1938-04-29

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. S. HAMILTON (Algoma West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) based on a press report contained in the Sault Daily Star of April 28 and coming from Toronto. This reads:
E. L. Cousins, general manager of the harbour board, yesterday told the civic board of control that the daughter of Jack Philips, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, engineer, who was working as a temporary stenographer during construction work on the Malton airport site, would be "through" to-night.
Mr. ANGUS'MacINNIS (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, a few days ago I was refused permission to read a telegram, on the ground that it was against the rules so to do. But this is on all fours with what I was trying to read, and I wonder if it is not out of order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I understand the hon. gentleman is just prefacing his question and I would ask him to put his question now.


Henry Sidney Hamilton: That is what I intended to do. I want to ask the Minister of Transport if employment at the Malton airport site is under the jurisdiction of the federal government. If the federal government contributes anything towards the Malton airport site, upon w'hat basis is employment carried on?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) :: The Malton airport is a municipal undertaking of the city of Toronto. The federal government contributes roughly twenty-five per cent, the provincial government dollar for dollar with the federal government, and the city of Toronto the balance. The city has

Relief and Agricultural Distress
charge of the work, but the contract with the federal government is that employment shall be given through the government employment office. We have no direct control over the personnel on the work. I may say that the city has turned the work over to the Toronto harbour commission for administration.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, April 28, consideration in committee of Bill No. 105, to assist in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress-Mr. Rogers- Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour):	Mr. Chairman, before the committee proceeds further with the bill I should like to refer to certain statements made last night by the lion, member for Temiseouata. In the interval I have had an opportunity of investigating the charge made that Mr. Purvis, as chairman of the national employment commission, had obtained certain information which would be of value to him in his private business associations. That investigation has confirmed the opinion I expressed last night, that the information so obtained was used solely for public purposes. Late in 1936 and early in 1937 a form was sent out under the authority of the national employment commission to the larger employers throughout Canada. The form stated its purpose to be to secure data deemed useful in studying employment and unemployment. to be supplementary to the commission's studies along other lines, such as the registration of direct relief recipients. That form was prepared by the members and officers of the commission. At the close of 1937 a report was issued embodying the information secured from the replies received. This report was issued and was tabled as a matter of fact in this house under the title of Report on Phases of Employment Conditions in Canadian Industry.
In no sense was it the thought or intention of the commission to look into the circumstances of individual firms; in fact an undertaking was given on the form itself to the effect that nothing of that nature would be done. This undertaking read as follows:
In so far a's the individual firm is concerned this reply will be treated as absolutely confidential. Information taken from the forms will be made public only in a general way: in no case will publicity be given to the individual return nor will it be available to any other branch of government.
That promise was most scrupulously carried out.
The work of receiving the forms and of collecting the data which they contained was under the direction of V. C. Phelan, director of registration, who was serving as an officer of the commission at the time. Neither the chairman nor any member of the commission ever asked for any one of the individual returns and none was shown to them. In order to discharge the project effectively it was unnecessary for the commission even to see these individual returns, as the purpose had been to secure data by classes, and when the data was ready in that form it was carefully considered by the commissioners.
A copy of the published report was sent to each employer who had submitted a return and no one has forwarded an objection to the use made of the information which he supplied. On the other hand, the commission was in receipt of statements from some employers to the effect that they considered the facts brought to light to be of value and that they appreciated receiving the report.
To sum up: the fact is that no one has at any time had possession of or been privileged to read the individual returns except the staff engaged in the statistical compilation, and steps were taken to see that the undertaking made to reporting firms was scrupulously regarded. It is a matter of opinion whether the individual employer's return in this case would be of assistance to a business competitor, as the information sought did not deal with the financial set-up or the producing, sales or commercial policies of firms.
I should just like to say in conclusion, repeating what I said last night, that Mr. Purvis as chairman, and Mr. Tom Moore as vice chairman, and all the members of the commission, approached their task as public-spirited citizens with a keen sense of responsibility, and I regret exceedingly that the hon. member has seen fit to make accusations against public servants who have been faithful and conscientious in the performance of their duties.
Mr. CHURCH:: Mr. Chairman, this first section is about the same as last year. Would the minister give consideration to what has been urged by all parties in the house both last year and this, that contact be made not only with the provinces but with the large*-municipalities where unemployment centres? You have extended the principle to Saskatchewan, for example, where the agriculturists can deal directly with the municipalities for seed and many other things like that, and it is what Mr. Hopkins has done at Washington.


Mr. ROGERS:: Mr. Chairman, I remember that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) made this suggestion when the previous bill was before the committee last year, and it received some consideration at that time. I fully appreciate the arguments he brought forward in support of his proposal. As a matter of fact I believe the Dominion Housing Act does contain a provision under which agreements can be made with municipalities. That of course is with respect to the particular project of housing. I do question, however, the wisdom of the dominion government entering into direct arrangements with municipalities in connection with the administration of relief. In the past our relations have been solely with the provinces, and as I have had occasion to mention before, it is physically possible to deal with nine provinces.

When you open the door to direct negotiations, not with nine provinces but with several thousand municipalities, it will be readily understood that you place an almost impossible burden upon those dealing with relief administration from the federal point of view. I am bound to say that in spite of what has been said by the hon. member for Broadview I still think it advisable that we should not open the door in this bill to direct agreements with municipalities in connection with relief administration.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Mr. Chairman, last July the national employment commission devoted a bulletin to an article on the "unscrambling of this business of relief." In this hulletin it is suggested that we ought to have a division between unemployment relief and agricultural assistance, and in the case of the unemployed we ought to distinguish very clearly between those who are unemployed and those who are unemployable. I wonder if the minister can give any reason why various types of assistance should continue to be lumped in this way.
The other question I would ask is whether the minister could tell us the principles which are to guide the dominion government in the giving of relief during this coming season. We have had three or four years of it now on a very large scale, and we have had the benefits, whatever they are, of the researches of the national employment commission. I should like to know a little more clearly just what program is contemplated by the government, how extensive it will be, and along what particular lines.


Norman McLeod Rogers: First, as to the division of relief recipients into a number of classes towards which various governmental bodies should have a special responsibility, that is a question that has engaged the attention not only of this administration and of provincial governments but also of previous administrations who have had to deal with the question from the standpoint both of the dominion government and of the provinces. When direct relief was instituted in this country it was done, perhaps necessarily, without any classification of relief recipients upon the basis of their employability. It is possible-I do not wish to be dogmatic about it-that if the employment service of Canada had been used as the mechanism for dealing with relief from the beginning you might have had that division between unemployables and employables. But that was not found practicable. The result is that you have had on relief lists in practically all municipalities a mixture of unemployables and employables, including many cases which were formerly dealt with

Relief and Agricultural Distress
by private charity. That being the situation, we are confronted with the desirability of resolving that general problem into its constituent elements. It has not been easy, and the problem is complicated by the fact that these relief lists have been developing along the basis I have indicated within the past few years.
As I have mentioned to the committee before, in the agreements which were in operation during the last quarter of the past fiscal year we have sought to get the provinces to cooperate with us in a definition of unemployability. That again is a question which requires experience, in order to determine what your standard of unemployability shall be. We are proceeding largely upon the basis of physical and mental infirmities in determining unemployability, but we have not up to this time by our own action placed the responsibility for unemployables wholly upon the municipalities. Some provinces have done that of their own volition. As a matter of fact some provinces followed more or less that line of division from the beginning, but that was the exception rather than the rule.
My hon. friend has asked what will be done during the present year in that regard. I can tell him that we propose, with the cooperation of the provinces, to secure a more efficient division of the groups of relief recipients.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What does the minister mean by that?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I mean that the definition of unemployability which was in effect during the last quarter of the past fiscal year may have to be revised to some extent. In the light of experience in the last few months with the provinces, we hope to bring about a much more effective division of relief recipients, but not at the same time attempting to place the responsibility for unemployables upon any particular governmental agency. As I have mentioned, the provinces Ihemselves in some cases placed the care of unemployables back upon the municipalities or upon private charities.
Now as to the measures which should be taken by the government for the provision of relief during the forthcoming year, that of course will be dealt with by items in the supplementary estimates as in the past two years, and in the allocation of the grant in aid to the provinces we shall be governed by the actual unemployment conditions in the various provinces, and also shall see to it that the division is one which will enable the dominion government to gain, if there is an improvement in the employment situation, in common with both the provinces and the municipalities who are equally concerned.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It doe3 seem to me that the committee should receive some further information than has been given. We are told that the amount of relief will be indicated when the supplementary estimates are brought down; the house will at least still have control over the amount. But there is something more. This bill purports to be an enabling bill under which the government can carry out certain schemes or undertakings for dealing with the unemployment situation. Surely the government has some idea of the extent to which the dominion ought to contribute during the forthcoming year. After three or four years, and after the elaborate investigations that have been made, the government should be in possession of something like adequate data on which to form at least a rough guess at what will be the requirements for the coming year. Then, secondly, it seems to me we ought to know what the plans of the government are. Are we to go ahead with various projects for young people? Are we to adopt a housing scheme? What form will the constructive measures take? As far as this particular bill is concerned we are getting back pretty much to the era of the blank cheque. We are asked to give the government power in a general way to meet an emergency.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Subject to parliamentary appropriations.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, subject to the appropriations. But it seems to me that by this time relief cannot be regarded any longer as an emergency; it has settled down to be almost a steady thing. I think we ought to know just how the present government proposes to deal with a problem of this vast extent, involving as it does almost a million of our population.


Norman McLeod Rogers: This point, again, has been raised in other years, and quite properly. As my hon. friend is aware, the appropriations are governed by estimates submitted by the Minister of Finance, and in these supplementary estimates provision will be made for expenditures for the relief of unemployment in a number of directions. For instance, last year in the estimates there was a special item covering grants in aid to the provinces, another for training for unemployed young people, another for drought relief, another for works to be done in cooperation with the provinces. The same practice will be followed this year, and I can assure the hon. member that the supplementary estimates will be

Relief and Agricultural Distress
brought down with the least possible delay. This legislation, as my hon. friend has said, is simply the mechanism through which the dominion government is enabled to make expenditures for the relief of unemployment either directly or under agreements with the provinces. The actual amounts to be expended are set out in the supplementary estimates. The practice this year in this regard does not differ from the practice in other years.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, but it seems to me that the practice in this department does differ from the practice in a great many other departments. In other departments we are told what the plans of the government are. In connection with this department we have a very vague idea of what the plans are. Does the minister propose to follow the plans of the last six months? Does he propose to go no further than that? Rumour has it that the government has been considering a very comprehensive housing scheme. If so, it seems to me that at least an outline of such a policy should be given to the house. We are starting upon another twelve months with a vast number of our people unemployed, but we are not told what the policy of the government is to be. We have had the employment commission's report. The commission made a very lengthy investigation and presented quite a number of recommendations. We are not told whether the government is going to adopt any of these recommendations. I cannot see why this department should not outline to the house with some definiteness its plans for meeting unemployment during the coming year.


Mr. POULIOT:: I should be sorry to be cruel to the minister, for whom I have a high regard, or to put him to any embarrassment. But here is the report of the national employment commission, and I should like to know how to use it. Suppose I am a contractor from Ottawa and I have the lowest bid for building construction of some kind in Quebec city. In going ahead, I desire to employ ten unemployed masons on relief, ten carpenters and ten painters also on relief in Quebec city. How could I use that report to locate them? It seems that the purpose of the report is to give such information to those good-natured men who are ready to be good Samaritans and help their fellow citizens who are on' relief. I would be thankful to the minister if he would explain to the committee how the report can be useful in that respect.
FMr. Kogers.l


James Shaver Woodsworth: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman-


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a minute.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Pardon me; perhaps the hon. member for Temiscouata will kindly keep his seat until I get a reply from the minister. He injects himself into the discussion and then asks me not to continue my remarks.


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not make any injections. The minister was not rising and I thought I could.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall do my utmost to
satisfy both the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Temiscouata. As to the specific policies which will be followed by this government in dealing with unemployment and relief, the matter of housing is one which has been under consideration by the Department of Finance, as my hon. friend is fully aware. I am not in a position at this time to announce legislation with respect to housing. Legislation on housing, if and when it is proposed to this house, will appear before the committee either in the form of a new bill or by way of proposed amendments to existing housing legislation. My hon. friend knows quite well however that I am not in a position to deal with that question at the present time. As to other measures dealing with unemployment and relief, there are several directions in which we have proceeded. There is, for example, the matter of grant in aid. Supplementary estimates will contain provision for a grant in aid, but I cannot anticipate the supplementary estimates and tell the hon. gentleman the amount of the grant in aid. He will appreciate that. As regards provision for youth training, announcement has been made in the speech from the throne that the plans for the training of young unemployed will be continued and extended during the present year. Until the supplementary estimates are down I am not in a position to tell him, and he will fully understand this, how far the plans will be extended during the forthcoming year. I can tell him, however, that these plans will be continued and extended.
As to other provisions for relief-land settlement, for instance-there are agreements with several provinces and provision will be made therefor. Relief settlement agreements apply only in a number of provinces. But again, the committee is aware that our experience in connection with the settlement of families on relief in rural areas has not been of uniform success. Provision will be made also to deal with the drought situation

Relief and Agricultural Distress
in the western provinces, because the present provision has extended only up to the fiscal year. I would say, however, in that connection, that in July of last year, in order to bring about a more effective administration of relief in the drought areas, all relief in those areas was brought under the Department of Agriculture. In other words, that department now deals with both relief for human beings and relief in other forms in the drought area.


Mr. BENNETT:: Which was a departure.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, that was a departure from the former policy. With respect to most of these expenditures on relief, we have had to work in cooperation with the provinces. That, again, is not something new; it has existed from the beginning. In other words, through grants in aid and financial assistance we deal with those who are in direct contact with the administration of relief.
I understand the desire of my hon. friend for more ample information at this time. There are two courses of action that might be followed. We could bring in supplementary estimates first and then deal with the relief bill, but that would be illogical, because we cannot make expenditures under the supplementary estimates until we have the relief legislation. It is under this authority that money is expended for the relief of unemployment and agricultural distress, and therefore we proceed first with this bill, in order to obtain the necessary authority to make expenditures either directly or in cooperation with the provinces, and then bring in supplementary estimates, for which, of course, the government will be fully responsible when they are submitted. They will be fully exposed to the criticism of my hon. friend or of any others in the house on the basis of the policies therein outlined.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I wonder if I could impress upon the minister how illogical it is to ask us to pass this bill without telling us what it is proposed to do under the bill. The minister says it would be illogical to introduce the supplementary estimates before passing this bill. I suggest that it is equally illogical to pass the bill before we know what is going to be done under it. There is another course that could be followed. The minister could put before us the program that the government has to deal with unemployment and agricultural relief for the coming year and the appropriations that would 'be necessary for the purpose. It is not necessary to place before the committee at the moment any supplementary estimates, but they should be
put before us before we are asked to pass a bill of this kind. When this government went to the country in 1935 they made a definite and, in my opinion, a correct statement, that unemployment was the greatest problem facing the people of Canada. This measure, to assist in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress, is the government's measure for dealing with unemployment for the coming year. Once this bill is passed they can do as much or as little as thpy please and the house will have little to say in criticism.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The estimates will be
brought before the house.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, but when this bill is passed we shall have either to pass the estimates or to refuse to pass them. If we had beforehand some indication of the government's program we could more readily consent to the bill.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Is the minister aware that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Vancouver East have just stated an opinion that is held very widely in the country and in this house? I know that a resolution was brought down foreshadowing this bill. We have had the bill before us, and yet we have no information regarding the government's intentions. It seems to me that with this pressing problem, as with other pressing problems, it is in the interests of the government and of the minister himself that the house should be taken into the full confidence of the administration. It strikes me, as it does many others in this house, that there is too much secrecy with regard to the intentions of the government and the legislation to be placed before parliament, and I would therefore impress upon the minister the fact that the opinions that have been expressed this afternoon are opinions that are very widely held throughout the country and among members on both sides of this house.
When the minister rose first to speak in this chamber two years ago we all looked to him to give a real lead in the solution of the unemployment problem; but in two years very little of a constructive nature has been accomplished, and when we examine the report of the national employment commission it is with a great deal of misgiving that we see recommendation after recommendation either not considered, or no action or only partial action taken. Throughout this country, as those who have been across it within the last few weeks must be aware, there is a rising tide of discontent with the inactivity of this parliament. As one who believes in democracy

Relief and Agricultural Distress
and the maintenance of our democratic institutions I say that the present government of Canada is doing more to undermine our democratic institutions than all the subversive propaganda that can be spread across the country. Everywhere one hears criticism of the inactivity of the present parliament. Last session was closed hurriedly so that some of our members and representatives of the government could attend the coronation. This year we have been sitting now for over three months and virtually nothing has been done. In the interest not only of members of this house but of parliamentary institutions, this house should be taken into the confidence of the government more than it has been, and we should be told precisely what bills of this description foreshadow before we are asked to give approval to them.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to the defence of the minister in that respect. In answer to what the three hon. gentlemen have just said, let me state that the government must be empowered by parliament to act with regard to unemployment. This is why the bill is now before the committee. In order to do something the government must first be given the power to do it. There is a very good reason for this procedure; it is that when the bill is discussed in committee every member of the committee can make any suggestion, and I am sure that the minister has taken careful note of the suggestions which have just been made by the three hon. members *who have spoken. It is after having full knowledge of the needs of their own constituencies and those of hon. members who sit here now that the government can meet in council and see what according to their judgment it is best to do under the circumstances. If this bill were passed as expeditiously as the divorce bills, probably there would be before the committee an item in the supplementary estimates dealing with the matters just referred to by the hon. gentlemen. The sooner the bill is dealt with the sooner the government will be in a position to submit concrete figures and give the information asked for by the hon. gentlemen. On the other hand, since I Lave been a member of this house I have repeatedly been told that the meetings of the privy council are secret, and that the ministers are pledged not to divulge anything that goes on in the council. It would be most improper for the minister to mention any discussion that has taken place in council before the quorum of council decides to give it to the house and the country. I am sure that these explanations will be satisfactory to the hon. gentlemen.

May I make a suggestion to the minister? Until now every government in this country, every legislative body, whether federal or provincial, has paid attention only to the unemployed on relief. There is another class of unemployed deserving of equal consideration; it is the class of unemployed not on relief. Let me illustrate. As to the case of a family of five-father, mother, and three children on relief-I need not give any further explanation. But take the case of a father ind mother not on relief who have to look ifter their children and support them just the same. Suppose there are boys or girls capable of working, say one girl and two boys of ages from eighteen to twenty-four. They have no work, and the family is looking after them. This kills their initiative. These young men deserve consideration. This morning in the civil service committee Sir Francis Floud, British high commissioner, gave most interesting information about the entry of youth into the British civil service.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. It is not in
order to refer to anything that has taken place in a committee of the house until the committee has made its report to the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: It was just a brief reference, and I am through with it. But I am surely in order in speaking of those who should be within the scope of this bill but who are not. In those homes where the father supports his children who are unable to find work there is as much worry as in the homes of the unemployed on relief.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is often more.


Jean-François Pouliot: There is often more. Very often I have conversations with these people, who come to me and say, What can I do with my children? They are ready to work but they cannot get a job. That is a most serious matter, which should be looked upon from an entirely non-partisan standpoint. I know that the minister is very sympathetic to those cases. On the other hand there is no government in this country, and very few governments in the world, which look after those young men. I understand quite well that governments are interested in the question of employment for those to whom they pay relief, which would lessen the burden of taxation. That is a sane view, but they must not forget the other side of the picture, that people are sometimes very hard up because their children cannot get work.
I leave that to the consideration of the minister. I again ask him to be kind enough to tell the committee how we can use the sta-

Relief and Agricultural Distress
tistics of the final report of the national employment commission according to the example which I have just quoted.


Norman McLeod Rogers: First I thank the hon.
member for Temiscouata for directing attention to the proper relationship between this bill and the supplementary estimates which will follow. On that point I would simply say that had there not been established the practice of having annual bills, no question of the kind just raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would have arisen. In other words, the policy of the government in relation to unemployment would have been set out in supplementary estimates and debated when those estimates were before the house. But for some years we have proceeded by way of annual legislation. I am quite free to confess that sometimes I have been in doubt as to whether that was a wise policy; as to whether it might not be preferable simply to put through legislation which would extend without limit of time. However, we are proceeding in this way. This method does not differ in any respect from the way in which we have dealt with this question in previous years, and clearly the government will be responsible for the estimates submitted to this parliament to deal with unemployment and relief, and at that time there will be the fullest opportunity for any hon. member to take exception to what we are doing, to criticize us either because we have gone too far or because we have not gone far enough.
A moment ago one hon. member referred to the fact that he had expected that this government would have been able to accomplish more in the way of solving unemployment than had been the case during the past two or three years. I need hardly say that the wish to make progress in the solution of this problem is felt on this side of the house as strongly as in any other part of the house. As a matter of fact when we see the actual reduction of what .might be termed the controllable unemployment in this country I think we have good reason for satisfaction. The other day I received from the League of Nations economic section a statement dealing with unemployment in all countries reporting to the league, and the position of Canada is one that at least gives us cause for satisfaction in a comparative way. I am quite sure that other hon. members of this house have had an opportunity of seeing at close range the results that have accrued in other countries with respect to unemployment policies. It is a problem that has been with us steadily since the war years. I imagine it would be fair to say that almost every proposal that has been put
forward in this country has been adopted by the administration in the United States, yet the situation with regard to unemployment in that country at present is worse rather than better than it is in this country. I do not say that with any satisfaction; I merely point it out as illustrating the fact that we are dealing with a problem which appears to be inherent in the economic structure which has grown up following the great war.
At this time I am not going to attempt to deal with the immediate and remote causes of economic insecurity. That problem is with us. As I have said on other occasions, it is undoubtedly the great problem of our generation; but I am bound to say that in my most optimistic moments, when I came to the Department of Labour, I did not feel that we were going to be able to liquidate this problem completely in two or three years. I felt that by following wise policies and by assisting natural economic laws we would make definite progress, and I think we have made definite progress. I think we have some cause for satisfaction in that. I agree, however, that we have no ground whatever for that kind of satisfaction which leads to inertia. I fully accept the suggestion that this government must face this problem as it exists at the present time and as we believe it is likely to develop in the next twelve months; and I am bound to say that there are certain obscurities in the unemployment situation as it may develop in succeeding months. The government has its responsibility in connection with that problem, and I can say very definitely that we shall meet that responsibility with the light that we have when the supplementary estimates are brought down.
Now I must give a belated answer to the hon. member for Temiscouata, who has asked just what service might be rendered by the statistical compilation contained in the report of the national employment commission. I would say to him that this statistical compilation or classification of the unemployed is only one, the most recent, monthly calculation made by the registration staff of the commission. It does not represent a complete report. The registration is a continuous process, and one of the great advantages has been that the municipalities that report to the registration branch now report upon the basis of an agreed classification of the unemployed. Not all that information, of course, can be presented in press releases from time to time, but the municipalities themselves, and through the municipalities the relief offices and .the employment service, can have the benefit of a more accurate classification of the unemployed on relief than

Relief and Agricultural Distress
existed before the registration was commenced. The results obtained under the registration are by no means perfect as yet. There are certain delays incident to the dependence of the registration branch upon the municipalities for these returns, which are longer than one could wish, but we are dealing with the registration upon the basis of its performing a very useful service, and certainly we have understood from the municipalities concerned that they appreciate the service rendered in this respect.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister for what he has just said, but on the other hand it is impossible to use in any practical way the report of the national employment commission. What they have accomplished during nearly two years, at a cost of over $400,000, is worth absolutely nothing, and I should like the minister to admit it. It would be much better for him to admit that the report is no good, throw it in the waste-paper basket and start anew. That is my humble contention. Why keep it as an heirloom, this blue book which is of no use? There are waste-paper baskets in evety room in this building; there must be some in this chamber. If not I will throw it on the floor. It is no good. Moreover I say that those who signed this report, instead of being praised for having performed a splendid public service, should be severely censured by this house because they did a bad job; just the same as a bootblack who does not shine your boots well; just the same as a gardener who ruins your rose bush; just the same as a cook who burns your meat; just as any other employee is censured. They were working for us.
There is one thing I have wanted to say for a very long time. It is that in this country we have a false idea about men in the public service. Mark you, sir; it has come about that a man is judged by the position he occupies, though very often it is the position that makes the man and not the man that [DOT]makes the position. It makes all the difference in the world. Also if a man is very well off, if he is a millionaire, he is considered a supplementary edition of the Encyclopedia Britan-nica. We have a false idea about these things. A man may be a millionaire and a very able man in his own domain; a man may be a millionaire and not be an able man at all. He may be a millionaire by luck, just as a prospector may find a gold mine and sell it for two million dollars; he is a lucky man, and there are such. There are men who become millionaires because of their own brains. That is all right; they have certain experience in regard to certain things. It is

true that the chairman of that commission employs a large number of men; I admit that, but among the men on his payrolls we do not find one single unemployed. This is something that certain hon. members seem to have forgotten. The report which is now on the floor deals with the unemployed, not with the employed. This man who is a great employer knows nothing about the unemployed. He does not know as much about the unemployed as any hon. member who receives them in his office or visits them in their homes.
Because a man is a leader in industry, it does not follow that he is a leader in every domain. Some think that because a man is rich he must therefore be a deep well of knowledge about everything. I do not say that such a man has not considerable knowledge, but the fact remains that those who consider that a man is a deep well of knowledge simply because he is a millionaire are worshipping the golden calf as they did in olden times. They are worshipping a bankroll. I am not against millionaires, but Mr. Purvis did not do a good job because he is a millionaire. That job was a rotten job. I have said that already and I shall repeat it just as long as I refer to this matter.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) said last night that Mr. Tom Moore was not here to defend himself. Of course he was not here. His place is not in this house and he cannot be here unless we call him before the bar to give an explanation about the way he has acted. We discuss certain things among ourselves just as Mr. Purvis and his directors discuss certain things in the board room. This House of Commons is our board room. I am always surprised when we are told not to say anything about a public servant who cannot be here to defend himself. No one is attacking these people; we are simply judging them. If I say anything unpleasant about one of my colleagues, I may be considered to be attacking him because we are both on the same footing. But on the other hand I have the right to judge a man in the public service, either favourably or unfavourably, according to the dictates of my conscience. I have not attacked anyone; I have been judging. I have judged this man severely because he has been wrongly boosted. I ask the minister to do the same thing as I did-to throw this report on the floor where the sweeper can come along and put it with the other garbage.


Mr. GREEN:: Might I ask the minister the present situation with regard to the single unemployed? A serious situation is developing on the Pacific coast in connection with em-

Relief and Agricultural Distress
ployable young men. who are drifting into the cities, particularly Vancouver. I understand that the forestry projects have been or are being closed up and that as a result a total of about 5,000 men will be released. There are also many young transients drifting in from the prairies. Apparently the province will do nothing about caring for these men from the camps and the city must either feed them or face the possibility of riots. In other years there has been trouble of this kind; for example these men have gone out with tin cans and put on unofficial tag days, with the result that hundreds have been put in gaol in the last two years, although they are not criminals in any sense of the word. Many of the men are returned men. The city must either take care of them or adopt these drastic measures.
I do not know the situation with regard to the young men who have been placed on farms. Perhaps they have a chance of obtaining work during the summer on the farms on which they were placed during the winter, but the men from the forestry camps cannot be taken into the forest industries of our province in any large numbers. The minister has stated that the government intends to initiate works which will take care of many of these men. I suggest that the government should assume responsibility for the men coming out of the forestry camps and other transients until such time as they can be placed on these government works, as was done two years ago when men were placed on railway maintenance work. I cannot over-emphasize the seriousness of the situation. We are likely to have riots in Vancouver within the next few days, because the city simply cannot provide for these men. I urge upon the government the necessity of prompt action, and I should like the minister to tell us now what the government proposes to do about it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The problem of transients
and single homeless men has been dealt with in two ways in the past few years. In the prairie provinces we have provided for them by means of the farm employment plan. That plan has usually gone into operation in October and continued until the first of May, the termination being set by the normal resumption of seeding operations throughout the western provinces. During the past year we have had placements of up to 45,000, in round figures, in the three western provinces. The report suggests, and our experience confirms it, that because of the placing of these single homeless men on farms, for the time being at least there has been a relief of the pressure upon the larger cities and towns in the western provinces. As a matter of fact,
an officer of the Department of Labour travelled to western Canada and British Columbia a few weeks ago to review the entire situation.


Howard Charles Green: The fact is that the farm
placement scheme has hardly been used in British Columbia.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I quite agree. It was
realized in the beginning that the farm employment plan would have a very limited application in British Columbia and it was therefore supplemented by the forestry plan carried out in cooperation with the provincial government. That plan has continued normally from either October or November up until the first of May. That has been the situation during the winter months of this year. It is true that advices have been received recently that due to the slackening of woods operations in British Columbia there has been an increase in the number of single unemployed and transients in the city of Vancouver, but we are keeping in close touch with developments. It always has been a problem to decide when these forestry camps could be suitably closed. We are watching the situation very carefully in cooperation with the provincial government. There never has been a time to my knowledge when these special plans have been continued through the summer months. They have been designed to afford employment and shelter to this particular group of unemployed during the severe winter months.


Howard Charles Green: It does not help very much to watch the problem; something should be done about it. The minister has admitted that the situation this year with regard to work in the forest industries of British Columbia is not as good as formerly. I suggest to him earnestly and with as much force as I can command that these forestry camps should be kept open until these men can be placed at other work, such as the projects which the government has in mind. The situation is serious and the city has its back right up against the wall. The federal government watches the situation, the provincial government watches the situation, but the city has to deal with these men. This means that home-owners in the city have to pay the shot. It is entirely unfair. I think the situation is far more serious in Vancouver than it is in any other city in Canada, and I would ask the minister if these camps cannot be kept open until something is done about giving the men work.


Mr. MacNEIL:: With regard to the five or six thousand young men concentrated in Vancouver, and who are without employ-



Relief and Agricultural Distress
ment, may we hear from the minister what provision is being made now for these men? Special provision was made by the Vancouver city council for ex-service men included in that group; was that provision supported in any degree toy his department?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As to the special provision that has been made for single unemployed men in British Columbia, the agreement has been extended through the present month, and under the arrangement made the men in the forestry camps receive deferred pay, so that certainly the majority of those leaving the camps would have some of their deferred pay coming to them in the ensuing weeks. I am not able to say just at the present time how many of those men are in a position where they might be dependent upon the city of Vancouver or any other municipality in British Columbia to which they might go. We do not ourselves control the administration of these camps, as my hon. friend is fully aware. We contribute under an agreement with the province toward the care of the single unemployed men during the winter months. It is a matter for consideration whether it is wise to close the camps now or later. That question, as I have said, has been before us in other years, and in dealing with it we shall naturally be guided by the best opinion we can obtain as to the need for continuing these camps beyond the date now set for their termination.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: I do not agree with the minister when he says that the war is responsible for unemployment.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I do not think I said that.


John Charles Landeryou: He blamed the war as one of the reasons why people are unemployed.


Norman McLeod Rogers: One of the unsettling factors.


John Charles Landeryou: People are unemployed simply because they cannot secure work, and I want the minister to give us the reasons why they cannot secure work. He cannot tell us that there is not plenty of work to be done. There are many undertakings which this government, the municipalities or private individuals could enter into, and yet we are trying to attribute unemployment to the war. I cannot understand it. It might be due to some extent to the financial obligations that accrued to succeeding generations that have come after the war.
The employment commission has said that relief rates are competing with wages. In Calgary at the present time the unemployed are on a relief strike. They are simply asking for a living scale that will provide them with

sufficient food, clothing and shelter to keep them from starving. I should like to know, and I think the committee would also, what the relief scales are in the Dominion of Canada -the highest scale that is paid, and just what is the scale that is paid anywhere in Canada that is competing with wages.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Mr. Chairman, I must express regret that I have not replied as yet to the question raised by the hon. member last night. I had a memorandum prepared on the point and intended to take it up in the ;ourse of the discussion this afternoon.
We do not have a record in the Department of Labour here of the relief scales in the various municipalities. I have already explained that to my hon. friend, and he understands it. As a matter of fact, there is a great diversity of relief scales as between provinces and as between municipalities within a province. Not only that but the relief scales change from one season of the year to the other, the highest being in the winter months because of the additional expenditure required for fuel.


John Charles Landeryou: In the larger cities the scales do not alter very much; they are fairly constant.


Norman McLeod Rogers: 
John Charles Landeryou: What is the relief rate that comes into competition with the wage rate? The minister need not mention where it is.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think I made it clear before that the agreements were not designed to prevent that abuse in any particular locality but rather in general to prevent competition as between relief rates and normal earnings. The prevailing wage under the fair wage contract provision varies between cities, though not greatly, it is true. But the cases where you would have conflict would be exceptional.
Mr. WOODSY' ORTH:	A few minutes
ago the minister seemed to derive some comfort from the "very considerable progress" which had been made in lessening unemployment in this country. I do not think that that expression conveys a correct appreciation of the situation. I notice that in the last year, in April, there were being assisted a grand total of 1,215,476 That dropped gradually until August, when the number assisted was 759,009. Then the numbers began to increase steadily.


Norman McLeod Rogers: They always do, seasonally.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, quite so. But they are up in March to 1,170,480, almost where they were in the corresponding month of a year ago.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Chiefly due to drought,
relief.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Partly to drought
relief.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Chiefly due to that.


Mr. DUNNING:: There is a tremendous
increase there.


Mr. WOODSY ORTH:: The minister can
say that, and I am not accusing him of purposely trying to slide from under, but I would say that his whole method of handling the .situation makes it extremely difficult for us to know where we stand.


Norman McLeod Rogers: We separate the figures
every month. My hon. friend can of course take the totals, but we always separate them.


Charles Avery Dunning: Observe the drought relief figures, and that will show the difference immediately. The drought relief figures account for the increase.
Mr. WOODSY^ORTH:	But the point is
that there is no material lessening of the problem of unemployment.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; definitely.
Mr. WOODSY7ORTH:	I fail to see it.
I have been listening to the statements of the minister-


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend will
permit me: he will recall that when I spoke to the resolution before the Easter recess I gave a survey of the actual improvement in unemployment figures of relief in four sections of Canada: the maritime provinces, Ontario and Quebec-central Canada, which of course is chiefly influenced by economic factors- western Canada, and British Columbia. In British Columbia, as I recall it, the improvement was thirty per cent in the two year period. In the maritime provinces, the improvement was about eighty per cent. In Ontario and Quebec, central Canada, the improvement was roughly forty per cent in the two year period. The increase in relief figures was in the prairie provinces, and that increase, as I recall it, in Saskatchewan last year was over one hundred per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right. They are all employed.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Of course you cannot
properly speak of those who are receiving drought relief in agricultural areas as being unemployed. I am sure my hon. friend appreciates that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite so. That
was why I objected a while ago to including all of these classes needing assistance in one bill. I think it would aid greatly in clearing the situation if we had one bill dealing with the question of unemployment and included in that bill the definite recommendations which this government is prepared to make with regard to how the matter should be dealt with. That is what I am pleading for right along.
As far as the present situation is concerned we have had from the minister a most unsatisfactory statement as to what is likely to be done in British Columbia. Some of us had to take quite an active part in the house three or four years ago, when there was a trek of the unemployed and the Regina

Relief and Agricultural Distress
trekkers, as they were called, were coming east. Does the statement of the minister not mean in effect that this government is going to wait and wait and watch and wait until there are riots in British Columbia, and then when there is rioting we shall turn out the mounted police and people will be killed? Is that what it means?


An hon. MEMBER:: That is what he is waiting for.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is the minister
waiting for that? I know the minister is a humane man; I have known him for a good many years.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Then why suggest he is waiting for that?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hate to say that, but that is the logic of the situation, and it does seem to me that those of us who have been through this kind of thing three or four times already must point out the possibilities to the minister. I urge that he ought to take the matter very seriously and not simply " watch " the situation until some untoward incident happens and then be forced to come to the relief of the citizens.
In my own city things are hardly as bad, but about a week ago, during the Easter recess, I sat in with a special committee of the city council of Winnipeg. They were almost in desperation as to what to do. They were urging a housing scheme. They pointed out that there are 5,700 employable male heads of families on relief. Of that number, 850 are building trades artisans and 1,200 building trades labourers. They urged that the best thing that could be done was to launch some sort of slum clearance and housing scheme. What is the government preparing to do? The farm relief plan to which the minister referred, when dealing with matters in Vancouver city is not going to help either the single unemployed or these artisans in Winnipeg and their families. All the goodwill which the minister may express in this chamber is not going to help. We must have some plan worked out by which these men can be given work. That has to be done, and that, this government is not doing.
I shall make one more reference to a frequently quoted document, and then I shall have done, for the time being anyway-


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: May I ask the hon. gentleman just one question: did the ratepayers of the city of Winnipeg vote last fall in the municipal elections against a housing by-law?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not prepared to discuss that. I do not for the moment recall
fMr. Woodsworth.]
whether they did. In any case the answer would involve the whole question of the terms of the by-law. I am not going to discuss the provisions of a particular by-law which Winnipeg might or might not be able to finance; what I am emphasizing is the necessity of this government instituting some scheme by which this building labour can be employed.
I was about to refer to a statement made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on the night of the general elections, October 14, 1935. One paragraph of his speech, which deals with this particular question before us, is as follows:
In the new era which dawns to-day, the struggle for the rights of the people will, in the realm of economic liberty and security, be carried on as never before. Poverty and adversity, want and misery, are the enemies which Liberalism will seek to banish from our land. They have lain in wait at the gate of every Canadian home during the past five years, and their menacing mien has served to destroy the souls, as well as the minds and bodies, of an ever increasing number of men, women and children in our land. We take up at once, as our supreme task, the endeavour to end poverty in the midst of plenty, starvation and unnecessary suffering in a land of abundance, discontent and distress in a country more blessed by Providence than any other on the face of the globe, and to gain for individual lives, and for the nation as a whole, that "health and peace and sweet content" which is the rightful heritage of all.


John Charles Landeryou: He did not blame that on the war, did he?


James Shaver Woodsworth: What do we find in this measure before us? Something which is much along the line of previous years. Remember that this government has now been in power for three years.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, this is the third session. The statement which I read was given in October, 1935, and we are getting well on into the third session. We have had a special commission dealing with the matter. The commission has reported. The government has had ample opportunity, even since this house has been in session, of drafting its plans. Yet what do we find? I am going to read one paragraph from this bill.
The governor in council may-
Note that. You may say it is a legal phrase, but it is very suggestive.
The governor in council may out of moneys appropriated by parliament authorize the execution of such undertakings as the governor in council may determine to be in the general . interest of Canada and requisite for the pur-

Relief and Agricultural Distress
poses of this act, and for such purposes may authorize the performance of such acts and the execution of such agreements and contracts as the governor in council may deem necessary and expedient.
That is all we have in this third year. The government may do something; the government is to have power to do something. This type of legislation introduced some years ago as emergency legislation is coming to be the regular thing, and in spite of protests throughout the session, in spite of persistent protests, which perhaps the government regards as unwarranted, we cannot get anything except "Oh well, wait until the supplementaries are down." I should like to know what is going to happen then. Last year we were told to wait until we received the report of the employment commission, and the wonder is that we have not been told to-day in connection with grants in aid that we shall have to wait until the Rowell commission reports. In the meantime the people are suffering and many of our municipalities are bankrupt. It is absolutely unreasonable that this house should be asked to accept these very general statements that have been made to-day with regard to what the government proposes to do in this matter, which even the minister himself suggests is about the most important before the country at the present time.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. gentleman says that nothing has been done outside this emergency legislation. I think he will be fair enough to admit that within the last two years $30,000,000 in connection with home building and home improvement has been spent in Canada, made possible by virtue of legislation apart altogether from this. My hon. friend says that that is nothing, but competent authorities say that eighty-five per cent of that $30,000,000 went into wages, and that must have contributed something towards easing the problem.


Mr. McIVOR:: It is a common practice on this side of the chamber to have a crack at the government, but that does not extend all the way across, and I hope that I shall always belong to that group of people who judge justly and give honour to whom honour is due. The statement has been put on Hansard frequently that this government has done nothing. As I see it, the function of the government is to pass legislation in the interest of the citizens. Before I came here this session I was asked most vigorously to encourage the Minister of Labour to keep on doing what he has been doing for the youth of Canada. No one can say that nothing was done last year for them. Much of the cause of unemployment at the head of the lakes, to whatever extent unemployment exists, was the lack of a crop in Saskatchewan and in the drought area in the western provinces. No one can stand up and say that nothing was done for Saskatchewan this spring, that no legislation was passed for that province in connection with fodder and feed and grain. I do not think that any man can be honest and make the statement that nothing has been done for Saskatchewan and Alberta.
What is the cause of unemployment? When we get that question clearly settled we shall be able to get somewhere. The Minister of Labour reminds me of a little fellow who used to do some boxing; when you thought you had him down he would -bob up again. I am glad to see the minister coming to the top so frequently, and if I may be pardoned a colloquial expression, I would urge him to step on the gas and continue the good work he is doing for the youth of the country. He will find that they are behind him. I would' also urge the government through him, or through some other source, to complete our great highway, and if possible, to do even more than has been done in connection with small houses, because in my opinion there is nothing that will create so much employment as the housing scheme.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: May I offer a suggestion or two to the minister in connection with this bill, so that when the supplementary estimates are brought down he will have my views before him on a certain phase of the work that has been earned on up to the present time.
Last fall I had the pleasure of joining the minister when he visited my riding and inspected the youth camps that were established in the Sandilands forest reserve. Three camps were established there under an agreement with the province. They entailed an expenditure of $100,000. There was accommodation in each of them for ninety young men. When the minister visited the riding we went to these camps together, and the boys there gave him a reception of which I think he ought to be proud. It was a reception that told him that these boys appreciated what he as Minister of Labour and his efficient staff were trying to do in order to solve a part of the youth problem. There were 270 boys in the three camps. They were paid 21 cents an hour and the work they did was really beyond anything I expected myself in the way of clearing fire hazards. That is something that is greatly beneficial to any forest reserve. The work instilled a sense of discipline in the boys and made them feel
Relief and Agricultural Distress

that they had some responsibility and were playing a part in the affairs of Canada. Personally I take a very deep interest in these camps, not because I expect any political advantage, but because I think they are a splendid thing. The boys were well disciplined, they had a keen sense of their responsibility, and in talking with the officials in charge of the camps I discovered that nearly seventy-five per cent of the wages they were receiving after their board had been paid was assigned to their dependents either in Winnipeg or wherever they had come from. After paying their board they had $16 or $17 left for the month and nearly seventy-five per cent of that was sent to their dependents.


Norman McLeod Rogers: And that was done voluntarily.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Yes, there was no compulsion about it. When the minister brings down his supplementary estimates, after the house has allowed him to pass this bill authorizing him to do so, I hope he will not forget to give these boys full consideration. I hope he will increase the grants in order to continue these camps and so take care of our youth. In my opinion, the plan of forestry camps is one of the best schemes for the youth of Canada undertaken by this government, and I wish to commend the minister. I would ask him not to forget to increase the amount when he brings down his estimates.


Mr. PERLEY:: This bill provides that the dominion government may authorize the execution of certain undertakings in the provinces. We should have a more definite statement from the minister with regard to projects that may be undertaken in the provinces. The season is getting late and road work and other development work should start. Surely the provincial governments and the government here at Ottawa have conferred on these matters.
The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) on behalf of the minister invited suggestions. I am therefore going to make a few suggestions regarding projects which if carried out would be of benefit not only to the provinces but to the whole dominion.
I suggest that the government should undertake the establishment or development of several national parks, particularly in Saskatchewan. I shall mention only one or two, although there are many parts of the province where parks could be established. First there is the Moose Mountain district. That district is in the constituency of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), so I know I shall have his support in this anyway. The Moose
[Mr. Beaubien.j
Mountain district is very picturesque, well treed, with many fresh water lakes teeming with fish, and among visitors from the United States it is fast becoming a popular summer resort. Then in the Qu'Appelle valley near or surrounding the Qu'Appelle lakes is an excellent locality for a national park. The winding Qu'Appelle valley is one of the beauty spots of Saskatchewan, and is already a popular summer resort, United States visitors coming even that far north.
In order to get to these parks, when they are established, roads will be necessary. I suggest the construction of hard-surfaced roads north from the United States boundary through the Moose Mountain district, connecting with No. 9 highway and proceeding north to the Qu'Appelle valley, entering the Qu'Appelle valley at the foot of Crooked lakes, and winding right up to Fort Qu'Appelle. It should be hard-surfaced at least as far north as the Qu'Appelle valley. It would cross No. 1 highway near the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway, and tourist traffic could then turn either east or west; it would at least be in the province. Building and hard-surfacing the roads and development of the parks would provide work for thousands of men now unemployed.
I have here a statement of what the tourist trade meant last year to Quebec-$77,000,000 to that one province; so it is easy to see what it must mean to the whole country. I quote from a speech made in Regina on Monday last by Governor Langer of North Dakota, to representatives of boards of trade and the Saskatchewan motor club. It is recorded that Premier Patterson was there and Hon. Mr. Dunn, the minister of highways. The governor of North Dakota condemned the highways in Saskatchewan as disgraceful. That is something for us to consider, that the governor of a state just to the south should come to Regina and declare that the roads in Saskatchewan are a disgrace. He stated that last year tourist traffic had brought $10,000,000 to the state of North Dakota. He said it was only logical and right to suggest that the province of Saskatchewan endeavour to get this tourist traffic to come further north, but he said that when tourists enter Canada at the southern boundary they go a few miles and then turn back discouraged by road conditions. This is something that we should take into consideration. Such a project would mean much not only to Saskatchewan but to other parts of the dominion as well. I know the Minister of Finance regards the tourist trade as very important, and it would be a great help to Saskatchewan to develop tourist traffic there. The government would do well

Relief and Agricultural Distress
to consider this suggestion and assist the provincial government by spending money on projects such as this.


Mr. WARREN:: As a new member of this house I have had very little to say, but I have listened-sometimes with interest, and sometimes otherwise-to a great many speeches since coming here. We on this side have been keeping rather silent regarding this question of unemployment, but we have heard innumerable speeches on it from the opposite side. Anyone who is fortunate or unfortunate enough to be getting copies of Hansard would form the impression that this dominion is teeming with unemployed men and women and with men, women and children who are not properly clothed or housed or fed.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Isn't that a fact?


Ralph Melville Warren: If it is I am not aware of it. Certainly it is not in my riding. Where are they? I should like hon. members who are always telling us of these .people in dire distress to tell me just where they are.


Charles Edward Johnston: Read the report of the welfare board in Ottawa and you will find out.


Ralph Melville Warren: Well, let us take Ottawa. How is it that young men from the counties around Ottawa can come right in from the farms and pick up jobs here in the summer? Why is it that girls from the counties around Ottawa can come in and get jobs any time they want, at good pay? Go into the country in the Ottawa valley and look for young men who cannot get a job. I do not know where they are. Our farm boys can ge.t jobs anywhere in the country.-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Melville Warren: Well, take my own riding. I was elected in the spring of last year, and any time I visited Pembroke after my election I would meet numbers of men supposed to be unemployed looking for jobs. But I could go out through the farming districts and never hear a word of unemployment. Our boys go out and find their own jobs, and our girls do the same. I met two girls on the -train a couple of weeks ago, and I knew as soon as I saw them that they must have come from Renfrew county; they do not grow girls like that in the cities. They told me they come in here in the fall after working on the farm in the summer and can choose jobs out of seven or eight offered and go to work immediately at $35 a month with board and lodging. I could take you to one restaurant in this city where three sisters
from one of the farms out here in Russell county are working at good pay; at least when they come out of the door you see them dolled up in fine fur coats.
If you want me to I can tell you just why you have so many young people asking for relief in the cities. Here is an example. I mentioned the two girls I met on the train, who were working in the city. One of them had to go home for Christmas. Her mistress was a very fine woman to work for, and she went to a family on relief in the city where there was a girl eighteen or twenty years of age, and offered that girl $1.50 a day to come and stay with her during those two weeks. The girl came. She was no good but the woman wanted her to stay anyway. She would not stay; she went back on relief. These young people from the farms get jobs because they are not only willing to work; they are eager to work. They attack their work with eagerness, and because they have that ambition they can come right in and take jobs from under the noses of people living in cities and towns.


An hon. MEMBER:: They must be Liberals.


Ralph Melville Warren: They are good people, anyway. I think it is a godsend to men or women to have been brought up on a farm where they learned how to work without depending on the government to support them. That is one of the curses of the situation we are drifting into; we are sending out propaganda all over the country getting people to think that the federal government should take charge of all their worries, instead of educating our people to use their own initiative to make a living.


John Charles Landeryou: Where can they get work? .


Ralph Melville Warren: How do our boys get work? They just drift away and get jobs anywhere they want them. I can tell you that as far as North Renfrew is concerned there was not an employable unemployed man getting relief for the last six months of last year.


John Charles Landeryou: That is a small section of Canada.


Ralph Melville Warren: Perhaps it is, but when will we ever get rid of relief? The suggestion is that the federal government ought to assume the responsibility, and we had the mayors of the cities getting together and insisting that the federal government take over all this burden of relief. When will we ever get rid of it? Take all the responsibility off the municipalities and you will have relief forever. In the township in which I live, and

Relief and Agricultural Distress
in most of the townships in North Renfrew, we never went on relief; we were afraid to start it because we thought we might never get it stopped. There were times when we could have put a third of the township on relief if we had wished; they were just as deserving as a great many other people on relief, but we did not do it, and we pulled through. If we ran across needy cases we looked after them out of our own township funds, rather than have the reputation of going on relief, and I could tell you of villages that did the same thing. I remember one case in particular, where we fought for a year or two to keep a certain family off relief. Finally the man's house was burned down and he flitted away; but before he flitted away he bought a brand new Ford car to go away with. Recently that man went through our municipality with a trailer behind his car and his wife sitting at the table all dolled up with a nice new permanent, doing fancywork. Just the other day, however, I received the greatest shock of my life when, as reeve of Wilberforce township, I received a bill charging us with $192 for relief for this man, who had drifted into a city or town where he had been able to pull the wool over the eyes of the authorities. He was a young man, able to do. any kind of work.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Melville Warren: That is what we are up against. Hon. members may laugh. They talk as though this government has not done a thing. The other night I was at a farmers' meeting. One of the farmers said to me, "Have you done a single thing since you went to Ottawa?" He kept repeating his question, asking what we had done. I said, "Well, I shipped your hogs when you got $6.20 for a two-hundred pound hog. You give us a two-hundred pound hog to-day and we will give you S20 or $21 for it. You sold your butter fat for 15, 18 or 20 cents a pound. Now you can get 38 cents a pound. Has there been no improvement?"


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is responsible?


Ralph Melville Warren: I am not saying who is responsible, but the improvement is there. Hon. members talk about our youth and ask what we are going to do for them. We hear some of the speakers shout, "Are you going to let them starve?" as though nothing had been done for them. What was done under the youth training scheme? Some six hundred girls were given training, and every one of those girls walked into a job. We had seven girls come to Ottawa from Pembroke to take that course; they all found work. We had

some fifty boys take the engineering course at Haileybury, and every one stepped into a job. There you have it, yet you say we are doing nothing, that we are letting people starve.
The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) talked about the terrible condition of the west; he suggested that we should create $500,000,000 of new money and lend it out. What ruined the west but too much credit? It not only ruined the west; it ruined a good deal of the east as well. They got our money-


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not wish to be unfair. I did not mention the west at all, as he will see if he reads my speech.


Ralph Melville Warren: I listened to the hon. member when he was referring to the west. He spoke of farmers who once were able to write cheques for three thousand, five thousand or ten thousand dollars but who could not borrow any money at all now; and he was suggesting that the farmers of the west were suffering from lack of credit. I say that what the farmers of the west suffered from most was too much credit, and I think if the hon. member wanted to be honest he would agree that it was too much credit that ruined the farmers of western Canada. I remember that in his speech he mentioned some farmer who had five thousand lambs on which he was going to lose money. If the farmer raised those five thousand lambs how could he have a loss on them? On the other hand if that farmer bought the five thousand lambs he was a speculator; if the price went down and he lost money he was a gambler, and he was taking his chance. So I do not see any point in that argument.
There is one angle of this question that I do not think has been touched upon at all. What about the taxpayer? We have spoken of almost everything else. Nearly every speaker advocates the expenditure of money, but I want to put in a word for the taxpayer. We have to give that man consideration. If you can reduce his taxes by even a small amount you will be doing something real for him. One of the greatest burdens on this country to-day is the burden of taxation. When you talk about loading this burden of relief on the federal government you are simply suggesting that the municipalities that kept off relief should turn in now and pay the bills of the municipalities that got themselves in a mess with relief. Personally I am inclined to think that the people who were foolish enough to land themselves in a mess of that nature should themselves find a way

Relief and Agricultural Distress
of getting out from under. The farmers have to pay their share of this eight per cent sales tax and most other federal taxes; that is where the money comes from. That federal tax hits everybody, the hired man, the hired girl and everybody else. No one escapes it. Some of us may escape a provincial or municipal tax, but we cannot escape the federal tax. We ought to keep in mind when we advocate the expenditure of money that we are hitting the pocket of every wage-earner and taxpayer in this dominion. I am in favour of the minister continuing with the program started last year. Naturally it is an experiment, but to my way of thinking it has proven successful. I believe that these plans, carried on in conjunction with the provinces or by the dominion government alone, have proven successful.
Perhaps I may be accused of hitting the taxpayer myself when I ask the minister to consider the improvement of the trans-Canada highway between North Bay and Pembroke. This section of the trans-Canada highway is as important as any other in Canada. It leads to the home of the famous quintuplets and it makes possible a saving of five hundred miles to people travelling from the eastern to the western states, or vice versa. This section is now a gravel road, but it should have a surface of some kind. I am not prepared to suggest that it should be made a cement highway, but something should be done to provide a more suitable surface. Perhaps a tar penetration surface could be put on which would be serviceable for five, ten or fifteen years. We would thus get away from the present high maintenance costs and the dust which is so troublesome. I believe this work would be in the interests of the dominion, particularly as a great portion of our tourist traffic passes over this route.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Mr. Chairman, if I ever become wealthy I am going to put up prizes for the most patient men in the country, and when I do, I am sure they will be won by the prime ministers and the members of any cabinet. During this session and for the last twelve years I have seen prime ministers and members of the cabinet put on the grill for weeks at a time when they have been endeavouring to explain certain situations. After answering the same question a thousand times, I have seen them get up very patiently and with a smile on their countenances answer it again. I was surprised this afternoon to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) accuse the Minister of Labour of not giving the required informations to the committee and of not having brought down his program
more quickly. This is surprising when we consider that during the present session a certain group in this house used up nearly three weeks of our time on a new monetary philosophy. I do not say that in any disparaging way, but I think the record should be kept straight.
I want to compliment the Minister of Labour upon the wonderful work he has done in the three sessions he has been at the head of the Department of Labour. I feel perfectly free to do this. I was a neighbour of the former Minister of Labour, the Hon. Mr. Gordon, and I always took advantage of every opportunity to compliment him also upon the work he accomplished during the abnormal times through which we were passing. I never doubted for one minute the sincerity of the former prime minister when during the election of 1930 he thought he could cure unemployment. At that time we thought this problem was not deeply rooted and was possible of solution.
Before I proceed any further I want to say to the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Landeryou) that he was extremely unfair this afternoon when he asked the Minister of Labour what had been done for the west. There is no sectionalism as far as the problems of the west are concerned. I remember last fall when the people in my section of the country were asked to give clothing, vegetables and fruits to the people of the west. No matter in what position of life they were, every one dug down gladly to give all they possibly could to this fine section of the population of Canada. What has been done for the west during the present session? Something like $35,000,000 or $40,000,000 has been voted. Is that nothing? When that vote was asked, there was not a single word of criticism. Not a single member rose in his place and criticized this item. Why? Because we realized the dire necessity of the people in the west and the need for that money. I know the members of this house are ready to	rise as	one	person and	voteeverything necessary for the maintenance of that fine section of our country, if circumstances warrant our so doing again. It is true that no matter what this parliament may vote, this problem cannot be solved, to some extent, I grant, until the west	has	good crops sellingat reasonable	prices.	At	the present	timethe people of	the west in	the drought	areas
are existing with the barest essentials of life. Their household furniture, their farm implements and their homes all need to be rehabilitated. Again I repeat it is unfair for any member of this parliament at this time

Relief and Agricultural Distress
to state to the Minister of Labour and to the government that nothing has been done so far as the west is concerned.
Any one who takes the trouble to study world history will realize that unemployment has existed since the dawn of civilization. In the early days thousands of young men were kept under arms simply because they could not be fruitfully employed. We must not overlook what is happening in Europe at the present time. We must not overlook the reason why hundreds of thousands, yes, millions of men are being kept in military service. I ask hon. members to consider the reply made three years ago by Hitler to the Prime Minister of France. France was concerned about the number of men that Germany had under arms, and Hitler replied that this was done in order to keep them off the unemployment relief rolls. That may not be the principal reason why these men are under arms, but I think it is one of the reasons.
This is the situation we had in Canada prior to 1930. We always have had seasonal employment in this country. In my section and in practically all other sections we have had tens of thousands of young men employed during the winter months in lumbering operations. These men will be unemployed for one, two or three months until the driving of logs and mill operations commence in the spring. However, during this period considerable agricultural work is carried on, and a number of men are able to obtain employment in the navigation operations on our great lakes. This problem is not a new one as far as we are concerned, and we get these changes every, season.
It is all very well for people to impute sinister motives in connection with those who are wealthy people; we call them big shots and so on; speak of their greed, their intolerance, etc.; but the great majority of these people are true Canadians and their hearts are with the working men and labourers. The same thing can be said of most of our people; their hearts are in the proper place, and they will do everything in their power to alleviate suffering. At the same time there have been cases where the labourers and farmers have sinned also, with all the other classes. It is all very well for a member to mention individual cases of having met men in dire circumstances. I could mention thousands of such cases in my own constituency, even in the rural sections where they have been receiving relief for several years. I have also received several letters from farmers saying that their lot is improving. They have been selling their milk at reasonable prices and last year they made some

money on their pulpwood and cattle, but you cannot build up a case for the nation on individual cases.
I might cite a sad case that came under my own experience last year, and that will illustrate what I have said. Last year during the Easter recess, on Good Friday, a young farmer with a family of seven came and told me that he had received $32 on April 1, 1937, and he said his relief was all gone and he wanted some more. I telephoned the relief officer in Cochrane and told him that this man had to receive more relief because his family was near starvation. That, as I say, was on Good Friday. Sad to relate, on Saturday night this man asked me to bail him out as he had spent all the money on booze instead of on his family, and he had been arrested for drunkenness.
All classes of our people have sinned, and therefore it is the duty of every one of us, no matter to what party he belongs, or on which side of the house he sits, or what is his place in society, to put his whole strength behind the minister and the government in helping to bring about better conditions. We are just as humane and charitable as any other men, and how unfair it is for the member of Winnipeg North Centre to rise in his place this afternoon and accuse the Minister of Labour very bitterly, saying he had done nothing for the unemployed; that he was not trying to find the solution for unemployment. I say this in all sincerity because from 1930 to 1935 I sat in opposition on the other side of the house, and I did not criticize bitterly the government of the day and their employment policies because I knew it was a very deep problem. I believe the first duty of every member of parliament is to second the efforts of the Minister of Labour, and I hope that from now on it will be possible to discuss in this house this great problem with the sole desire to help in solving it by suggestions and constructive criticism. It is a problem that is facing not only Canada but the whole civilized world. Look to the country to the south of us, where billions and bilhons of dollars have been spent for the relief of unemployment, and the sad truth is "that at present unemployment in that country is more rampant than it was two years ago. Europe has just the same problem, and all of Europe found that the only way to help in solving it was to put the young men from eighteen to twenty-one years of age in the army. Surely we do not want to do that in Canada. We want to help our youth; but we do not want to develop in them the militaristic spirit; we want them to grow up to be good Canadians,

Relief and Agricultural Distress
and therefore I say it behooves every member of this house, no matter on which side he sits, to be constructive in his approach to that all important problem. How easy it would be for any one of us to go outside this house, hold a public meeting on Sparks street, for example, agitate the people by telling them not to be satisfied with the present government, and urge them to destroy the present order of things! But would that be good Canadianism? Would it be patriotic? No. My duty when I see misery is in my own humble way and to the best of my ability to help relieve it, and if we all put our shoulders to the wheel I have no doubt that by an intelligent, united effort we shall get out of our present situation.


John Charles Landeryou: You have the majority.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: A few moments ago the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre read the message that was delivered to the Canadian people by the Prime Minister during the last election, and I heard a member of the social credit group say that it was a dream. But it was not a dream. It was given in all sincerity, just as I believe the leader of the government who was elected in 1930 spoke in all sincerity; just as I believe the premier of Alberta spoke in all sincerity to the people of that province in 1935 when he was elected premier. He told the people of Alberta that he was going to solve all their problems; that he was going to pay social credit dividends of $25 a month and more, and I believe that he was sincere. The electors of Alberta gave him a huge majority, and at that time he told the people of the province not to worry about the rest of Canada, or Scotland; that Mr. Douglas had said that social credit might not be put into practice within the boundaries of the province, but that he, that is, Mr. Aber-hart, could do this. But after over two years in office, with all his sincerity, which I do not doubt at all, has he been able to put social credit principles into practice in that province? Is there not unemployment in Alberta? There have been bad crops there, which have no doubt contributed to a great extent to unemployment in that province, but I say that with all his sincerity, and with all his big, solid majority behind him, the premier of Alberta has not been able to implement, the promises he made during the election of 1935.


John Charles Landeryou: The Liberals disallowed all our legislation. There was no doubt of the application of social credit in 1935.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: There is no question .that the social credit party had a large
majority behind it in Alberta, and I do not say that in any critical spirit. I mention it merely because one of the members of the social credit group this afternoon said, alluding to the message delivered by the Prime Minister immediately after the election of 1935, that it was a dream. Was it a dream, then, what the premier of Alberta told the people of that province in the fall of the same year, 1935? No; I do not want to believe it. I want to believe implicitly in his sincerity; but he was not able to fulfil all his promises; he did not fulfil even one. The moment one assumes the responsibility of office, one finds that it is not so easy to do in practice what one advocated in theory.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Does that not prove that sincerity is not enough; that sincerity alone will not solve any problem? Sincerity will not abolish poverty.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It is obvious that sincerity is necessary because the basic principle of any society is charity, and sincerity is an essential part of it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You must have sincerity plus direction.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Oh, yes. I have something to say about the sincerity of the party of my hon. friend, and I shall take a few minutes to speak of it now. I wish his party could have the responsibility of office for one or two years because it would sober them up. We on this side of the house are just the same as hon. gentlemen opposite; our hearts are bleeding for the suffering people of this country.


John Charles Landeryou: You have the authority; what more do you want?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Your only solution is
to change the monetary system, but the monetary system is only one of the factors which we have to consider before we can have improved conditions. It is veiy easy to criticize when one is in opposition. I was in opposition lor five successive years. While some members may have gone too far in their theories, once your party gets into power you have to consider all the factors involved plus the governmental responsibilities, and I believe that all governments in this dominion, no matter what their political stripe, have at heart the welfare of the people, the human and the social factors. I say again that it is extremely unfair to build up on individual cases a case that will apply to the whole nation.
I want to compliment the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren) upon his

Relief and Agricultural Distress
logical speech this afternoon. Democracy is before the bar of judgment in Canada, and I want to give this warning, that if the parties in this house address themselves simply to overdoing each other at election time in rash statements and in promises that would never be fulfilled, it will be the surest sign of the doom of our democracy. In the last election, in northern Ontario, I went over every section of my constituency and told the people that I was opposed to direct relief. I told them that the sooner we got rid of it, the better it would be for our country, that we had to find employment for our people, and that direct relief was deteriorating, if not destroying, the moral fibre of the nation. It was a sad spectacle to see people of another political faith getting up on the same platform as we were on, and saying that if they were elected they would not do like the Liberals are trying to do at the present time; they would enlarge direct relief; they would give more. I say that sort of thing is the surest way to destroy democracy in Canada. We cannot afford to be demagogues, dreamers, Utopians and radicals; we must be good, practical Canadians.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We cannot
afford to sleep, either.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: To sleep? Does the
hon. member imply by that that I have been sleeping more than he has? Does he imply that this government has bean asleep more than his group?


Mr. JAQUES:: It has been put to sleep.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Some days that hon.
members of a certain group have been speaking we may have been almost put to sleep for a good many hours. I want this situation to be dealt with fairly. I want to be a practical man. I ask hon. members, If they were occupying the position of the present Minister of Labour, what would they do? Can they doubt his sincerity, his industry, his knowledge of the social order and his desire to remedy social problems? If not, they should be willing to cooperate with him. It is not a political appeal that I am making at the present time. I appeal to hon. members to face and to try to find a solution for the greatest difficulty we have to meet.


John Charles Landeryou: The hon. member
has told us that the hearts of his friends are bleeding for the sufferings of the unemployed. I mentioned that poverty was the cause of their trouble. Will he tell us what unemployed and suffering people are suffering from except a lack of money?


An hon. MEMBER:: Dividends.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: None of the experts who support the system which the hon. member recommends, has been able to explain it.


John Charles Landeryou: I ask, What are these poor people suffering from except lack of money?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am not here to say that the present monetary system is perfect. Perhaps it will have to be radically amended. But I repeat that the monetary problem is not the only question we are facing at the present time.


John Charles Landeryou: Then what are the other problems?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Surely the hon. member must know more about human needs than to ask that question. What would he do, for instance, in the case of a returned man I know? Money will not cure all the ills of the present time. I have a good many returned men in my section. One I have in mind has two wooden legs; he suffers every minute of his life, day and night. Does the hon. member contend that if he had social credit money in his pocket, that would be sufficient to cure him?


An hon. MEMBER:: No; but it would give him security.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have heard it said that there are people dying of starvation in this country. It may be the case that a man has starved to death in some remote district, but I have never heard of anyone dying of starvation so far as my . section is concerned. And we are not going to cure all our ills by the issue of money by means of the printing press, which is simply uncontrolled inflation.


John Charles Landeryou: If the cause of our difficulties is not lack of money, will the hon. member tell us the reason?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Has the hon. member not studied the bills of the Minister of Labour at previous sessions? Is he not satisfied that the minister has been trying to go to the root of the present problem? Is that not the object of the bill we are considering at the present moment? What would be the hon. member's solution? He has been trying to explain it to us for the last three years and we are still right up in the air. The hon. member and his group are still barking at the moon. They are the finest political Santa Clauses that any political party has ever known.


John Charles Landeryou: Why did the hon.
member's party not carry out its own plans?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member had his own innings. His party occupied nearly

Relief and Agricultural Distress
three weeks of the time of the house at the opening of the session. They have made promises to the public which I should be glad if they were able to implement, and I do not doubt their sincerity. But when they arise in their places time after time and tell this government that the only way to cure unemployment is to have social credit, and the only way to implement social credit is to get the printing press to work and flood the country with new Canadian dollar bills-


An hon. MEMBER:: That is unfair.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: -that is no solution of our ills. That would cause an inflation worse than the ills from which the country is now suffering. Hon. members should remember the prices they had to pay for commodities during the last inflation which happened toward the end of the great war.


John Charles Landeryou: What solution-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down yourself.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: We often hear in this house-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. I am afraid that this debate is getting beyond this bill. I would ask all hon. members to confine their remarks to the bill before the committee.


John Charles Landeryou: I should like to know what the hon. member's solution is. No matter what social credit is offering, what solution has the hon. member to suggest?


Mr. McINTOSH:: Will the hon. member explain what his solution is?


John Charles Landeryou: We are not in power.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. gentleman is a member of this parliament; as such he has the same responsibility as any other member of the house. He cannot get away from that responsibility. I suggest that one solution is to find a system whereby it would be possible to keep our rural youth on the farms. Until such time as any government-I refer not only to this one, but to any government in the world-can find some means of stopping the trek from the rural sections in to the urban communities, neither this country nor any other will enjoy real prosperity. We need only to read the history of the Roman empire-


Mr. POOLE:: What has that to do with us to-day?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: If the hon. member's Intelligence is not deep enough to understand that, it is not my fault. I am mentioning that era as an illustration. I was saying that we have an example in the fate of the great Roman empire when the population had been coming more and more rapidly into Rome, when the people were hollering for bread and for pleasure.


Jean-François Pouliot: Ask Baker of Toronto for the bread!
Mr. BRADETTE. We have much the same conditions to-day.


Eric Joseph Poole: That was an age of scarcity.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The more you have that sort of thing namely, direct relief, the more you are accentuating the trend of the population from rural to urban areas. After being residents of an urban centre for a number of years, or even months, in many instances those coming from the farm become pensioners of the state; whereas the farmers, generally speaking, try to maintain themselves and make a living from their own efforts without asking relief from any government.


Eric Joseph Poole: How is the hon. member justified in comparing the circumstances of the twentieth century with conditions in ancient Rome?


Mr. GARDINER:: The policies of the hon. member's group are just the same.


Eric Joseph Poole: That was an age of scarcity. This is an age of abundance. To-day we are suffering from overproduction. In Rome they were suffering from scarcity. How can the hon. member dr. w a comparison between the two? It is absurd.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member is
entitled to his own theories, but I say that this is no age of plenty. What would happen in the hon. member's own province if he had nothing but his coal and his wheat to live upon? How far would he go with that? Practically all that is produced in Alberta is wheat and oil and coal. Supposing you have to make a living with those resources, nationally and individually, what sort of existence would be possible? Obviously you must have intercourse with the rest of the world. You cannot get away from that fact. The "age of plenty" is only relative. The man who will say that we have solved the world's problems of production can say so only because he does not wish to take the trouble to study the situation. He does not want to study the world situation. It is true that to a great extent we have shown that we can produce the things we want, and I am willing to admit that there is probably no clear demarcation between the things we regard as necessities
Relief and Agricultural Distress

and the comforts and luxuries of life; but no one will make me believe that these things can be had unless one is willing to work. In this world you cannot get something for nothing. That is the law of nature. It may be broken; it may be evaded, but the man who is not willing to work for a living is not entitled to a living, while opportunities must be given to those who want to work.


Mr. KUHL:: What is the man doing for a living who receives dividends?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: In this country one has to fight every inch of the way. I come from a pioneer section and I know whereof I speak. It was settled by splendid people, a number of whom came from the other side. In my section we have to fight every inch of the way, whether our occupation is agricultural, or commercial, or mining, or industrial. I3 it any easier in Alberta? As to making it easy in all sections of the country, if hon. members visualize the situation as realists, not as men who have lost all sense of proportion, they will realize that there is no plenty in this world unless one fights and struggles for it, and that production can be brought forward only by human labour and intelligence.
That is all I wish to say at the moment. I should like to say a few words when the estimates on the back to the land movement are presented. I do not believe in simple formulae for solving the problems of the world at the present time. There is no use in talking about ending unemployment and having prosperity in our midst in Canada, or in any other section of the civilized world, unless we find it possible to render comfortable, if not prosperous, the rural population who in this land and in all others are, after all, the primary producers. In this, in my viewpoint, lies, to a large extent, the solution of unemployment.


Mr. V. J. POTTIER (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: I wish to refer briefly to a remark made last night by the leader of the social credit group and referred to in Hansard at page 2571. Referring to a letter he had received he made the following statement:
Conditions in many places in this country are positively terrible. . . . This letter came to me personally, with no idea that it would ever be read in parliament.
I wish the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) had carried out the desire of the person who sent that letter to him. He refused to divulge the name of the correspondent, and further on, as reported on the same page, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) made this remark:
fMr. Bradette.]
In view of the statement that 500 go to the soup kitchens in the town of Yarmouth, I think we should know who wrote the letter, and from what section of Nova Scotia it comes.
The letter was expunged from the record by the ruling of the Speaker, as reported in Hansard at page 2572. I quote from page 2572, and this is the passage I wish to deal with. After the letter had been expunged from the record the hon. gentleman is reported as saying:
Mr. Blackmore: Very good. I would much rather have that happen, now that hon. members have beard it, because, after all, I am more concerned with having hon. members in the house know about existing conditions than I am that the letter appear in Hansard. I am not going to expose a man who writes a letter like that to me.
I do not blame him for not divulging the name. Unfortunately the morning papers carry the item in more or less detail, and the public as a whole gets the item although the letter is expunged.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What bearing has this on the bill?


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I am discussing a remark made by the hon. member for Lethbridge in the course of the debate last evening. The effect of the newspaper item and the reference I have just given as quoted from Hansard is that there are 500 people in Yarmouth being fed at a soup kitchen, or 500 people in Yarmouth who stroll along to get a bowl of soup. I want to tell the committee that that is not a fact. There is not in Yarmouth, which is a part of my constituency, any soup kitchen to which 500 people stroll along to get a bowl of soup. When the leader of the social credit group says, " I am more concerned with having members in the house know about existing conditions," I am sorry for his group if they base all their representations on information of this kind. I contend that any member of this house who makes statements should at least be sufficiently informed to know whether they are true or not. It is all very well to read a letter and to profess to be only the means of representing facts in this house; he should strive to be accurate. I resent false representations being made about the people I represent. We are having difficulties enough without being slandered in this way to bolster up the aspirations of what we might call superpoliticians trying to picture conditions that do not exist. That will do no good to any group or member or constituency, nor will it do any good to Canada as a whole. I know of no soup kitchen in Yarmouth where-and this is the part that stings-500 people stroll along for a bowl of soup.

Farm Implements Committee Report


John Charles Landeryou: Is there a soup
kitchen in Yarmouth?


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: There is no public soup
kitchen in Yarmouth. I telephoned the town clerk to-day and he confirms my understanding of the situation. We have individuals and associations that are trying to help the poor in various ways-there are such organizations everywhere-but we have no public soup kitchen. The people I represent are doing the best they can; they have a certain amount of pride, and I resent their being misrepresented in this way.
Progress reported.
The house having reverted to the order for motions :



[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour):	I beg to lay on the table of
the house the report of the dominion commissioner of unemployment relief. The statute provides that this report shall be laid on the table thirty days after the expiration of the act and it should therefore be tabled at this time. I did not have it when we were on motions earlier in the afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) for concurrence in the second report of the special committee appointed to investigate farm implement prices, presented to the house on the 8th of April, 1937.
Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie):: In rising to continue this debate I wonder whether the remarks I shall have to make will meet with as much enthusiasm as the remarks we have listened to during the debate on the unemployment relief resolution. What I have to say may not be interesting to every hon. member, but to me the question of cheaper agricultural implements is of very great importance. In commencing I want to review briefly the question of the tariff on agricultural implements.
Going back to 1930, when the Liberal administration left office, we enjoyed at that time a very low tariff on agricultural implements, perhaps the lowest on record, only six per cent on binders and mowers. When the Conservative government came into office in 1930, the tariff was raised to the highest rate
on record, namely, a flat rate of twenty-five per cent, including cream separators, which previously had been free. When the Conservatives left office in 1935 and were succeeded by the present administration, true to Liberal policy the tariff was reduced and cut to seven and a half per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about the prices of the implements?


Harry Leader: I ^rould ask the right hon. leader of the opposition to let me continue. Perhaps, before I conclude my remarks, I shall have something to say as to prices of implements.
The present tariff of seven and a half per cent is the lowest on record, if excise taxes and some other imposts put on through the regulations of the revenue department are not taken into account. But in the face of this reduction in the tariff we find the implement companies increasing their prices in 1936, and again in 1938. To me this looks like a challenge to the parliament of Canada. What are we going to do about it?
Briefly I wish to review the progress of this matter in the house. On March 2, 1936, an order of the house was passed for an immediate inquiry. At the end of that session the committee reported and suggested that the inquiry be continued by a smaller committee at the next session. On February 1, 1937, the government moved the appointment of a special committee. That committee carried on an investigation throughout the session of 1937; and the report was submitted on April 8 of that year, but at the suggestion of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) it was not concurred in but left over until the present session. On March 11 of this year the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Johnston) moved concurrence, after six weeks of the session had passed. The debate was adjourned on March 11 by the hon. member for Kamour-aska (Mr. Bouchard) and continued on March 15 and adjourned by myself on the same day. Thus it will be seen that it is well over two years since parliament started action. To me this has been a horrible example of how not to treat a question of such vital importance to the agricultural industry of this country.
Now I am back to the position which I occupied at eleven p.m. on March 15. Before the house adjourned on that date, I had pointed out the disparity between the farmer's dollar received for his products and what he had to pay for farm implements. I took, for example, the prices of beef cattle at the Winnipeg stock yards, for 1913, 1920, 1926, 1932 and 1936, and I took for the purpose of comparison two-
2404	COMMONS
Farm Implements Committee Report
implements, a walking plough and a binder. As I stated at that time, the committee took the year 1913 as a normal year when the farmer's dollar bore a reasonable relation to the prices he had to pay for his products. I was able to show that in 1913 we could exchange 300 pounds of beef cattle for a walking plough, whereas in 1932 it required 700 pounds to make the same exchange. In 1913 we could purchase a binder for 2,600 pounds; but in 1932 it would cost us 6,100 pounds, approximately two and a half times
as much. Continuing the thread of my argument, I -have a companion table giving a comparison of the farmer's dollar in terms of wheat instead of cattle. It shows the same list of implements as used on that occasion. The walking plough, for example, which in 1913 we could buy for the price of twenty-five bushels of wheat, in 1932 would cost fifty-six bushels. A binder which in 1913 was equivalent to 193 bushels of wheat, in 1932 required 500 bushels. The following table gives other examples:
1920
1932
Bushels of No. 1 Northern Wheat Basis 1 Northern Fort William Required to Buy
Walking plough	Double disc drill	Hay rake	Binder	Mower	Disc harrow	Gang plough	Wagon	Bushels of wheat. 25	163	40	193	68	52	101	120	762. 14	99	24	110	38	31	65	73	454. 21	168	41	192	68	52	106	119	767. 56	448	108	500	177	133	266	320	2,008. 32	269	64	304	108	80	148	182	1,187
These tables are a true indication of what is wrong with agriculture, showing the fluctuation in the prices of the farmer's products sold on the world market compared with the stabilized prices he has to pay for his implements of production sold in a protected market. This condition must be rectified before agriculture can be put upon a substantial basis.
Leaving farm implements for the moment, let me turn to cream separators. This question was discussed on former occasions. I remember a speech made by my Liberal friend the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald). He defended the twenty-five per cent tariff on cream separators. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) replied, and his speech was, in my opinion, a fine exposition of the necessity for the removal of this duty. To me it seemed unanswerable; but another Liberal friend, the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann) was undaunted, and he defended the twenty-five per cent tariff on cream separators. It is true that these two hon. members were invited to cross the floor of the house and join the Conservative party. I wonder myself whether they are not in the wrong pew.
When the motion for concurrence was introduced, the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) both protested and suggested that the report be returned to the committee for more evidence, saying that insufficient evidence had been taken in regard to cream separators. But if one looks at the report one finds at least four pages of evidence in regard to cream

separators. Four manufacturing companies as well as a mail order house were examined: International Harvester Company, Massey -Harris, De Laval and McLeod's Limited of Winnipeg, besides the Cockshutt Plow Company whose evidence, being confidential, was not used. So I maintain we certainly had sufficient evidence to warrant the committee in bringing in the recommendation that cream separators should be placed on the free list. The mail order house in reply to a letter stated that they had been able to place on the market a separator called the Melotte with a capacity of 600 pounds, for $59.25 at Winnipeg. That is the Melotte, which is a good machine, as anyone will agree who knows anything about separators. The Economy King, with a capacity of 600 pounds, was placed on the market at $54 at Winnipeg. At the same time the International Harvester Company were selling their 600 separator at $107.58, and the committee ascertained that the cost of that separator at the factory was $41.70. This would be about the same as the cost of the Melotte and the Economy King, because the McLeod people were satisfied with a twenty-five per cent mark-up over the cost price. We found that the Massey-Harris company were charging $97.92 for their separator. We could not ascertain the cost of that implement because the company could not produce figures that would give us an idea of what the cost would be. The De Laval people were charging $108.77 for their separator comparable with the McLeod separator at $59.25.

Farm Implements Committee Report
We found also that the De Laval people could buy their smaller separators, under 500 pounds, in Sweden and import them, paying the duty, at a price which enabled the company to offer the separators for sale for less than the price at which they could be manufactured in Canada. Surely this is evidence that it is uneconomical to manufacture these machines in this country. These separators cost $13.05 in Sweden, and they were sold in Canada for $44.50 including the duty of twenty-five per cent. When the higher protection was put on cream separators, the McLeod people admitted that they could not do business, and they withdrew from the field. After the competition was elminated we find that last year the International Harvester company raised the price of their cream separator another $11. To-day their separator is selling in Winnipeg at $118.50, which is an outrageous price for the implement that must be turned by the farmer's wife, or his fourteen or fifteen year old girl after she comes home from school, or his boy, in order to grind out perhaps three or four dollars a week in order to keep the family in food and clothing. I claim that this duty on cream separators is protection gone mad, and I think it is a terrible reflection upon the mentality of those who imposed the duty.
Now I want to return to farm implements. In the first part of my speech I stated that both farmers and machine companies had suffered grievously during the years of depression, but the machine companies did not suffer to the same extent as did the farmers. I have before me the financial statements from the evidence given before the special committee. I find that the capital invested in the International Harvester company in Canada is $39,000,000, and that the profits during the ten year period under review amounted to $24,500,000. They earned approximately six and a half per cent over all, after providing for a pension fund, bonuses to employees and taxes of all kinds. I asked the president of the company, Mr. Morrison, if he did not think that was a pretty high earning rate, amd what he thought would be about a proper earning rate for money. His reply was eight per cent over all; in other words, they wanted eight per cent even after the taxes were paid. So I say that in regard to this company the increase in the price of their farm implements in 1936 certainly was not justified.
Now we come to John Deere and Company. Their capital invested in Canada amounted to $16,000,000. They showed a loss of $1,000,000 in Canada, but if the profits retained in the United States on account of customs regulations
had been included the profit would have been $8,000,000 over the ten year period, showing a five per cent return on the investment. Then I come to Frost and Wood and the Cockshutt Plow Company. The invested capital could not be ascertained, but the total sales in Canada amounted to $45,600,000 and their export sales to $7,772,000. These two companies showed a net profit of $20,760, so they also operated without loss during this ten year period which included the most trying years Canada has ever experienced.
There is a different story in regard to the Massey-Harris company. This is a great Canadian concern of which every true Canadian is proud. They have factories not only in Canada but also in England, South Africa, France, Belgium, Denmark and Germany, as well as two factories in the United States. Between 1926 and 1935 the losses of this company amounted to $15,000,000. But, Mr. Speaker, prior to that they had huge profits. I think it only fair to the people of Canada that they should know something about the profits made by this company in earlier years. This is taken from the evidence given before the special committee. The company had its inception in 1891, with the merging of the Massey and Harris interests. The paid-up capital of the company at its inception was approximately $3,500,000, of which $300,000 was paid in cash and the remainder given in exchange for the assets of the constituent firms. From 1891 to 1912 this original capitalization of $3,500,000 plus $1,000,000 additional cash capital received in 1911 enabled the company to return the following
value to its stockholders:
1.	Cash dividends amounting	to.	..	$11,212,3492.	Stock dividends	
8,500,000Total dividends	$19,712,3493.	The creation of a rest	account of.	$ 6,500,0004.	The setting up of a special contingent account in the amount of	
1,680,0005.	The retention in surplus account,unallocated, of	
1,061,000Total	$28,953,349
Thus it will be seen that for the twenty-one years ending in 1912 there was a return of nearly $29,000,000, of which $11,212,349 was actually paid in cash. So the four companies examined showed a net profit over the ten year period, including drought years, with the exception of the Massey-Harris company, whose losses were due to the expansion of business in foreign lands, and to the costly distribution of their implements in Canada.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
BEV1SED rZUTION
Private Bilk

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 65, respecting Revillon Freres Trading Company, Limited, and to change its name to Rupert's Land Trading Company.- Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Dorothy Dean St. Clair Ross-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Frances Margaret Stewart Butler.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Agnes LeBlanc Archambault.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Louise Anderson Lindsay.-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford).
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Kathleen Helen Frances Penfold Findlay.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Mary Esther Wahl Watt.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Eva Grace Barlow Sunbury.

Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw).
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Irene Marjorie Wiseman Litwin.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Lorraine Olive Lafontaine Caron Pilot-Mr. Emmerson.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 66, respecting the Restigouche Log Driving and Boom Company-Mr. Veniot-Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
On section 1-Directors.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: This section was amended by the standing committee and the words "and of which he is a shareholder" were added.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would you read the section as amended?


John Frederick Johnston: The section as amended would read:
No person shall be elected or qualified to hold office as a director unless he is a member of the company, or of a partnership which is a member of the company, or a director or manager of a corporation which is a member of the company, or a person authorized by resolution of the directors of a corporation which is a member of the company and of which he is a shareholder.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those are the words about which there was some difficulty.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 99, to incorporate the Maritime Provinces General Insurance Company.-Mr. Isnor.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Gerda Ellen Morrison.-Mr. MacLean (Prince).
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Hilda Elsa Naeke Schneider.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Margaret Robinson Mathieson Megee.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Rachel Tencer Silberberg.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 104, for the relief of George Brunet. -Mr. Jacobs.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 26, consideration in committee of Bill No. 15, to incorporate the Niagara Falls Observation Bridge Company-Mr. Damude-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 8-Power to construct bridge.
Mr. DUFFUS:: What I wish to say will take only about three or four minutes of the time oif the committee. I desire to refer to some of the remarks that were made by the right hon. leader of the opposition on Tuesday evening last. He was referring to what I had said on the evening of Friday, April 8. and this is what he said, as reported on page 2277 of Hansard:
Right here may I point out that the other evening the hon. member for Peterborough West in this very chamber asked the members of the committee to believe that the United States authorities had given their approval to the construction of this bridge.
Further down on the same page he said:
That statement was calculated to do just one thing and nothing else-to leave the impression with the house that the United States had agreed.
I desire most respectfully and emphatically to suggest that I had no such thought in mind. As a member of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, I was well aware of the fact that the bill had not been passed by the United States government, as that point had been discussed in the committee. When I was elected by the people whom I have the honour to represent in this house, I accepted my duties with a keen sense of duty, obligation and responsibility, and I should like the members of this committee and house to understand that at no time do I impute or intend to impute motives that are not consistent with the facts.

Niagara Falls Bridge
Here is what I said on the evening of April 8:
I have in my hand a copy of Bill No. 15, to incorporate the Niagara Falls Observation Bridge Company, and also a draft copy of the United States act dealing with the same matter.
I draw the committee's attention to the fact that I have here both documents, Bill No. 15 as presented to this house, and also a draft copy of the United States government act, designated an act by the United States government. In other words, this Bill No. 15 is designated a bill, while the document drawn up by the United States government is designated an act. May I read section one of that act?
This act may be cited as the Niagara Falls Bridge Authority Act.
That was my reason, Mr. Chairman, for referring to that document as an act.
I again desire to draw the committee's attention to the great loss that the people of the city of Niagara Falls and of the province of Ontario will sustain on account of insufficient traffic accommodation at this point between the United States and Canada. Tourist trade is very important and profitable to the people of Ontario. Business men, storekeepers, hotels, restaurants, summer resorts, working people, farmers, truck gardeners and fruit growers will, until a new bridge is constructed, be deprived of a substantial revenue which they hitherto enjoyed from that trade.
When this bill is passed it will then be the responsibility of the government of Ontario to complete the necessary arrangements, and it is my opinion that they can be depended upon to see to it that the proper type of structure is erected, one that not only is adequate for vehicular and other traffic but will also provide ample accommodation for customs and immigration business. Whatever else may be said of the present Ontario government, these two things can be said: In the first place, they cannot be accused of being extravagant; in other words, they have given an economical administration. Second, they have given honest administration.


Mr. MacNICOL:: In both cases the hon. member is wrong.


Joseph James Duffus: The point I desire to make most emphatically, in conclusion, is that I had no intention whatever of implying that the government of the United States had passed the act or the draft bill referred to.
51952-153$


Mr. LOCKHART:: If I may ask the hon. member a question, does he imply that because the bridge has fallen there will be a loss of tourist traffic to this country, that the tourists will not come in at other points?


Joseph James Duffus: I say that it will be a loss to the people of the city of Niagara Falls and also to the people of the province of Ontario. It is a well known fact that there have been traffic jams at this point for the last ten or fifteen years owing to the increased tourist traffic.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I know of no reason why, because one happens to be a member of the House of Commons of Canada, he should be traduced by those who are outside this house. The late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as leader of this house, on two occasions held that the privileges of parliament were not to be lightly disregarded, and when a member of the opposition with whom his relations could not be said to be cordial, the late Sir George Foster, directed attention to observations that had been made reflecting upon him in the house and made a motion, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, although the person accused was his own friend, saw that he was brought to the bar of the house to apologize for what he had said. The privileges of parliament are not of to-day's making. They represent centuries of accumulated tradition and history, and if men in the discharge of their duty are to be charged with offences and traduced in the public press by those who do not see eye to eye with them, then of course the institution itself is going to suffer. The custody of the reputation of the house is not in my hands, but I direct attention to the facts.
The other evening I directed attention, as was my duty, to the fact that because an attack had been made against this house, alleging that we had not passed legislation as rapidly as we should have, I thought it was my duty to look into this measure, and I did so and gave to this committee the benefit of the information which I had obtained-not all of it but in part-because when this house is charged with having neglected its duties or with having been overzealous in its efforts to discharge them, it seemed to me but fitting that the legislation which has been the subject of controversy should be scrutinized.
I am bound to say that I have not been able to ascertain who the incorporators of this bridge company are. So far as I can ascertain, they are not even people of substance. But that has nothing to do with the question. The question which I presented
Niagara Falls Bridge

for the consideration of the committee had only to deal with the legislation as such, and I pointed out that in most bills of this kind it has been provided that when the dominion acts it shall not exercise its powers until similar legislation has been passed by the state of New York, or by the adjoining state, whether it be Michigan or New York, and, if necessary, approved by the United States of America as a nation. I point out that that provision is to be found in the very section which we are now considering, and I direct the attention of the committee very seriously to these words:
. . . but the company shall not commence the actual construction of the said bridge nor exercise any of the powers hereunder, until an act of congress of the United States or other competent authority in the United States of America has been passed authorizing or approving such bridging of the said river.
That is the usual clause. That is where, as the hon. gentleman in charge of this bill will say, the legislation usually stops. But this bill went further. It has this extraordinary provision:
But the company may, in the meantime acquire the lands, submit their plans to the governor in council, and do all things authorized by this act.
I venture to point out-and I believe it to be my duty to do so-that that is a contradiction in terms; that you cannot approbate and reprobate. In the one instance the powers are to be exercised only when the appropriate authority in the United States has authorized the company to construct a bridge from the United States territory to the middle of the stream; that is, the middle of the Niagara river, which is the boundary line between Canada and the United States.
Just here it might be well to point out that this legislation has a history. I wonder if it is known to all hon. members that this company under another name has had a bridge in that place for nearly forty years. One of the very earliest bridges to cross the Niagara was built by this company under another name, that of the Buffalo railway company. They did so under authority from the United States and then came to this parliament and obtained in 1900 legislation which enabled them to complete the structure. They also had a railway line. Those who live in that locality are far more familiar with the matter than I am. but I have taken the trouble to look it up a little in view of what has occurred. I find that a short time ago the province of Ontario took steps to acquire the scenic railway, as it is called, and there was an arbitration, the net .result of which was that the province or the
IMr. Bennett.]
park authorities have now been called upon to pay something like $1,072,587. In the journals of the Ontario house of assembly, at page 229. I find this:
Bank loan (note) (for International railway award), $1,072,587.
(The costs in connection with the award are not included in the above amount; they amount to $136,150.09 and have been paid out of the commission's funds.)
I am indebted to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) for a copy of the journals from which that information was taken. The feeling against the International company, apparently, has been considerable, by reason of the fact that this very large sum of a million dollars had to be paid. The provincial minister of highways, Mr. Mc-Questen. came to this house and, speaking before, the committee, said they were going to pass a statute dealing with bridges; he is also reported to have said that "it would make one more hurdle to cross." And so they did pass a statute with respect to bridges, aimed clearly at the International, for the purpose of preventing the reconstruction of this bridge. That is not a matter in which I have any concern; it is only a matter of passing historical interest. The International company, its former name, the Buffalo railway, having been changed by act of our parliament as well as that of the legislature of Ontario, did operate this bridge and this scenic railway for many years. The scenic railway has been acquired by the appropriate park authority for the province of Ontario under the circumstances to which I have alluded. There remains the question of rebuilding a structure which was destroyed by an act of God. The ice jam took the bridge out. The International people at once arranged for the reconstruction of their bridge, and plans were prepared to that end. A bill was introduced into the legislature of the state of New York- one bill in the assembly and the other in the senate. They bear date February 18, 1938, and they have to do with the construction from the United States side of this bridge. But that bill did not pass. I hold in my hand a statement signed by Senator W. H. Lee of the state of New York, who resides at Lock-port, in which he refers to the conference which was held for the purpose of determining what action should be taken. These are the terms in which he writes:
In response to your request for verification of newspaper accounts of statements reported to have been made by Governor Lehman in a conference held at Albany on February 21st last, I beg to advise that at such conference attended by Governor Lehman, Hon. Morris

Niagara Falls Bridge
Tremaine, Comptroller, Assemblymen Moffat and Suitor, Hon. T. B. McQuesten, Messrs. Welby and Kaumeyer and me, Governor Lehman stated that he is deeply interested in the construction at the earliest possible moment of a bridge to replace the Falls View bridge recently destroyed by ice; that he has been advised by his counsel that International Railway Company has the right under the laws of the United States and State of New York to construct such bridge, and that the State of New York can not and will not interfere with the exercise of such right.
Since none of the statements was made in confidence you may show this letter to anyone.
Yours truly,
Wm. H. Lee.
He is the senator for the forty-seventh district of the state of New York.
That statement, it will be seen, is not new. As a matter of fact, the conference took place as long ago as February, and at it the governor made it perfectly clear what his course was. Now I point out to the committee that this legislation had its origin in the United States. They first granted the power to construct the bridge. The promoters then came to this parliament and obtained from it the power to connect up with the bridge, on the Canadian side. As I have pointed out, in the course of years they have acquired much property. They have this scenic railway, which has been sold. They have the approaches at both ends of the bridge; highways lead down to this bridge, and there were many of the amenities of travel established at both ends of the structure before it was destroyed. Also there are people with homes in the locality and such stores and shops as are always found in such localities. The value placed on the property owned by this bridge company is 8500.000. This proposal is to construct a bridge at another point, which involves the acquisition of land for approaches, the diversion of highways, and the erection and construction of the amenities that have now been provided in connection with the International bridge. That is the position.
So far as what I said the other evening is concerned, and which the committee might care to read-I am not going to reread it-I pointed out that if the bridge cannot be constructed until such time as the United States appropriate authority gives permission to build from the United States side to the centre of the stream, how could we authorize a company that might never function-because the bill itself says it can function only if, as and when the United States authorities authorize a company to build from their shore to the middle of the stream-to acquire real estate
and file plans for the approval of the governor general in council? Of what bridge? It is only when the two have amalgamated into a single bridge that we have a structure, and as the Minister of Transport said the other evening, it does not require an act of parliament to enable you to prepare plans for a bridge, but to prepare plans and ask for approval of them when there is no such thing as a bridge authorized, is something that I cannot understand.
Just why these last words are placed in that section I would ask the committee to determine for itself. But in view of the fact that the section dealt with the acquisition of real estate I said it could mean only one thing, the creation of a real estate boom at the point where the bridge was to be built and where a community was to be built around it-the little shops that sell fruit and confectionery and cards and things of that sort. Of course, anyone with any practical knowledge of affairs knows exactly what happens the very moment it is mooted that a new structure of this sort is under contemplation, just as in connection with the Peace bridge there were activities in that locality, and as there are activities in every locality where the construction of a bridge is contemplated.
I gave notice on the order paper that I would move an amendment that the words after the word "river" be struck out in order that this legislation might be consistent with other legislation that we have passed on previous occasions. Whenever we exercise a power that is limited, by geographical and international facts, to a point in the centre of a stream, the building of the bridge results only from the United States authorities authorizing a similar structure to be carried on from that side of the border to the centre. The two then amalgamate and you have the completed structure. That is what took place in connection with the Peace bridge. I could name many other bridges of the same kind, including the Sarnia structure. That did not cross into the state of New York; I believe it was the state of Michigan. Be that as it may, I hardly think it would be just the right thing for legislators to authorize the building of a structure by a company which is permitted to exercise its fuctions only when something else has been done in another country, and at the same time authorize it to engage in a real estate boom. That is what it means, and that is the point to which I directed attention.
There are other matters to which I might direct attention, and I am going to refer at once to one of them. The hon. member for
Niagara Falls Bridge

Peterborough West (Mr. Duffus) said, as did a gentleman who is not a member of this house, that the province of Ontario is suffering. Mr. Chairman, see what ensues from the following statements: (1) The legislature of the state of New York has declined to authorize the construction of this bridge at this time; (2) the legislature of the state of New York has prorogued for the year- you may have seen that in the New York Times ten days ago. There can be, therefore, no bridge authorized this year, and we have nothing to do with that; that is a matter -which the state of New York has determined. And the condition imposed in this very bill is that the powers hereby conferred shall not be exercised until such time as the state of New York or the congress of the United States authorizes the construction of a bridge. That, I say, completely answers everything that has been said about the province of Ontario losing anything.
How can the province of Ontario lose anything when the legislature of the state of New York has risen for the year and has declined to take action? How can it be so when the condition appears in the very bill that the promoter puts before us, that "the company shall not commence the actual construction of the said bridge nor exercise any of the powers hereunder, until an act of the congress of the United States or other competent authority in the United States of America has been passed authorizing or approving such bridging of the said river." There is a distinct and clear recognition, a recognition which has been found in all our international legislation, that there must be joint action in order to bridge an international stream, and that we cannot confer powers to be exercised by any company beyond the middle of a stream. Surely we do not propose to make ourselves absurd by authorizing such action to be taken until such time as the United States authorities have authorized the construction of the bridge from their end as well.
Why the hon. member who is promoting the bill has added the words he has, I confess I do not know, although I have looked for some reason for them. Let me read the language once more:
But the company may in the meantime acquire the lands, submit their plans to the governor in council and do all filings authorized by this act.
"Do all things authorized by this act," notwithstanding that three lines before that it is said that "the company shall not commence the actual construction of the said bridge nor exercise any of the powers hereunder,

until an act of congress of the United States or other competent authority in the United States of America has been passed," and so on.
I put this to the committee. I have no feeling at all in the matter, despite what has been said; because, after all, I have in this exactly the same interest that I had in the legislation of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) regarding the Restigouche company. In that connection I pointed out certain things; the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) saw my point and the bill was amended accordingly. I had no particular interest in that matter, nor have I any particular interest in this, and I have been too long in public life to be concerned about attacks made against me or this committee. I do say, however, that we cannot declare in a statute that certain persons shall not exercise any of the powers conferred by the bill until the United States takes joint action to build a bridge to the centre of the stream, and at the same time, two lines further on, declare that they may do all the things authorized by this act; that they may start to buy land and to file plans-plans of what? Plans of a bridge. But there is no bridge authorized to cross the stream; so far, it stops at the centre of it. It may be that something is left out; it may be that hon. gentlemen have confused two things; and all that I suggested, in the notice of amendment which I gave, was that the section be amended by striking out all the words after the word "river," which would have this effect, that the legislation would not be contradictory in the last five lines, and would be at any rate consistent with our legal as well as our international position; for having said, as we may say, that we are not doing anything beyond our legal powers, we have gone as far as we can. I submit that we should remove any possible thought that any action taken here, even if we kill this bill, would deprive the province of Ontario of any revenue, or the Dominion of Canada of any tourists. The state of New York has seen fit not to give its approval, not to create a company and what is more, the legislature of the state has risen for the year. It follows, therefore, that as far as this bill is concerned it is a dead measure during the period which intervenes until such time as that legislature has acted.
I confess it is disagreeable to have these discussions and to be attacked in the beautiful language that always characterizes the utterances of the gentleman who used it, perhaps somewhat out of keeping with the long traditions of an ancient province. To say that

Niagara Falls Bridge
something is a damnable lie is not calculated to enhance the reputation of the person who said it, or yet respect for the institution which he represents. I think I can say that at least. The facts are as I have stated them. I have nothing to withdraw, nothing to explain in any sense. What I said is on Hansard; it stands written, printed; and it is strictly in accordance with the facts. The legislation in itself denies the right to construct until the United States has acted, and then it authorizes this company, which has no valid life, to deal in real estate and file plans with the governor in council. It has no authority to build beyond the middle of the stream until the United States has acted. And then it is joint action.
I need hardly say to the right hon. the Prime Minister that it would seem that we can hardly afford to place ourselves in the position in which this legislation would place us with our great neighbour to the south. It assumes that we are to give approval to the building of a bridge in the state of New York. We would not take kindly to the state of New York passing a statute authorizing the government of that state to approve plans of a bridge to be erected in the Dominion of Canada. But this bill says that although you cannot act until the state of New York gives you power, nevertheless, although you have no legal right, no validity to your acts, we are going to let you buy and sell real estate and file plans with the governor in council of a bridge part of which must be in the state of New York. That is the position. I have done my duty by pointing it out. When the hon. member for Peterborough West was speaking the other evening, I asked him if he did not know that this legislation had not been passed. He did not answer the question; but surely when we remember that the minister of highways for Ontario was present at the conference with the governor in February last, it would be difficult for him not to know that the legislature had risen and that no action had been taken with respect to it.
Those are the facts on section 8 to which I have directed attention, and it is only necessary to add that, as pointed out the other evening, the estimate given by the engineer, Colonel Monsarrat, of the cost of the bridge to be erected by the International company is $1,400,000. At the proper time I shall discuss the financial side of this matter; for it is said that the purpose is to give the people a bridge free from tolls. The authorized bond issue is $4,000,000. and if the money were obtained at the lowest rate at which money was obtained for the Peace bridge, it
would involve an annual interest payment of $200,000, apart from sinking fund and without providing for expenses of operation. The files in the department indicate what the earnings of this company have been during all these years. I had an abstract made of some of them which may be useful later on in connection with other sections.
But it is said that the province could not obtain this legislation. All you need do is to turn to the statutes of this dominion in 1931, when the province of Quebec came here and obtained authority to construct a bridge from the Isle of Orleans to the mainland. In that case it was navigable water to be crossed, and they had to secure our authority, which was given by statute, before they could construct that bridge. In the case of this bridge it is not navigable water but international water that is to be bridged, and obviously both countries must join together for the purpose of making action possible. When we have made our act contingent upon the exercise by the other party of their power, and they have not exercised that power and will not now for another year, it seems to me we are doing something very much at variance with the declarations which have been made from time to time in this house with respect to investments and company promotions and the evils that have flowed from such exploitations, unless we take the only step we can with respect to this section and leave it as similar sections have been left in dealing with other companies; namely, providing that the power shall not be exercised unless and until the competent authority in the United States has authorized and empowered a corporation to exercise its powers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This bill has been under discussion for several weeks, and it is not my purpose to prolong the debate. But after the forensic display to which we have listened from the right hon. leader of the opposition, on the last two sittings on which the bill has been before the committee, I feel that a statement is necessary as to just what is involved in this bill. The motives of the province of Ontario have been impugned, and gratuitous insults have been distributed to whoever has spoken on behalf of the measure.
What are the facts? The Niagara parks commission has expended large sums of money and done splendid work in making the neighbourhood of Niagara Falls a beauty spot and a tourist attraction. This commission now desires to build an entrance to the city from the United States that will be a credit to that city and to the parks commission's
Niagara Falls Bridge

development. The stream to be bridged is an international one; hence in order to do what they wish to do it is necessary for the commissioners to obtain the consent of the federal government and of the proper authority in the United States. Obviously those consents cannot be obtained concurrently; one or the other must be obtained first. It was legally impossible for either the Niagara parks commission or for Ontario as a province to apply in its own name to the federal government for the requisite permission to build.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quebec did.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That was somewhat different. However, I shall not enter into a discussion about that. The provincial authorities then followed the usual procedure, or what seemed to them to be the usual procedurethey chose five men, connected in one capacity or another with either the parks commission or the province of Ontario. They entered into an agreement with these men that the five men would form a corporation for the purpose of applying to this parliament for the necessary authority, and when the authority had been obtained, to assign their interest in the corporation to the province of Ontario. A private bill was drawn up, and the legal adviser of my department who inspected the bill has advised me that it follows the exact language of the last bill passed by this parliament, and in general follows very closely the language of the bills authorizing the last several international bridges that have been approved by this parliament. The bill was introduced in this parliament, and the province of Ontario sent this government an official letter stating that the incorporators of this company were acting for the province; that their interest would be assigned to the province, and that the province would undertake responsibility for the construction and operation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that letter available?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the hon. gentleman please file it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be pleased to file it at the next sitting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the important letter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The bill was introduced and discussed thoroughly in committee. The minister of highways of Ontario came to Ottawa with his staff to pilot the bill through the committee. Certain objections were taken to the
fMr. Howe.]
bill by members of the committee; for example, the amount specified in the bill, namely, $7,000,000, seemed excessive to the committee. The minister of highways was quite willing to reduce that amount to $4,000,000. He admitted that the amount was in excess of requirements, and while there could be no harm in having the authority, if such authority were not used, he admitted that $4,000,000 would be sufficient, and the bill was amended in committee accordingly. The bill specified an amount of $500,000 share capital, which is the amount usually named in such bills. The minister was questioned as to why $500,000 was necessary and admitted that there was no necessity for it; it was only a token amount, and so the committee amended the bill, reducing the amount to $500. It was quite evident, I think, to all members of the committee that the bona fides of the government of Ontario were absolute, and that the only desire was to secure permission from this parliament to build the bridge in a form entirely legal and proper. We have heard here the suggestion that if the committee had not acted, we would have had real estate speculation on behalf of the province of Ontario, and we are told that if the share capital had not been reduced, all sorts of assets would have been turned in as part of the capital of the bridge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was provision to that effect in the original bill, and it is now out.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The right hon. gentleman will find that it is provided in a good many bills which have passed this house. It was there because the lawyer who drafted the bill simply followed the usual form. We are told that another bridge company has land with a value of half a million dollars and can build a bridge for $1,400,000, and that the sum of $4,000,000 which is estimated for this bridge is excessive. It is just as fair for a man to say, "It is ridiculous for you to say you are going to build a house costing $40,000, because the house I am building will cost only $20,000." It is exactly the same thing. The bridge to be built by the province of Ontario is to be a monumental structure in keeping with the development of the Niagara park. It is to be wider and longer than the bridge with which it is- compared. Instead of coming directly into the main highway along the waterfront, there will be a span over the highway, so that proper entrance arrangements can be made without interfering with traffic on the main highway.
Objection is taken to the section under discussion at the moment, and an amendment has

Niagara Falls Bridge
been offered. I may say that the sponsor of the bill has no objection at all to the committee accepting that amendment. It is ordinary common sense that the province of Ontario does not require an act of parliament to enable it to draft plans for this bridge. It is ordinary common sense that the province of Ontario can acquire any land it needs in the city of Niagara Falls without an act of this parliament. I speak for the sponsor of the bill when I say that he is quite willing that the committee shall accept the amendment which has been offered.
I should like to say just a word as to the United States authority. This act cannot become operative in any way until that authority is obtained. As to when or how it may be obtained, that is not a matter for this parliament. One country or the other must act first, and in this instance we hope Canada will be first to act. After that the matter will be in the hands of those who are actively sponsoring the bill. I sincerely hope, Mr. Chairman, that the filibuster is now over and that this bridge bill may now pass this committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Transport would advance his interest in this bill a great deal more readily if he did not talk about filibusters. In no sense have I had anything to do with a filibuster in connection with this legislation; nothing whatever.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say I have had nothing whatever to do with a filibuster in connection with this legislation. But I have deeply resented this house being attacked in the exercise of its legislative powers by those who are not members of it; and in consequence of that-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was not referring to the
right hon. gentleman when I mentioned a filibuster.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In consequence of that I
made myself familiar with this bill and took a good deal of time to do so. The minister must remember that the other evening for the first time the statement was made that the province of Ontario had written a letter stating that they would become responsible for this undertaking.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That was made abundantly
clear in the committee. Every fact that the right hon. gentleman has discovered and presented to this committee was made abundantly clear to the sixty men who make up the railway committee of this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All I can say is that,
not being present as a member of that committee, I cannot speak with respect to that point.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I wrote a letter to the committee containing the information that the province of Ontario had transmitted to me, and my letter must be on record with the committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister has referred to that letter. It is a public document; it can be laid on the table, and I may have an opportunity of inspecting it. What I did desire to make perfectly clear was that when this bill first came up I directed the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that I thought we were making a mistake in endeavouring to incorporate a company with power to build a bridge in the United States of America, to provide for its landing in the state of New York; that that was an excess of power because we could not go beyond the centre of the stream. I was reminded by the promoter of the bill that similar legislation had been passed in the past, and I said I did not think that made very much difference. I then said that after all I was not interested in this matter and I was not going to bother about it further, having directed attention to the matter. But when the attack was launched against this committee-of which I am a member-of this house- of which I am a member-that we were negligent in our duty I made it my business to study this bill, and the reason I took the trouble to make the observations I did both the other evening and to-night is that I wanted to make it abundantly clear that no one outside this house is sufficiently powerful to prevent me from discharging my legislative duties. I have a duty from which I cannot shrink merely by saying, "Well, somebody else can do it," and I then took the trouble to make myself familiar with this matter. I had not been familiar with it beyond the general, cursory examination of the measure I made when I pointed out to the minister the other evening that I did not think we could authorize the construction of a bridge beyond the centre of the stream.
I think the acceptance of the proposal that has been suggested goes a long way towards remedying one of the defects of the bill, but there is something else which is quite apparent and for which I have not been able to find any excuse; that is, why you should approbate in the one line and reprobate in the other; why in the one case you make a declaration that you shall not do something and in the next line declare that you are able to do all
Niagara Falls Bridge

things authorized by the act. Surely the Minister of Transport has given no adequate explanation for that, and I know of none.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was slavishly copied from the last international bridge bill passed by this parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That may be; an astute company promoter may have gotten that in. All I can say is that I am sure the minister himself at once will regard it as nonsensical, to say the least, that in one line you should prohibit and in another line you should authorize. In the one case the words are " any of the powers hereunder," and in the other case " all things authorized by this act."
This all indicates just one thing:	the
desirability of the utmost care being exercised in connection with all legislation. If in days past, when we were in office, bills of this kind passed in the form to which attention has been directed, this should not have been done. Certainly, if my attention had been directed to the matter, it would not have been done; for with the many weaknesses I have at least I possess some respect for the law. I think even my most violent critic would give me credit for a little more intelligence than to suggest that I would become party to a section that would prohibit, except under a condition, the doing of something, and then two lines later authorize the doing of that which had been prohibited. The fact that something has been copied from some other bill indicates how sad a thing it is if we continue to let the dead hand of the past entirely govern every action we take in the present. That is as clear as anything in the world; nothing could be more fatal to either progress or development. When I recall the observations made in this house about companies and company promoters by one who has been attacking us from the outside, I should just like to hear his view, as be used to express it from this side of the house in those days, with respect to legislation of this kind.
The statement made by the minister as to the province of Ontario being behind this legislation and accepting full responsibility for it of course will be determined entirely by the letter which we shall read; the construction placed upon it as to terms; who signs it, and his power and authority to bind the province in the premises. It is a little difficult to understand why the original bill was prepared in the terms in which it was and why people of so little worth as the promoters should be those who are behind this legislation. Just one thing further.


Frederick George Sanderson: It is nine o'clock. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Mr. STIRLING:: It is two minutes after nine.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My attention has been directed to the fact that it was two minutes after nine when you made the declaration that the section had passed.


Grote Stirling: It is not playing the game.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My colleague says that it is not playing the game to go beyond the hour. I think there is much to be said with respect to that. I had no idea that we had gone beyond the hour; but in view of what the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) says, it is my duty to bring that fact to your attention.


Frederick George Sanderson: I did not think the right hon. gentleman was aware that it was nine o'clock. I waited some minutes and I thought he would be disposed to have the amendment carry. However, I am in the judgment of the committee.
Progress reported.



PRIVILEGE-MR. POULIOT

Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. In the Montreal Star of to-day, at page four, is an article, entitled House and Lobby, by H. M. Morden. This is a filthy article and a tissue of lies from the first line to the last. The only thing I have to say to that member of the Press Gallery is that he needs badly a strong dose of castor oil.



FARM IMPLEMENTS COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) for concurrence in the second report of the special committee appointed to investigate farm implement prices, presented to the house on the 8th of April, 1937.
Harry Leader: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I had just concluded a brief examination of the financial position of the farm implement companies. I had pointed out that

Farm Implements Committee Report
the losses suffered by the Massey-Harris Company were due in a measure to their high distribution costs. The committee found that the distribution costs in connection with farm implements were altogether excessive and that the Massey-Harris costs were the highest of all. I do not intend to go into this matter extensively as I should like to conclude my remarks in the allotted time.
It was found that the distribution cost of the International Harvester Company for the ten year period under examination was 22.13 per cent of the net sales. The distribution cost of Deere and Company was 22.57 per cent of the net sales. We were not successful in obtaining the costs of the Cockshutt Plow Company. The distribution cost of the Frost and Wood Company was 20.36 per cent, while the cost of the Massey-Harris Company was 33.46 per cent, more than ten per cent above the average of the other companies. The committee came to the conclusion that while the Massey-Harris Company suffered in Canada a loss of 15.800,000, if they had distributed their products as economically as the other companies, they would have made a saving about equal to their loss.
I do not wish the house to think I am making an attack upon the Massey-Harris Company, as that is absolutely foreign to my purpose. I suggested in my opening remarks that they were a great Canadian concern of which we were proud. If I may be allowed to refer to my own family, in the sixty years that my father and I have been farming we have paid the Massey-Harris people thousands of dollars. We have always thought that no other machine company in the world could make better machines than the Massey-Harris Company. The committee arrived at the conclusion that the cost of distribution was altogether too high and makes a recommendation that the government take into serious consideration the possibility of assisting cooperative organizations in the handling and servicing of farm implements.
I should like to say something about freight rates on agricultural implements. This matter was mentioned by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Johnston) and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley). This is of supreme importance to the western provinces as two-thirds of the machinery sold is sold in the west. Nine per cent of the farmer's dollar is absorbed in freight rates. In 1913 the freight charges on a binder to Regina was $17.80, whereas in 1935 this cost had risen to $25.87. The freight charges on machinery going west to-day are forty per cent higher than they were under the Crowsnest pass agreement.
Yesterday I stated that this Crowsnest pass agreement was an agreement made with the Canadian Pacific railway, and that it had been amended so that we lost the benefit of the Crowsnest pass rates on machinery and other products going westward. In the speech he made over six weeks ago the hon. member for Qu'Appelle stated he was in favour of the restoration of the Crowsnest pass rates on machinery. I do not see the hon. member in his seat to-night, but his statement appears on Hansard. It is just too bad that we did not have similar Conservatives in the house in 1922 when the Crowsnest pass arrangement was lost. I well remember the bitter and determined fight the Conservative party, led by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, put up at that time. Had it not been for the Liberal party, the Crowsnest pass agreement would have been abrogated entirely. I want to compliment the hon. member for Qu'Appelle upon coming out and stating that he is in favour of the restoration of the Crowsnest pass rates on products going westward. I wonder how many of the Conservatives whom I see sitting in front of me at the present time would take the same stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has misstated the facts, I am sure unconsciously. He stated that the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen was against the Crowsnest pass agreement. The fact is that he said the rates should be settled by the railway commission. That was his position. The legislation was allowed to pass in this house, but it was altered in the senate. It was brought up by one of the members of the senate in the form in which it was subsequently dealt with.


Harry Leader: When the matter passed this house, the Crowsnest pass rates were completely abrogated, and it was only by accident that our own senator from Portage la Prairie discovered that fact. He asked that they be not abrogated entirely, but be suspended for a period of three years. That suggestion was agreed to in the senate, and it was brought in as an amendment to the bill, to which the house agreed. Had it not been for the action taken in the senate, I think the right hon. leader of the opposition will agree with me when I say that the Crowsnest pass rates would have been abrogated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not abrogated.


Harry Leader: Reference is made to the ugly word " repudiation " when we ask for a refunding of our public debt. I dislike to think it is repudiation in this connection. An arrangement was made by the people of
2416	COMMONS
Farm Implements Committee Report
Canada, and I cannot see why a different arrangement cannot be made when the boot is on the other foot.
I should like to touch briefly upon the cost of repairs. The committee examined this and found it was a great factor in the high replacement cost of machinery, especially in those tough years when we were not able to buy a complete machine and found it necessary to buy repair parts and patch up the old machine. Repairs, as everybody knows, are sold for cash, and there is no loss or bad debts. The mark-up in the price of repairs, in comparison with the complete machine, is 66 per cent. I have further information in regard to that, but I must hurry on as there are other matters perhaps more important.
Now, as to the effects of the tariff on the cost of machinery, we went into that thoroughly, and I want to say right here that I believe the dumping act is the most diabolical weapon ever devised by man for the strangulation of international trade. The present government, I believe, are not using the dumping act to a very great extent. They have practically relieved the people of Canada from the use of that deplorable weapon. But in the ten year period under examination, under both governments, the dumping act was responsible for the implement companies of the United States retaining in that country S17,-000,000 by the International Harvester Company and $9,000,000 by Deere and Company. By that action the treasury of Canada lost $400,000 which they would have been able to tax these companies on their profits had the profits been retained in Canada where they were earned. It may be said that this has nothing to do with increasing the price of farm machinery, but I doubt if that is so. I maintain that it has had something to do with it. I am going to read an extract carried by the Canadian Press over two years ago when we were discussing this question in the house:
Ottawa, June 12-Due to what Hughes Cleaver (Liberal, Halton), called the "silly tariff policy" which permitted the revenue minister to fix values for duty purposes, the International Harvester Company was obliged to charge Canadian importers $200 more on a $1,000 tractor than the price to United States farmers, Charles R. Morrison, vice president of the company, told the house committee on agriculture Thursday.
It goes on to say:
The company was accustomed to give a discount of 25 per cent to its United States selling organization and had always been willing to give the same discount to the Canadian company. However, in attempting to apply it,

the implement manufacturers ran up against the Canadian customs regulations which empowered the national revenue minister to fix the fair market value of importations.
Here is an extract from the committee's report:
The policy of the Department of National Revenue has indirectly introduced a factor unfavourable to the maintenance of low prices in Canada in the ease of these two companies, one of which sells one-third of the total requirements of the Canadian farmer while the other occupies a strong position in the western Canadian market.
The committee, therefore, feels that this whole matter has an important bearing on the question of retail prices on farm implements in Canada.
And a recommendation from the committee was:
That indirectly this retention of profits in the United States affected the price level of farm implements in Canada as the true profits arising out of their Canadian operations were not properly appreciated by the United States companies.
As regards the effects of the tariff, does a reduction in the tariff mean a reduction in the cost of imported products? It did not mean that in the case of farm machinery. I remember how my Conservative friends seemed jubilant at the fact that after we had lowered the tariff on farm machinery the price went up. I remember clipping out at the time an item in the Winnipeg Tribune, a supporter of the Conservative cause, which, speaking of the reduction in the tariff and the increase in the price of machinery, says:
Along came Mr. King and lowered the tarff protection by approximately one-half.
This was before they lowered the tariff five per cent, bringing it down to 74 per cent.
The western Liberal members of parliament sat back expectantly waiting for prices to fall, instead the new catalogue shows higher prices. The western Liberals have been howling to high Heaven ever since.
They seem to think there is some magic about the words " lower tariff." There is not.
We maintain that there is a great difference between the two old political parties on the tariff. The Conservatives stand for high protection, and the Liberals for low tariff; if there is no difference between a low tariff and a high tariff we should know it, and the way to find out is to strip these companies, who have defied parliament, of all tariff protection, and let them stand on their own feet.
Some will say that a combine exists. Well, if a combine does exist, we have the machinery to take care of the situation. I remember sitting in this house and listening to the Minister

Farm Implements Committee Report
of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) in the opening session in 1936. I forget what he was discussing at the time, -but this is what he said in reference to -the Combines Investigation Act. It will be found at page 510 of Hansard of that year:
But I emphasize again that there are occasions-and they exist to-day, I believe- when it becomes the duty of government to intervene if a great business organization takes advantage of its power to oppress its workers pr exploit the consumer.
I claim that is exactly what the machinery companies have done, and not only have they exploited the consumer but they have defied parliament.


John Horne Blackmore: Hear, hear.


Harry Leader: If I may be allowed, I am not critical just for the sake of being critical, and I am not condemning the government which I support because I like condemning them; I am condemning them, if I must, because I am a friend of the government and I would like to see them follow the paths we think they should follow.
I am going to give the house the record of this government in regard to the duty on farm implements. The Liberal party have been pledged to the abolition of the duty on farm implements since 1919, when they drafted their platform. We are told in this house that we should take a long range vision when we are legislating and to- see what is ahead of us. Surely, Mr. Speaker, twenty years is a long enough vision in regard to removing the duty on agricultural implements. The Hon. Charles Stewart, Liberal member of this house in 1935, in opposition at that time, but who, if he had been reelected, would have no doubt been sitting on the treasury benches to-day, moved a resolution- in 1935 as follows: Hon. Charles Stewart (West Edmonton) moved:
That in the opinion of this bouse the best interests of Canada demand that the burden of customs taxation be lessened on the instruments of production in the agricultural industry and to this end, farm implements and machinery should be free from custom duties.
He said:
Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to detain the house at any length on the introduction of this motion. I think, however, it would be of interest to recite briefly the history of customs duties as applied to farm machinery, and to point out their detrimental effect upon the farming industry of this country. I do not think there will be any disagreement with the statement that agriculture is the most important occupation of the Canadian people.
I quoted this resolution, during the campaign, and was proud to do so. This government has a
splendid chance to practice reciprocity with the United States. We kno-w that for years Canadian farm machinery was allowed to enter the United States duty free, and it would be only an act of justice to the farmers of this country, without hurting anyone, if we allowed United States farm machinery to enter Canada duty free.
I want to	say thit to the Prime
Minister. At Easter time when I was home I found, along with the information I received while I was here, that a bitter feeling-prevails in western Canada in regard to the government's action respecting farm machinery. I have two letters here signed by the secretary of the United Farmers of Manitoba, from which I should like to make two short extracts. He encloses a copy of a letter directed to the chairman of the special committee. He says: We are very much concerned about this situation. The implement people appear determined to over-ride the conclusions and recommendations of last year's committee and to press still more extortionate prices in 1938.
We think this is a challenge to Canadian democracy and we are looking for unified action on the part of representatives of rural Canada. We respectfully urge that our plea in this letter be given your personal attention.
And he writes this significant postcript: Surely the western rural members acting together should be able to get action.
That letter was written on- March 16. I have another letter dated April 21, which is a copy of a letter that was directed -to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner); he has this information. The writer says:
The executive of the United Farmers of Manitoba meeting on April 11th and 12th, were deeply concerned in regard to the present situation re prices of farm implements.
The report of the special committee of last year, they feel, is a call to action which ought not to be ignored, and there seems to be no action in sight just now. They view this with extreme disappointment. That a widespread injustice should not only be permitted to continue but actually be allowed to increase creates a very grave situation.
I see that I have exhausted my time. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the house for having given me this extra time, and I shall conclude with very few remarks:
I want to say that the machine companies have forfeited any right to tariff protection which they may have had. They have not played fair with the farmers and working men of this country. They have combined on a squeeze play to boost prices at a time when higher prices were not warranted. Their action has hindered the progress of agriculture, and in my opinion it is high time that this
2418	COMMONS
Farm Implements Committee Report
parliament should institute measures which will compel a reduction in the prices now being charged for agricultural machinery. What I have said is not inspired by malice towards the manufacturers of farm machinery or any other individual or group; its object is rather to present the viewpoint of the farmers who must and do purchase this machinery. We as a class have not been blessed with legislative protection-notwithstanding some remarks that have been made- nor do we need or desire any special privileges; but we do object, and our voice is becoming increasingly articulate in demanding that others get off our backs so that we may live and provide for our families. Furthermore, we wish to pay our fair share of tribute to the state, but insist, when so doing, that we be allowed a fair recompense for our labours.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is
not my intention to present either an analysis or a synopsis of the evidence and report of the committee. That has already been done ably and succinctly by most of the previous speakers. I wish to give a short historical resume of this entire inquiry into the causes underlying the high prices of farm implements.
First, on March 2, 1936, an order was issued in this house for an inquiry into the high price of farm implements Second, on April 24, 1936. a question was asked, as reported on page 2127 of Hansard, regarding the response of the implement companies to the agricultural committee's request that during the course of the inquiry the prices should be reduced to their former level. May I quote that from Hansard? On the orders of the day I asked the following question:
I would ask the government if it has drawn to the attention of the agricultural implement industry the motion passed by this house asking that industry to keep the price of farm implements at their former level until the present investigation has been completed; what assurance has been received from the agricultural implement industry, and why has this request not been complied with?
The Minister of Agriculture replied:
Mr. Gardiner:	Mr. Speaker, letters were
sent to the implement companies calling their attention to the resolution passed by the committee. So far as I know there has not been, down to the present, information received in reply from all the companies. I think a letter was received from one company, but I would prefer when the information is produced to have it brought down as a whole.
Mr. M. J. Coldwell:	Does the government
contemplate bringing down any legislation or taking other action to bring the implement companies to a reasonable frame of mind regarding these prices?
There was no answer.

On February 1, 1937, the agricultural committee reported and suggested the setting up of a select committee of this house to continue the investigation into the high price of farm implements. On April 8, 1937, the report was tabled in the house by the chairman of that committee, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Johnston), but no discussion followed and no action was taken. Of course the government was anxious to expedite the business of the house in order that the parliamentary committee might attend the coronation. On March 11, 1938, the report was discussed on a motion of concurrence moved by the chairman of the committee. The time between the tabling of the report and the moving of the motion of concurrence was so long that the chairman felt that something ought to be done about it, and so he added seven suggestions of his own. It should be remembered that these suggestions are not a part of the report and have no bearing upon the report. The strangest thing of all is that one of these suggestions was the institution of a system of crop insurance, a matter over which this committee had no jurisdiction, and which was very largely a sop to soothe the disappointment of those who had expected the government to take some action as a result of this inquiry.
The motion for concurrence was moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre on March 11 of this year. Now, six weeks later, on April 29 we are still discussing a report that was tabled over a year ago regarding the investigation into the high price of farm implements. One cannot too strongly condemn the dilatoriness of the entire procedure with regard to this inquiry. It looks to me like a grand farce, with the government stalling for time. May I point out first of all that it is two years since this investigation began, and now, after two years, we are only at the stage of discussing a report which, even if it is passed, is no guarantee of legislative action regarding the committee's recommendations, let alone the chairman's suggestions. Let me point out further that so much time has been allowed to elapse during the present session that it is altogether unlikely that we shall get legislative action during this sitting of parliament. This means that it is not likely we shall have legislation dealing with this matter until next year, which will probably be the session prior to the general election. In other words, the entire term of office during which the present government has ruled will have been taken up with an inquiry into a question regarding which the government's duty was clear from the was beginning. I believe it was Disraeli who

Farm Implements Committee Report
said that commissions were set up to find out things which everybody else knew already. Certainly this committee has succeeded so far only in presenting excellent material, but not in getting the government to implement any, of the recommendations that were made.


Mr. GOLDING:: The committee did more than that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: During this entire period of two years the farmers have continued to suffer the injustice of high farm implement prices, which have placed an additional burden of $4,000,000 per annum upon the backs of the prairie farmers.


Mr. MASSEY:: How does the hon. member figure that out?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I shall give the basis for that in just a few moments.


Mr. SPENCE:: The hon. member is a great figurer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: An examination of the facts will show that the implement companies have totally disregarded the wishes of the committee and of parliament. First of all, the companies did not accede to the request of the committee that the prices should be reduced to their former level until the investigation had been completed. I have here a copy of the correspondence passing between counsel for the committee and the different implement companies, and in very polite language the committee was told by the companies that it ought to mind its own business. Again, these companies during the investigation absolutely failed to substantiate their claim that the increase in the cost of implements was due to an increase in the cost of raw materials and labour.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is your opinion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is not my opinion. Let me quote from the evidence at page 386. Mr. Morrison, the head of the International Harvester Company is on the stand and Mr. Graham is legal counsel for the parliamentary committee. I quote from the evidence.
Q. So that these pig iron prices are going down in that period?
A. Yes, all right.
Q. Now we will take scrap-in 1930 it was 17-60; in 1931 it was 19-31; in 1932 it was 12-36; in 1933 it was 10-22 and in 1934 there was a slight increase to 11-23; but again in scrap there is the same reduction in the period isn't there? In steel, steel in 1930 was 2-37; in 1931 it was 2-37; in 1932 it was 2-44; in 1933 it was 2-31 and in 1934 it was 2-33; if anything there has been a slight drop-isn't that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You will recall that lumber, which comprised about 10 per cent of the raw material costs, in 1930 was 99-98; in 1931 it was 102-87; in 1932 it dropped to 88-82; in 1933 it dropped to 82-20; and in 1934 it dropped to 73-82-so that there was a decided drop in the cost of lumber to you. Isn't that correct?
A. According to these figures.
Q. Well, these figures are supplied by yourself, Mr. Morrison. These are the big items; pig iron, scrap, steel and lumber; so that you will agree with me that in the prices you had to pay for raw materials entering into your product in the period from 1923 to 1935 there was a decided drop rather than an increase, except in steel, which seems to have held just steady; would not that be correct?
A. That would be correct.
Q. So that I submit again, Mr. Morrison, in the light of that, that when you suggest to your answers to me last spring that increase in the cost of materials was an element that jusified the raise, surely you cannot uphold that now in the face of this information-dealing with materials alone, I will go into the others with you later-but dealing with material costs alone?
A. All right, let us concede the material.
Q. You will concede the material?
A. Yes.
On page 387 the question of labour is discussed :
Q. Well, then, I do not know that I need go- much further on that particular point, if you agree with that. It refutes the suggestion that you made in your statement that increased labour costs justified the increase in price?
A. Well, I think Mr. Graham you are being just a little liberal; I said, material, labour and burden; what I meant was collective material, labour and burden.
Q. Of course, it is my duty, Mr. Morrison, to separate them, naturally. You would agree with me then that labour costs during the period have decreased rather than increased; and that therefore labour treated as a single element does not justify the increase?
A. That is true.
Q. That is true?
A. Yes.
I say, therefore, that the evidence shows that the increase in costs of material and labour did not justify the increase in 1936. The committee showed further that they had no doubt in their minds that an injustice had been perpetrated upon the purchasers of farm implements. I do not wish to quote extensively. Let me quote two statements from the recommendations at page 1216:
The companies, having during the depression years maintained, relatively, their price levels, the committee suggests that now they are approaching a period of normal or above normal volume of production and sales, the companies can well afford, comparatively and actually, to lower their prices and still make satisfactory financial returns, because of the great saving
2420	COMMONS
Farm Implements Committee Report
in overhead per unit of production. This policy would be of particular benefit in the period in which the farmer is making necessary replacements.

The results have been very confusing to those studying price trends over this period. During the period 1913 to 1936 the price of tractors declined by about fifty per cent. On the other hand prices of the general line of horse drawn implements and machines showed a level in 1936 between fifty and sixty per cent higher than in 1913.


Denton Massey: Does the hon. member realize he is comparing incomparables? It is as if he were comparing the price of bicycles with that of motorcycles.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not aware that either motorcycles or bicycles are farm implements. The hon. gentleman has had a long experience in such matters, and he may be able to get the committee to regard bicycles and motorcycles as farm implements.


Denton Massey: The hon. gentleman knows quite well what I mean. He is dodging my question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The committee went on to point out at page 1217, that in Canada only one farmer out of every seven possesses a tractor. Then, on pages 1294 to 1296 are set out thirty-six recommendations. I shall not take the time of the house to read them; most hon. members have already gone through this. But five things that the committee proved to their own satisfaction at least are worth noting. In the first place they prove that farm implement prices from 1891 to 1936 had consistently been too high. I suggest a reading of recommendation No. 30:
That over the period 1891 to 1936 retail prices of farm implements have been maintained at too high a level as shown by the financial returns to the companies engaged in the industry during that period.
Second, they maintained that the increase in 1936 was unjustifiable. I refer to recommendation No. 29:
That the increases announced by the companies in January, 1936, were not justified by an increase in manufacturing or distribution costs or by the financial results of the companies in so far as these were affected by the price level of farm implements.
Third, the committee was convinced that the cost of distribution was too high. I refer to recommendation No. 33:
That the committee is of the opinion that the cost of distribution of farm implements is unnecessarily high and constitutes an important factor in the prices to the consumers.

They pointed out also that the cost of machinery bought on time was so excessive as to constitute usury. I refer to recommendation No. 27:
That the cost of credit to the farmer purchasing farm implements on time is excessive and the companies should take immediate steps to reduce these credit charges.
The fifth thing I want to draw to the attention of the house is that this committee was of the opinion that unless the companies themselves took some action, the government would be justified in encouraging the cooperative distribution and servicing of farm machinery. I refer to recommendation No. 34:
That the companies themselves should make every effort to reduce these costs or farmers should be encouraged to organize for the cooperative distribution and servicing of farm implements.
This is an investigation which began two years ago. During the investigation the companies refused to lower their prices to the former level. One year ago a report was tabled proving conclusively to the satisfaction of the committee five things:
1.	That the prices had been too high.
2.	That the increase was unjustifiable.
3.	That the cost of distribution was too high.
4.	That carrying charges were too high.
5.	That if the companies themselves did not do something, a cooperative organization should be set up.


Mr. SENN:: That was not unanimous.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is the report of the committee and I am reading it as such. The members of the committee have the right to point out to what extent they disagreed with the report. But it was a majority report.
After these conclusions had been reached and the report tabled in this house, instead of the farm implement companies then acceding to the request to lower prices to the former level they brought about a second increase on November 1, 1937, an increase of 7-8 per cent, which in addition to the three per cent increase in January, 1936, made an increase to the primary producers of almost eleven per cent. It is apparent that the farm implement companies have no intention of cooperating with the committee; that they have defied the request of the committee to the extent not only of refusing to accede to their request, but of actually bringing about a second increase in prices. That is why, when this session opened, I placed on the order paper a resolution which reads:
Whereas the price of farm implements is too high in relation to the price of farm products.
And whereas the cost of distribution of farm implements is too high and is a major factor in the cost of farm implements;

Farm Implements Committee Report
And whereas the credit charges to farmers buying machinery on time is excessive,
Therefore be it resolved,-That this house recommend to the government that they encourage farmers to organize in provincial units for the cooperative distribution and servicing of farm implements.
I had hoped that during this session we should reach that resolution, in order that parliament might have an opportunity of taking some action, since it is quite apparent that the implement companies do not intend to take any.
When he was moving his motion of concurrence, the hon. member for Lake Centre read a letter from the United Farmers of Manitoba which was somewhat commendatory. But I have here a letter written by the same organization since this motion for concurrence was presented. I agree with the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) that these farmers are becoming suspicious and impatient. This letter, which is dated March 16, 1938, is addressed to the chairman of the committee; it is a circular letter. I shall not take time to read all of it, but I should like to read two or three paragraphs:
I am sure there are few who realize as your address shows that the implement companies' reply to the committee report of last session was an increase of 7-8 per cent on top of the 3 per cent increase of 1936, and that it means a fresh and utterly unjustifiable levy of !>4,000,000 on the farmers of the prairie for the benefit of the makers of the tools they use.
We note the seven suggestions made in your address-but feel that coming simply as suggestions and not being included in your motion they are not likely to be fully effective. I must add that apart from some definite pressure upon the implement people with a view to securing equitable rates, the suggestion of a commission such as you have in mind in No. 7 is not likely to be regarded as enough. Our people are increasingly suspicious of commissions involving fabulous fees and expenses and their reports being filed away without any action resulting. There ought to be immediate action by the government before any such commission is thought of. . . .
There must be more than concurrence in the report of last session and more than a commission to report a year or two from now. I can very definitely assure you that the farmers of the prairies will not be satisfied with these.
That is signed by Wm. R. Wood, secretary, United Farmers of Manitoba.
I therefore say that at this time concurrence in a report which is now a year old is idle and futile. Since the tabling of that report the situation has completely changed. Another increase in prices has taken place. In my opinion, which I think is shared by many people who are buying these implements on the prairies, we cannot escape our responsibilities 51953-154
by pious wishes and wishful suggestions; this parliament must be prepared to do something, and something of a constructive and helpful nature. I therefore move an amendment seconded by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell):
That the second report of the special committee of the house to inquire into the causes underlying the high prices of farm implements be not now concurred in but be referred back to the committee with instructions that they may add the following:
Whereas the agricultural implement companies have disregarded the recommendations of the committee and have failed to reduce their prices since this report was presented to the house on April 8, 1937, but on the contrary have announced an increase in prices which took effect on November 1, 1937, that the government carry out the recommendation of the report by taking immediate steps to assist farmers in the organization of cooperatives for the distribution and servicing of farm implements.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have listened with a great
deal of interest to the address just delivered by the hon, member for Weybum (Mr. Douglas) and also to the suggested amendment. I doubt very much, however, whether it is in order; I suggest that it is not. It deals with a matter of policy, instructing a committee to dictate government policy, something which I doubt that this house would care to do or has power to do. While you are considering the question of whether or not it is in order, Mr. Speaker, if I have your permission I shall proceed with the discussion of the original question.
The hon, member for Weybum (Mr. Douglas) has relieved me of the necessity of reading paragraphs 29, 30, 32 and 33 of the report of the committee, all of which bear directly upon the findings as this house has been called upon to consider them. It has been stated that two years ago some discussion arose in the house as a result of the increase in the prices of farm implements. That discussion arose largely because of opposition which came from the western part of Canada. I know the house does not consider the fact that the question was raised by hon. members from the west means that the objection to the increased prices of farm implements is purely a western one. The only reason the first objections came from the west, as compared with any other part of Canada, is that the west, more than any other part of Canada, depends upon machinery for successfully carrying on the industry of agriculture. However, that is not so true to-day as it was ten or twenty years ago.

2422	COMMONS
Farm Implements Committee Report
Farms in eastern Canada are becoming more mechanized than they were a few years ago, and as a result of the evidence presented to the committee and the discussions which have taken place in the committee, I think it is fair to say that the objections to the two increases in the price of farm implements since this government came into power have come just as strongly from the eastern part of Canada as from the west. For that reason I would say that a discussion of this question to-day is not a sectional matter in any sense of the term, and anything I have to say is spoken on behalf of farmers whether they live in eastern or western Canada.
At page 1229 of the proceedings of the committee there is something which bears upon the method I intend to follow in dealing with the report:
That these implements are truly representative of the industry is evident from the fact that in the case of the International Harvester Company information supplied thereon covered seventy-five per cent of its implement production at Hamilton, exclusive of parts .	.	.
That is, after having reported the list of implements to which special consideration was given.
As in other branches of the inquiry the information submitted by the International Harvester Company of Canada was particularly valuable in that its cost accounting policy and system has been consistently followed since 1913 and in that its costs are all-inclusive. This company has. in the final analysis, only two kinds of expense, i.e.. manufacturing and distribution, and every expenditure of the company eventually finds its way into one or the other of these categories.
In other words, in the evidence submitted by that company all costs in connection with farm implements were in one or the other of two classes, factory costs or distribution costs. The report continues:
The companies agreed that all information submitted with regard to a binder could be placed on the printed records of the committee in order to give concrete information as to manufacturing costs and selling values in the industry. The binder was found by the auditor to be in most particulars close to the average of all the smaller typical implements selected by the committee. For this reason the undernoted tables as to the binder can be treated as truly informative.
Following that statement are three tables, one having to do with the eight foot binder of the International Harvester Company, the second having to do with the Massey-Harris binder and the third having to do with the Frost and Wood binder, and these statements are said to be typical of the costs, both distribution and factory, of all small farm imple-

ments sold in Canada. The report goes further and indicates that these delivered costs are at one particular point in Canada, and again that is a point which illustrates very well the costs to the farmers of western Canada. That point is the city of Regina, in the centre of the farming area that requires and uses more farm implements than any other agricultural area in Canada.
I am going to content myself by dealing with the International Harvester Company binder, rather than attempting to deal with all three companies, in view of the fact that it is typical of other farm implements, and it will be noted that the price of this binder to the farmer at Regina in 1913 was 1167.02; in 1936 it was 1281, an increase of $113.98 over the period under review. It has been said by some hon. members that labour had a great deal to do with that increase, and that where labour is concerned we should not criticize; that in this house we should attempt to do those things which will make it more profitable for men to be engaged in industry. I am prepared to defend labour's claim to consideration as strongly as any hon. member of the house, but I would direct attention to the fact that the cost of labour entering into the construction of an International Harvester binder in 1913 was valued at SI 1.97. In 1936 it was $22.62. The difference in the cost of labour as between 1913 and 1936 was only $10.65, but the increase in the price of the binder was $113.98. So we can make all allowance for the increased cost of labour and still discuss the question of -whether or not the price of the binder is too high. Then let us look at the cost of material.


Denton Massey: Would the minister permit
a question?


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall require practically all my time, but if the question is not too long I shall try to answer it.


Denton Massey: I shall put it very briefly, but I just wanted to ask if the minister was prepared to take into consideration the difference in the machines themselves. After ail, you could not compare the price of the cloth for a suit of clothes to fit him with the price of the cloth for a suit of clothes to fit me.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have been operating binders since 1901, and in reply to the suggestion of my hon. friend I would say that the binder in 1901 cut just as many acres-if it was the same size-and did the job just about as efficiently as the binder we are using in 1938, and in most cases it lasted longer.
APRIL 29, 193S	2423
Farm, Implements Committee Report
Some hon. members have maintained that there has been an increase in the cost of material. There has been. In 1913 the material cost $45.56; in 1936 it cost $71.06, or an increase of S25.50 over that period of time. Some members have maintained that there has been an increase in freight costs. There has been. In 1913 freight costs were S17.S0; in 1936 they were $26.08, or an increase of $8.28 in that time. So we have labour costs increasing by $10.65; material costs increasing by $25.50, and freight costs increasing by $8.28, or a total of $44.43. So I repeat that after having given consideration to these three items, we find that the price of the binder was increased by $113.98, not by only $44.43. In other words, the price of a binder could be reduced by $69.55, to sell at $211.45, without affecting increases in labour, material or freight costs, still leaving the same mark-up as in 1913. These are factors over which the companies have little if any control. They have probably no great control over the cost of labour; they have probably no great control over the cost of materials, and they have very little if any control over the cost of freight.
But there are two other items that enter into the cost of placing a binder at the disposal of the farmer. The first is the overhead or burden, the difference between the two years being $18.18. The second item is the sales cost, and in this instance the difference is $15.05. These two increases amount to $33.23. Even if the companies have no power to adjust these matters, the total increase in cost is $77.66, whereas the increase in price is $113.98. Therefore, a binder could have been reduced in 1936 by $3632 without the companies having to adjust any of the items of cost submitted in the table which appears on page 1230. If that were done, they would still have as a mark-up exactly the same amount as they had in 1913, when they sold a binder in Regina for $167.02. If overhead costs were maintained at the 1913 level, a binder could be sold for $52 less without reducing any of the other costs and still leave the mark-up of 1913.
Someone may ask, Why compare 1913 with 1936? Nineteen thirty-six is not the year of highest cost of materials entering into the factory costs of farm implements. According to this table, the cost of delivering a binder to a farmer in Regina in 1921 was $262.53. This was the year in which binders sold at the highest price in the history of our country. The cost of delivering the same binder in 1936 was 201.74. A binder sold for $326 in 1921 and for $281 in 1936. The mark-up in 1921
is $63.47, and in 1936, $79.26. Labour received $9 more from the binder in 1921 than in 1936, whereas materials cost $41.06 more than in 1936. In other words, on the basis of 1921 a binder could have been sold for $16 less than it was sold for in 1936, and the companies would have been left with the same mark-up as they had in the year of the highest cost.
Let us take the year 1922 and compare it with 1936. According to this table the cost of delivering a binder to a farmer in Regina in 1922 was $204.91, which is $3 more than it cost in 1936. The binder was sold for $15 more in 1936.


Denton Massey: You cannot compare the prices of those two years at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: We shall make the comparison later. In other words, a binder could have been sold for $12 less in 1936 and have left the companies in exactly the same position as they were in 1922.
Let us look at 1926. According to this table it cost $215.61 to deliver a binder to a Regina farmer in 1926, and $201.74 in 1936. The mark-up in 1926 was $67.39, whereas in 1936 it was $79.26. On the basis of 1926 the binder could have been sold for $12 less. Let us come down nearer to the present time and consider the year 1932. According to this table it cost $236.17 to deliver a binder to a Regina farmer in 1932, and $201.74 in 1936. The mark-up in 1932 was S36.S3 as compared with $79.26 in 1936. On the basis of 1932 a binder could have been sold in 1936 for $42.43 less. In other words, there was an increase in the 1936 price as compared with other years and an increase in mark-up over and above the actual costs in other years, running all the way from $12 in the lowest year to $42.43 in 1932. I contend that a binder could have been sold at a lower price, and my contention is backed up by an examination of the cost basis in' any one of the years with which I have dealt.
The binder is the average implement among all the implements used by the farmers in the Dominion of Canada. Therefore, I think we are safe in saying that all other small implements could have been reduced an equal amount without putting the companies in any worse position than they were in during any of the preceding years. There is another way in which this matter may be looked at. The table shows that the cost of placing an eight foot International Harvester Company binder in the hands of a farmer in Regina in 1936 was $201.74. This binder was sold for $281 cash, which is close to a 40 per cent write-up on the total cost, which includes factory costs, distribution costs and sales costs. I tiiink it
2424	COMMONS
Farm Implements Committee Report
would be more correct to figure the mark-up on factory costs alone. Why should a company draw 40 per cent on the freight, on the cost of hauling an implement from eastern Canada to Regina? It would be more correct to figure the mark-up on factory costs alone, leaving out freight and sales costs. The factory cost is $130.16, and calculated on this basis the write-up is 55 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: That would include overhead.


James Garfield Gardiner: The factory costs would include overhead or burden, and labour and material. Why Should not any industry base its write-up upon these factors? If the company was satisfied with a 20 per cent write-up on the actual factory costs, even though that is high, this International Harvester Company binder would have sold in Regina in 1936 for $227.61 instead of $281. That would have meant an actual reduction to the western farmer of approximately 19 per cent. As I say, the binder is an average implement, and similar reductions could have been made on all other implements, which would have meant a saving of 19 per cent on the full line of implements used by the farmers of western Canada.
I think it is apparent from an examination of the evidence placed before the committee that there is no good reason why the implement companies could not have reduced their prices in 1936 instead of increasing them. It will be said that there is a reason; that we have been passing through difficult times, but the times for the farmer in 1936 were not as difficult as the times for the farmer in 1932. With a higher cost of production the implement companies were able to sell a binder at a lower price in 1932 than in 1936. They have not been satisfied with the writeup of 1936; they have added another nine per cent to the 1936 price of binders. When I was home the other day I priced a binder in my home town, and I found that a binder that cost $295 a year ago would cost me $322 to-day. This is an increase of $27 between the time this committee first presented this report to the house and the present time. I suggest that there is no reason to be surprised that those who are interested in the implement business should cry out on occasion that these implements are different and that-


Denton Massey: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. I have no interest whatsoever in the implement business.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not referring to the hon. gentleman at all. Why should he be so touchy?
[Mr. Gardiner. 1


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member is making a point of order, and has the floor.


Denton Massey: Mr. Speaker, I interrupted the minister a few moments ago with a statement which he repeated and prefaced it with the words "those who are interested in the implement business." I-nor is any member of my family-am not interested in the implement business and have not been for six years.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact, I did not have the hon. gentleman in mind at all at the moment, but if he thinks I referred to him I am quite prepared to withdraw the remark.


Denton Massey: Thank you.


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I submit to my hon friend Mr. Douglas (Weyburn) and the house that his amendment is not in order, because it suggests referring back the report of the committee to the committee. The committee has ceased to exist, and therefore it is impossible to refer the report back to it. The committee has ceased to exist for the simple reason that the rules provide that where a committee has submitted its final report, its proceedings are assumed to have ended, and unless the committee is revived it ceases to exist. I refer Your Honour to standing order 66 on reports from committees, citation 664:
If a committee at the conclusion of their inquiry make a final report to the house, the sittings of the committee are assumed to have been closed, and if further proceedings were desired it would be necessary to revive the committee.
Also prorogation has the effect of ending the work of all committees and dissolving them. If a committee is to continue its work at a subsequent session, it must be revived by special motion to that effect. On that I refer to Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, page 103:
In like manner a prorogation has the effect of dissolving all committees, whether standing or special.
In the circumstances I submit that the amendment is out of order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Might I ask the Prime Minister why we should be considering the report of the committee if the committee has been dissolved?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What we are doing now is considering the matter of concurrence in the report of a committee. The committee had submitted its final report, and in so doing it is assumed to have ended its proceedings. As I said, prorogation itself would have ended the committee. If it were the desire of the house to revive the committee, that could be done by a motion, and then any matter could be referred back to the committee, or the report itself referred back. But at the present time the committee is non-existent.


Walter Edward Foster: I think the point of order taken by the Prime Minister is correct, that there is no body now existing to which we could refer the subject matter of the amendment of the hon. member for Weyburn. I therefore declare the amendment out of order.


Mark Cecil Senn: I wish to discuss very briefly some aspects of the report which is now before the house, and to comment upon some of the statements and arguments advanced by those who have spoken to the motion. The house has been quite lenient to-night in allowing hon. members who have already spoken to overstep their time to a certain extent, and I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Monday, May 2, 1938