough of Vancouver. Those are the delegates attending this year.


Thomas Langton Church: I have been following this labour movement for a great many years, and am a strong supporter of union labour, but I fail to see what good these conferences are doing. They seem to provide patronage for the government with the official set in the trades and labour movement. This last week, for example, we read in the press that a gentleman from Vancouver is selected as "foreign ambassador"; he selects a man down here in Montreal as "technical adviser." Advice about what? Would it not be far better for the minister and the department to get jobs for Canadians in Canada instead of having all these Cook's tours which are made to these various conferences? They do not benefit the workers of this country a five cent piece, and I can tell you this, the quicker the government strike out some of these side shows and side trips from the estimates, the better provision they can make for jobs for Canadians in Canada. I am in favour of the trades union movement, but I have noticed that for years some of the same people have been going from Canada to this conference; it has been 
a fine side trip for -them. Tens of thousands of dollars oil the taxpayers' money have been spent, with- no value whatever -for the expenditure. The present Labour department in Canada is full of fads and frills, but it has no power. You ask the department to do something practical when a strike begins, and what happens? Last year they appointed a commissioner to go out -and investigate with regard to coal. Whatever he did, he forgot all about the consumer. I fail to see why we should have these delegations to Geneva. All the countries of Europe send delegates to these meetings, but I cannot find five cents' worth of value in the report. If you cut the vote down to a dollar it would be about all the value it i-s worth. I know a lot of practical labour men who are not politicians and can never get on these trips, and they think they are of little or no value whatever.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The hon. member is incorrect when he states that this is a conference which has no value to this country. As a matter of fact, provision for the international labour conference was made in the treaty of Versailles, and this government has from time to time ratified conventions which have been adopted by the international labour conference for the amelioration of labour conditions throughout the world.
So far as appointments are concerned, as I explained a few minutes ago, we accept under the provisions of the act nominations of recognized organizations of employers and employees. The government has a selection only with respect to the choice of technical advisers, and for some time past these advisers have been taken from other labour organizations of the country.


Mr. HEAPS:: Who were the delegates last
year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The delegates last year
were: government delegates, Doctor W. A. Riddell, Mr. W. M. Dickson; advisers to government delegates, Mr. C. R. McIntosh, Mr. N. S. Dowd, Mr. Alfred Charpentier, Mr. Zenon David; employers' delegate, Mr. A. R. Goldie; adviser to employers' delegate, Mr. H. W. Macdonnell; employees' delegate, Mr. R. J. Tallon; adviser to employees' delegate, Mr. D. W. Morrison.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Has this years' delegation
been appointed?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I gave the names a moment ago.


Mr. MARTIN:: How many conventions are there not ratified by Canada, and what is being done in respect to these?

Supply-Labour


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not that information immediately available. A great many conventions have been accepted by the international labour conference and a number of them have been ratified by Canada. A considerable number of these conventions have been outstanding so far as Canada is concerned. Obviously the dominion government has a rather limited power in the implementing of these conventions because of the fact that the jurisdiction over industrial matters rests very largely with the provinces.


Mr. SPENCE:: Will the minister give
the expenses of each delegate that he has named?


Norman McLeod Rogers: If it would satisfy the hon. member, I have the individual expenses for the delegation of 1936. There is no material difference in the expenses from year to year.


James Houston Spence: I cannot see why the minister should not have the expenses for 1937; we are well into 1938 now.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is a matter of securing the information from the auditor general's report. I have the report for the year I have mentioned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would not be in the report yet.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No. I have the total expenses but not the individual figures, inasmuch as the auditor general's report for the last year is not available.


Thomas Langton Church: When the minister is cutting down on the municipalities for food for those on relief, I fail to see what value there is in this item. What qualifications have these technical advisers? Are they diplomats, ministers extraordinary or ministers plenipotentiary? What qualifications have they? Some labour man in Montreal is appointed; will he and the others travel by Canadian routes to go to the conference? What are the allowances and expenses?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The remuneration to the members of the delegation is $20 a day and travelling expenses. That has been established for a great many years. I am entirely in disagreement w'ith the hon. gentleman when he suggests that the technical advisers are not qualified. They are chosen because of their familiarity with industrial conditions in this country, and generally speaking they are chosen from labour organizations.


Mr. STEWART:: When the minister gave the personnel of the delegation I thought I heard him mention the name C. R. McIntosh. Is that right?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That was last year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is that the member of this house who was chairman of the committee on industrial relations?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is correct.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the item carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Labour Gazette anil other publications authorized by labour department act, $50,980.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Why the increase?


Mr. MacINNIS:: What is the circulation of the Labour Gazette?


Norman McLeod Rogers: In 1937 there were 114,335 English copies and 25,245 French.


Angus MacInnis: For the whole year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Charles Grant MacNeil: On what basis are the key cities selected as to cost of living?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be glad to get that information when we come to that item.


Mr. MASSEY:: On page 9S, giving the details, I find that the cost of printing and binding the Gazette has increased from $24,000 to $30,700. Is that due to increased circulation?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is due in part to increased circulation and in part to the increased size of the Gazette.


Denton Massey: Is it being published any more frequently?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No. It has followed the same course for a great many years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, $20,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps at this point the minister will give us a short statement regarding the operations of this statute. The courts said the Lemieux act was ultra vires. We did certain things purporting to be done under its authority. Then the provinces passed legislation. I should like a statement of how it stands at the present time, because the other day I was asked in regard to something that was happening, and apparently I have not as clear an appreciation of it as I thought I had. Perhaps the minister will state how it does work in practice.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I believe the answer would be that after the decision of the judicial committee in the Snider case the authority of the compulsory sections of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act became limited to the setting up of boards to deal with disputes
3680	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Industrial Disputes
in dominion undertakings or interprovinoial undertakings. That meant in effect that its operation was contracted with respect to disputes which previously had fallen within its scope, namely, disputes occurring in public utilities wholly within provincial jurisdiction. To meet that situation my understanding is that, following the decision in the Snider case, provincial legislatures enacted enabling legislation which gave the industrial disputes act full force and effect with respect to disputes arising on public utilities within provincial jurisdiction. I believe two provinces since then have enacted legislation which has had the effect of withdrawing disputes in provincial public utilities from the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act-British Columbia, and, New Brunswick.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That then clearly raises the issue to which I wish to direct the minister's attention. Is it competent for the legislatures of the various provinces to enact legislation which would have the effect of amending the constitution as interpreted by the court of last resort? And secondly, what is the effect of the withdrawal of two of the provinces by statutory enactment, if as suggested the effect of the original action was to confer jurisdiction in what had been decided by the courts to be an unconstitutional field for the dominion to occupy?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As to the first point, the right hon. leader of the opposition is more competent to express an opinion than I am on the legal question involved. But so far as I am aware no objection was ever taken to the efficacy of the provincial legislation, which did bring industrial disputes of the character described within provincial jurisdiction under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. I know of no case before the courts in which that question was ever raised. Certainly since the decision in the Snider case the industrial disputes act has been invoked in practically all provinces. I should think that the withdrawal of the two provinces I have mentioned would have no effect other than to restrict the operation of the act within their respective boundaries.


Mr. CAHAN:: The withdrawal was simply the nullification of the provincial legislation passed.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Exactly.


Angus MacInnis: Do I understand the
minister to say that the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act does not now apply to British Columbia?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It does not apply to utilities within the provincial jurisdiction. It applies otherwise.


Thomas Langton Church: I fail to see why $20,000
is necessary for this in view of the Snider decision. I was acting for the people at the time. If that decision had not been as it was there would not be a public utility municipally owned in Ontario to-day. It is all right to have this amount of money provided for work on the dominion government properties or railways, but the minister must not forget that by the Snider case property and civil rights, the law of employer and employee and the law of contracts are involved. Why did the minister interfere in the Oshawa case? It seems to me this department is very largely a technical department. It is difficult to get any satisfaction when there is any real dispute on; they back out and leave it to the province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the minister
answers I should like to make one statement. I confess that this matter is one of great difficulty. I have myself, without analysing it more carefully than I have been able to do from time to time, the very gravest doubt whether by acts of all the legislatures you can change the constitution of this country. Certainly there is no power to amend the British North America Act lodged in any parliamentary organization or institution other than the parliament at Westminster. To say that a legislative act on the part of all the provinces could have the effect of conferring constitutional power upon this parliament which the courts have said it does not possess is a proposition which I regret to say I cannot accept. In view of a conversation I had I looked up section 94 of the British North America Act, to which I think Professor Scott of McGill made some reference. This clearly applies to three provinces only:
Notwithstanding anything in this act, the parliament of Canada may make provision for the uniformity of all or any of the laws relative to property and civil rights in Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and of the procedure of all or any of the courts in those three provinces, and from and after the passing of any act in that behalf the power of the parliament of Canada to make laws in relation to any matter comprised in any such act shall, notwithstanding anything in this act, be unrestricted; but any act of the parliament of Canada making provision for such uniformity shall not have effect in any province unless and until it is adopted and enacted as law by the legislature thereof.
I cannot think this is one of the statutes that falls within the provisions of that section. Therefore I question whether we have any right at all-and I think that was the view held in my time by certain of the law officers -to undertake industrial disputes investigations except with respect to-(a) matters

Supply-Labour-Industrial Disputes
within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, and (b) such matters as relate to the operation of industrial or other activities in two or more provinces. That is my understanding of it.
This is a matter of some importance at the moment. Recently I noticed in one of the morning papers that some difficulty had arisen in connection with one of our canals, and the tie-up of one of our ships. Obviously canals are solely within the jurisdiction of this parliament. A canal is a public work owned by the Dominion of Canada. I have no doubt about our jurisdiction in that regard under this statute, and I cannot think that the province has any jurisdiction at all with respect to it, although their officer did go down.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my right hon. friend will permit me to interrupt, I do not think an officer of the Department of Labour in Toronto went to Cornwall.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the officer went down for the purpose of maintaining law and order.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I believe that is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My information, gained from reading the press, was that an investigation was ordered by this government, by the Minister of Labour. And since I read it, certain papers were sent to me, and I propose to mention the matter at the appropriate time. This could not seem to be the time, because the Department of Transport is also involved; it is not a matter relating solely to the Department of Labour. But I am interested in the large question of jurisdiction. It is constantly arising. It did not arise for the first time with this government, but ever since the Snider decision that question has arisen. It was the opinion of certain of our legal advisers that we had no jurisdiction in one case, although we thought that peradventure we did have, and the province thereupon took the appropriate steps to conduct an investigation. The reason I ask is that in consequence of certain correspondence I was asked what the present position is. I have stated my understanding of it to the minister; but I have added to it this, that I do not believe it is competent for the legislatures of the provinces of Canada, in effect, to confer upon this parliament legislative jurisdiction with respect to a matter which the courts have said is beyond our constitutional competence. In other words you cannot indirectly effect an amendment to the British North America Act, which in my judgment can be brought about only by an act of the parliament at Westminster.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The point raised by the leader of the opposition is pertinent and very interesting. In the application of the act, as set out in the text-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that since the decision?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, this is since the decision.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the federal act?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. I think I should read that in the first place, because it may throw some light on the other question; the scope of the act is defined as follows:
(i)	works, undertakings or business operated or carried on for or in connection with navigation and shipping, whether inland or maritime,
(ii)	lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs and other works and undertakings connecting any province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the proyince,
(iii)	lines of steamships between a province and any British or foreign country,
(iv)	ferries between any province and any British or foreign country, or between two provinces,
(v)	works, undertakings or business belonging to, carried on or operated by aliens, including foreign corporations immigrating into Canada to carry on business,
(vi)	such works as, although wholly situate within the province, have been or may be declared by the parliament of Canada, or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think we question the "have been" but we do question the "may be."


Norman McLeod Rogers: Quite.
(vii)	works, undertakings or business of any company or corporation incorporated by or under the authority of the parliament of Canada;
(b)	Any dispute which is not within the exclusive legislative authority of any provincial legislature to regulate in the manner provided by this act;
(c)	Any dispute which the governor in council may by reason of any real or apprehended national emergency declare to be subject to the provisions of this act;
(d)	Any dispute which is within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of any province and which by the legislation of the province is made subject to the provisions of this act.
The last, I take it, is the particular clause that raises the point in the mind of the right hon. leader of the opposition. Obviously the Minister of Justice, would be in a better position to express an opinion on this point than I am.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There have been varying views with respect to it, but I would not ask the hon. gentleman to define the legal position. That would not be fair.
3682	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Industrial Disputes


Norman McLeod Rogers: Quite so, but I wonder if this is not the case. Take the province of New Brunswick, for example, before it passed recent legislation taking this authority to itself. If a dispute occurred in a public utility in that province, such as a coal mine, it is true that we would set up a board under the provisions of this act, but I would assume that such board would derive its authority from the provincial statute.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would have agreed with that were it not for the fact that the federal power exercise the appointing power, and they cannot do that as delegates of the executive of a province. Do I make the point clear?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, I understand that; but evidently, in order to remove the possibility of doubt, you also have this section in the dominion act. How far that is effective I am not in a position to say, as my right hon. friend realizes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What is the date of that act?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The original act was passed in 1907.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But this is since the decision?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, this is in the revised statutes of 1927.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister has placed upon the statute the construction that I should like to see placed upon it if it were valid, but I doubt the validity of such construction ; for I think we will all agree, layman and lawyer, that a province cannot set in motion by its legislation the exercise of its power by the federal executive, and the federal executive is exercising a discretion which cannot spring from provincial legislation but which in fact is said to owe its origin to provincial legislation. That is, the province has passed a statute which in terms confers upon the federal power a right to do something which the privy council said the federal power could not do, and the question whether or not a provincial legislature can clothe with effective executive authority a federal body, namely the governor in council of the whole dominion, is a proposition to which I am sorry to say I cannot give assent. I wish I could; for I tried to use it and failed in connection with the marketing act. We were under the impression that there should be no difficulty in getting over what seemed to be an obstacle, the one I mentioned, by suggesting that they would have

the power to make us their agents only, and thereby not involve the exercise of the executive authority; because there is a vast difference between creating an agency and authorizing the exercise of discretion. That is, the provincial legislature can hardly press a duty on the federal executive, but the provincial legislature should be able to authorize any branch of the public service in the dominion to act as agent if it would so act.
I must say I have never thought the case was put fairly before the courts. I cannot see why, if the minister, acting as a federal power, desires me as a provincial power to act as his agent, I should not do so; and, e converso, there should be no reason why I, as a provincial power, should not, if the federal power is willing, authorize and request them to act as my agent. That was the basis of what we endeavoured to do with respect to the marketing act. As I say, I hope I am not being unfair, but in reading such reports of the arguments as I was able to obtain I do not think that point was clearly put to the court, either here or in England. I cannot, I repeat, see why the minister, speaking for the parliament of Canada, should not say to me as a province, " Will you act as my agent in connection with this matter"? I say, " Yes." Nor can I see why I, acting as a province, should not say to the federal power, " Will you act as my agent in connection with this matter"? And the dominion says, "Yes."' That would ensure certain results which we were endeavouring to ensure in connection with the marketing of products.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That would be inconsistent with section 94.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I read section 94 just now; it refers only to three provinces, and there is no provision for other provinces being included under it. Obviously it did not include Quebec, because of the civil law.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think there is strong ground for the argument that it includes all the provinces except Quebec.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Scott referred to that in an article published recently, and I am bound to say that I found it inconclusive, though of course that does not say the argument may not be sound. I am only-putting to the minister the difficulty I see in our utilizing this act under those circumstances; for if the proposition is sound that by this section we can amend the constitution of the dominion, obviously the theory under which we have been operating is invalid. We have always believed that it required a statute of the imperial parliament to amend the act.

Sup-ply-Labour-Employment Offices
I think it would relieve the Prime Minister, for instance, of a great deal of worry if he felt that he could amend the constitution in that way, because it does not require all the provinces to do it; it requires only three of them, those three being Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I believe a number of the provinces, if not all, reenacted the provisions of the industrial disputes act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If they did they left the executive discretion to be exercised here.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is an executive
discretion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the province as well.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In certain contingencies. As my right hon. friend is aware, the selection of the members of a board is made rather by the parties to the dispute.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and that was so before the courts decided as they did.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, quite true.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no change in the result.


Norman McLeod Rogers: True.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The argument as put now by the minister merely means what we all agreed upon, that it is competent for a province to pass legislation exactly in terms with the federal legislation, and, the federal legislation being declared to be invalid, obviously the other would be valid. Whether or not they can be both valid, by reason of action of that kind is a proposition to which I direct attention, but to which I cannot accede.


Angus MacInnis: When was British Columbia taken from under the industrial disputes act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It took itself out.


Norman McLeod Rogers: By legislation enacted a year ago by the province. It was done entirely by the province, and of course applies only to disputes arising within provincial jurisdiction. It does not extend to dominion undertakings.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Employment Offices Coordination Act, administration, $63,925.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I really think the minister, who occupies a very peculiar position by reason of his distinguished academic training, should be made aware of the fact that these employment offices have become purely partisan establishments. The
men who occupied positions in them were dismissed when a new provincial government came into office, and the people in those communities-and I will give him illustrations if he wishes-can obtain employment only through the committees of the Liberal executives in communities where they exist. That in my opinion is exactly contrary to what was intended when this statute was enacted. It places in the hands of governments a power which was never intended with respect to employment.
I have a large number of instances under my hand, which I brought down, of cases which state what was required to be done to find employment. It is hardly to be expected that a minister would keep in mind all of them, or remember where those various places may be. No one expects a minister to do the impossible, but I will mention to him one in his own community of Kingston. I refer to a person in Kingston who was the representative of the government-appointed by the province, it is true; I wish to make it clear the minister is not responsible for that-but who was dismissed with the change of provincial administration, and another man put in. Well, the minister knows the difficulty in connection with the other man. Open charges are made, and there is a willingness on the part of people to prove them, with respect to his conduct and the conduct in the transaction of business. It has become just a little partisan organization. I do suggest that we should not put ourselves in that position at a time like this. I do not wish to use harsher words with respect to it, but I would ask the minister if he does not think that he could show a great example to the community at large by enforcing his personal views, against his political views, in a matter of this kind. Despite all that may be said, it threatens the life of this democracy at the moment. Especially is that true when you have in a house a very small minority opposed to the government. And it becomes doubly important that if possible the administration should be free from any such disputes, having regard to the fact that these offices came into being by virtue of an international arrangement.


Norman McLeod Rogers: International?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, they were really part of an international agreement. In the peace treaty itself were made certain provisions with respect to labour, and at the labour meeting at Washington we undertook to do certain things, some of which we could do and some of which we could not do. We made a compromise which involved, shall I

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
say, joint action on the part of the dominion and the provinces. And that joint action was for the purpose of ensuring, so far as it might possibly be done by joint action, that employment bureaux should be established for the purpose of providing opportunities for employment to men who were unemployed. I believe that, shortly, is a fair way to put it.
If we introduce the partisan element into the institution we not only destroy the purpose for which it was created, but we create such conditions as make it impossible for governments in this country to function. That is really what it gets down to. Of course in good times no one bothers much about questions of partisanship and patronage, in that sense, or in the sense in which I am now using those terms. But everybody knows that in days like these, when there is depression, when employment is difficult to get and when opportunities for gainful work are denied so many, it is a terrible thing if an institution set up by a government for the purpose of providing employment shall be subject to the control of the representatives of a political party.
It is to that end I direct the minister's attention to the matter without going into a great wealth of detail involving discussions which might necessarily be acrimonious and would not serve the purpose I have in mind. If by a moderate statement of the evil I could induce the minister to direct his mind to its suppression, I think it would be far better than any advantage which might arise from the exposure of conditions in various parts of this country which I believe are working injury to the body politic.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I may say without hesitation whatever that I would prefer to see the employment service of Canada, or employment services, conducted from offices absolutely beyond partisan control.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe that.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I say that without hesitation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And I believe it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As a matter of fact, under the Unemployment Insurance Act, which was declared ultra vires, provision was made whereby the employment services would ultimately be under the control of a commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite.


Norman McLeod Rogers: And certainly it has been
my view, as expressed on various occasions, that if we were able to establish an unemployment service which could be truly national,

it would be preferable to have it, as allied with a scheme of unemployment insurance, under the control of a commission.
I will not say for a moment that complaints have not reached me with respect to employment services-not in one province, but in various provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, quite; I said that.


Norman McLeod Rogers: And on the basis of those
complaints I am inclined to agree that from time to time employment services have been used for political purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, there is no doubt
about it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: How that can be controlled I am not prepared to say. As my hon. friend is aware, the dominion government does not control any appointments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But we pay the money.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, but-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not the whole of it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: A rather small proportion of it, as a matter of fact. I believe it is about one-third. W.e pay about one-third of the total in the province, under the provisions of the-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it is between a
third and a half.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes; as expenses have gone up our proportion has tended to decrease. In the beginning I think it was more.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, as the expenses not under our control made by the provinces have increased, our amount has proportionately decreased.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Exactly. I can recall some time ago receiving protests with respect to the dismissal of the head of an employment office in one of the provinces. I believe there is no reason why I should mention the name here. There was nothing which we as a dominion government could effectively do in the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that, yes.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The appointment was made by the province, and it rests entirely in the discretion of provincial governments to make dismissals as they see fit. The matter has given me, I may say, some concern because of the various complaints that I have received. Obviously, whether or not there is justification for them, they should go to the provincial governments concerned and be dealt with accordingly. I realize also that with

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
respect to relief work it is very important that the employment service should act in a nonpartisan way. There again the problem is not as easy of solution as appears at first glance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not as loug as the province exercises the control which now it has over these offices. That is clear.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is true. It is simply
a matter of where the responsibility lies. But I certainly will not go so far as to say that in all provinces there has been a failure to recognize that obligation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Neither would I.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I would also suggest that
in all provinces there are employment offices which are conducted on an efficient and satisfactory basis.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is true.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I know that in certain
instances attempts have been made to set, for example, a quota of those who should be employed through the employment service,-


Richard Bedford Bennett: -of a political character.


Norman McLeod Rogers: -which I do not like.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I discovered that myself.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I do not think it is at all a satisfactory way of dealing with the situation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It certainly is not. It is a wrong standard.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is a wrong standard
to apply. I am not prepared to say just what method should be adopted to correct the situation, short of the dominion taking over the responsibility; and even that does not solve the problem in every case. You do not, as we have discovered on several occasions, solve a problem by transferring it from one jurisdiction to another.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have a suggestion to
make to the minister in that regard. Let it be known that we do not propose to pay unless the conditions which the minister has outlined are observed. That may have some effect. It is the only way that is left to us. It is perfectly obvious that we have no right at the moment, having regard to the decision of the privy council, to exercise general control. I cannot but regret it. On the other hand I do think we have power to say, despite the provision of the statute that we shall make a certain contribution, that we are not to make it blindly, that the expenditures must be made to our satisfaction. The minister
knows just as well as I that one or two cases are little short of a scandal, and also in one or two cases the offices are conducted so efficiently and effectively as to occasion no cause of complaint by anybody. The one illustrates how well it may be done; the other illustrates how badly it may be done.
The minister is quite right; there are in my judgment several in which the duties of those in charge are performed with as high a regard to the public weal as any of us can possibly ask for, and no political consideration has governed in connection with the work. I am glad the minister anticipated what will have to be dealt with later, the question of relief matters, because that is where the most glaring examples have occurred. If the minister thinks we have no appreciation of his difficulties he is entirely in error, because I know in detail some of the eases to which he referred. For instance, I remember very distinctly this quota being put up to the cabinet. It was said "The vote last time was so and so; we will have 15 of one type and we will have 35 or 40 of another type of political faith, and that will satisfy the situation."


Norman McLeod Rogers: 'I believe that a quota was actually followed for a time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was told that it was followed, and I believe it was. Obviously that does not enable us to get one hundred cents value for the expenditure of a dollar of the public money, and it is not a standard that should -be applied with respect to it. It is merely an invitation to go on the payroll on the basis of an understanding arrived at between political parties and has nothing to do with the character of the service rendered for the money paid, apart from every other consideration. I think the statute is broad enough to enable us to make some limitations of our obligation to pay, unless at least the ordinary rules of conduct in times like these are observed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suppose it is not worth while for me to repeat a view which I hold, and which I am probably the sole member of the house to hold, that the evils which have occurred arise out of the fact that the parliament of Canada has endeavoured from time to time to entrench upon the political autonomy of the provinces and to assume the right, by votes of money, to deal with matters, connected with, for instance, labour, which are not under the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament. We have gone the wrong way, and we have gone very far; and the time must come at no distant day when parliament shall attempt to recover the ground
3686	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
which it has lost, and take solid footing on matters which are within its legislative competence.
The evils are very many. We vote large sums for relief. I do not know how matters have been adjusted, but I know that when we were in office in one city of the dominion over 82,000,000 of federal money had been expended and there were no vouchers obtainable from the provincial government or from the municipality with regard to these expenditures. How they have been dealt with since I do not know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some, I see by the reports, have been adjusted-not all.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Oh, no. Some are outstanding.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Furthermore, take the political aspect of it. Money voted by this parliament for relief in the provinces is in fact being distributed by the aldermen of the cities. The aldermen of a city will obtain, in each aldermanic ward in which that money is distributed, a strong political influence, which may be used against members on one side of the house or on the other, but which should not be available or be used for. the purpose of securing the election of federal members or for preventing the election of federal members.
Take the city of Montreal to-day. Hon. members on the other side of the house who represent constituencies in Montreal, in order to ensure a reasonable prospect of being elected at the next federal election, must endeavour to secure so far as possible the support of the aldermen in their federal constituencies who have control of the distribution of federal funds in matters of relief. I attempted not long ago in connection with an election in Montreal to 'take the civic lists of those who were receiving relief and the boundaries within which those lists were compiled, and I believe I arrived at a fair computation when I say that between four and five thousand of those who were entitled to vote in that election were in receipt of dominion relief, inasmuch as the money or a large part of it came from the dominion. Yet that money was distributed by municipal agencies over which this parliament has no control at all, and in many instances the distribution by municipal agencies is made for partisan political purposes. This is a condition which cannot continue without strong protest, and the solution of the difficulty must be found in a firm decision on the part of this parliament, which, I suppose, parliament would be afraid to take before the general election, because

any person who voted either one way or the other would probably be subject to reprisals in the electoral district which he represents.
But parliament must either acquire control over industrial employment and over certain elements of the labour situation, or it must withdraw from the field and refuse to vote large sums of money for the purpose of enabling a provincial or municipal authority to distribute it. We had better reconsider the matter. We have got to face it. At the present time it affects hon. members on the other side of the house far more than it affects those on this side. A larger number of constituencies are represented on the other side of the chamber. I am dealing with the province of which I am one of the representatives, as it affects many of the existing constituencies in the city and island of Montreal. It affects very closely many of those who represent those constituencies and who must again apply as candidates for political support in general elections and in by-elections. Now, that condition is wrong. If I employ a stenographer in my office to do my work and she types my letters during an election campaign, she is deprived of her vote, because she is paid iby me for writing letters which are mailed to notify my constituents where they vote or to notify them of public meetings which I hold. If she writes those letters and then votes for me, she is doing an illegal act. Many employees refuse to vote under those conditions, even if their employment is permanent employment and they are on a monthly or yearly wage. But here we have a vast expenditure, amounting to millions of dollars, going to electors who now have the full right to receive those moneys and to vote in federal elections under the persuasion of the distributors of those funds. There is something wrong there, grievously wrong, and if we wish to avoid a general system of electoral corruption-and such corruption seems to be increasing-the government, as the 'leader of opinion in this house, whose duty it is to formulate public policies, must reconsider the situation and deal with it, and, I trust, will deal with it effectively.


Angus MacInnis: The evil of patronage is becoming very serious in this dominion. The question is not one that I am greatly concerned with personally; I have very few complaints and I am not often approached in cases where patronage can be or is being used. But I do not think we can complain about patronage in provincial affairs when we accept it in our dominion affairs. If we desire to do away with patronage in the provincial

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
sphere, and expect as a parliament to have any influence in this direction, we shall have to make first a definite clean-up of our own house. I have often felt, and I suppose it is natural shyness about approaching certain people which has prevented me from following the impulse, that I should personally approach the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and ask them to use their great personal influence with their followers to try to do away with this deadly evil. By common consent we say in this house that patronage or political partisanship should not apply to relief work, and yet in the same breath we say that it is quite natural that patronage should apply in public works. Well, public works and relief works are financed by the taxpayer's money-Liberal, Conservative, socialist, cooperative commonwealth, communist and what-not-and if it is wrong to allow patronage in relief works it is equally wrong in public works. So that until we are prepared to go the whole way and abolish all patronage the evil will grow despite the sporadic efforts we make to scotch it now and then. I appeal to those who have great influence in their parties, such as the Minister of Labour, the Prime Minister and many others on the other side of the house as well as the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, who are all, I am quite satisfied, opposed to this policy, to use their great influence with their party followers in order to eradicate this evil from our political life.


Mr. GREEN:: What coordination is there in the work of the employment offices in the different provinces?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The expenditures of the
dominion government under the Employment Offices Coordination Act are applied to the maintenance of an office in Ottawa which acts as a clearing house for the records in the different provinces. We have also undertaken, under the special arrangement following the war, whereby certain placement officers were attached to a number of offices in the larger cities, to give special assistance to disabled war veterans. Our expenditures are confined to these two functions: the maintenance of an office here, which is a clearing house for information from the provincial employment offices, and the special provision of these placement officers.


Howard Charles Green: We might help to solve this problem of the transient unemployed by having employment offices say in Ontario in close touch with the offices in British Columbia. There may be opportunities here to take -51952-234
care of some of these men. Is there no system of cooperation between the offices in the different provinces?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is cooperation particularly between adjoining provinces, and in addition to that information is supplied by the federal office, which receives data from the employment offices in all of the provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is practically no shifting of labour in this country.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Mobility of labour has
suffered greatly, partly as a result of relief regulations.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any way in which the cooperation could be improved? Could parliament not do something to strengthen it? It would help a great deal in regard to the transient unemployed problem.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I know of no handicap suffered by the transient in applying for employment in a particular province. There is no restriction, apart from provincial public works, which would prevent transients securing employment generally within a province. If such a transient came from Manitoba to Ontario and applied at a branch of the employment service, he would, as I understand it, be under no disability as compared with residents of the province in his application for work.


Howard Charles Green: The unemployed cannot go to an employment office in Vancouver and ascertain whether there is work in Manitoba, under the present arrangement.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is really no difficulty in the Vancouver office securing that information because the dominion office exists in part for that purpose, and it would need simply a telegraphic request for information.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The fact is that there is a dearth of employment for the so-called transients. I am not speaking in any way as lauding my own efforts, but for twenty years I have known a great number of young men growing up from boyhood and they throng my office to seek employment. Take the months of August and September and early October of last year. I believe I could have secured employment for 2,000 young men if I could have found them-young men with such training in manual employment that they could perform elementary work in the mechanical trades in the operation of machines. But there is now no way in which they can secure employment. Most of the employers are willing to give employment, but under the existing trade union arrangements and agreements they are not able to take them on as

3688	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
apprentices to learn the elements of employment in their particular industries, and so the young men who are untrained do not obtain employment. In many cases employers, in charge of manufacturing and industrial employment generally, are unable to secure the right kind of employees to start with.
When I was a lad in Nova Scotia, the boys of nearly every family were taught for a year or two by apprenticeship the elements of industrial work so as to fit them for earning their own livelihood in case other employment into which they later entered proved unsuccessful. But at the present time we are not educating the youth for manual work and the trade union arrangements do not permit of the employment of apprentices to learn the industrial trades as they did in the past. That is one reason why so many young men in a large city like Montreal find it practically impossible to secure a start in industry in which manual education or apprenticeship is necessary. If the Minister of Labour could bring about an agreement between the employers of industry and the employees so that both would recognize the duty of assisting in giving elementary work in industry to the youth of the land and so encourage and enable them to qualify themselves for industrial employment, he would be doing more to obtain relief from this so-called prevalence of unemployment than any vote of money that the minister could possibly get to assist in technical training. You cannot, under the present arrangements between the labour union and employers, secure employment for young men in the elementary work which they formerly secured by apprenticeship. even if you train them in your technical schools for that purpose. If the minister has any influence with labour unions, and with employers of labour in industry I wish he would bring to their hearts and minds a full appreciation of the responsibility which they both have for the conditions of distress which prevail in many of the large cities owing to the unemployment of youth.


Denton Massey: It would be of great interest if the minister would be good enough to give a sketch of the functional activities of the various offices. For instance, how does a man register and what happens after he registers?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not sure that I can
answer my hon. friend except to say that the service rendered by the employment bureau is one of receiving applications and making placements where possible. The process of registration is one which is based upon forms which are uniform throughout the service. I should have mentioned that the

dominion government also assists in that direction in arranging that there shall be uniform forms available for registration purposes. The extent to which the employment service is able to make placements depends of course upon the degree to which it is utilized by industry. On the whole the record of the employment service in Canada, with respect to placements, compares favourably with employment services established in other countries. It is still true, however, that many of the larger industries prefer to take on personnel through their own personnel offices rather than work through the employment service of Canada. As a matter of fact I *have had representations on a number of occasions from the manufacturers' association and chambers of commerce suggesting that the employment service of Canada as at present organized was not serving industry to the extent that it might. I am not prepared to say how far that is due to the employment service itself or how far it is due to the unwillingness of industry to give its full cooperation to that service. No doubt a part of the fault lies in each direction.


Denton Massey: One receives at times
various complaints regarding almost everything, but it has been stated to me by many different persons that they have registered for a certain class or kind of work and weeks have gone by and they have heard nothing. In the meantime several others have been placed who came later and registered subsequently to the time of registration of the persons to whom I refer. Does the federal department exercise control over these offices, or are they entirely in the hands of the provinces?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That aspect of it would be, but if any complaints of that kind are received I see no reason why they should not be brought to the attention of the provincial authorities by the director of employment service in Ottawa.
Mr. MASSEY': To what lengths does the office go to ascertain whether the claims made by a man as to his experience and training are bona fide? If a man registers as a skilled mechanic with nineteen years' experience with a certain type of lathe, for example, does the office satisfy itself that he is a mechanic of that class or kind, or does it simply take his word and send him to an industrial firm with the recommendation that he is a mechanic of that type?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It would depend upon the officials in charge of the employment office. Some officials would have the means of determining qualifications of the kind described

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
by my hon. friend; others would obviously not be able to determine such qualifications. In that situation it would really rest with the industry to which the man had been sent.


Denton Massey: If a man were to present himself to one of these offices with credentials or recommendations or references or letters "to whom it may concern," saying that he had held some reasonably important position, would he be likely to get a preference over a man who had registered a month before but who had not the same qualifications?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is so obviously a matter of internal administration that I cannot give a definite answer. I should certainly assume that in making selections for openings those in charge of the employment office would be guided by priority of application and the qualifications of the candidates.


Denton Massey: Has the minister any figures as to the numbers who were placed through these offices during the last year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. It might be useful to place these numbers on Hansard. This is from the beginning. The Employment Offices Coordination Act was passed in 1918, and I have the figures from that date forward:
1919	(10 months)	 305,905
1920		 445,812
1921		 355,756
1922		 393,522
1923		 462,552
1924		 306,132
1925		 412,825
1926		 410,155
1927		 414,769
1928		 470,328
1929		 398,367
1930		 368,679
1931		 471,508
1932		 352,214
1933		 352,097
1934		 406,091
1935		 353,802
1936		 331,450
1937		 389,526
The number has fallen off to a marked degree as from 1928.


Denton Massey: How many offices are there altogether?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There are across Canada 69 centres in which offices are established. In larger cities there are three or four offices.


Charles Grant MacNeil: In some respects the national employment commission put its finger on certain definite needs in the service. At page 19 it recommends:
Prompt establishment of a modernized employment service, under national direction so far as all broad principles and policies are concerned, but with such measure of decentralization as will provide effective handling of problems peculiar to each province. This ser-51952-234}
vice to provide the administrative local units required to bring about the separation of employables from unemployables, and to formulate such local plans as will increase "employability." To this employment service would be attached regional and, where necessary, local advisory committees, of community-minded citizens, including representatives of employers and labour, in order to ensure that such plans are really practical instead of theoretical.
My experience has been that the service has abandoned the policies which were inaugurated by the late Senator Robertson back in 1919-20. At that time there was formed The Employment Service Council of Canada to advise the Minister of Labour. In several provinces steps were taken to form provincial advisory committees thoroughly representative of employing interests and labour, and in some cities committees were formed. In that way the employment interests felt some responsibility to cooperate with the service. At that time it was possible to secure agreement to abandon the independent employment agencies which were in competition with the government offices, with results which in some ways were disastrous. Is it not possible to implement the recommendations of the commission in such a way as to revitalize this employment service, making some effort to establish the regional and provincial, as well as national, advisory committees, see that the work of the service is properly publicized, and that there is effective cooperation on the part of all interests? In connection with the remarks of the hon, member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), is it not possible to return to the effective exchange of information between all points in Canada, so that if a shortage of labour exists at one point and a surplus at another a quick and effective exchange may be accomplished; also to deal effectively as far as possible with the seasonal labour requirements in Canada? I think there is much to be said for the terms of this recommendation.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As to the exchange of information, I am informed that that is done at the present time. Obviously in these last few years the information respecting available employment has beien rather limited, and in most provinces has extended rather to certain trades than to general labour, in which, and particularly in the building trades, there has been a surplus rather than a shortage. But the facilities exist for the exchange of information.
As to the setting up of these advisory committees, I agree that there is much to be said in support of the idea, but our experience with committees of that kind has been that if they are to succeed they must be focussed on some
3690	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
concrete task. Simply to have a general advisory committee to deal with the employment service would not b'e very effective. The national employment commission, in making its recommendation had in mind that the employment service would also be utilized in connection with youth training plans and the rehabilitation of the unemployed. I am far from saying that even in the existing organization more might not be done in that direction; I simply point out that in setting up these committees, if one expects results from them it is very important to see that they are focussed on the particular task.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: Would it not be possible to obtain greater efficiency by having a national clearing house to which these various offices would send their returns? Is that done?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, that is done. That is one of the functions discharged by the dominion office.


Howard Charles Green: Is there no possibility of the dominion government taking over the employment service, as the Purvis commission so strongly recommended? Why can we not establish our own dominion employment agencies in the different provinces, or, if some provinces did not want it, let them carry on as they are? I am sure that certain provinces would be willing to allow the dominion to take over the field.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is a question I have had occasion to discuss before in this house. It is true that there are certain provinces that would even now consent to the employment service being taken over by the dominion. It so happens however that these are provinces in which the problem of unemployment is less acute with respect to industrial labour; I refer particularly to some of the western provinces. I would question the desirability of the dominion setting up a competing system of employment service. From time to time this government and other governments have been attacked on the ground of duplicating services. I have discussed this matter wdth a number of the provinces. I am bound to say that while some would be agreeable, others are definitely opposed, and while some of the larger industrial provinces are opposed to having the employment service nationalized, I question the wisdom of our proceeding in a piecemeal way.


Charles Grant MacNeil: What steps are being taken to coordinate the work in the various provinces. The minister is aware of the necessary movement of labour from point to point

between the great lakes and the Pacific coast to take care of seasonal requirements. Is there any coordination so that men move as efficiently as possible from one job to the next as it may open up, without being released in large numbers and then picked up again in a more or less haphazard way? Is there a general plan in effect in that respect between the four western provinces?


Norman McLeod Rogers: An effort is made to collate all information with respect to available employment and seasonal opportunities for employment. For example, special arrangements have been made with the railways to see that when there is definite promise of employment no man shall fail to reach that employment by reason of the fact that he is unable to meet the railway charges.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Is the service equipped to deal with a situation such as that in Vancouver to-day? It has been suggested that work is available at various points and that these single unemployed men should apply for it. Can we safely give assurance that work is available for them?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I would not suggest for a moment that one could say that on a given day all of a certain group of men can be given employment in one province or another. The employment office in Vancouver would be advised of possible opportunities for employment in other provinces. But as my hon. friend fully realizes, in the past few years in most of the provinces there has been, generally speaking, a surplus of general labour and of workers, in the building trades. We are hoping that this situation will be very largely rectified shortly. Of course it does not follow that all employment in a city or province must be obtained through the Employment Service of Canada.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Having regard to the apparent evils that are in the minds of all hon. members and have been expressed to the minister, would he from his contact with the provincial officers up to the present time express an opinion as to whether such abuses are being rectified? Is there a willingness on the part of the employment offices to cure some of the evils that have been so apparent, and that I know are in the minds of those who are in close touch with employment offices? Does the minister feel like expressing an opinion as to whether there is any indication on the part of the employment offices that they are ready to assist in eradicating these evils, or are they indifferent to the whole situation?

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices


Norman McLeod Rogers: Certainly I would not go the length of saying that the directors of the employment offices in the various provinces are indifferent to the situation or are not desirous of correcting such abuses as exist. On the other hand I would not feel myself in a position to pass censure upon the employment service as it existed generally in a particular province. Undoubtedly there are weak points; possibly there are weak points in all provinces, and I would imagine that in all provinces there is a growing opinion, that the employment service of Canada should be modernized, as suggested by the national employment commission, and made even more useful than it has been in the past. In all this criticism I think we should recognize that generally speaking the Employment Service of Canada has done a very good job with respect to placements for a number of years, but undoubtedly much can be done to improve and modernize it. If that cannot be done by nationalization it ought to be done by more effective cooperation between the employment services in the various provinces.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: There are one or two points in particular I have in mind, and no doubt the minister has encountered places where perhaps greater evils have crept in. Are definite efforts being made by the department to have difficulties eliminated at particular points that may have been brought to the attention of the minister? I imagine he is familiar with certain points. I know of one or two. Is a real effort being made by the minister to impress upon those in charge at those points the importance of having the difficulties remedied, difficulties that have been so apparent particularly within the last year or two? Is the Department of Labour bringing its influence to bear upon points where evils have crept in?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The answer to that question would be that the Department of Labour is and will be anxious to bring about an improvement in the Employment Service of Canada, and to correct any weaknesses that may exist. So far as personnel is concerned I have explained to the committee that it is effectively beyond our control, but certainly I would not say that the difficulties as to personnel are confined to any year or any period of years, and I am sure my hon. friend will agree with that. Possibly difficulties with respect to personnel in some respects go back to the beginning of the service. Certainly we will do whatever lies within our power to improve the service, but the question of personnel is one that actually lies within provincial control.


Charles Grant MacNeil: May I ask exactly what facilities are available to a transient in British Columbia, now unemployed, whose domicile is in Saskatchewan or Manitoba? Can he go to the office in Vancouver and register, even though he is not a resident of British Columbia, and secure definite advice or assistance in connection with employment that may be avilable in the province of his domicile?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Clearly that would be a-matter of internal administration. Personally" I would feel that if the information were' available which would disclose possibilities of employment in the province of domicile, he would be assisted by the officer of the employ' ment office towards obtaining such employment. I cannot go beyond that.


Denton Massey: A few moments ago the
minister very kindly gave the number of jobs that had been obtained through these sixty-eight offices throughout the dominion. Has he any record of the number of applications that were handled, in order that we may have an idea of the success of these offices?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Perhaps it would serve the purpose of my hon. friend if I gave the number of applications in a given year and the number of placements in the same year.


Denton Massey: Yes.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The year is from March,
1936, to March, 1937, inclusive. The number of applications was 680,183. The number of placements was 332,195.


Denton Massey: Would the 680,183 be
different individuals, or might an individual apply two or three times in the course of a year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: These would be the actual placements. A man might be placed several times in the course of a year.


Denton Massey: And the same would apply in regard to applications?


Norman McLeod Rogers: One man might be placed a number of times in the course of a year, and each time would be included as a placement.


Denton Massey: The 680,183 would be the total number of applications, and a man might apply several times in a year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Denton Massey: Would the minister be
good enough to tell the committee if the offices in the various centres advertise that they have registered with them mechanics, drill hands, and so on, whatever may be the
[DOT]3692	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
various types of skilled labour available? Do they advertise at all in the daily press in order to notify employers that they have available men of the type referred to a short time ago by the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I do not believe they
advertise.


Denton Massey: They do in some centres.


Norman McLeod Rogers: They may in some centres; that would be entirely a matter of provincial administration, as to whether money was available for that purpose. But apart from that, as my hon. friend knows, all employment offices have a bulletin service, and to some extent that meets the need.


Denton Massey: On page 32 of the final
report of the national employment commission these words appear:
The national employment commission feels, however, that it would be failing in its responsibilities if it did not record its opinion, formed out of its experience with problems of unemployment and "relief" that since the dominion government has already invited the cooperation of the provinces to achieve a national system of unemployment insurance it would be in the interests of sound and economical administration that a unified and coordinated system of nationally administered unemployment insurance, unemployment aid and employment service be instituted.
That would seem to me a recommendation that all these employment offices be placed under federal control. Would the minister care to state to the committee whether he personally feels that that should be done?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I believe I have already
stated-


Denton Massey: In a particular way, I
mean.


Norman McLeod Rogers: to the committee that I can see many advantages in having a national employment service, but I do not believe one can answer that question without regard to the control of other industrial conditions which now lies within provincial jurisdiction.
. I refer particularly to the fact that under our federal distribution of powers the provinces are in effective control of working hours and conditions; and in fact the provinces generally are in more constant contact with industry than is the dominion. That recommendation of the national employment commission was made in such a way as to indicate clearly that in the future if we had a national system of unemployment insurance we could have an effective national employment service. It is generally agreed that with a national system 
of unemployment insurance, and the employment service that would be established as a corollary of unemployment insurance, there would be established a continuing contact between the employment service and industry in a way which would not occur otherwise. I do not see that the dominion could establish an effective employment service without at the same time having either a national system of unemployment insurance or a control over other industrial conditions.


Denton Massey: In connection with the suggestion recently made to various provinces for an unemployment insurance plan, was it suggested that the unemployment services be given over to the dominion, or was that assumed to be the case?


Norman McLeod Rogers: In the original letter-and I am speaking from recollection-the reference was to unemployment insurance, and to employment offices as a necessary corollary of unemployment insurance. But in the letter which referred to the constitutional amendment the reference was rather to unemployment insurance. However, it was the opinion of the law officers of the crown that with the power to deal with unemployment insurance there would be no question as to the power to set up employment services.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Ancillary to it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, employment services ancillary to it.


James Samuel Taylor: It must be recognized that these placements are costing the dominion government a considerable sum. In 1937 the placement of 389,000 cost forty cents a placement. That is a big item, and unless the minister is perfectly satisfied that the organization is really doing good work it seems to me it is very costly. There must be some better way by which placements can be effected.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I suppose it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not a service is costly, when it means an expenditure of forty cents per placement. I would not agree with the hon. member in that regard. I have not compared the figures in connection with unemployment services with other countries, but I would feel that a cost of forty cents per placement was not by any means excessive.


Howard Charles Green: In what way are young men and women receiving youth training helped by the employment agencies? Is there any tie-up which enables the agencies to help these young people?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Perhaps that question might better be reserved until we discuss an item

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
in the supplementary estimates. However, if the hon. member wishes I shall deal with it now. In the past we did seek to have special placement officers attached to the employment service to deal particularly with those who received training under the plans for unemployed young people. This year I feel still more strongly that this service should be improved and possibly extended, because clearly the final justification of plans of that kind is the placement of those who have received the training. I am not suggesting one could reasonably expect that all could be placed in employment, but I would agree entirely with the hon. member when he suggests it is important that training be linked up with placements through the Employment Service of Canada, or in some other way.


Howard Charles Green: Are all those young people registered with the employment, offices?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am quite sure when they have received their training they are registered with the Employment Service of Canada. Perhaps the hon. member would allow that question to stand, and I shall secure the information and give it to him when the other item is before the committee.


Denton Massey: The minister has said that he feels the services of the various employment offices should be extended. In view of the fact that the administration of these offices is in the hands of the provinces, how does be go about seeing that those services are extended?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, Mr. Chairman, there are always the powers of suggestion and persuasion. I suppose in our agreements with the provinces we could under the statute require that the services be extended in certain particulars. If we did so I suspect the provinces concerned would say, "Very well; we will conduct the service if you will pay for it." Of course that would involve the question whether or not the dominion government should increase its present allowance for the maintenance of the employment service in Canada.


Denton Massey: Do I understand that in
the granting of this vote, amounting this year to $63,925, we make no inspection of those offices at all, and leave the matter entirely to the provinces?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Inspections are made from time to time. The director of employment services does visit the employment offices and makes a report, a portion of which is usually included in the report of the Department of Labour.


Denton Massey: Is the visit anticipated, or does he just arrive?


Norman McLeod Rogers: My information is that he arrives unheralded.


Charles Grant MacNeil: It is extremely important to consider the operation of the service, particularly with relation to a crisis such as we have in Vancouver. Is it possible through the facilities of the employment service to make a quick survey of other provinces, and to determine whether or not work of any type is available for the men who have concentrated in Vancouver? Was there any definite tie-up between the government service and the forestry camps, prior to the release of the men from the forestry work?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not able to say at this time whether there was a connection established between the forestry conservation camps and the employment service of British Columbia. I would assume-and I believe the hon. member so stated the other day- that when those men left the forestry conservation camps they registered with the employment service in Vancouver. Again I can see no reason at all why those in charge of employment services in Vancouver could not be advised of employment opportunities in other provinces. In other words, transients who were non-resident, and whom it was proposed to return to their own homes or places of origin, might have received information as to possible employment opportunities. But again I believe it is important to point out that the information available in employment. offices would not necessarily limit the employment opportunities in any province, because there are a great many employment opportunities which are filled otherwise than through the Employment Service of Canada.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Is it correct to assume
that even in this present serious crisis the minister has not been advised as to whether or not the employment service is able to offer any work to non-residents, through the Vancouver office?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, it is quite evident I believe that in almost every province where unemployment exists at the present time no head of an employment service could give an assurance that there is work available for all. The availability of work would depend upon the qualifications of the applicants and also upon the priority of the application.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Does that not boil down to this, that if an agency such as the government service is unable to indicate employment opportunities, actually no work is available for those men?

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices


Norman McLeod Rogers: No, I would not say that.


Charles Grant MacNeil: What evidence exists that there is work anywhere for them?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the whole trouble.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The only answer I can make to the hon. member is the one I have already given, namely that many men, to the number I have indicated, are placed regularly through the Employment Service of Canada. But we know that there are many others who are placed directly through their own applications, either to industry or to other employers of labour. So that it does not follow of necessity that because the Employment Service of Canada cannot state that men can be placed at work in a given province, no opportunities for employment exist in that province.


Angus MacInnis: Does it not follow, though, that if there were employment in any province generally speaking the employment offices would know about it? If employers were seeking workers, and those positions were not filled, it would seem that an approach would be made to the government service. As the hon. member for Vancouver North has said, if there are no positions with the employment service it would seem to be a clear indication that employment is not available. It is quite true that a person may obtain employment- and many do-without approaching the government service. But if the agency cannot supply all those who make application for jobs I think it is a clear indication that work is not available, and that there is a residue of unemployed persons who cannot find jobs.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Is it not true that at the present time in every office of the employment service in western Canada there are more men registered for work than there are positions available?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not that information at hand. May I say that for many years at any given time a considerable portion of our population has been unemployed. That is so because of the seasonal nature of much of our employment.


Angus MacInnis: But is there not this difference between the present situation and that which obtained in other years, namely, that in other years the amount of work was sufficient to carry the men from one job to another, whereas at present the wages -made at one job are eaten up before the men can get to another. They are out of clothing and are behind in their rent-provided they have some one who trusts them for rent. All those payments have to be made out of a job, and when that job is completed they are on re-
[Mr. MacNeil.3
lief again, or have to obtain employment in some way. Is it not really that which makes unemployment a matter of concern to the government? When a worker could maintain himself from one job to the other, unemployment was not regarded as something bad; it was considered useful because it enabled employers to buy labour cheap. But the situation is altogether changed when the unemployed man cannot carry himself from one job to another and becomes a burden upon the government or upon the state.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the minister will
excuse me if I bring up the question as to when the summer training camps, the forestry training camps, will be opened in British Columbia. I understand they will provide for a great many of the younger men, and presumably some of the men who are sitting in the post office at Vancouver will be elegible for these camps. When will the camps be opened?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I would assume that they would be opened in the very near future. I have no definite information on that point. My hon. friend knows that the training camps, as distinct from the forestry conservation camps which have been in operation during the winter months, fall within the youth training plans. There is no reason that I can see why the training camps should not be opened in the very near future.


Howard Charles Green: They will accept men up
to thirty years of age, will they not?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is a possibilty of
accepting them up to thirty years of age. Normally the age limit would be eighteen to twenty-five.


Howard Charles Green: Well, if these men will be
eligible for those camps, and the camps will be open in a very short time, would it not be possible for the government to make some arrangement to care for these young men in the interval? It will be only a matter of two or three weeks or perhaps a month. Could they not be cared for in some way or another, perhaps by having one or two of the winter camps opened, and the young men who would be eligible for the training camps placed in these winter camps meanwhile?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I see no reason why some of these young men may not be eligible for training in the forestry camps. As to their care meanwhile, those who would be eligible would be residents of British Columbia, and any care extended to them meanwhile would be a matter entirely of provincial administration.

Sup-ply-Labour-Employment Offices


Howard Charles Green: Of course it is an unfortunate situation that exists in Vancouver, and it affects the whole dominion. I think it would help a great deal if arrangements could be made to take out that particular class of young man. Surely the government could go that far. It might solve the whole difficulty if two or three hundred of these younger men could be gotten out in this way. Cannot something be done along that line?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have already presented to the house a copy of a telegram which set out very clearly that single unemployed men would be upon the same footing as others in a similar position, with respect to their eligibility for youth training plans or employment offered on public works projects. I cannot go beyond that statement.


Howard Charles Green: Could steps be taken to find out now what proportion of these men in the post office and the art gallery are eligible for such training? That at least would show that steps are being taken, and I believe the fact that some move was being made by the government would help a great deal.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The answer to that is that the information is already available so far as the men who are in the forestry camps are concerned. All were registered while they were in these camps. It is known where they came from. It is on the basis of that information that the offer of transportation was made to them in order that they might return to their places of origin.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I do not wish to be unduly insistent or to be unfair to the minister, but I fail to understand his unwillingness to accept suggestions that special action be taken to deal with an urgent situation. It is difficult to interpret the minister's remark that he recognizes the gravity of the situation in Vancouver at this time. I am receiving daily resolutions from responsible persons and organizations. For instance, I have one under my hand now, signed by Archbishop DePencier of Vancouver, who is extremely perturbed about the situation. The minister says he is relying on provincial government advice and it is purely a matter of provincial government administration; but by this vote we are contributing to the maintenance of this service, under an agreement which gives the minister some degree of supervision of the operation of the service. I fail to understand why some special effort may not now be made to meet this situation. May I point this out, that the federal government will no doubt contribute in part to the expenditure of a considerable sum of money for transportation of these men-they have already offered
it-to various other provinces. Surely, if that money is to be expended, it is reasonable to suggest that it be expended on a businesslike basis, and that when a man receives transportation through the facilities of a particular service he will have the assurance of assistance to his destination and a share of any employment that may be available. He should not be simply removed to another point and cast adrift.
Another point I wish to stress is that if some action is not taken, an increasing number of men will be sent to gaol; it costs the provincial government over a dollar a day to maintain a man at the Oakalla gaol, and that is not good business, quite apart from the fact that the men are thrown into association with hardened criminals.
Here we have an employment service. Surely it is possible, with the facilities existing in this service, to set in operation some plan to meet the situation, first with regard to those who are resident in British Columbia, and then to move those who are non-residents to points where they will either be offered work or receive food and shelter under some suitable arrangement.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have tried to say to
my hon. friend, although I may not have succeeded, that the facilities of the Employment Service of Canada have been available from the beginning with respect to these men, are available now, and will be made available to them, but upon the same basis as such services will be made available to others who are in the same condition of unemployment. It is not possible to go beyond that.
Mr. MaclNNIS:	What are those conditions? If the Employment Service of Canada cannot find jobs for these men, its service is finished, is it not? Is there anything further it can do? When the minister says that the Employment Service of Canada is available to these men on the same basis as to others, what use is it to these men or to others if no jobs are available?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The purpose of the employment service, my hon. friend is aware, is not to create employment-
Mr. MaclNNIS: I am quite aware of that. It cannot create jobs.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Exactly-but rather to offer assistance to place unemployed in such opportunities for employment as may be available. That service will certainly be extended to those in British Columbia.
Mr. MaclNNIS: I am sure the minister will not be under any misapprehension of my
3696	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
understanding of what the employment service is. I assume it is a place where employers can register that they have places available for men, and where men can register for jobs. If there are no jobs available with the employment service, that is the end of it as far as any aid it can give to the men is concerned. I suppose this is true, that were it not for the fact that men are compelled to register before they can get relief, there would be far fewer registrations in times of intense unemployment than there would be in normal times, because once the men have registered and have received no results from the registration they are not going to go there from day to day. I know that from experience in visiting these employment agencies and finding out the circumstances for myself. I think the minister must admit that work is not available for these men in British Columbia. The other day I read a letter from the mayor of Vancouver stating that conditions were worse than they were last year, and that because of the arrangement between the province and the dominion the city , is carrying a greater burden. Unless the minister can demonstrate in some effective way that there are openings for employment, I cannot see how these men can be denied relief.


Mr. MacNICOL:: For some time I have been wondering whether this particular expenditure is not more or less wasted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In the old country, of course, the branch which corresponds, although in name only, to this department does a great deal of work. I assume that what is done in the old country under the branch of the labour department which looks after the same work that this is supposed to look after, is done in this country by the provincial governments. I have been wondering for what purpose we give these sums of money, large in some provinces and small in others, to the provincial labour departments. In 1937 a little less than $4,000 was given to Nova Scotia. What could the federal representatives in Nova Scotia do in assisting in the administration of the labour department in that province in connection with the employment business when they had only $4,000? I do not find anything in the auditor general's report to show what was done with that $4,000, and I cannot see what could be done. I believe there is an office in T oronto ?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, several offices.


John Ritchie MacNicol: An unemployed man passing the dominion government labour office naturally assumes that he will at least learn

something about employment. He goes into the office and says that he is a carpenter or machinist, or whatever he is, and is looking for a job. What does the federal representative in Toronto do?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is no federal representative in the employment office in Toronto except for the handicapped ex-service men. The personnel in the employment service in the province and the whole administration of it are looked after by the provincial governments through their departments of labour. The dominion government under the Employment Offices Coordination Act assists the provinces through a grant in aid to maintain the employment service. Under the same act we also provide for a clearing house of information at Ottawa.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is really not a clearing office in the sense that such a labour department in the United Kingdom is. I have sat in a labour office in London for many hours watching how they operate it, and I have discussed matters with the officials and with men coming up to the counter, because the officials were kind enough to let me sit behind the counter and talk with the men. What I cannot understand is what the Canadian federal offices do with a vote like this. We grant to Ontario nearly $62,000. What does the provincial government do for that sum, which is granted by this government for a service which the province is already carrying on inasmuch as it has its own offices everywhere? I shall be glad to support anything that will help men to get work, but it seems to me this is another instance of duplication and we are throwing away $150,000 a year for practically nothing. I do not know when it was started; but the time has come, seeing that we are getting no results, to change or put a stop to it and put the money to better use.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It has been in existence twenty years. This is not a case of duplication but a grant in aid made by the dominion government to assist in establishing an employment service right across the dominion.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the federal government pay the salaries?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The federal government contributes on the basis of actual expenditures in each province in relation to the total expenditures across the dominion. In other words, the $150,000 we pay is allocated to the provinces on that basis, and in addition to that we maintain an office here for the purpose of collecting information from all the provincial employment offices in order that there may be this clearing house of information with respect to employment opportunities.

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices


Denton Massey: The total amount of the vote is about $114,000, which, incidentally, is 11-4 per cent of the total amount which was voted last year for the vital item of youth training. This amount of $114,000 is a substantial sum of money, and it is reasonable to expect a substantial return for it. The success or failure of the employment offices, as suggested, rests with the service they can render to those who employ labour. After all, if they can convince employers of labour that the men whom they have registered with, them and whom they will send to employers are men such as are asked for, then the offices will be working in close cooperation with industry. Several employers whose word I must rely upon have told me that 'there have been times when the men whom they have asked for have not been the men they have received. Let me cite one instance of a man who applied to the employment office in one city with a request for a workman who was capable of operating an automatic lathe. He said the reason he wanted a man for a short period was that the regular operator was away ill, and he was in the midst of a rush job and wanted a highly skilled mechanic for the position. He was informed that such a man was available and would report the next morning. The man reported; but he turned out to be a drill hand, utterly unfamiliar with the operation of that lathe. One or two experiences of this sort have had such an effect on that particular employer that he no longer has any confidence in the employment office in his particular municipal centre, and the result is he is seeking men from some other source.
As the minister told us a short time ago, the inspectors occasionally visit these offices, unheralded, it is true; but that is really not good enough. It is highly desirable that the department should conduct a proper survey of all these offices, to see whether or not this money we are voting is applied to the fullest possible advantage; and by that I mean the advantage of the men, because after all the whole purpose of these offices is to obtain jobs for the men. We vote this money with that idea in mind. The most effective way in which these offices can carry out their purpose is by establishing contact with employers of labour-and such contact as has proved itself to be of value. When men have two or Ithreie experiences such as the one I have related, they tend to lose confidence in the employment offices. I asked whether any advertising was done, and the minister properly answered that that was in the hands of the local office, and that if the province was willing
the money should be spent for advertising, and skilled labour was available, it would be done; otherwise it would not be done. As the hon. member for Davenport has said, however, one cannot help feeling that in some ways this money is not used to the fullest possible advantage, unless it is used in such a way as I have suggested. Would the minister be willing to state that in the past this money has been applied to the best possible advantage; that the provinces are cooperating fully, and that the offices are discharging their functions as well as possible for the benefit of those who apply to them.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I believe I have already answered or tried to answer that question on a number of occasions. I fully agree that in the administration of the employment service in some sections of the country-I am not prepared to say how extensive the weakness may be-such a weakness does exist. As a matter of common knowledge it does exi^t in some sections and ought to be corrected. I believe that we as a federal Department of Labour should do what we can to see that such abuses are corrected, but it is quite another matter to say when the abuses began. Possibly they began from the inception of the service itself. Certainly I would not say, nor would my hon. friend say, that these abuses have come into existence only in the last two or three years.


Denton Massey: Certainly not.


Norman McLeod Rogers: We have had periodic inspections. I had a report a year ago from the director of the employment service after a journey across the country. There are certain improvements that ought to be made, but whether they should be made by increasing the dominion grant in aid is another question. I should doubt very much whether that would accomplish the desired result, but undoubtedly we have a power of suggestion and perhaps of persuasion which has been exercised before and will be exercised again. Our one desire is, if we contribute to a service, to see that it is -made as efficient as possible.


Denton Massey: Has the minister any idea what proportion of the money is spent for administration, how much for rental of offices, advertising and so on? Is there any break-down?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That detail would appear in the provincial accounts. We have a certain item for our central administration. There is, in addition, $150,000 a year which is paid to the different provinces in the pro-
3698	COMMONS
Supply-Labour*-Employment Offices
portion .which their expenditures in carrying on their employment services bear to the total expenditures of the employment services throughout the dominion.


Denton Massey: Then the item of $63,925 is the federal expense? That does not go to the provinces at all?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No; the $150,000 goes to the provinces.


Denton Massey: How is that apportioned among the various provinces?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is what I just explained. It is divided on the basis of the expenses of a single province in maintaining its employment service, in relation to the total expense of maintaining employment services in all provinces.


Denton Massey: That is, in accordance with the existing set-up?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Denton Massey: In other words, the minister does not suggest, if province A provides perhaps a better service than province B, that there should be greater service extended in province B and the grant be increased proportionately?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No.


Denton Massey: Is that not a reasonable suggestion? Assume that province A has conducted its service in a highly beneficial manner and rendered much greater service than province B.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The province which spends most, and which by inference is most interested in maintaining the service, will receive a larger grant from the dominion.


Denton Massey: True, but though it may spend most, it may get fewer results; it may be because more have achieved success in getting a job not in industry but in the employment office itself. The amount of expenditure does not necessarily indicate the ratio of success. After all the measure of success is the number applying and the jobs obtained.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I come back to my old question. I should like the minister to give effective assurance that conditions which now obtain will be discontinued. I am not at this moment going to give names, but I have the papers and can give the names of the individuals I have in mind. A returned soldier applied to the employment office for a position. He knew of a vacancy. He was told to go and see the chief of the Liberal organization 
in the community. He went to him and told him the situation. He went back with a letter from the chief of the Liberal association to the job which was being carried on. There they rather laughed at him, because there seemed to be a fair understanding that that was not going to get him anything. He was not able to get anything to do. The minister has said-what I expected he would say-that he does not approve that sort of thing. But I suggested an alternative method of dealing with it as far as we are concerned. It may be that under the terms of the statute and the agreement which we made we are precluded at present from lessening our contribution. The minister did not make this arrangement; it was made before he came. The late government did not make it, it was made immediately after the war. In 1918, I think, we undertook to make a grant, and according to my memory the grant has been $150,000 direct, in addition to a varying sum depending upon administration, which I understand is our administration cost. Is that right?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are dealing with
expenditures of the dominion government with respect to this item. And the next item we have been considering with relation to it is the payment of the $150,000 which we do not expend but which is expended by the provinces. Now, having regard to the terms of the agreement of 1918, I realize the difficulty of the minister saying, We are not going to make this payment. But I do ask him to say definitely that this sort of thing must stop. And it is easily stopped. All we have to do is to have someone who represents us with respect to these undertakings. The undertaking I have in mind involves an expenditure well on to a million dollars. The work is on a cost-plus basis. It is monstrous- I use that word again, at which the minister sometimes smiles-that a poor unfortunate cannot get a job because he cannot get a letter to the employment office from the head of the Liberal organization.
The other day the Prime Minister made his position clear, and the minister has done so again this afternoon. But that is no good. What I want is some action; and the minister can give it if he will. He knows quite well how to stop this sort of thing if he wants to do so. It can be stopped. We who pay at least half the money for the job are not going to permit someone to tell us that a man cannot get a position unless he does certain things, and even then it does not always get him the job. I would ask the minister to give some assurance that this sort of thing is going to stop. The other evening,.

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
as I say. the Prime Minister on behalf of the government made his position perfectly clear. He said that this sort of thing should stop. We were dealing with a specific case, but he went far beyond that.
The conditions under which we live have so changed that when you find a minister thinking it necessary to write letters to a selected list of people only, saying, " We are going to buy so many onions and so much canned goods, etc.," you are going to have trouble. Who are the largest taxpayers? Not members of the Liberal party alone. I am a very heavy taxpayer, and I am told that my taxes cannot be used to pay for the work of a man who wants employment and cannot get it because he is a supporter of mine. And I am told furthermore that a man who lived in Calgary for only a few months and who was a candidate running against me is determining whether or not men shall get a job. They must be Liberals, and my money in the form of taxes must pay them, but my friends cannot get work. Under conditions of normal prosperity there might be a different attitude. But this is laying the foundations for anarchy. Mark it!


Norman McLeod Rogers: My right hon. friend is not suggesting for a moment that this practice has begun within the last two or three years?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think he ought to make that perfectly clear to the committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But I make it perfectly clear that to my knowledge it was not done under the relief administration.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am afraid it was.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can only say in my
own constituency it was not. The names were put in a hat and drawn out by the mayor of the city.


Mr. MUTCH:: How were the names put in the hat?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The names of all the unemployed were taken just as they came along. If 37ou desire information on that point all you have to do is to write to the city clerk of Calgary. I am speaking of what I know.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That was not true in Kingston, absolutely not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may not be, but conditions have become so intensified. Sometimes I wonder whether our friends realize that we are living on the edge of a volcano in this country:	I am not going to take the time,
but I could start at Vancouver island and go to Cape Breton and point out what is happening in this country. The worst case is that occurring in the Vancouver post office. The hon. member has made it clear again this afternoon. It is apparent that there is no place to which those men can be sent in this country and get a job. There is no sense in getting into an acrimonious discussion with the minister, but I can give him the names and addresses, of the men and the day they went to get a job and were told they could not get it unless they got the imprimatur of the head of this organization. This man of whom I spoke is a returned man, going to be turned out of his house because he cannot pay his rent; he cannot pay his rent because he could not get work, and he could not get work because he did not support the present administration. I am bound to say that the president of the association gave him a letter, but when the contractor got it he just laughed. Whether or not he had been communicated with by telephone, he said, "You are not one of ours." That was the sense of it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The contractor said that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, the foreman.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am surprised at that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, there are many surprises, I am sorry to say. For instance, I had a letter from a man arising out of the discussion we had the other day. He said he had talked to a gentleman who is a minister of the crown, and he had told him to keep in touch with the head of the Liberal organization. He said, "I have done it, but I cannot get anything to do."
All I ask the minister to do is to give this committee some assurance that the policy indicated by the Prime Minister the other evening to be the policy he believed in will be made effective, and that this sort of thing will be stopped. There are no words to describe it adequately. It is a rather serious thing, in view of the burden of taxation imposed on the people of this country, to say that because a man does not support a particular political party all the taxes paid by a man who opposes that party must be available only for those who oppose him. That is what it means. Surely there are some humanitarian principles left in this country somewhere. I can give case after case proving that it has been noticed in various parts of Canada. We should not say much about social credit and promises of $25 a month in view of what has happened in Saskatchewan during the last month. That also must have repercussions throughout this country. Do hon. members realize that this is the first time in the history of democracy when a majority of the electors are on relief? Never before in Canada have
3700	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
we had such a condition. And we have those who are responsible for providing the relief telling them that if they do not vote Liberal they will be hungry. The effect of that upon the institutions of this dominion I put to this committee.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Surely that is a reflection as well upon those who are on relief. Does my right hon. friend suggest for one moment that because a man is on relief, even if there were dictation of that kind it would be submitted to? I suggest that is an impossible statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I at once say yes to my hon. friend's question; and what is more, I know. A man with a wife and family is not taking chances on their starvation. I know about what I am speaking. I have had them tell me; I have their letters. Very reluctantly they have been compelled to take this step; but when a man looks upon his wife and children and is told that they must suffer waht unless he is prepared to give allegiance to a particular party, you know what he will do. It is all right to talk in these high-sounding phrases and say this is a reflection upon them. It is human nature. The man is driven by a force he cannot possibly withstand; it is his wife and family against his convictions. So he says, "I will sacrifice the one to save the other." That spells anarchy in this country in the end.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the right hon. leader of the opposition give the committee the name of a single individual who stated to any-one that unless he voted in a certain way he would go hungry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Regin-a City' is reported in the press to have said that the reason why the electors of Saskatchewan should return Liberal candidates in that province in yesterday's election was that they' had obtained more money than they would have obtained if there had not been a Liberal government there and a Liberal government here; that they had been supplied with feed and fodder, clothing and things of that kind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The right hon. leader of the opposition is now talking about something that is reported in the press. A moment ago he said he was talking of something of which he knew of his own knowledge. I ask again: Does he know of his own knowledge of any case where a man has been told that unless he voted in a certain way he would be allowed to go hungry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said I was not going to read these cases, but I shall read one letlter in that respect from a man who lives in the neighbouring city of Kingston. He writes:
I heard of an opportunity to get a place at Barriefield, working at camp 42. I went to the employment bureau and was told to see Mr. A. E. Stansbury. He gave me a letter to the foreman but when I gave him the letter he only laughed, for I am known to be a Conservative, and so I was not wanted.
Mr. Stansbury's letter is now in the possession of a friend of his, whom he names.


Norman McLeod Rogers: What is the signature?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not going to give the signature, but I will:
I am a war veteran without pension. It is almost impossible to get work because I am not a Liberal, and am about to be put on the street for arrears in rent. I would like to ask if there is any possible way of you be able to help us by your influence to obtain work of some kind to enable my family to be able to have a home without being put out,, because relief won't pay rent when we are out of work.
Yours very truly,
R. E. Rollands,
23 Elgin Street, Kingston.
And there are other letters here from Kingston to the: same effect. Some of them have asked me to say this, but that I should not use their names, because Ithe effect of it would be that they would lose any possible chance of any kind to get anything to do. These are not isolated cases; I could give others. I also have a file -as large as this in regard to Saskatchewan.	[DOT]


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, Mr. Chairman, on
that point, since the right hon. gentleman has raised it now, would he suggest for one moment that there were not similar cases, which presumably he would regret equally, under his own administration, and with respect to the administration of relief camps at Barriefield?


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to Barriefield I cannot say, but I do say this, that because I heard of just such evils as these to which I refer I did endeavour to prevent them. In my own community I know that effect was given to that endeavour by putting the names in a hat and having them drawn. I can assure my hon. friend to my right that he is in error when he suggests that all the names were not put there; the names of all the people who were unemployed, with the numbers, were put there. At the appropriate time I shall read what happened the next spring, when they were finishing those bar-

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
racks on top of the hill, and give the names; I am permitted to do that. They had to have letters from the defeated candidates before they could get jobs, as compared with what they had done before. I do not say for a moment that evils did not exist, but I do say we endeavoured to stop them.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In what way did my
right hon. friend endeavour to stop them?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just the way I have
mentioned without regard to the political faith of the individuals the names were drawn to determine where they should work.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will my right hon. friend
suggest at the same time that in connection with the administration of relief camps and the very large purchases made by the relief camps, of many kinds of material, the names of those who were allowed to tender were drawn out of a hat?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not for a minute.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Was it not based upon a
preferred list consisting entirely of friends of my right hon. friend?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not entirely, to my
knowledge.


Angus MacInnis: Is that any reason why
it should be done now?


Richard Bedford Bennett: But remember, this is
the thing that was not going to happen. This is where my hon. friend was going to change it all. This is where the professor was going to see that decency prevailed. That is the way I put it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall speak with a little
less heat than my right hon. friend, but possibly with a little more light. The right hon. gentleman has dealt with this question on three different occasions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And he is going to deal
with it again.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Quite so, and his whole
purpose has been, by a number of vague charges in the beginning, which I have no doubt were designed to bring more definite charges, to seek to create the impression that I as Minister of Labour had definitely connived at the violation of the terms with respect to employment under relief agreements.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And he will prove it in
this house.


Norman McLeod Rogers: When my right hon. friend brought the matter up in the first place I said definitely and categorically that as far as relief work in my own constituency or elsewhere was concerned, politics had not
entered into it with my knowledge or consent. I stand absolutely by that statement. But I went further and said that there were two different kinds of employment provided in Kingston, and probably in other constituencies as well. There were works covered by relief agreements with the provinces, in which there was a definite undertaking that there should not be discrimination of the kind I have described. That was one type of work. With respect to that I said that I was absolutely in accord with that provision against discrimination, and would seek to see to it that it was observed. But with respect to other employment, casual vacancies occurring in the administration of various departments, I said I had accepted recommendations from my local executive and had sent those recommendations on with my approval, and I would not be hypocritical enough to say I had done otherwise. It would be dishonest to myself and to this house to say that I had done otherwise.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And you will remember
that I said I agreed with you.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I do not think my right hon. friend said he agreed with me at that time. Then my right hon. friend mentioned the name of Mr. Stansbury, who at the present time happens to be president of the Liberal association in Kingston. In the first place he suggested that Mr. Stansbury was a director of the Frid Construction Company, which had the contract in connection with the restoration of Fort Henry. I immediately dealt with that question; I preferred to get accurate information before making any statement in connection with it. I secured the information, and later my right hon. friend made a retraction and admitted that his recollection was faulty when he said that Mr. Stansbury was a member of the Frid Construction Company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But it was the most ungracious retraction to which I have ever listened.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, because I know a great deal about Mr. Stansbury's dealings. That is the reason.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Very well, but what the right -hon. gentleman then said was that there were several other construction companies; there was the Campbell Construction Company and the Frontenac Construction Company, his whole purpose being to leave the inference that Mr. Stansbury was connected with one of these other companies; and he was not.
3702	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not suggesting that he was.


Norman McLeod Rogers: To my knowledge Mr. Stansbury has had no connection whatever with any one of these contracting companies. To my knowledge he has not had any part in the awarding of any government contracts from which he has benefited in the slightest degree. But his predecessor-


Richard Bedford Bennett: We shall see about that. What about his garage? What was it built
with? Where did the stone come from?


Norman McLeod Rogers: He has no garage, to my knowledge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Near his house, on his lot?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As to that I do not knew.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, find out.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Certainly my right hon. friend seems to have made a special purpose of conducting a minute investigation in the constituency of Kingston, if he is now coming down to the question of the garage in the yard of the president of the Liberal association of that constituency.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If he built it with public property, that is my duty.


An hon. MEMBER:: Did he?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He certainly did.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Let my hon. friend make a charge and I will make an investigation. Probably my right hon. friend is no more correct in that information than he was in his earlier information. I am quite content to have the matter investigated at once; I want to make that perfectly clear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is more, there has been interference with the course of justice with respect to it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: With respect to those
other appointments, casual vacancies which have occurred from time to time in the operation of the departments, it is a matter for this house to determine whether or not all these appointments should be brought within the Civil Service Act. If they are brought within that act, then certainly it becomes our duty to observe that act. But my right hon. friend may recall an order in council which gives the Prime Minister certain prerogatives having to do with the appointment of deputy ministers, senators and judges. My right hon. friend was also Secretary of State for External Affairs. He had it within his power to determine who should be appointed to high diplomatic posts. What is patronage?

As I understand patronage1-and I endeavour to deal with this thing in the open, not in the language of scribes and pharisees-patronage is giving preference to friends of the political administration in office. Will my right hon. friend describe it otherwise? And if that is so, is he prepared to rise in his place and say that with respect to these high appointments he did not exercise patronage in that sense of the word? My right hon. friend smiles. Why does he smile? Is it prerogative for the rich and patronage for the poor? Is that the explanation? Or, if that is not the explanation, what is it? The whole truth of the matter is-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is good.


Norman McLeod Rogers: -that it is infinitely better that we should deal with this question frankly and openly. I told my right hon. friend when he first brought it up-and he will agree with me in this-that so far as these relief works are concerned, there is a clause providing against political discrimination, and I am for the observance of that. It is my duty and my inclination. So far as these other appointments are concerned, while they remain outside the civil service I have accepted the recommendations of my executive; and I doubt if there is another member of this house, whose party has been in power, including the right hon. the leader of the opposition, who has not done precisely the same thing. I think that should be understood distinctly while we are discussing this question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was careful enough
when I first spoke of this matter to point out that I was not hypocrite enough to say that those who desire to deal with patronage in the ordinary sense had a right to do so. The minister has merely repeated what I said. I made that exception. I made it in his favour because I realized just what the situation was. But I might remind the minister that it is a little unfortunate that my own party friends have blamed me because they said I did not, when I had the right to exercise certain appointing powers, select sufficiently strong partisans.


Mr. STREIGHT:: You did pretty well.


Mr. KINLEY:: That is a common complaint.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That has been the complaint of my own friends.


Mr. McCANN:: The common complaint.
Your record will stand on that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, indeed it will. I am happy to say it will. Men with fitness were appointed, and not men whose great claim

Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
was that they had political pull. I will say that right away. With respect to the appointment of judges may I say that I notice in England they have the habit of discussing in the public press the fitness of men for positions. One great appointment was discussed at great length, even in the columns of the Times itself. I am prepared to discuss every judicial appointment that was made during the time I held office.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my right hon. friend will permit me; I am not suggesting his appointments were not good; I am suggesting his appointments were restricted to the supporters of a political party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to say that is not so with respect to judicial appointments, and complaints were made on that account by my own political friends.
With respect to senators, in the main it is assumed that they are supporters of the Conservative party. I am bound to say complaints were made in that regard also, and the minister perhaps knows the occasions on which complaints were made.
With respect to high diplomatic posts there remained in office at Paris and Tokyo two gentlemen both of whom had been violent opponents of the Conservative party. And if my hon. friend will remember what the Minister of Justice said last session, he will understand why that right hon. gentleman at least would have recalled one of those men, had he been similarly situated, and the gentleman had been his political opponent.
But what I complained about was the ordinary-I used the word " casual "-appointments. I was not concerned with those which are beyond the civil service commission.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my right hon. friend would permit me on that-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just read the exact words.


Norman McLeod Rogers: -he referred specifically to a return of certain appointments which were casual appointments outside the Civil Service Act. He took exception to the fact that recommendations with respect to those casual appointments had been made by A. E. Stansbury, whom he described as president of the Liberal association. And I say with respect to those appointments I would not deceive the house for a minute by saying that I had not received such recommendations and had not endorsed them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not the minister who made the recommendation; but my point was that on the records of this house occur six or eight times, one after the other, the answer to the question, "On whose recommendation"? was "A. E. Stansbury."


Norman McLeod Rogers: I would remind my right hon. friend that the president of his association in Kingston did precisely the same thing.
I do not know how long the practice has been established.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But he did mot make a recommendation to the government. He made them through his member, it may well be; bult the answers to the questions asked in this house as to the source of the recommendations were, not the Minister of Labour, or the hon. member for Kingston, but that Ithe recommendations had come from A. E. Stansbury, who turned out to be president of the Liberal association.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Exactly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The ministry should accept the responsibility, as I understand it always has, since the earliest days of this country. What I was referring to in that particular case was the fitness of one man who found employment, was appointed on October 1, and spent the nights of the third and fourth in gaol for impersonating an elector in Ithe provincial elections. That is what I was talking about.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Of whom I had no knowledge whatever.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was in the newspapers.
The name of the appointee was there. The name of the recommender, Stansbury, was there. He was an impersonator, came in and impersonated another man at an election, and was taken and locked up. So far as the records show, he is still in the public service. I believe he is wearing Ithe uniform of the country at the present time, if he has gone to the branch of the service to which he was destined. That, I say, is where a recommendation coming from an outside individual, and not a member of parliament or a minister, is wrong. I am quite content that casual appointments be made by a minister, and I have made it quite clear that I have no objections to that practice. I am content that recommendations be made by a member of parliament in regard to casual appointments not within the civil service. I am content with respect to matters other than relief work. But on relief work there is one consideration only, and that is, "Has a man a job?" If he has not a job, and there is work to be had., he should have it, regardless of what his affiliations may be, have been, or anything else. There is only the necessity for a job. That is whiat relief is for; it is not to apply to a preferred class.
It was rather unworthy of the minister to talk about prerogative and patronage, rich and poor, when men have gone so far that

3704	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Employment Offices
they do not know where they will get their next day's bread, and are unable to get a job because they are not members of a certain political party and cannot command the support and the recommendation of the president of an association.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is not true; I will
deal with it later.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is not true?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Certainly it is not true to say, as my right hon. friend has implied, that one cannot obtain a job on the relief work done in that constituency except through being a Liberal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Excepting he had the
recommendation of the president of the Liberal association.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Or even that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, then, I am going on;
the minister has answered the question himself. He knows as well as I do that when he puts that provision in the contract it was the province which made the contract, not the dominion, and he had no control over it at all.
At six o'clock tlhe committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, there does not seem to be a quorum of members. The rule seems to be standing order No. 3, but section 48 of the British North America Act is the section that governs. That section reads:	.
The presence of at least twenty members of the House of Commons shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the house for the exercise of its powers; and for that purpose the Speaker shall be reckoned as a member.
Standing order No. 3 reads:
Whenever Mr. Speaker adjourns the house for want of a quorum, the time of the adjournment, and the names of the members then present, shall be inserted in the journal.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. Item No. 108 was under discussion. Now the objection will be in order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, it is not a question of objection. Unless there are twenty members in the house, the house cannot transact business; if there are twenty, it can.


Frederick George Sanderson: I will ask the assistant clerk to count the members.
And there being only sixteen members present, including the chairman, the chairman reported accordingly to the Speaker.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I shall ask the clerk to count the house.


Mr. NEILL:: Would it not be possible to adjourn the house for half an hour?


Walter Edward Foster: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is one of the things you cannot do.
And there being only seventeen members present, including Mr. Speaker, the names were taken down and the house adjourned, without question put, at 8.10 p.m.
Friday, June 10, 1938