1940-06-17

THE KING'S BIRTHDAY


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the house that I have received the following personal message from the king: Buckingham Palace Members of the House of Commons of Canada:
I am greatly touched by the terms of the resolution adopted yesterday by the members of the Houses of Parliament of Canada on the occasion of the official celebration of my birthday. Twelve months ago I left Canada convinced from my own personal experience that nowhere in the world_ were justice and freedom more truly appreciated, and neither in peace nor in war would the people of Canada ever suffer themselves to be deprived of their institutions grounded on those ideals. The dire events of the year that has passed have confirmed that conviction a hundredfold. Canada from the first clearly understood the true import
[Mr. Gardiner.l
of this terrible struggle, and the immense issues that hang upon its outcome. She hesitated not at all, and the resolution with which she lias thrown herself heart and soul into the conflict has been, I can assure you, an immeasurable strength to me and to all in the old world.
George R.I.



EUROPEAN WAR


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the Prime Minister
if he has anything to say to the house and the country at this time with respect to the situation on the other side, and if not to-day, when will he be in a position to make a statement?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to
my hon. friend I would say that hon. members are of course aware of the extreme gravity of the situation in Europe. It is not yet possible to indicate the precise situation in France. Members know that following the break through at various points on the French front and penetration of the Maginot line the French army has not thus far been able to reorganize effective resistance; that upon the resignation of Premier Reynaud, a new cabinet was formed under Marshal Petain, and that it is seeking an armistice with the enemy. While not minimizing the seriousness of the blow to the cause of the allies, I can say with confidence that the fate of France will strengthen rather than weaken Canada s determination to intensify her war effort in the direction of increased measures of home defence, the necessity for which will be now apparent, and in the direction of further assistance to the United Kingdom.
It is my intention to-morrow to give the house all available information. I will, at the same time, make a statement as to the measures which have been adopted and which it is proposed to adopt to meet the emergent situation.
Hon. members may have noticed that it has been announced that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom will make an important statement to-morrow on the European situation. That statement will be made I assume before this house meets to-morrow afternoon. It is, I think, preferable that, in a matter of so grave importance as is the present situation, a statement concerning it _ as a whole should come from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom before an attempt is made by the leader of the government in our house to appraise it at its full significance.

Private Bills

I might add a word about the Canadian troops overseas. It is now possible for me to inform the house that, in conformity with the plans of the allied high command, preparations were made early this month for the early participation in action in France of the first division of the Canadian active service corps. Last week some of our troops were actually landed in France. The changed circumstances rendered their withdrawal imperative, and over the week-end effective steps were initiated to that end.



PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house has substituted the name of Mr. Dupuis for that of Mr. Cloutier to act on the part of the House of Commons as a member of the joint committee of both houses on printing.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 32, to incorporate Pool Insurance- Mr. McNiven.
Bill No. 33, to incorporate The Stanstead & Sherbrooke Insurance Company-Mr. Gingues.
Bill No. 36 for the relief of Elizabeth Pauline Tingley Kidd-Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 37 for the relief of Nancy Patricia Lytle Rowat-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 38 for the relief of Henry Carl Mayhew-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 39 for the relief of Laura Lucrezia Green Stinson-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 40 for the relief of Irene Nellie Kon Simpson-Mr. Hill.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. J. McILRAITH (Ottawa West) moved the first reading of Bill No. 34 (from the senate) respecting The Ottawa Electric Company and the Ottawa Gas Company.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not quite sure what the proper practice is with respect to the first reading of private bills which have been
initiated in the senate. But it has occurred to me that perhaps in some cases, at all events, some brief explanation should be given by the sponsor, and I would invite the hon. junior member for Ottawa (Mr. Mcllraith) to be good enough to do that on this occasion.


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I think it is the hon. member's right to ask for it.


Mr. McILRAITH:: The Ottawa Electric Company is a company incorporated by act of parliament, selling and distributing electricity in the city of Ottawa. The Ottawa Gas Company is a company incorporated by act of parliament, selling and distributing gas in the city of Ottawa. The Ottawa Light, Heat and Power Company is a company incorporated by letters patent, and is the parent company of the two previously mentioned companies-


Richard Burpee Hanson: A holding company?


George James McIlraith: -holding all the stock except the qualifying shares for the directors. The act enables the two companies, the electric company and the gas company, to sell their assets to the parent company, the parent company assuming all obligations and undertakings. In other words, the subsidiary companies will be permitted to wind up their business, after having sold their assets to the parent company, and having transferred their undertakings to the parent company; it will save the consequent duplication of services and returns.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DETROIT AND WINDSOR SUBWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. F. DONNELLY (Wood Mountain- for Mr. Martin) moved the first reading of Bill No. 35 (from the senate) respecting the Detroit and Windsor Subway Company.
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: May we have an explanation?
Mr.	DONNELLY: This bill has been
already passed by the senate. All it does is to change the non-par stock to par stock.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Questions



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. JAQUES:: Has the Bank of Canada any relations with the Bank of International Settlements, and, if so, what are they?


Mr. RALSTON:: The Bank of Canada has no relationship with the Bank for International Settlements of the character authorized in section 22, subsection (b) of the Bank of Canada Act. Its relationship, if any, is therefore limited to business of the character authorized in section 21, subsection (1) (n) of the act.


RURAL MAIL ROUTES
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	How many rural mail routes in Canada have been opened for tender during the calendar year 1939?
2.	How many were renewed during the same period?
3.	What was the average mileage covered by rural mail couriers in Canada in the calendar year 1939?
4.	What was the average contract price per mile per year of Canadian rural mail routes in 1939?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Of contracts for rural routes expiring
during calendar year 1939:	(a) Tenders
invited on expiration of contracts, 271;
(b)	Tenders invited on refusals to renew, 33;
(c)	Tenders invited for proposed routes, 109;
(d)	Tenders invited where it was necessary to terminate contracts for cause (not necessarily expiring during calendar year), 33.
2.	Renewals offered and accepted, 727.
3.	Average length of rural mail routes as on 31st March, 1940, 21-5 miles.
4.	Average contract price per mile per annum (based on six trips per week) as on 31st March, 1940, $32.05.


TORONTO POST OFFICE
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has work on the Toronto post office again been stopped? If so, for what reason?
2.	What has been spent so far on it for (a) land, (b) buildings; what work has been done and yet remains to be done?
3.	What are the postal revenues for the last two years of record for Toronto?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	(a) Yes. (b) Due to existing conditions the continuation of this work at its present stage of completion is under consideration.

2.	(a) $287,868.79;	(b)	$1,064,952.66;	(c)
building is approximately 50 per cent completed.
3.	Year 1938-39, $7,751,216.70; year 1939-40, $7,913,357.26.


MAPLE PRODUCTS
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	What was the value of maple products produced during each of the years 1938, 1939, and 1940, (a) in Canada, (b) in the province of Quebec?
2.	What was the value of such products exported during the same years, (a) to the United States, (b) to the United Kingdom?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	(a) In Canada: 1938, $3,849,900; 1939, $3,433,900; (b) in the province of Quebec: 1938, $2,910,300; 1939, $2,643,200. Data for 1940
not yet available.
2.	Exports of maple produots to the United Kingdom and United States during the calendar years 1938 and 1939, and the period from January 1 to May 31, 1940.
Jan. 1 to
Maple syrup-	May 31,
U.K.:	1938	1939	1940Gal	3.513	3,389	1.067S	7,826	7,653	3.390U.S.:	Gal	3.954	203.081	99,741$	10,465	236.269	123,961Maple sugar- U.K.:	Lb	19.920	25,294	6.996$	3,587	4.294	1.363U.S.:	Lb	7,441.364	7,654.9S0	490.572$	1.190,766	1,193,411	70,892


WOODSTOCK, N.B., REGIMENTAL DEPOT
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	How many soldiers of His Majesty's forces were in training at Woodstock depot, since the outbreak of war in Canada, September 2, 1939?
2.	What was the number of such soldiers in each of the months of September, October. November, and December, 1939. and January, February, March and April, 1940?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	None-All men ehlisted in depots are trained in the various training centres throughout Canada.
2.	Regimental depot, Woodstock, N.B.- Training strength:-
Prior to December 2, 1939, nil; 2nd December, 1939, 93 ; 31st December, 1939, 146; 31st January, 1940, 84 ; 29th February, 1940, 156; 31st March 1940, 242; 30th April, 1940, 263.

Questions


LIVERPOOL, N.S. GOVERNMENT DREDGE
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Has Mrs. Margaret V. Inness, Liverpool, Nova Scotia, been paid rentals, wharfage, or any allowance for wharfage, mooring or storage, of the government dredge, since 1936?
2.	If so, what accounts have been rendered to the government for each year, and what payments have been made for each year?
3.	Is the government continuing to use such wharf, and what further payments will the government make for same?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes, for wharfage and storage of dredge No. 115.
2.	(a) Accounts rendered monthlv at $1.25 a day; (b)1 1937, $456.25; 1938' $456.25; 1939, $456.25; 1940, $113.75 (only accounts up to March received to date).
3.	(a) Yes; (b) At the same rate of $1.25 a day.


S. W. FAIRWEATHER
Mr. TUSTIN:: 1.	Is Mr. S. W. Fairweather, of the Canadian National Railways, presently in the service of the government?
2.	If so, (a) in -what department, and (b) in what capacity?
3.	What are his specific duties?
4.	To whom does he report?
5.	What salary or emolument, if any, is being paid to him?
6.	What is the duration of his engagement or employment ?


Mr. HOWE:: The services of Mr. S. W.
Fairweather, chief of research and development, Canadian National Railways, have been loaned by the railway management to the Department of Munitions and Supply to assist in the organization of a bureau of economics in connection with that department. While so engaged, the Department of Munitions and Supply will be responsible for his out-of-pocket expenses only.


PUGWASH, N.S., HARBOUR
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	How many surveys have been made for dredging the harbour and entrance thereto, at Pugwash, Nova Scotia, and what were the dates of each survey?
2.	What was the proposed depth at ordinary high tide and the width of channel for which surveys and estimates were made?
3.	What was the estimated yardage of different classes of material to be removed, and the estimated unit cost of removing same?
4.	What was the total estimated cost of the proposed dredging?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Survey made in winter of 1939-40 and completed March 22, 1940. No record of previous survey since 1912.
2.	(a) 27J feet at high water neap tide; (b) 300 feet.
3.	Estimated quantity 677,637 cubic yards, place measurement. No borings taken, but outcrops of rock suggest part of this quantity would be class "A." Subdivision impossible without borings.
4.	Impossible to estimate cost, as amount of rock not known. Estimating on basis of all class "B" (no rock), at 45 cents per cubic yard cost would be $304,936.65.


CORN IMPORTED FOR MANUFACTURING PURPOSES
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	What quantity of corn was imported into Canada for manufacturing purposes, in the year 1939?
2.	What quantity of corn was imported into Canada for other than manufacturing purposes, in the year 1939?
3.	From what countries was this corn imported ?
4.	What was the value of these imports?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Imports, by countries, of Indian com as
specified, entered for consumption in Canada during the calendar year 1939.
Indian	Item corn for purposes of distillation.. ..	Country United States	Bush. .. 250,000 .. 555,396	Value $ 127,813 340,286Totals	.. 805,396	$ 468,099Indian corn for cereal products.	manufacture of starch	orBr. South Africa.. .. United States	.. 952,662 .. 1,200 .. 1,474,355	584.082 624 820.082Totals	.. 2,428,217	$1,404,788Indian	corn, n.o.p.	3,480,296	1,992,645 9,262 696,680Argentina	
United States	.. 18,719 .. 1,132,364	Totals	.. 4,631,379	$2,698,587
80S

Questions as Orders for Returns


NITRATE OF SODA IMPORTS
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	What quantity of nitrate of soda was imported into Canada during the last sixteen months?
2.	From what countries was this soda imported?
3.	What quantity was shipped to Canadian ports ?
4.	What quantity was shipped to United States ports?
5.	What was the value of such nitrate of soda shipped into Canada?


James Angus MacKinnon: 3 and 4. Not available.
1, 2 and 5. Imports by countries, of nitrate of soda entered for consumption in Canada, during the period from January 1st, 1939, to April 30th, 1940.
Country	Cwt.	ValueUnited Kingdom 	.... 180	$ 688Belgium 	.... 551	2,488Chile 	.... 206,557	304,000Germany 	.... 324	625United States 	.... 785,719	1,127,761Totals	
993,331 $1,435,562



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	What were the total expenditures made by the government in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1940, on the military barracks on property of the maritime winter fair commission, Amherst, Nova Scotia, for (a) additions and repairs to buildings, (b) heating and plumbing, (c) equipment and furnishings, (d) rental,
(e)	total of all such expenditures whether included in (a), (b), (e) and (d), or not?
2.	Were such expenditures made after tenders were called and contracts let? If so, who tendered for any or all of the work done and what was the amount of each such tender, which tenders were accepted, and what amounts were actually payable under the resulting contracts ?
3.	If such expenditures were not incurred by tender, to what individuals or firms were orders given for materials and/or labour in connection with the said work, what were the particulars, and amounts payable to each such individual or firm?


SAWYER-MASSEY LIMITED
Mr. AYLESWORTH:: 1.	Has the government purchased, or does it intend to purchase, the property of Sawyer-Massey, Limited, in Hamilton?
2.	If it has been purchased, what was the price paid, and for what purpose is it intended that the building shall be used?


CRUDE OIL AND GASOLINE IMPORTS
Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	How much crude oil, and how much gasoline was imported from the United States and also from other countries into Canada during May?
2.	Has the defence minister or any one in his department made arrangements for western refineries to install the necessary machinery for processing high octane gasoline from Turner Valley crude oil for use in the planes of the air training scheme in western Canada instead of having to transport it from refineries in Ontario or import it from other countries?


SEPARATION ALLOWANCE
Mr. COCKERAM:: 1.	What monthly separation allowance is paid to the wife of a member of the C.A.S.F.?
2.	What allowance, if any, is paid to the wife of an interned alien enemy?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why should this be an order for return?


Mr. POWER:: Because two departments are involved.


COMMONWEALTH AIR TRAINING PLAN
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	Has the government decided to establish an airport at or near the city of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan ?
2. If so, is such airport a part of the commonwealth air training scheme?
3.	When did the government arrive at the decision to establish the airfield?
4.	Were any representations made either in writing or by delegations to the government or any department thereof since March 26, 1940, with respect to establishing an airport for commonwealth air training scheme at Moose Jaw?
5. If so, to what department or to what ministers were such representations made?


REGINA AIRPORT
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	What extensions, if any, have been decided upon with respect to the Regina airport?
2.	Have tenders been called for any of such work? If so. what are the names of persons, firms or corporations tendering, and the amount of tender for each piece of work?
3.	Was the contract let in each case to the lowest tenderer?
4.	Is there any provision in the contracts or any of them for payment of fair wages?
5.	Is there any provision in the contract in each case for giving preference in employment, (a) to returned soldiers, and (b) to men on relief?
G. Is there any provision in the contract or any of them forbidding the employment of aliens?

Questions as Orders for Returns


AIRPORT SITES IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	What airport sites, if any, have been acquired in Saskatchewan since April 1, 1939?
2.	What airports, if any, in Saskatchewan, have been extended in area since April, 1939?
3.	In each case, from whom was the necessary land acquired?
4.	How many acres of land have been acquired from each individual in each case?
5.	What sum of money has been paid, or agreed to be paid, to each individual in each case?
G. Are there any cases where possession has been taken of land before payment or before the cost of the land has been agreed upon or otherwise determined? If so, what are the details?



GOVERNMENT FLOOR SPACE RENTALS IN TORONTO

Mr. CHURCH:: What rentals per annum for real estate or floor space are being paid by federal departments or federal commissions, or for war purposes or national defence in the city of Toronto?



LEWIS DUNCAN, K.C.

Mr. TUSTIN:: 1.	Is Lewis Duncan, K.C., presently in the employ of the dominion government?
2.	If so, (a) in what department, and (b) in what capacity?
3.	What salary or emolument is being paid to him?
4.	For what period has he been engaged?
5.	What are his specific duties?



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ACT

Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: 1.	How many projects have been approved under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1940, and what is the total amount of these projects?
2.	How many of these have been passed for payment, and what is the total amount?
3.	How many of these have received payment, and what is the total amount?
4.	How many of these accounts were still owing on March 31, 1939?
5.	What is the total amount owing?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: For a return showing all contracts in connection with the Highland national park, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, giving the following particulars: (a) list of tenderers, and the amount of each tender; (b) the tenderers to whom the contracts were awarded; (c) amounts paid to contractors; (d) total expenditures for (1) construction and maintenance of said park, and (2) maintenance, for the fiscal years ending March 31, 1939, and 1940.
Motion stands.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT

Mr. CASTLEDEN:: For a return showing:	(a) list of all the
townships in Saskatchewan which qualified under the national emergency clause of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act; (b) a list showing the townships in the said province which qualified under the crop failure clause of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, and (c) a list of the names of all individuals who have received acreage bonus on land other than in the townships listed, with a legal description of such land.



MOOSE JAW AIR TRAINING DEPOT

Mr. PERLEY:: For a copy of all letters, correspondence, contracts and other documents in the possession of the government, dated from September 1, 1939, to date, in connection with the establishing of an airport and air training depot at or near Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan.



ROBERT SCOBEY

Percy Chapman Black: For a return showing all expenditures in 1936, 1937, 1938, and 1939, at Western Head breakwater, in Queens-Lunenburg, where Robert Scobey was employed, stating the sums paid him for services and expenses, and including a copy of payrolls, accounts and other disbursements for each year, in connection therewith.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF AND AGRICULTURAL AID- SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. WRIGHT :: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents passing between the dominion government and the provincial government of Saskatchewan, relating to unemployment relief and agricultural aid for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1940.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT

Mr. HANSELL:: For a copy of all affidavits sent in under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act from farmers in townships 10 and 11, range 27, west of the 4th meridian, and received by the Department of Agriculture, showing the amount of wheat raised in that area.



GRONDINES, QUE., RURAL MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. ROY:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, contracts and other documents in the possession of the Post Office Department, relating to the cancellation, last year, of Mr. Herve Girard's contract for the carrying of mail on rural route No. 1, Grondines, Portneuf county, and the appointment of his successor.

810	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)



STE-MARTHE, QTJE., WHARF

Joseph Sasseville Roy: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, contracts, instructions and other documents in connection with improvement works made to the wharf at Ste-Martlie, Gaspe county, in the year 1939, together with a list showing (a) the names of all persons employed on said project and amounts paid to each, and (b) materials supplied and prices paid.



TIGNISH, P.E.I., POSTMASTERSHIP

Mr. MacKINNON (Kootenay East):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents subsequent to March 31, 1937, with reference to the position of postmaster at Tignish, Prince Edward Island.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the third reading of Bill No. 24, to amend the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act, 1939.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, June 13, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. McLarty-Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress out of moneys appropriated by parliament, and for such purpose to supplement the measures taken by the provinces towards providing assistance to those in need, establishing unemployed persons in employment and training and fitting suitable persons for productive occupation, and also to provide financial assistance to the provinces by way of loan, advance or guarantees out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund, and for the appointment of necessary officers, clerks and employees.
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: When
this matter was under discussion the other evening I was asking a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty). I was drawing to his attention the fact that all over the province of Saskatchewan relief recipients were being informed by municipal officers that on instructions from the government of Saskatchewan it was necessary to reduce relief grants owing to information having been received from Ottawa to the effect that relief

grants to the provinces would be reduced. Whatever the technicalities may be, the fact remains that relief grants have been reduced. I believe almost all hon. members from Saskatchewan will bear me out in that statement. Relief grants have been cut.


Mr. McLARTY:: I am sure my hon. friend
does not suggest that we have cut, or placed on any different basis, the percentage of any grants we are making to the provinces.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will come
to that in a moment. I am pointing out first that the relief grants have been cut, that the relief recipients have had cuts in May varying from 20 to 33j per cent. It has been intimated to them that in June the cuts will be even larger. It is stated again and again that the reason for these reductions is that the grant to the province from the federal government will be reduced. Has any information been given by the federal government to the province of Saskatchewan that would warrant these reductions? Has anything been said; has there been any correspondence or intimation otherwise given that would lead the provincial government to believe that the federal government has in mind a reduction of this grant?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I hope to have an opportunity to make a statement in the course of the debate this afternoon. I wonder if it would be satisfactory to the hon. member for Weybum if I dealt with the matter at that time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Later this
afternoon?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I hope so, if I get the opportunity.
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): I had hoped that before this debate closed-because when the minister gets up to speak it means the closing of the debate-we should get some statement from him. He has had suggestions from all corners of the house as to what hon. members in all parties think should be done in regard to unemployment and farm relief. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) suggested that relief should not be given unless some work were done in return. The hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Graham), suggested that there are in Saskatchewan many unemployed mechanics who might be moved into the industrial sections of the country and employed in industry. A great number of suggestions have been made. This resolution has been discussed for hours and hours. Every hon. member in this committee feels that if we have unemployment and farm

Unemployment Relief*-Mr. Homuth
distress these people should be looked after, but we feel also that at a time like this we should be discussing not so much the question of relief as the question of getting people to work. In view of the crisis we are facing to-day, there should not be an unemployed man in the Dominion of Canada.
The bill is ready and when this resolution carries it will be introduced-undoubtedly the same old bill. Are we to travel again the same old trail that we have been travelling for years, or are we going to blaze a new trail, with new ideas, in the light of the knowledge of what has happened in the past? Has the minister any new suggestions as to what should be done? His should be the busiest department of this government, giving leadership from one end of this country to the other, but so far it has not done so.
I am saying this not in a spirit of criticism but because I know something of conditions in both the industrial and the rural areas of this country.	The Prime Minister has a
tremendous task. He has a big job to do. He cannot give leadership in every department of the government, but I do not hesitate to say that some of the members of his cabinet are not giving the leadership they ought to be giving at a time like this. The people look to the members of the cabinet for leadership in a great many of these matters. Is there to be a different policy from that which has been followed in the past? If the bill is the same, will the administration be any different, or just what will be the policy?
I feel that throughout this crisis, particularly, there has not been the cooperation between the various departments of government that there should have been. There has not been the coordination of effort that is necessary in peace time and particularly necessary in a time of war. For instance, here is the Minister of Trade and Commerce with hundreds of millions of bushels of wheat he does not know what to do with; yet the Minister of Agriculture and the rest of the cabinet permitted the importation of nearly 50,000,000 pounds of pork. What consumption of grain would be represented in the production of that quantity of pork? How much United States pork was used to feed our own armies while we were putting pork in cold storage in this country? Every time we buy a dollar's worth of luxuries in the United States we are sending money to that country that we should keep here for the purchase of war materials and for other war purposes. We should conserve every possible United States dollar.
It is necessary that these things be done, to enable us to put forward our maximum
95826-52J
war effort and also to alleviate some of the distress that exists in this country. I believe, and I think others hold the same view, that the only way we can properly handle the labour situation in Canada is to have national registration. The Minister of Labour, of all the members of the government, ought to be pressing for national registration. We are recruiting men from all over the country. These men are not being asked what they were doing or what job they had. The mechanics who are sorely needed in our industry to-day, and who will be needed much more in the next few months, are enlisting in the army when as a matter of fact they would be far more valuable in industry. Does the minister know whether or not mechanics are enlisting? If he does not know he should. If he does not know is it because he does not care? Everything we do must be associated with our war effort. With a national registration we would know where to place to the best advantage the men who sign up for service. Do not be surprised if in a short time industry in this country is placed directly under the control of the government, together with everyone engaged in industry. Let us prepare for that to-day, not next week or next month or the month after that.
These things must be done. Much as I dislike the word I must say there has been too much complacency in connection with our war effort. I doubt if we are taking the measures or using the care required in this situation. There has been no organization of industry in Canada. Industry has not been given the opportunity of employing people and producing the things that will be of such vital importance before many weeks have gone by. Within the next few weeks tens of thousands of school children from fourteen to twenty years of age will begin their summer holidays. What are we going to do with them? They are all willing to do something if leadership is given. The Red Cross will require ten times or perhaps fifty times the supplies that they require to-day. Why cannot these girls coming out of school be organized under some leadership emanating from this government in order that they may play the part they want to play? Thousands of teachers are going to be free for the next two and a half months. In Ontario alone there are some six or eight thousand teachers. I spoke to a number of them over the weekend and asked, " Will you be willing to do something during your holidays?" They all replied that they would be only too glad to do something. They are trained to handle and organize children. Let us take advantage of their services; let us make use of these
812	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Homuth
tremendous resources which as yet we have not touched. Let these school girls go out and do the work they should be doing so that we may be ready when we need bandages and the other things supplied by the Red Cross. Year after year during the depression we saw tons of fruit and vegetables rotting in the fields and on the trees, while at the same time we were bringing into this country millions of dollars' worth of fruits and vegetables, particularly citrus fruits. Why cannot the school boys from fourteen to twenty years of age be organized to go out on our farms and see that not one bit of food is wasted this year? WTe do not know how many refugees we may have to feed in this country, or to what extent we may have to help feed the people overseas.
I feel that we are losing an opportunity, that we are wasting time from day to day. We are not doing the things that ought to be done. The people have not become jittery because of the war news, bad though it may be. The trouble is that they stand helplessly by feeling that they are not being given an opportunity to help. They would feel much better if. under some leadership, they could be given a job to do, no matter how menial or how technical it might be. We can find men and women in this country able to do anything that requires to be done in Canada. They want leadership; they want to do their part. We speak of unemployables. I have checked over the list of unemployables in my district, and I say that eighty per cent of them could do something to further our war effort. Somewhere in industry they could relieve some one who might do a better job elsewhere.
I plead with the minister to give this leadership, because I know the temper of the people of this country; I know how anxious they are to do something, and I know how necessary it is going to be that we do these things. Let us get off the old trail; let us blaze a new trail and give some leadership so that the men and women of Canada may be able to do something worth while not only in the defence of Canada but also in the safeguarding of this empire. They want to do it. Give them the leadership, and they are prepared to do it. I hope the minister will be able to tell the House of Commons and the people of Canada that he has some new ideas and that he is going to do things differently from the way they have been done in the past. I am not blaming him about the past. The past is the past. We have got to look now to the future, and I hope the minister will be able

to show us some way in which we may take advantage of the services of every man, woman and child in Canada who is fit to do something worth while in this war effort.


Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley) :: Mr. Chairman, this is my maiden
speech in the House of Commons, and the occasion is unique in that I believe it is the first day hon. members have not read their speeches. I am not going to read mine, either; and if I am speaking out of turn it is because I do not want to fall into the practice of my Ontario friends who read every word they say.
I think I know something about unemployment. I am the reeve of a municipality in British Columbia, and I know something about the troubles of the unemployed. I am hoping the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mc-Larty) the representative of the government in connection with the resolution now under consideration-a government, by the way, which I have supported and intend to support-will pay a slight bit of attention to what I have to say.
Possibly there are other hon. members in the house who happen to be reeves of municipalities, and they will understand my point of view when I speak as a reeve from British Columbia. I do know something about conditions prevailing in that province. I did not want to make a speech, and I am quite well aware of the fact that if all I wanted was to be elected four years from now I might have read a somewhat different speech, like hon. members from Ontario. But I am not worrying about being elected four years from now. My particular concern is what is going to happen now, to-morrow or the next day.
I am not the least bit worried about the observations of some of my hon. friends. I come from a province in which activities in war industries-I speak only of British Columbia-have not made the least impression on our relief rolls.
In British Columbia we have been proud to receive people from Saskatchewan who were driven out of the burned-out areas. We realize that these people had to leave the areas in which they had been living. We realize that they had to come into our district. We know that they had to be looked after, and that school and hospital accommodation had to be provided for them. Relief had to be handed out to them. As a supporter of this government-and I am proud to be a supporter of the government-I say that the urgency of relief conditions in Canada, and particularly in British Columbia, has not yet been realized. I make that statement sincerely,

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Cruickshank
because I happen to know about relief conditions in British Columbia. I know that eighty per cent of the farms in British Columbia are heavily mortgaged. I happen to know that half the municipalities of that province are on the verge of bankruptcy. But apparently this government does not yet realize these facts. It must realize them sooner or later. It must realize that the old policy of sound money is not sufficient. When I say that I admit frankly that I know nothing about sound money. I know nothing about finance. I come from a dairy farm, and I ask any hon. member from Ontario or Quebec, how can a dairy farmer, who never had any money, know anything about finance?
If the government thinks it can continue with the old policy of sound finance and sound money, then I say the government has to wake up to the fact that there is a war on, that Hitler has already conquered France, and God knows what he will conquer next if we do not wake up to the fact that we are in danger.


Mr. MacNICOL:: He won't conquer England, anyway.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have been a
reeve in a municipality of British Columbia for the last ten years, and I believe I know what I am talking about. I say that we cannot hope to continue in western Canada, and particularly in British Columbia, unless we have an adjustment of taxation. The only source of adjustment we can have is with the dominion government, and I trust that the government will take that point into consideration.
I am a new member, and I may be speaking out of order, but all hon. members have sipoken out of order long before now; they have been reading speeches somebody else wrote for them. Nobody wrote mine.
The farmers of the constituency of Fraser Valley, and those in other parts of British Columbia are in a similar position, are selling either at or below the cost of production. They have been doing that for the last eight years, and it is a condition which cannot be continued. A few days ago the estimates for the Department of Agriculture were before a committee of the house. I am sorry to say that only twenty-seven members of the party supporting the administration-I counted them-were present when the estimates for that Department were up for discussion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Shame!


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: Shame!


Grote Stirling: Shame!


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman, we will not lose the war, but, win, lose or draw, Canada must be and always will be an exporting nation. Despite that fact, only twenty-seven members of the party to which I have the privilege of belonging were present when the estimates for the Department of Agriculture were before the committee. I was ashamed of my party and of the opposition, and I want to speak freely.
I know industrial Ontario. I did not intend to rise in my place and make a speech, but I have received letters of criticism from my constituency. I am going to take hon. members into my confidence because I have never been accused, like the leader of the opposition, of having nothing to say. In my own riding I have been accused of having too much to say. I joined the army on August 9, 1914, and went to the last war. When I returned I thought that as a returned soldier I could contribute something to the future of Canada, and as a farmer from a farming constituency I still believe that I have a contribution to make. I came back to Ottawa believing honestly that my contribution would be less if I talked too much than if I kept quiet. But then I began to discover that some hon. members wanted to talk; they wanted to read speeches into Hansard so that their constituents might see them.
I want to be elected four years from now, but I am prepared to go back to my constituency and say to my people, "If I cannot contribute something to the welfare of Canada, and in particular to the welfare of the people in the constituency of Fraser Valley, I would prefer to be left at home." I believe that in this house there have been too many cases of the pot calling the kettle black.
My experience as the reeve of a municipality has shown me much that may not have been disclosed to other people. I know that in municipalities throughout that province there are hungry women and children, yet we are given the old poppycock that we cannot find money. Of course we can have $700,000,000 to carry on a war; I believe we could find 81,700,000,000, and must do so, if necessary, to win the war. But hon. members are not going to get away with it very long if they accept the old story about sound money, and the story that we cannot have money to put men and women to work, although there seems to be plenty of it to fight a war.
In British Columbia ten months ago they put boys into Okalla, a prison in our province, because they could not find work. I do not want to criticize my party, the government or anybody else, but I do want to contribute
S14	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Mayhew
to winning this war. I ask the powers that be, what will be the good of sound money if we lose the war? Let us get on with the war and win it, and let us have less of this poppycock on each side of the house from hon. members trying to get on Hansard. Let us make a real record that we can look back on with pride four or five years from now.


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Victoria, B.C.):: I realize that at the moment the most precious thing we have is time, and I feel I should apologize for rising to say anything on this resolution. I would apologize not to the members of this committee but to the men who are fighting our battles for us in other places and under much more difficult circumstances. Nevertheless the unemployment problem in this country is second only to the fighting in which w'e are now engaged; unemployment in Canada does affect those who are fighting our battles overseas and will probably affect them when they return. On that ground, and on that ground alone, are we justified in debating this resolution to the extent we have done so far.
I congratulate the government upon the efforts they made last year towards the relief of unemployment, or at least upon establishing a basis from which unemployment might be to some extent remedied. I am supporting the resolution because I believe the lack of definiteness in it is really its strength; it gives us scope to meet any emergency that may arise, and I am sure all hon. members will agree that in these days we are likely at any time to be confronted by emergencies.
I have referred to the foundation upon which the government based its unemployment relief. The youth training plan, for example, has been of great benefit to us, but it has not gone far enough. I suggest to the minister that this policy, together with some others that I shall mention, be continued. I do not know of anything that is more important to-day than the proper training of youth to fit them to take employment in Canada. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) say in his address the other day that only about one hundred students had graduated from the technical school in Montreal. I am sure you could number in the thousands those who have graduated from the universities and colleges of that same city. These figures indicate to us the necessity of training men to use their hands so that they will be fit to take employment in the shops, in the industries and on the farms. It indicates also that the numbers qualified for this kind of work are away out of balance with the numbers of

men trained in the classics and in the professions. Therefore I think this work of youth training should be carried on.
In my first speech in this house I suggested that young men who are unable to find suitable employment after leaving school might be given the opportunity of going into the army, the navy or the air force, or to farm training schools which might be established throughout Canada. Had that plan been adopted we would not be as short of trained mechanics as we are to-day to do the jobs that are needed to be done in Canada at this time, nor would we be hampered in our agricultural efforts for lack of trained and experienced men. But it is never too late to start, although valuable time may have been lost, and if our young men were trained in vocational work, in the army, the navy or the air force, and underwent the discipline they would get in those forces, provided enrolment was on a voluntary basis, the results would be beneficial to the youths themselves and ultimately to Canada as a whole.
May I suggest to the minister a plan that will help to some extent at least. Several afternoons I sat in recruiting offices in my own city and watched the boys come in to enlist. I found they had the necessary qualifications to pass the sergeant at the desk, but when they went up for examination by the doctor many of them were turned down as medically unfit-for the simple reason that during the past few years they had not had proper food or proper training, and most of them had had practically no work to do. Boys six feet and over, weighing 135 pounds, were turned down. I suggest to the minister that these boys be put in a camp where they would be under proper supervision, where they would be given exercise and work to do, and where above all they would be given adequate food so that they might be brought back to good physical condition. They might be given say twenty-five cents a day. If they are not made fit for the army, they will at least have received training and nourishment to enable them to take their part in industry and relieve others for the great task that is before us in this war.
There is another plan which the government followed and which I think should be continued. The government has spent money on mining trails opening up large territories and developing new wealth for this country.
I hope the home improvement plan and the national housing scheme will also be continued. These two plans have created work for men in the bush and in almost every industry in every part of Canada, and in addition they

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Mayhew
have contributed greatly to our home life, which is after all the cornerstone of this nation. The housing scheme fund has grown rapidly and has now reached the stage where it is practically a revolving loan requiring very little expenditure to carry it on. Let us hope that the minister will urge upon the Minister of Finance that this scheme be kept alive. I believe that it could be continued almost indefinitely to the great advantage of Canada. May I suggest also how the scheme might be extended?
It has often been stated in the house that Canada is an exporting country. There is only one way that we can avoid being an exporting country,-and we have not arrived at that stage yet,-namely, to bring in enough people from the old land who now stand in danger of being bombed to death, to eat our surplus wheat and fruit, to live in houses built with our surplus lumber, and to occupy our plains and our hills for the benefit of Canada and the perpetuation of the British empire. At the moment, however, we must regard Canada as it is to-day and face conditions as we see them at the present time. For years practically all the material we have sold to foreign countries has been transported in ships carrying foreign flags. There is one company with offices in Vancouver which has as many as eighty vessels under charter at one time, all of them flying foreign flags. We spend large sums of money each year for services of this nature. Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland built up large mercantile fleets during the last war, and the result of their operation was that the Scandinavian countries changed their standing from that of debtor to that of creditor nations.
We Canadians are largely responsible for that condition, because our lumber and wheat and manufactures have been carried very largely in their boats. I think this is the time when we might ask the government to build at least fifty merchant ships of approximately 10,000 tons each at a cost of about fifty million dollars. I would not suggest that we repeat the mistake we made during the last war, when the ships were operated by the government. But these ships could be, in my opinion, chartered to private concerns, and the money received from them would make the expenditure on the mercantile marine as much of a perpetual and revolving loan as is our national housing scheme. I am told that before the war, if not now, chartering ships cost Canada a million dollai's a day. In asking the government to set aside about fifty million dollars to build these boats, I maintain that the result will be not only to increase our business, but to lay the cornerstone of a Canadian merchant marine. Our
young men will be employed in building the ships in Canada and in manning them after they are built, so that our expenditures will be confined to our own people.
I do not know whether it is customary in this house to tell stories, but I am going to tell one to illustrate the point I am making, or rather to differentiate a little from the previous speaker. A darky was going down a street in Detroit. He was fairly well-dressed, at least his clothes looked pressed and clean. A friend of his came along and said, "Rastus, that's a nice suit of clothes." Rastus said, "Yes, they are nice clothes. It is very funny about them. The wool in these clothes was grown in Australia. It was brought over the Pacific and across Canada and taken to England, where it was made into cloth. The cloth went to Boston, and from Boston to my tailor in Chicago, who made this suit of clothes. The clothes are pretty well worn out; but the funny part of it all is, all them guys has made a living off it and I haven't paid for the suit yet." Well, we can build our boats in somewhat the same way, but I believe the boats will eventually pay for themselves.
I hope the minister will look carefully into the law relating to restraint of trade, something which in my opinion never accomplished and never can accomplish the purpose for which it was intended. Instead of protecting the public it is doing the exact opposite. I would ask the minister to find out how many companies in Canada were manufacturing, how many men they were employing, and what was the amount of their capital at the time the act came into force, and also what are the comparable figures at the present time. He will find, I believe, that in all these respects there has been a great shrinkage. As a result we have a large concentration of industry in one or two places, but very few industries scattered through other areas of Canada. From my experience in industry, things work this way. An ambitious young fellow will collect sufficient cash to start in a small way in an industry, and will put his merchandise on the market at the prevailing price, but the representative of a large industry will come along and say, "We do not wish to be disturbed. Our price on our product is now twenty per cent lower than it was." If that is not sufficient for the purpose, it will be reduced twenty-five or thirty per cent. Eventually the small man's enterprise is swallowed up by the big one; he has to capitulate and get out of the market. That sort of thing is going on the whole time. Its effect is not to protect the consumer but to discourage miscellaneous manufacture throughout Canada. This is not the place, nor do I wish to take the time to

Unemployment lieliej-Mr. Blair
do more than make a reference to this matter. At some later time I shall hope to say more about it. But, as one who knows something about the making of at least some products, I hold that the condition to which I refer is a decided detriment to the small man who is trying to get into the manufacturing business; it tends to curtail employment or confine it to one or two districts, with the result that unemployment is likewise concentrated, and our slums are created.
Just one other thought in connection with industry. It seems to me that our great cities are altogether too grasping for their own good in trying to attract industries to their own localities. There is nothing to hinder these industries from scattering to the full extent of the railroad facilities which now span Canada from coast to coast. Factories could be erected out in the open where there is lots of room for men to work, on three or four or five acre plots, instead of twenty-five foot lots. Large industries might be encouraged to move into larger quarters, to the benefit of their employees, and, I believe, of industry as well.
Let me close with this thought, which is also a hope. I trust that from now on the Minister of Labour will have his task greatly enlarged. I should like to see millions of our British children coming to Canada right away. I know that such a scheme would involve some hardship, and some obligations, but let us not stop to find out the ways and means of financing it. Let us do it. Be human first, and in being so perpetuate the British empire.


Mr. J. K. BLAIR (Wellington North):: I have enjoyed listening to my hon. friend (Mr. Mayhew). The urbanizing of our industries has been accomplished in many ways. They centralize too much. In the larger cities the companies have special privileges from the railways and the rates they enjoy are much lower than those to the smaller towns and villages, but the greatest factor in the urbanizing of the industries is the Patent Act. The former member for St. Lawrence-St. George, Mr. Cahan, has left me extremely indebted to him. Although he was a bitter Conservative I did want to see him returned to the house because one service he rendered the country was the speech he made in connection with that act. A former Liberal member, Mr. Charles Bothwell, also discussed that act. If you wish to do anything for agriculture, then I suggest that you should lift the burden of that act off the industry. If you could relieve farm implements from the burden of the Patent Act it would be a godsend to the farmers of Canada.

Western farmers have talked until I am tired of listening to them. They have maintained that the reduction in the price of farm implements could be brought about by a reduction in tariffs, but they seem to forget that our companies are simply the subsidiaries of United States concerns and the thing is all concocted. We hear members of the Conservative party talking about the seriousness of trade with the United States, but in what way would it help us if we cut off that trade? I do not blame those members who have come here recently. The hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) cannot be blamed, because he has not had the experience of old Conservatives who served under the Bennett government when they pretty nearly wrecked the country financially by cutting off imports. Surely they ought to see the folly of that old idea of no truck or trade with the Yankees.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We are fighting a war now.


John Knox Blair: I know, and the way to fight a war if you are not a soldier is to attend to your duty at home. Your business is to do the duty that lies in your path. We must not cut off our trade, and if anyone says anything about trade with the United States at this particular time he is extremely indiscreet and foolish. The friendlier we are with the United States to-day the better it will be for us. I am a true Britisher, every drop of blood in me is British, and I have the instincts and spirit of the British; they are as strong in me as in any man in this house. Indeed, if it were not for my age I would be in this war. But while I am a Britisher I suggest that it behooves us to remain friendly with the United States.
I was discussing the Patent Act, and I suggested that it would be a great relief to the farmers if that burden were removed from agriculture. Western farmers, it seems to me, have two fundamental ideas; the first is that there should be a great reduction in taxation and the second is that there should be a great increase in relief. But these two ideas are irreconcilable. Who will fill in the gap if there is a great reduction in taxation and at the same time an increase in relief? They look at us, however, and suggest that this is the place where the Ontario farmers can step in. They can fill in the gap. Well, the Ontario farmer is tired of listening to that sort of speech, and I say to western farmers, "The time has come when, if you cannot live in the west, you had better get out. If you are dried out year after year, get out and go somewhere where you can live."

Unemployment Relief*-Mr. Blair


An hon. MEMBER:: Go where?


John Knox Blair: The people are starved out year after year; well, they cannot get along there. We have some of them in our country. There is often necessity for a little introspection when you get these conditions. We are not in a position to do too much hoeing and gardening for the other fellow. In my constituency the fanners are reduced to such a state that they feel now that the burden of others should not be placed upon them. They are perfectly willing to carry their own burdens and would be ashamed to ask for relief or help in any way, and they resent too much charity being given to the other fellow. They deeply resent the urbanizing of industry. In our constituency we axe trying to set up a few factories in different parts, but what happens? We try making binders in a place like Orangeville and the representative of some large factory in Toronto comes along and stops us because of the Patent Act. We have tried our enterprise in a dozen different ways recently but there is always some inspector, usually a lawyer, who comes and wants to see what we are making. We could not make a wheelbarrow in the county without an inspector coming to see what we are doing.
The sooner the Patent Act is abolished the better. I do not believe in fires, but I do wish there were a good fire in the Patent office in Ottawa. There are thousands of patents shoved away in pigeon holes-patents that were never intended to be used. If my friend who represents one of these companies were present I would name some of them, but owing to his absence I will not do so. But there are thousands of patents stuck in pigeon holes never intended to be used. We want someone to go there and pull them out. What are they there for? Simply to block industry. That is their sole purpose. One of the greatest disgraces in Canada was the Copyright Act. Why, at concerts we could not play tunes that our grandfathers played without paying a tariff to the company. We were fortunate in having a blind man to lead us. He told the truth about the matter. The Copyright Act is one of the worst things we have ever had to put up with, and it was a blessing that someone showed us the path to follow. He was a Conservative, but I am indebted to him nevertheless. We will forget that he was a Conservative, because there are some redeeming features in everything. There is the odd Conservative who is worth while and I must congratulate the leader of the opposition on his great common sense. I watched him years ago when, in his palmy days, he was not so quiet. He was more
buoyant then. But I would not be surprised if he had a refining influence upon some of the fellows here. Certainly it is badly needed.
I must congratulate our own government upon doing extremely well. They can just ignore a lot of these speeches, ignore the cries of poverty, and try to get the different provinces to stand on their own feet and realize that this is not exclusively a federal problem. Surely the support of our own homes is first our own responsibility; then it might eventually come here; but what right have they to bring all those stages to this parliament? Why not go on to the British empire; why not go to London and ask them to finance us? But no; there is the absurd idea of coming to this parliament and saying: I must get the farmers of Ontario to hoe potatoes for me, to grow wheat for me, to sell cattle and send the money out west. We are getting a little tired of it, a little sick of it; our farmers are resenting it. They are good natured, but that has gone on year after year and the time has come when we do not want to hear too many speeches of that kind here. I hope the minister will pay very little attention to many of them.
I hope that anything that is said about interfering with trade and commerce with the United States or any other country will be entirely ignored. The money we have received from the United States for cattle shipped there has been a very substantial help to the farmers, yet hon. members talk about a few cabbages shipped in here or a few early onions or strawberries. These things do not count, considering the advantages we receive from our trade with the United States.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What we want from
them now is guns and bullets.


John Knox Blair: Their trade means much to Canada. I have always appreciated our friendly relations with the United States, but if ever there was a time when we needed them it is now, we should do all we can to maintain their friendship. I hope, therefore, that the minister will not listen too seriously to some of the speeches made here. It is extremely hard to sit in one's place at times and listen to some of them presenting fallacies.


Mr. F. C. CASSELMAN (Edmonton East):: It is with diffidence that I rise to speak for the first time in this house. This debate has been in progress since May 30. I have listened with intense interest to the suggestions which have come from all parts of the chamber. I try to imagine myself in the place of the Minister of Labour, try to judge what there may be of value to help him in his difficult task of framing legislation to deal with this
SIS	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Casselman (Edmonton)
urgent problem of unemployment. With all our war effort it is a problem which yet remains unsolved. But it will be of intense importance to this country once the war is won, the war industries fold up and the fighting men come back to their jobs. I hate to think of that time unless some progressive, sensible and earnest efforts are made to deal with this whole subject. I come from an entirely urban constituency, where unemployment is a matter of very considerable moment. I can appreciate the picture drawn by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen), because we have in our city many people such as those of whom she spoke, people who were driven into the city because they could no longer endure the conditions prevailing in the country.
I was sent down here by my constituents for two purposes, as I conceive it, the first and foremost being to do all in my power to get on with this war and get it won. As one who took part in the last war, it goes against my grain to hear such remarks as that made by an hon. member who recently spoke of " win, lose or draw." I stand here to say that if I correctly interpret the spirit of the people of all parts of Canada in the light of the recent reverses there is no question with them of lose or draw; we are going to win this war, and I do not mean maybe. The news is bad, but the worse it gets the more the real bulldog spirit of the Anglo-Saxon and French races will rise-and I do not confine it to those two races; I pay tribute to the others within our borders. We are going to win this war, but it is going to be a long and tough struggle.
The second thing I was sent down here for, if I understand what my constituents meant in the last election, was to do all in my power to cure or improve the unbalanced economic conditions of which this matter of unemployment is the external evidence. To my mind unemployment is a cancer, and a very serious one, in our economic body. Unless we diagnose it correctly and apply the proper remedy it is going to be a very serious threat to our economic life, particularly after the war is won-I do not say " over ", I say " won ", To my mind those two things are very closely linked together, because in order to have a maximum war effort in this country the people must be in a position to contribute something. What can the unemployed contribute to the war? We must find some place for them to go to work.
My experience of the unemployment problem, as I see it in my own city, is this. The great central core of the unemployed are out of work because they are not trained for any

particular job for which -there is an opening. I support the suggestion, one of the few made in the course of this debate that I consider of any very great merit, of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol); he sits on the opposite side of the house, but I believe in giving credit where credit is due. His suggestion as I understood it, was to enlarge and broaden the plan already instituted in the youth training movement. I would have it go further than it has gone. One of the most useful things we could do in a practical way would be not to limit it to unemployed youth, but to extend it to include all employable people who happen to be on relief, -to train them for some useful employment.
I know whereof I speak because in a humble way I have had something to do with this matter of youth training in my own province. I can testify to the splendid work that is being done in the schools where this training is being carried on. By all means let it be continued; and I believe it would be wise to vole more money and broaden it to take in all the unemployed who are employable and train them for something in which they can be useful.
I agree also with the statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) that in return for relief we should get some honest labour from these people. The difficulty we find, however, as I imagine other municipalities have found, is that of providing the sort of work these people can do, without putting out of business some of our regular municipal employees already doing that very work. Parks, streets, roads and all that sort of thing are all very well; but if you do too much of that work with the unemployed, those regularly engaged in carrying on these services are out of business and go on relief, so what do we gain?
I deplore any suggestion tending to set one section against another. A British Columbia member suggested that the Ontario members were not all they should be in some regards; an Ontario member reciprocated by saying that the people in these dried-out areas-and I live very close to them-should get out if they cannot make a go of it. The hon. member was asked a very pertinent question which I noticed he did not answer. He was asked where they should go. I wonder if he would want those people to come into his constituency. Is he prepared to take care of them down here? I think that is a pertinent question which should have been answered.


John Knox Blair: I will answer your question; I did not hear it before. There is plenty of room in Ontario, with thousands of farms not being worked. Come down here and make a living.

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Casselman (Edmonton)


Frederick Clayton Casselman: I did not ask the question; it was asked from across the chamber.


John Knox Blair: I did not hear it.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: There is one other matter I think should be dealt with at this time; that is the question of national registration, which seems to come definitely from one particular section of the house. I very much doubt whether that was put forward in good faith as a solution of the problem of unemployment. Possibly it was, but I rather suspect something else behind that suggestion.


Mr. HOMUTH:: I do not think the hon. member should say that another hon. member making a suggestion in this chamber meant something other than what he said. The hon. gentleman should not impute motives.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: I am not imputing motives; I am dealing with the question of national registration as it has been presented by certain hon. members. I should like hon. gentlemen to use their common sense to visualize what would happen if that suggestion were adopted; and I am dealing with it only from the standpoint of its effect on unemployment. If hon. members putting forward that suggestion have in mind that we should use all our unemployed to undertake that national registration, then from the standpoint of unemployment I would see a good deal of merit in it. But I question very much whether the qualifications and ability of those people are such as to enable them to give the sort of service we would expect to get in a registration of that kind. Further I suggest that there is no necessity for a national registration. Applying my common sense again, I wonder what minister or what department would deal with all this information. It would have to be a tremendous department, able to analyze and make use of the diversified information that would be obtained.
The point I am trying to make is this. If you need workers in industry; if you need men on this or that job, judging from the letters I receive these men are available. But why not make use of the civil service commission? I assume that would be a proper job for them in the present scheme of things. It seems to me that in time of war we should relax some of our restrictions; pass an act of parliament if necessary, but for goodness sake let us do away with some of the red tape which seems to tie up that civil service commission. Let the commission receive all applications from the unemployed or those who think they can contribute something to
this war. Let them tell the commission their qualifications, their experience and all the rest of the necessary information. Then when men were required for this or that job the civil service commission could look over the list of people qualified, pick out the best men and get them to work, instead of wasting two or three months with examinations and all that tommyrot at a time like this. I make that suggestion in all seriousness.
I criticized the previous speakers because they did not bring forward concrete suggestions that might lead to a real rather than a temporary solution of this problem of unemployment. Someone suggested that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Labour should get together, that by proper collaboration between these two a great deal might be done. It seems to me such collaboration should involve the whole cabinet, but I would like particularly to add the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance. I think we all know that the trade policy of the Liberal government from 1935 on did materially cut down unemployment. When there is plenty of trade back and forth between this and other countries there are plenty of jobs. But now many of our markets have been cut off and the Minister of Trade and Commerce has a serious job on his hands in trying to make up for those lost markets. I suggest to him that he should not overlook the large potential market in our own country, consisting of those who have nothing like ample purchasing power. That applies to a far greater proportion of our people than many hon. members may think.
I have two specific suggestions to offer which might help to reduce unemployment. If we could keep out more United States coal and make it possible for our own producers to have more of the Canadian coal market I think perhaps a great deal could be done. That is old stuff, of course; it has been threshed over many a time, but a great deal can still be done in that regard.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is good stuff, too.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: I
think if we could do that the problem of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) who has 1,500 miners on relief, would be just about solved. We have the same problem among our miners in Alberta, and it would help us as well. Then there is the question of sugar beets. We do not grow nearly all the sugar we use in this country, though sugar beets are produced in Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.


Ernest Edward Perley: And soon in Saskatchewan.

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Casselman (Edmonton)


Frederick Clayton Casselman: There may be other places but those are the ones of which. I have knowledge. Is there any reason in the wide world why the growing of sugar beets should not be encouraged to a much greater extent, thus giving work to a great many more people? Why should not our agriculturists grow more and more sugar beets and less wheat, which they cannot sell except at ruinous prices? That may be only a small thing, but it is something; and a lot of these small things would go a long way toward relieving unemployment.
I said I wanted to have the Minister of Finance collaborate on this question, because he is the most important gentleman one can think of in connection with unemployment relief. I do not wish particularly to worry the minister at this time, because at the moment he has enough on his mind. I would point out, however, that without giving us anything definite the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) did express the thought which must be in our minds. He pointed out something of which we have to take notice, namely, the implications or results of our monetary policy.
I have no hesitation in saying that I am a monetary reformer. I have no use whatsoever for "funny money," nor have I any use for vague or indefinite theories, with some of which I have been in close contact. Probably that condition applies more to me than it would to many hon. members from other provinces. In the past five years, after all my best endeavours to understand those theories I must confess that I am no nearer an understanding than I was at the beginning. I have no use for that kind of finance.
I should, however, like to pay tribute where tribute is due. When speaking a few days ago, the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) posed this question. What is the cause of unemployment? But I noticed that he did not suggest any solution, any more than did many other hon. members who filled the pages of Hansard. I do not care whether I have ten lines in Hansard, but I should like to have the committee give careful thought to this problem, and make an effort to get at the roots of it.


An hon. MEMBER:: There are too many Liberals.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: I am a Liberal, and proud of the fact.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: The hon. member is doing well.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: I shall describe a situation which developed in my own city, and one with which as a member of the city council and the health
^Mr. Perley.]
board I was familiar. A short time ago, through the health board our medical officer condemned at least a hundred houses in Edmonton, most of which were in the eastern section of the city. His statement was that those houses were unfit for human habitation. Were they ordered to be destroyed or pulled down? No. Why? Because we had no other place to put the people who had been living in them. There w'as no other accommodation available at rentals they could afford to pay, or at rentals which relief moneys would meet. Yet, lying in the banks of our city-and not in Edmonton alone-there was in deposit accounts plenty of idle money which, if put to work, would be sufficient to construct many times a hundred houses, while at the same time the construction work would give employment to many of the unemployed, and the purchase of materials would help industry. My common sense tells me that in that situation we have a real picture of our troubles. We have too much idle money, money which is not working. The funny thing about it is that not only is the money idle, not only is it not paying anything under our present system, but it is drawing unemployment relief during the time of its unemployment, and that relief comes in the form of the one and a half per cent interest on savings accounts. Just imagine paying unemployment relief on unused money!
Surely our common sense revolts at that sort of thing. I do not wish to be accused of telling the government what it has not done and reviewing what other governments have not done, while at the same time offering no concrete suggestion into which hon. members can sink their teeth and to which they can apply their common sense. With that in mind I offer something which I suggest would get us somewhere. I say that the money to which I refer, in addition to offering great benefits in connection with the solution of our problem of unemployment, would go a long way towards helping us pay for this war. I wish the Minister of Finance were in his place so that he might hear what I have to say.
There is nothing of phoney money in the scheme I offer. There is nothing of theory, nor is there anything which any hon. member cannot understand. Two simple operations would be sufficient. First we would place a tax on all spendable money in the country. That tax might be levied once a year, and it might be placed at three per cent. At the same time the government would issue non-interest bearing bonds. If we put those two factors together and examine the implications involved in them, we shall have gone a

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Casselman (Edmonton)
long way towards relieving unemployment and towards financing as we go the cost of the war. That three per cent tax on all spendable money could be collected once a year on December 31, or at some other more favourable date. At the same time to those people who do not want to pay the tax we would make available the non-interest bearing government bonds. Those bonds could be secured through the banks, because I would not want to disturb or endanger our banking system in any way.
We must realize that we can borrow only from those people who have surplus funds, and it would be that group who to escape the tax would buy the bonds. That is, they would turn their money into special accounts in the banks, and those accounts would be under the direction of the federal government. From them the dominion government or the provincial or municipal governments could borrow, under proper conditions. In this way we would use the money which we must use, and would not pay interest on it.
It is an insult to the patriotism of our people to offer them interest on money so badly needed to finance our war activities. Goodness knows, we are getting plenty of illustrations, through our newspapers, of people who will have nothing to do with that type of patriotism, but who are making direct contributions with no thought of interest whatever. I am sure the government would find that there are hundreds of thousands of people in Canada who would be ready to do the same thing.
To-day the government gets its money from people or corporations that are saving it, and it pays interest on those moneys because the people say, " Well, you are going to keep my money ten, fifteen or twenty years, and naturally if I am not going to have the use of it in that time I ought to be paid interest." But, Mr. Chairman, there is no reason why those people could not be permitted to cash their bonds at any time they might wish to change their surplus back into cash.
We will suppose that a man has S5,000 in a deposit account. He does not wish to pay the tax of three per cent, and with that in mind he turns the money into government bonds. But next week he finds he needs a hundred dollars to meet ordinary expenditures. All right, under those circumstances he could turn in a bond and get his $100. He is not going to draw more than is necessary, because he knows he will have to pay a tax on the money placed in his account. For that reason he will keep his money down on deposit to the lowest possible requirements. Under the
circumstances I have outlined, the government would have the use of the money interest free.
I would point out in conclusion that our financial structure has become extremely top-heavy. In 1900 our public debt stood at about three-quarters of a billion dollars, while to-day it is almost eight billions of dollars. In passing may I observe that when I refer to the public debt I refer to the bonded indebtedness of the municipalities, the provinces and the dominion. This has been the increase in forty years. Let us picture this increase as pyramided on a very small base. Then let us turn the pyramid upside-down, and we see how from that small base it has spread out to its present enormous dimensions.
How did it get that way? It got that way because we have been paying interest we thought we had to pay. We have been paying in the orthodox manner, believing that there was no other way of doing it. I am suggesting that this was a vicious spiral, the incentive or the central base of which was interest. If we are going to get away from that we must reverse the process, unspiral and return to the point at which we were some years ago, when our public debt was very much less than it is to-day. We can do that by imposing a three per cent tax on all spendable money, and at the same time provide interest-free bonds.
I should like to discuss this matter with any hon. member or any committee that might be set up, and if I could not supply a reasonable answer to every question brought forward I should be very much surprised because this is not just some brain wave of my own; I have discussed it with fraternal societies, Kiwanis clubs, service organizations and business men of all kinds. I know all the questions that will be asked, and I think I have an answer that will appeal to the common sense of every member of this house if he is capable of using his common sense. Here I think will be found the answer not only to our problem of financing the war but to our problem of unemployment.


Grote Stirling: May I ask the hon. member what he means by spendable money?


Frederick Clayton Casselman: I mean all the currency that is in existence plus all the bank accounts that are on deposit.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the whole thing.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: Yes. The deputy minister of finance in the banking and commerce committee a year ago placed the amount at $2,735,424,000. That is all
822	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Hansell
our money in Canada, and I mean all of it. A tax of three per cent is only a suggestion; it might not be enough or it might be too much. I am talking of the principle of putting a tax on money and at the same time providing interest-free bonds. The way it works is this: Men or corporations with money to put into a commercial enterprise, such as building houses, opening mines, cutting down timber and making lumber, can invest their money in such enterprises if they want to. That will provide work for the unemployed. I would not worry about the unemployed, however, because I do not think there will be many; but if there are, the tax collected could be used to provide unemployment relief, and more will be collected in taxes than will have to be paid for unemployment relief. On the other hand, a man may say: "I want to keep my money." All right, let him buy government bonds, realizing that he is not going to get interest on them but that he can withdraw his money at any time. Surely nobody would ask for interest if he could draw out his money when he wanted it. It is time that the Canadian people realized that the interest paid on all public debt is provided by the taxpayers of this country. I could go on at great length, Mr. Chairman, but I do not intend to take up more time this afternoon. I merely wanted to get the idea across and to have hon. gentlemen think about it, and I shall be prepared to discuss it at any later time, but I bring my suggestion earnestly to the attention of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance for the reasons I have stated.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Casselman, Edmonton East), referred to the question which I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) the other night and said that I had not myself, in asking the question, offered any solution for the problem. My question was put in an attempt to diagnose the disease of unemployment. My question was, what is the fundamental cause of unemployment? I explained that we could not solve the problem until we had properly diagnosed the case. I do not think we are incapable of offering any solution. We have been here now for four or five years, and we have claimed consistently that the proper solution is to be found in a money technique. My hon. friend has offered another money technique. I am not going to suggest that he has not offered a solution to the problem. I still believe however that my question deserves an answer and I trust that the minister will answer it before the debate tloses.

Further, may I point out to my hon. friend that I do not know it is the particular business of a member on the opposition side of the house to inform those on the government benches as to the solution of the problem.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: What are you here for then?


Ernest George Hansell: My friend says, "What are you here for then?" We are here to make suggestions, I know, but I would point out that when a member on the government side of the house asks a member on the opposition side what the solution of a problem is, it is a self-admission that he himself has no solution.


Mr. POULIOT:: He wants to know what your solution is.


Ernest George Hansell: We have been discussing this matter here for about five years, and I am not going into it now. I did not rise to make that sort of speech. I rose to ask another question.
The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) intimated a few minutes ago that the impression among relief recipients was that the relief grants were going to be cut. The Minister of Labour is going to explain whatever he has in mind on the subject, but it raises another question in my mind. I am wondering just how the relief rate of the recipient is arrived at, and just who initiates the process by which that rate is reached. I have talked the matter over with officials of one kind and another, and I have been under the impression that it is the municipalities that set the rate of the relief recipient. I wish the minister would enlighten us upon that point. Discussing the matter with one gentleman I was offered the suggestion that sometimes the relief rate is arrived at by stipulating a certain quantity of foodstuffs of different kinds; that university professors had been working out a scale of relief, discovering how many calories there were to so many cans of beans, how many calories to so many ounces of meat, and that a relief recipient should be able to live on so many calories. It is said that if he eats what is on this schedule of food in one month he will live. So the relief rate is struck accordingly. I do not know if that is the way in which it is generally done, and I wish the minister would enlighten us upon that point. If it is so, I would suggest that the relief rate should be increased instead of decreased because prices of foodstuffs have been rising all the time.
I would point out, further, that if the federal relief grant to the provinces is cut, then the provinces or the municipalities, in order to maintain the standard of relief given

Unemployment Relief-Mr. McLarty
to recipients, would have their responsibilities increased. I think the minister should enlighten us upon all these matters.
May I make just a couple of other observations? The first is that sometimes a good deal of politics is played in connection with relief. If this government cuts relief grants to the provinces, and the provincial governments have to advise the municipalities accordingly, I venture to say the complaint will be heard from some municipalities, "There you are; what do you think of your provincial government?" although perhaps the provincial government is not at all to blame. I maintain that if the dominion government intends to cut grants to the provinces, the people of Canada from Halifax to Victoria should be told it is the dominion government that is doing it.
I have heard it said a good many times, "This relief business is becoming a racket", the inference invariably being that it is the relief recipient who is carrying on the racket. I do not begrudge to any relief recipient a few extra cents or a dollar or two more a month for food and clothing, and I suggest that if any racket is being carried on, it lies in the realm of the municipalities and towns.


An hon. MEMBER:: Retailers.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, and retailers, those who are supplying foodstuffs and clothing. I venture to suggest that an investigation would disclose that some municipalities and towns are benefiting considerably from the present method of relief. I am not making any accusations, but I will cite a possible case. A man who is on relief is receiving the regular rate, and the officials of the municipality or town say to him, "Of course, you will have to work this out at so much an hour." He does so, and one of his jobs is to dig a grave in the local cemetery. He is working out his allowance, and no more. But when the representative of the person who is buried there pays the bill, he pays good money to the municipality for the digging of that grave.


John Ritchie MacNicol: "Good money!"


Ernest George Hansell: He does not pay the municipality at relief rates; he pays the municipality for digging the grave. But what has happened? The dominion government has paid forty per cent; the provincial government, forty per cent and the municipal government, twenty per cent for the digging of that grave. But the municipality has collected one hundred per cent. Such things happen.
An hon. member remarked this afternoon that a man should give some service for his
relief allowance. I have no quarrel with that opinion, but let me point out that if he gives services in exchange for relief he is no longer on relief, he is employed at a given rate. If a city or municipality or town gets work done and pays only twenty per cent of the cost, it is not the individual but the city that is on relief. I believe that this should be understood from coast to coast.
I have pointed out these things because, while I suppose we shall have to vote for the resolution as being the best thing the government has to offer, it is not the proper way to tackle this job We have been going on in this way for five years; I believe this is the sixth session in which the same old thing has been presented to the house. I wonder if the minister is prepared to answer the question I put to him the other night. I believe it is important. Can he also tell us something about how the individual rate for the relief recipient is arrived at?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before
the minister replies, I have just one question I should like to ask him. No amount is mentioned in the resolution. I should like to know how much real, sound money he expects to spend this year?
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour); I would be glad to give my hon. friend the exact figures of the amount which will be provided under the measure, when it is passed. I am afraid I do not have them with me to-day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
good enough. I mean real money.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I thoroughly understood my hon. friend's question.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I wonder if the minister would answer the question I asked on June 5, with regard to the amount of money granted to Saskatchewan in May of this year compared with May of last year.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is difficult to answer
three questions at the same time.
Mr. MaeINNIS: One after another.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I believe I have a
reasonably good memory for figures, but those involved in this legislation are such that I am afraid I cannot extemporaneously accommodate my hon. friend. I shall be very glad to see that he gets the figures in due course. At this time, that is on June 17, ordinarily we would not have the May figures for the current year. Probably we have not the figures for later than March of this year, because the accounts are sent in to us by the provinces, and there is always some delay in connection with them.
824	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. McLarty
I cannot possibly make a statement on this measure without observing to those hon. members on the committee who had the privilege over a number of years of hearing my predecessor, in this office which I now occupy, with his high ability and unquestionable sincerity debate this matter, that I believe every member will feel as I do, namely, that we shall sorely miss him and shall not forget him.
The debate, sir, has covered every possible field of human endeavour and governmental activity. I suppose it would be safe to say that no speech from the throne was debated with a wider variety of subjects than this resolution has been. It is quite proper that this should be so. After all, it is a vital problem. It is a problem which has baffled us; it is one for which every member of this committee, certainly including myself, would like, if possible, to find a panacea, a solution, a cure-all.
A great many excellent suggestions have been made. I refer, for instance, to those of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman), the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Casselman), and the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Mayhew). From other groups in the house have come excellent suggestions as well; but they are based on so broad a monetary policy or involve to such a considerable degree the nationalization of industry that those hon. members will not expect me, I know, to deal at this particular time and in this debate-with such vital and important problems of government policy.
As w'ould naturally be expected, there have been some criticisms, and the first, in a broad way, is in regard to the way in which this act has been administered by the province under whose jurisdiction that administration lies. The hon. member for Macleod just now asked me-and I might deal with the matter now when it is fresh in my memory-how the amount was allotted to each individual recipient of welfare. That is done, in Alberta I believe, and certainly in Ontario, by joint consideration on the part of the municipality and of the provincial government. The federal government does not in any way fix the quantum of individual relief or determine what form the relief will take as to clothing, shelter and other necessities. That is purely the function of the province and of the municipality.
Might I point out in that connection that this is simply one other example of the criticism of administration which we have had in this house on so many occasions, namely where the dominion government is
'Mr. McLarty.]
supplying a substantial percentage of funds and administration is not retained by the dominion government itself. We have heard that criticism time and time again.
Members of the committee are now aware that when the report of the dominion-provincial relations commission is implemented- if that portion of the report dealing with unemployment relief is implemented-the dominion will then have not only the financial responsibility of maintaining employables but the additional responsibility of administering relief to them as well. It is true, the province will have other functions. The province will have those other functions in compensation to the dominion for undertaking that work. But I believe it will be a more satisfactory system when this is administered under the dominion government and the dominion government makes the whole contribution.
There were, too, criticisms from certain members from northern Saskatchewan to the effect that relief was not being properly administered in that particular section of the country. Some of the stories told were distressing and they could not help but be appealing to members of this committee. I asked that a report be obtained, and I have received it. The commissioner under the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act has been in communication with relief administrator for Saskatchewan and is informed that no instructions have been given along the lines which have been suggested by Saskatchewan members, namely, that relief should be reduced or people cut off relief because of shortage of funds or because of any thought of reduction in federal contribution. The hon. member for North Battleford quoted a letter received from a local relief officer which appeared to suggest such lack of funds. The provincial relief administrator states that this letter was not based on any instructions which have gone to the district inspector and it appears that the inspector is in an area where he cannot be reached by telephone for explanation. The relief administrator also advised that he would have the matter investigated at once and stated that if we wished to have a representative present he would be only too glad to have him accompany the inspector.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I actually saw a list of fifty-three municipalities which were being cut off the relief roll for May. The list was produced by the inspector at Biggar, Saskatchewan, late in April.


Norman Alexander McLarty: This particular memorandum deals with that part of northern Saskatchewan to which reference was made. I am

Unemployment Relief-Mr. McLarty
not quoting it as an answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Weybum and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. I shall come to that.
The second criticism of major importance has been that the dominion government is not making a sufficiently substantial contribution to relief. I recall to members that prior to 1934 the contribution made by the dominion government was one-third. From that time on it was a flat grant. In 1939 it was made on what is known as a forty-forty-twenty basis, and, where it was a matter of municipal improvements, on a fifty-fifty basis as far as direct labour costs were concerned. The hon. member for Weyburn, supported by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, suggested that Saskatchewan had stated that we had advised them we had reduced our relief. The only thing I can deal with is what we did advise them. What the province of Saskatchewan may have advised, in a letter which was seen by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, is naturally something beyond my knowledge, but I think I can explain it in this manner.
As I stated the other night, until this act is passed, the government of Canada has no right to make any commitments. The provinces indicated that on account of the municipalities having to arrange their budgets, they would like us for their convenience to assume that the act had been passed. Then, what would be our policy? I endeavoured to give that information, for the convenience of the provinces, and sent them all the same message. I stated that our policy, as far as contributing to direct relief expenditures was concerned, would be, and I had the approval of the government it would be, in the same ratio as in the last year, namely, on a forty-forty-twenty basis. But I added that the government was making huge war expenditures, that those expenditures should take up at least some of the unemployment, and that it might be necessary-I did not say it was-for us to fix a maximum amount. The commissioner advised Saskatchewan as well as the other provinces and did so rightly. But the thought we had in mind at that time, and still have, is that that maximum should be placed in those provinces which were receiving sufficient war orders to justify a maximum being established. I believe it does not apply to Saskatchewan. I doubt whether it applies to any of the four western provinces. Therefore I think I am safe in saying that, provided this act passes, we shall be prepared to make a contribution on the same basis as was made last year. What view the province takes of that advice is something which it would be presumptuous of me to deal with because I know only what we advised them.
A third question has been asked: Why in war time should there be unemployment at all? It is not the easiest question to answer. This afternoon the hon. member for Macleod asked me again to explain why there should be unemployment in war time. Frankly I was one of those who thought that the advent of war would so increase the tempo of industry that unemployment would fade like dew before the morning sun. But it has not been so. Before analyzing what I believe to be the reasons for this, I think I should place on Hansard definite figures. The other night the hon. leader of the opposition put on Hansard some figures for the month of March. The figures for that month have since been revised. The little difference there will be between the figures I give and those he gave is a result of this revision.
First let me say that March is probably the best month to take in considering the matter. March always shows the peak of those receiving unemployment and material aid. Consequently, when we look at March, we are looking not at the most favourable side of the picture, but at its worst.
May I add that I am not putting these figures on Hansard with any great pride of achievement; they are too large; I am first to recognize and realize that, and I state it quite frankly.
These are the revised figures. The total number in receipt of material aid in some form or another in March was 772,542. I know it is no answer to say that this figure is twenty-five per cent less than that for the same month last year. The question is why there should be any at all. It should be borne in mind that persons in receipt of direct relief include not only a large number of employables who are out of work, but also the dependants of those who are out of work, persons who are physically and mentally handicapped, and those who through age or other causes are unemployable, and. in addition, farmers and their families on direct relief because of crop failure. The latter number 123.673.
These figures on agricultural relief represent a reduction of 62 per cent over the same month last year, and 68-5 per cent from March, 1938.
The total on direct relief in urban areas, according to the revised March figures, was 648,869 persons. Again I point out that this figure should not be taken to represent the number of people unemployed. In addition to heads of families and individuals without dependants, it represents wives and minor children, aged people and those who are unemployable or only partly employable. To
826	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. McLarty
indicate the significance of this, I might explain that of the 138,961 heads of families or dependants of heads of families who are employable, 80-4 per cent were reported as being fully employable.


Joseph Henry Harris: Before the
minister leaves that point, that does not include people receiving relief under the Prairie Farm
Assistance Act?


Norman Alexander McLarty: No, that is not included; these are only the figures under the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act.


Joseph Henry Harris: Has the minister the figures for the other group, which is part of the same problem?


Norman Alexander McLarty: My colleague the Minister of Agriculture will have to deal with that.


Mr. GARDINER:: In round figures, 56,000 farmers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That does not include anything for New Brunswick, where there is no registration.


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is quite true. There is no registration in New Brunswick and consequently it is not included.


Joseph Henry Harris: Nor the wheat bonus. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture will give that.


James Garfield Gardiner: Under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 56,000. That is the only group that would be comparable with this.


Mr. SENN:: Does that include the wheat acreage bonus and all the rest?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.
Mr. MeLARTY: I was saying that to indicate the significance of this I might explain that of the 138,961 heads of families or dependants of heads of families, 80-4 per cent were reported as being wholly employable, while of the 48,076 individuals without dependants only about fifty per cent are reported as being fully employable. There is one circumstance which I think I might fairly point out in this connection. Prior to August of last year the province of Quebec took care of a very large number of employables by means of a works programme. In August of that year that works programme was discontinued. The result was that while in the intervening time employment in the province of Quebec has generally gone up, the number thrown on relief in March of this year as against March of last year was over seventy thousand. In other words, this change of provincial policy had something to do with the comparative relief figures.
I Mr. McLarty.]
The registration branch of the Department of Labour canvassed thirty-eight principal cities of Canada between April 1 and June 1. The composite figures secured in that time indicated a drop in that time of a further 24'3 per cent.
I might now deal with a few of the reasons for the necessary disappointment about the number on welfare in war time. The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) in an excellent address the other night referred to some of the circumstances and conditions accountable for our hopes that there would be no unemployment now being in part disappointed. In the first place he pointed to the dislocation of external trade. That is true not only of trade with enemy countries but also of trade with our allies and with neutrals. In addition there were certain industries, such for instance as the construction industry, which was not helped, but rather hindered, by the existence of a state of war. In the next place, in war time investment in all except war-time industry itself is largely curtailed. Then it is to be remembered that the number of unemployed on relief does not represent the total unemployed of Canada. Doubtless a great many who had in a general way a larger measure of skill were first taken on. These, while they were not on the unemployment relief rolls, were in fact unemployed. Then doubtless quite a number who were employed in part-time work received full-time work. The fact that this is so is borne out by a great reduction in the figures of unemployment in the trade unions.
I had intended to mention, and I will do so now, an analysis of the figures relating to skilled and unskilled labour on our Telief rolls. It is surprising that in all the industries involving skilled labour less than ten per cent of these who were employable were on welfare. It would be natural to assume that the first industry to be affected by war so far as the relief rolls are concerned would be manufacturing. But when I say that there were only 2-9 per cent of skilled manufacturing workers on relief, hon. members can see why the direct effect was not felt, in the reduction of the number of unemployed on relief. I think that indicates a clue which it might be useful to follow in finding some solution of the problem with which we are presented.
I might deal with the positive side of employment. It is an anomalous situation that while the number of unemployed on relief has decreased to some extent, it has not decreased at all in proportion to the increase in the percentage of those employed. In fact I think I would be safe in saying that for the month of May our index for employment is probably the highest it has

Unemployment Relief-Mr. McLarty
been, certainly for the last ten years, and probably before that. In fact the figures show as great an increase in employment in the first four months of this year as the total increase for the five preceding years, but there has not been a corresponding drop in the number of those unemployed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would
that not be due partly to the natural increase in population?


Norman Alexander McLarty: No doubt to some extent that would be due to the number becoming of employable age each year.
Now I think it would be only fair to take a little time to deal with one or two other points. In his helpful address the other day the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Mac-Nicol) said he was not going to thresh old straw. I think it would be appreciated by this committee if I were to emulate his excellent example in that regard. But I should like to mention some of the things that have been done since the outbreak of the war in regard to the development of that supply of labour which is so necessary if we are going to have our industries carry on night and day, seven days a week.
In the first place, immediately after I was appointed to the portfolio I now hold, I called a conference of representatives of the various provinces throughout Canada having employment agencies. Representatives of these provinces met here for two days discussing methods by which we could secure an effective registration of skilled and semiskilled labour, and how we could develop a greater supply. In connection with the registration of skilled and semi-skilled labour it was decided that the best and most appropriate method of carrying that out was through the eighty employment offices in Canada. That work was started immediately. The departmental registration office at Ottawa was made a clearing house for all the figures. As may be imagined, a substantial list has been built up and catalogued, which is available at any time. These people are classified as to both occupation and the geographical districts in which they may be required. In the meantime, through the Engineering Institute of Canada, the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and the Canadian Institute of Chemistry there has been carried on a registration of the technical men who would be available in the event of being called upon by industry. That work was taken over by the voluntary service registration bureau under the direction of Doctor Tory, and something over 8,000 names were collected of those who might be useful in war work.
This afternoon an hon. member said that without any inquiry, without any question being raised, we have allowed a great many skilled men to enlist in the army whereas they would have been more useful if employed in their own particular line of business. Since the beginning we have cooperated with the Department of National Defence in every possible way. If a highly skilled workman or technician enlisted, we would make inquiries to see whether his value might not be greater here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand that when a skilled man or technician enlists, the officer commanding endeavours to utilize his services in the army, having regard to the fact that it is now, or should be, highly mechanized. In other words, the officer would assign that man to special duty. For instance, in connection with gas masks, I know of a young chemist who was brought from the ranks to the research council here at Ottawa to take up that particular line of work. So that matter is looked after to a certain extent.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think that is quite
correct. My hon. friend has mentioned the instance of a chemist. I had more in mind the skilled labourer. We have endeavoured to check up with the manufacturer to see just how valuable that man would be in industry, and we have weighed the pros and cons of his value before allowing him to become permanently enlisted.
Then some time ago a joint committee was formed in the Department of Labour and the Department of Munitions and Supply with the idea of making a definite check as to what skilled labour would be required, and where, in connection with the speeding up of our war industries. This committee held several meetings. Telegrams were sent to those industries engaged in making war equipment; replies were received from practically all, and that committee drew up a definite statement as to the amount of skilled labour that will be immediately required to carry out the order of the Department of Munitions and Supply to speed up all the war industries in Canada.
In addition we have been endeavouring, through the youth training movement, to speed up the training of air mechanics and mechanics who will be required in the production of aeroplanes. The number of air mechanics turned out last year was not so impressive. This year I believe it will be impressive. We are in the hands of the Royal Canadian Air Force. We work on the quota they give us. We are prepared to increase the number who will be employed under that
828	COMMONS
Unemployment Reliej-Mr. McLarty
quota. So far this year the quota has been 3,000, but we anticipate that ultimately it will be much larger than that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Those are air mechanics?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes; that does not include those engaged in the manufacture of aircraft. In that connection there are schools pretty well throughout Canada, at Vancouver, Calgary, Moose Jaw, Regina, Saskatoon, Brandon, Winnipeg, Galt, Saint John, Moncton, Edmundston, and Campbellton.
In addition we are rapidly developing a supply of skilled mechanics for the aeroplane manufacturing industry. We have arranged or are arranging through the cooperation of the provinces for the occupation of every technical school which has facilities to enable that work to be carried out, and in the present year we expect to develop a great many mechanics in that way.
There are several other points I might well develop, but I do not wish to add very much except this. I believe that at the present time the greatest single thing we can do to reduce unemployment and promote the happiness and prosperity of those who are unemployed is to develop in every possible way all the skill of their hands and heads. We can do much as a government, although not so much perhaps in the actual matter of training because we are limited to the thousands needed for such specialized work as the production and maintenance of aircraft and the metal trades. We can do a great deal to bring about peace in industry, as we have tried to do through the extension of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.
We can do a great deal in the stimulating of industry; but fundamentally the problem comes back to industry itself. If they are going to have to speed up; if they are going to work two or three shifts a day where they have been working only one; if they are going to work longer days than they have been working, then they must assume some responsibility for the training of their new employees. I am glad to say that in a great many instances that is being done. It has been done extensively for example in the aircraft business; it has been done extensively in the shipbuilding industry. In addition, for some little time many plants have been conducting their own apprenticeship and leamership classes. We realize, however, that this is not nearly large enough. A system of apprenticeships in normal times helps in a smaller way, but in these times when we want to speed up industry to its maximum, and when we want to develop workshops in Canada capable of producing suprMr. McLarty.]
plies with which to aid the motherland and in our own defence, we must make a definite appeal to industry.
There are other measures with which we shall deal in the course of the debate; but to-day the greatest hope I see for reducing the number of employable unemployed is through the use of every effort at our command and the use of every possible assistance to train as many skilled workers as we can, for the benefit both of themselves and of their country, in order to enable us to maintain a steady flow of war supplies.


Mr. GREEN:: I do not think the minister said anything about the possibility of setting up a national employment service in Canada. As he knows, a recommendation to that effect was made both by the Purvis commission and the Rowell-Sirois commission. To-day we have a great many more men in employment, and the centres at which the men are required are changing. There is the possibility of some shifting of employees, as the war effort develops. Would it not be of great value to set up national employment agencies under the direct control of the dominion government?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I regret not having dealt
with that point, because I realize the extreme importance of the problem to which the hon. member has referred, namely the necessity for the transference of labour. It will be understood of course that a committee has been set up to deal with that subject. The hon. member is quite correct in his reference to the recommendation of the two commissions he mentioned, namely the recommendation that the employment service of Canada should be operated by the dominion government.


Howard Charles Green: It was very highly recommended.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I agree, without hesitation. One of the points which is to be legislated upon when the unemployment insurance legislation is brought down is the transfer of control of employment services to the dominion government. I am glad the hon. member has brought the matter to my attention.


Howard Charles Green: Is that to be covered at
this session?


Norman Alexander McLarty: As far as I know, the
answer would be in the affirmative. It is the intention, of course, but as hon. members are aware, we shall have to have an amendment to the British North America Act. All I can say is that it is pointed out. in the speech from the throne that we shall move as far as possible, and I am sincerely hopeful that we may get some distance in it. However I would not want to give any definite undertaking in the matter.

Unemployment Reliej-Mr. McLarty


Howard Charles Green: But it is to be included in
the unemployment insurance measure.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister take care to see that in dealing with the question of apprenticeship, employers of labour are not permitted to keep down fair wages for skilled workmen. I have in mind an industry recently established in Canada. Although I have not the evidence at hand, I am informed that a large proportion of the employees in that industry are apprentices, and that the pay given to them is substantially lower than that which would be given to skilled workmen. Therefore the cost of production is decreased and there have been detrimental effects upon competitors. That is a point which the government ought to keep in mind. It should not permit an abuse of that kind to creep in, under the guise of turning out skilled workmen.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I am glad the leader of the opposition raised that point. It will be realized of course that our difficulty in many instances is that apprenticeship is a matter under provincial jurisdiction. Under ordinary circumstances we can deal with that situation only through cooperation with the provinces. However, in respect of war contracts I believe we would have power to act. As a matter of fact, a situation such as has been described by the leader of the opposition was called to my attention only a few days ago. Although I have not yet received a report, I have asked for investigation. If in private the leader of the opposition would be kind enough to give me the instance he has in mind, I should be glad to see that it is investigated.


Joseph Henry Harris: There is the
boot and shoe industry generally, but particularly the Bata shoe company.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I believe the minister would be well advised to examine war contracts, because I have gone with greater care into the one I mentioned a few days ago, and I am more convinced than I was before that they are using apprentices in their production work, and are paying only twenty cents an hour when they should be paying much more. I believe this matter is connected closely with the training of mechanics, a subject which I thought was to be discussed in connection with another measure. As the leader of the opposition has said, however, there is great danger in connection with this matter.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have no doubt the
minister is familiar with the legislation passed recently and now in operation in the United
States. That legislation has to do with the training of apprentices, and deals particularly with the possibility of any reduction of wages. In the United States they have overcome the difficulty which has been pointed out by some hon. members, by appointing committees in all the cities throughout the United States where the federal government has labour offices. The act is under the joint administration of the Department of Labour at Washington and the state and municipal authorities. The committees are composed of three representatives from labour, three from the employers, and two selected at large. Then the state appoints a representative from the state department of labour to act as chairman. In this fashion they control the flow from the schools to production.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They have the appropriate legislation.


John Horne Blackmore: In connection with the production of armaments and other war equipment, has any shortage of skilled labour developed? The minister told us a few minutes ago that industry is coping with the situation through the process of apprenticeships.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Would the hon. member be content if I gave the figures in the debate on second reading?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. McLarty thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 42, to assist in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. MILITIA PENSION ACT



PERMANENT FORCE NAVAL OFFICERS TO BENEFIT IN RESPECT OF ONE-HALF OF PREVIOUS NONPERMANENT SERVICE-CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health, for the Minister of National Defence) moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the senate to Bill No. 3, to amend the Militia Pension Act.
He said:	If hon. members will look at
page 76 of the Votes and Proceedings of June
Wheat Cooperative Marketing
[Stage Direction]
4, they will find that the senate has made a purely clerical amendment, striking out the word "half" and substituting the words "one-half of".
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it just
a question of English?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Yes, purely a clerical amendment.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 20, to amend the Wheat Cooperative Marketing Act, 1939.
Richard Burpee Hanson: The first amendment is to strike out the short title?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. The changes that have been made by the senate are not important. They do not change the intent of the bill at all. The first amendment is simply to drop the short title, which they consider unnecessary. The second amendment substitutes "one only cooperative plan" for the words "a cooperative plan". The senate draughtsman considers the amendment better wording; it does not change the meaning at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I quite
agree.


James Garfield Gardiner: The same amendment is made in section 3, and sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 have been renumbered 1, 2, 3 and 4. Then in section 4 as it passed this house the senate have changed "a report of the proceedings taken under this act" to read "a report of all things approved by the governor in council under this act." That apparently is all that is necessary, in their opinion, to report to the house. The other amendment is to drop the section which we dropped in the other bill on Friday, "This act shall come into force on a date to be fixed by proclamation."


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is, an amending act should not come into effect by proclamation. The amendment to section 3-it was section 4 as it passed this house but the sections have been renumbered-makes a difference in substance. The words "a report of the proceedings taken 
under this acrt" would, I suppose, cover a very much wider scope than "all things approved by the governor in council". We are not in committee, but I might ask the minister to state in a few words just what the effect of the difference is. The senate have apparently taken the view that only those things approved by the governor in council are necessary to be reported to parliament. The bill as drafted certainly included something more than that. Perhaps the minister has in mind just what the difference would be.


James Garfield Gardiner: As it passed this house the section read:
The minister shall at the end of the fiscal year prepare a report of the proceedings, taken under this act and shall lay it before parliament forthwith, or if parliament be not then sitting, within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session.
I take that to mean that we should make a full report on the different proceedings, some of which might be approved by order in council and some merely given assent to by the minister; but the amendment made by the senate, substituting the words "all things approved by the governor in council" limits it somewhat. The department has no objection to the amendment as proposed although it may limit what would have to be reported on to the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Quite true.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Does the minister know why this change was made? I believe the wider wording is preferable to the wording that has been substituted in another place.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have no explanation why they desire the change. I was not at the meeting of the committee when the change was made. I can only explain the effect of the change.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The senate amendment limits it to what has been approved by the governor in council. I really do not know enough about the technique of all this to express an opinion, but there must be a reason for limiting it to "all things approved by the governor in council". But if it is agreeable to the department, I have no objection.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I do
not see any advantage in changing "a" to "one only." It looks to me as though that limits the effectiveness of the act; it limits too much the minister's power.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am told by the legal authorities that it does not make any change in the meaning. My understanding from the explanatory note which I have from the other place is that the draftsman there thinks that it more nearly expresses what the

Munitions and Supply Act
amendment was intended to express. It is in these terms: " 'Cooperative association' means an association of primary producers having for its object the marketing under a cooperative plan"-this is changed to read: "under one only cooperative plan-or agricultural products delivered to it for sale." I am informed by my own officials that this does not change the meaning, and we thought if it is more agreeable to those in the other place we would take no exception to the change.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Assuredly this would be more certain.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I draw
the minister's attention to the fact that the other amendment, that is the one in section 4, does make a serious difference as has already been pointed out. The difference will be that the original draft proposes a report of the proceedings. That would really be an annual report of the proceedings under this act. What the amendment would provide would merely be a list of orders in council. I have not before me a copy of the whole act, but I believe the minister to have power under the act to issue regulations without an order in council. Would it be necessary to bring those down? It seems to me that not only does this limit the sphere, but it is a different thing altogether; it is a list of orders in council; whereas, as the minister had the section drawn originally, it would provide for an annual report upon this branch of his department. I do not want to be adamant about it, but would it not be wise for the minister to meet with a committee of the other place or make some inquiries or representations, and see if what they have in mind could not be clarified and some harmonious arrangement arrived at?


James Garfield Gardiner: It went to the banking
and commerce committee of the senate and was fully discussed there. An official of our department was there while it. was being discussed, and we take no exception to the change which they suggested. I believe that the men who were suggesting or discussing it are eminent authorities in connection with draftsmanship and legal matters of this kind. They seem to feel that the amendment more correctly expresses what was desired. We in the department are prepared to accept that. I venture to say that so far as the bringing down of the report is concerned, it will make no difference; we intend to bring down a full report.


Georges Parent: I may point out that we
are dealing with amendments to the bill, and what is now proceeding is what usually happens in committee.


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