1931-03-31

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Air. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, a Canadian
Press cable which arrived this morning states that Mr. Howard Ferguson has made the following proposal in Rome:
That it is desirable that delegates of countries exporting wheat, namely Argentine, Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Hungary, India, Poland, the Union of Soviet republics, Roumania and Jugoslavia should meet together as soon as possible to organize on an international lwsis the exportation of the crop year of 1931-32.
I should like to ask the government if Mr. Ferguson is authorized to make a proposal that involves negotiations with the Soviet government. If so, it is the best news we have had for some time.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: The hon. member's inquiry will be taken as a notice of motion.



UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under standing order 31 to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, to call the attention of the house and the government to the acute distress existing among large numbers of industrial workers throughout the Dominion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the form of the motion but judging from what the hon. member has said it would not be in order inasmuch as this matter has been under debate and is mentioned in the speech from the throne.
Unemployment


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: May we have the motion, please?


Mr. SPEAKER:: If any hon. member desires to speak on the point of order as to whether or not the application* is in order, he should do so before I give my ruling.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will Your Honour read the application?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The application is by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) and asks for leave under standing order 31 to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of public importance, namely, to call the attention of the house and the government to the acute distress existing among large numbers of industrial workers throughout the Dominion.


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Fisheries) :: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to say just one word on the point of order? Without disputing the importance of the subject raised bv the hon. member for North Winnipeg, I submit that the interpretation which always has been placed upon this rule has been that it must be a matter of recent occurrence. Furthermore, it must be of such urgent character as would create an injustice were hon. members of this house precluded from discussing the subject matter. I submit, first, that it is not a matter of recent occurrence, and, second, that it would be open to hon. members to discuss this question during the debate which is now 'before this house. Therefore, the hon. gentleman is not in order in asking permission to discuss this subject as a matter -of urgent public importance.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In moving this motion I
was guided by the actions of-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Mr. DUFF:: The hon. member should speak to the point of order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am speaking to the point
of order raised and I desire to call the attention of the house to one precedent. In 1926, when the present government was in opposition, I find the following action taken by the house. It was moved by the then hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria (Mr. L. W. Johnstone), that leave *be granted under rule 39 to adjourn the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, to call the attention of the house and the government to the acute distress existing among the coal miners 
of Nova Scotia, many of whom were actually on the verge of starvation. My motion follows almost word for word the motion made in 1926.
I might state also that in the speech from the throne delivered in 1926, reference was made to the conditions in Nova Scotia, as follows:
W itli a view to affording such remedies as may appear to be practical and appropriate, the government also propose to appoint a royal commission to inquire fully into the claims that the rights of the maritime provinces in regard to the operation of the Intercolonial railway have not been observed, and that in regard to transportation, immigration and other economic factors these provinces have suffered prejudicially, in their position under confederation.
At that time the condition of the miners in Nova Scotia was not a matter of recent occurrence. I would draw the attention of the house to the fact that in 1926 this motion was made during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. My motion is on almost all fours with the motion made in 1926, and I submit that I should be allowed to proceed.
No direct reference is made in the speech from the throne this year to any action which the government intends to take to deal with unemployment. We should not at this time insist on technicalities as I consider there is no more important question to be dealt with by parliament. The speech from the throne makes a certain vague reference to the economic conditions which prevail at the present time but there is no reference at all to any definite action which the government intends to take in order to meet the existing situation. In the rules of procedure the word "definite" is used, and we have to deal with a definite rather than an indefinite matter. May I point out also that the appropriations which the government has voted will expire to-day and there will be no further funds available for the municipalities or the provincial governments with which to cope with the present conditions.
Therefore, I consider thare is an urgent need for a discussion of this question which, as I have stated before, I believe to be the most important question that can come before this house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on
the point of order it seems to me that this matter involves the rights of the members of this house. In stating the procedure subsection 3 of standing order 31 reads as follows:

Unemployment
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order, and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house.
If objection is taken, Mr. Speaker requests those members who support the motion to rise in their places and, if more than twenty members rise accordingly, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who has asked for leave.
I submit that the mover of this resolution (Mr. Heaps) has complied with the rules. He has handed to the Speaker a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed.
I realize that the next clause of the standing order is to the effect that if the Speaker thinks it in order it is read out, but I take it that that is only a formal matter. The proposed motion might not be formally in order; then it is for you, Mr. Speaker, to say that it is not in order and to reject it. But we are here dealing with another matter. With all deference to Your Honour I do not think it can be said that thd possibility of the introduction of a motion of this kind is dependent upon the decision of Your Honour as to what is an urgent matter; that is dependent upon the twenty hon. members who may rise and support it. I do not think there can be any question that the motion is formally in order. Several years ago a motion in precisely the same form was introduced upon a like occasion and no question was raised by the Speaker as to its being out of order. A precedent was established and I do not see how it can be said that this is not in order. The only ground upon which he can rule that it is not in order is as to whether it is a relevant matter or not, and that depends on the decision of twenty members. I claim that it becomes your responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to ask whether or not twenty members believe that this is a matter of urgent public importance.
The suggestion has come from the opposite side of the house that already a reference along this line has been made in the speech from the throne. It must be conceded, however, that that is a very general reference, and my colleague has more than answered that when he has shown that similar action was taken on a previous occasion when the members of the present government were in opposition. As to the urgency of the matter-, may I emphasize that the grant runs out today and that already a number of municipalities are cutting off direct relief to large numbers of men and women? The municipalities take the ground that they have no help from the Dominion government. What is to be done in such a situation as that ? The Dominion government has given no indication of what its policy is to be and tomorrow these men will be on the streets. I have to-day from a western city a letter along that line.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member confine himself to the point of order?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am submitting
that the matter is urgent and I do not know of any way of putting it more strongly than that unless some action is taken before the Easter recess, there is very serious danger that riots will occur.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nonsense!


James Shaver Woodsworth: Hon. members may say that is nonsense, but if it is desired to have the urgency emphasized I cannot put it more strongly than to say that thousands of men are without work and without food, and inevitably there will be riots. For that reason I urge that before the Easter recess some action be taken to meet this emergency situation.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: On the point of order, may I say that the 1926 case cited may or may not have been quite appropriate at that time, but the point of order was not raised then. Now^the point of order is definitely raised for A our Honour to decide. I submit that the motion is out of order. Standing order 31, section 6, subsection (c) provides:
The motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session.
And the following subsection provides that the motion must not anticipate such a matter. My submission is that the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) raises this very question. It has been under discussion in the house since that amendment was moved, and it will continue under discussion until that amendment is voted upon. The amendment reads:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that this house, while recognizing the serious economic conditions prevailing throughout the world, regrets that the policies of His Majesty s government have not only failed to afford a remedy for employment and agricultural distress, as pledged by the Prime Minister and his colleagues, but have served further to prejudice the deplorable position of the agricultural interests, thereby causing additional unemployment and substantially reducing the national revenue.
The whole question of present-day unemployment is specifically raised in the amendment now under discussion in this chamber, and, that being the fact, I submit that the motion is distinctly out of order.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: I do not know of any matter of

unemployment
greater national urgency than the question raised by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). Probably the reason why no objection was taken to the matter being discussed in 1926 was that the government of the day invited discussion on unemployment as well as on any other subject. I am surprised that the present government would raise any technical objection in order to shut off debate on this particular question, because during the election campaign they themselves said that it was-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member confine himself to the point of order? The question as to the policy of an opposing party during a previous election has nothing to do with the point whether this request is in order or not.


Peter Heenan: If Your Honour will allow me to finish my sentence you will see the objective I have in view.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: W hy not let us have your objective first?


Peter Heenan: I could not turn my sentence around. As I said, the government of the day claimed during the election campaign that this was a national question, and inasmuch as the situation is worse now than it was then, it is more of a national question now than it was at that time. I submit that without regard to whether the motion is in or out of order, the unanimous consent of the house should be given to the hon. member for North Winnipeg to proceed with his motion.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):	Speaking to the point of order, I
-find myself in absolute agreement with the motives behind the motion submitted by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). On the other hand, I find myself in substantial agreement with the point of order raised by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) and spoken to by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). The house is therefore confronted with what is largely a question of policy, and although this is not distinctly on the point of order, I think it is important at the present time that the supplementary estimates should be disposed of, as hon. gentlemen opposite realize. The leader of the government (Mr. Bennett) should, however, give an opportunity to the house to have^a discussion raised by the hon. member for North Winnipeg, if it cannot be raised in this way. During the debate-and this is only on a question of policy-we asked for a statement of policy from the Acting Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) and the

Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) in regard to labour and agricultural conditions. If this statement were given, it would do a great deal towards meeting the wishes of the hon. member for North Winnipeg. I am compelled on the point of order to agreement with the Minister of Justice.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This application is made under standing order 31, which reads:
(1)	Leave to make a motion for the adjourn-11lellj' I|le house (when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business has been concluded and before notices of motions or orders of the day are entered upon.
(2)	The member desiring to make such a motion rises in his place, asks leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and states the matter.
(3)	He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house.
in the first place, before the matter is read to the house, the Speaker must consider that it is in order and of urgent public importance. Perhaps I cannot do better than to read to the house the written opinion I gave to the hon. member for North Winnipeg this morning when he kindly notified me that he was going to make this application.
I said:
Since discussing with you your proposal to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely-to call the attention of the house and the government to the acute distress existing among large numbers of industrial workers throughout the Dominion, I have carefully considered the same and it seems to me the matter to which you propose to call the attention of the house is now actually being discussed in the debate on the address, and is a matter specifically referred to in the third, fourth, fifth and sixth paragraphs of the speech from the throne and in the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition.
For the moment tile house lias laid aside the debate on the address to deal with supplementary estimates required for the administration of government. Within a few days the debate will be resumed and if the house considers that the matter you propose to call to its attention should be discussed forthwith, it has only to revert to the debate on the address for that purpose.
If it is suggested that the members now seeking to move the adjournment have already spoken in the debate on the address, I might point out that it is open to a member to move a sub-amendment to the amendment to the address and to then discuss the matter, and that when the amendment now before the house is disposed of there will be a further opportunity to speak on the main motion.

Civil Service
The reason for allowing such a motion for the adjournment is to afford members an opportunity of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance which they could do in no other way, but as the matter has been, and will continue to be very thoroughly discussed in the debate now in progress, I am obliged to decide that the application is not in order at this time.
In support of this decision I would quote May's Parliamentary Practice, 13th edition, page 248:
Slotion for adjournment regarding matters for the discussion of which the committee of supply or other appointed business-
The appointed business in this case being the debate on the address:
-would afford an early opportunity, or a matter which is under the consideration of a select committee, have been ruled to be out of order.
I therefore rule that the motion is out of order on the ground as stated in that letter, and on the ground taken by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) under paragraph (c) of section 6 of rule 31. That the motion anticipates a matter which has been previously appointed for consideration by the house, and particularly by the amendments to the address moved by the leader of the opposition.



PERMITS TO KILL BUFFALO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS DONNELLY (Willow Bunch):: I notice in the western press that
permission has been given to missionaries to kill barren buffalo cows in Wood Buffalo park. I would like to know if this permission has also been given to travellers, traders, Indians, prospectors and inhabitants in the district, and also how in the heat of the chase, the missionaries are to determine just which animals to kill.


Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior):: If the hon. member will put his
question on the order paper I shall be pleased to answer it.



PEACE RIVER OUTLET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. HANSON (Skeena):: I would ask
the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) if he has yet received the joint report of the railways on the Peace River outlet, and if so, whether it will be presented to the house before the Easter recess.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: I did not quite catch my hon. friend's question, but I think it was in regard to the same report that was asked for by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). I wrote to the premier of British Columbia asking him if they had had their report tabled, but I have not yet received a reply.



EXPORT BOUNTY ON GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: I have received several telegrams during the past few days with reference to resolutions passed at farmers' meetings in my constituency. I shall read one and ask a couple of questions based thereon:
At a meeting held in Glidden, 150 present, resolution passed that we demand an export bounty of fifteen cents wheat, ten cents rye, five cents oats, be put by the government.
F. B. Hailes.
In view of the present financial distress existing among agriculturists, will the government give favourable consideration to an export bounty on Canadian grain; or failing that, has the government any substitute plan for giving financial relief to the farmers?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the question
be put on the order paper.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: In
view of persistent rumours and newspaper reports with reference to retirements and superannuation of civil servants, more particularly of the Interior department, and the resulting apprehension and unrest, I desire to ask the Minister of the Interior what action is presently being taken or will be taken by the government in reference to the employees of that department.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The question which my hon. friend has raised is a matter of government policy, which will be announced in due time.



RETENTION OF THE SERVICES OF NATIVE-BORN ASKED BY NATIVE SONS OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. L. BOULANGER (Bellechasse):: I have received a letter enclosing copy of the following resolution which was adopted by the Native Sons of Canada:
In view of the persistent public rumour that it is the intention of the government, in the near future, to dispense with the services of many permanent employees, it is recommended by the executive of Capital Assembly, No. 86,
Austro-Gcrman Customs Union

of the Native Sons of Canada, that if such rumour be true, the government consider the retention of the native-born in preference to those of other countries, all other considerations being equal.
If the government is going to make retirements from the civil service, will it start with officials not native-born?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The government will be governed by the statutes of the country.
PENSION EXAMINER AT SASKATOON On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	May I ask the Minister of
Pensions and National Health a question based on telegrams and other communications that I have received from northern Saskatchewan in connection with political pressure that I understand is being brought to bear on his department with regard to the removal of Dr. Cox, pension examiner at Saskatoon. The minister made a statement on this question to the house about a week ago, and I thank him for that declaration of policy. I should like to hear from him today, however, if his policy as then announced is still his policy to-day, or whether he has something to add to his statement of last week.


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: The policy as announced a week ago still stands, and the position remains the same.


Mr. McINTOSH:: That is all right.



AUSTRO-GERMAN CUSTOMS UNION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: I have in my hand a newspaper report of the tariff agreement between Germany and Austria, and I notice that section 2 of article 1 reads as follows:
Both parties specifically declare themselves bound by this contract to negotiate with any other nation desiring to enter a similar agreement.
In view of the fact that Germany at one time was one of our best customers for wheat, and is not now, I would ask the Prime Minister if he would be willing to take advantage of this offer and negotiate a treaty with these countries?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman's observations
will be treated as notice of a question.



SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
['Incurred means spent.\nItem as amended agreed to.\nResolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.']
Abraham Albert Heaps: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to follow the advice that you gave when you ruled on my motion a few moments ago. You stated that that motion was not debatable, but that other opportunities would occur when the question of unemployment could be raised, and I now take this opportunity of raising it on the motion for going into supply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is hardly competent, Mr. Speaker,
for the hon. gentleman to discuss a question that is now before the house in an amendment, and with respect to which you have already ruled.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that
on the motion for supply every member of this house has the inalienable right to discuss any grievance that he wishes to bring before parliament.


Hugh Guthrie: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker,
I submit that a member cannot on the motion for supply make a motion of any kind that he sees fit. He cannot, for instance, discuss a question that is on the order paper; he cannot discuss a question that is under consideration by the house; he cannot anticipate a motion standing in his name on the order paper. Your Honour has directly ruled that this question is under consideration by this house, and I submit that your ruling applies to the hon. gentleman's present remarks.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: On the motion to go into supply the ordinary rules of debate are applicable. For instance, I quote the following from Bourinot:
A matter already decided by the house or of which notice has been given, or which stands upon the orders of the day, cannot be discussed nor can any subject or matter of detail which should be discussed in committee, be debated in these occasions.
The question which the hon. member for North Winnipeg has undertaken to discuss undoubtedly stands for discussion on the orders of the day, because it has been brought before the house through the amendment by the leader of the opposition and also by reference to it in the speech from the throne which is now being discussed in debate before this house and which stands for further discussion.

Unemployment-Mr. Heaps


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I interject Mr. Speaker- Mr. SPEAKER: I am discussing a matter- Mr. HEAPS: Have I not the righ to speak? Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I wish some of the hon. members opposite who last year were so enthusiastic in -the discussion of the matter of unemployment would show the same enthusiasm at this time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Have I not the right to move an amendment on going into supply? That is what I am going to do.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not that amendment.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Hon. members cannot restrict the character of an amendment. No ruling of the house can restrict the character of the amendment I intend to make. I have an amendment to move if it is necessary to move it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Move it then.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Such an amendment as that sought to be moved by the hon. member is not in order.


Mr. GARDINER:: May I call the attention of hon. members to the fact that no amendment has been moved. Any member of this house -has the right upon going into supply to discuss any matter and to move any amendment, and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not your duty to rule against an amendment which has not yet been moved.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understood the hon. member to say he moves an amendment to the same effect as the matter I have already held to be out of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member said he was going to move the same amendment.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will place my case and my grievance before the house and then I shall state my amendment. At the moment there is no amendment before the house; last year I took exactly the same stand when the house was going into committee of supply. Certainly at that time there was no objection from any place in this house, either from the government or the opposition. From the opposition in the year 1930 we had a great deal of support in the discussion of certain matters when going into supply. Up to now Mr. Speaker, I have not taken up any time of
the house with the exception of asking two questions. In connection with one question I had the honour of receiving an answer and the other question I was asked to place on the order paper.
I feel Mr. Speaker, that I would be recreant to my duty towards those people I represent in this house if I did not take the opportunity before the adjournment for Easter recess of drawing to the attention of the house some of the conditions which at the present time prevail in the Dominion of Canada. Those conditions are of such a nature that I feel parliament ought to take some definite action before we adjourn to-morrow. Following the adjournment a great many of us will be going back to our constituencies and will be meeting the people who sent us here. There is hardly a constituency in Canada at the present time which is not suffering from some form of economic distress. The first question which will be asked by our constituents and the first question we will face when we return to our home is, "What has parliament done to cope with the existing crisis?" Hon. members in this house with the possible exception of some members of the government, know nothing of What the cabinet has in mind to meet the conditions which now prevail. We had a special session of parliament. In July last year a change of government took place and at that time the opposition thought it was right and proper immediately after the election to summon the parliament to deal with the then very serious unemployment situation. Now, if there was a condition in September last year with which this house should deal, I say that a.t the present time it is much more necessary. There is no hon. member of this house who will claim that conditions are not worse now than they were in September last year. If conditions are worse in the month of March than they were in the month Of September then I think it is high time that parliament had before it certain definite proposals to deal with the existing emergency. When we go to our respective homes at the Easter recess we feel thait half of the parliamentary session has expired. Up until this time however nothing has been done; not one worth while action has been taken by this parliament and no inkling has been offered to the people of this country concerning what action is likely to be ta.-ven. After all, Mr. Speaker, I believe the cabinet should have taken the house into its confidence and told the people of this country what it intends to do in order to deal with the pre-
Unemployment-Mr. Heaps

sent emergency. This is the 31st day of March and money voted in September last practically ceases to exist because parliament is not in a position, except by another act to vote further sums of money. Apart from that, the whole of the $20,000,000 voted by parliament has been more or less used up by municipalities in dealing with the unemployment situation. At the present time, Mr. Speaker, I find a worse condition of unemployment in this country than I have ever known in the past. We could travel from the Atlantic to the Pacific and find these same deplorable conditions prevailing. I have before me certain communications to which I wish to refer to briefly. Here is one from Calgary which reads as follows. It is from the Mine Workers' Union of Canada:
In view of the deplorable conditions which exist in the mining industry throughout Canada.
Another one comes from the province of Nova Scotia. The statement is contained in a report of a special committee of a conference held on January 20 in Halifax. The report reads in part as follows:
Conditions of grave and calamitous unemployment have for some time existed and are at this time prevalent in the coal fields of Nova Scotia.
What else do we find? In the city of Vancouver 10,000 people have registered as being out of work. The number who have registered does not of necessity indicate the total number of people out of work because there are thousands who refuse to register but who nevertheless are unemployed. I could travel to Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg and find a similar condition. In the city of Winnipeg we have had more than 7,000 men who have been actually receiving relief from the city. In the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur the same deplorable conditions prevail. In the city of Toronto vast numbers of men are out of work. In fact only last week in that city a crowd of unemployed men looking for work were actually clubbed because they dared to look for jobs.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is wrong.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Just a few day ago in the
city of Montreal a large number of unemployed men trooped into an office and the man in charge actually shot one of the men who oame in looking for work. Apparent!}' the man who did the shooting was afraid some harm might befall him. The man was shot right through his body.

These are the conditions prevailing throughout Canada, and I feel that this parliament ought not to adjourn for the Easter recess until the government brings down immediate measures to cope with the situation. The excuse may be offered that we have been in session only since March 12th. But there is no good reason why the house could not have met two months earlier to deal with the problem. If parliament could have met in September in an emergency session there is no reason why it could not have met at the ordinary time this year so that we could have done something to meet existing conditions.
In the last session of parliament the government adopted three measures which they claimed would in some way alleviate or possibly put an end to unemployment in this Dominion. I never expected for one moment that the party now in power could end unemployment, and I am not going to blame them if they do not end unemployment in this country. The only blame I attach to this government 'is that hon. members opposite made such wild and rash promises to the electors, representing that they were the only ones who could solve the problem.
I have said that we could have met much sooner so that we might have dealt with the unemployment situation. I was very sorry indeed, Mr. Speaker, when a few weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) what action the government intended to take to meet this serious state of affairs, the only reply I received from the right hon. gentleman-and then it was only after he had been requested by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) to do so that he replied- was that I should put the question on the order paper. I was to put the question on the order paper and then it might be answered. That may be a way of evading a question, but it is not the way to reply to an important question asked in the House of Commons. If the Prime Minister had answered my question in the way in which a question of that kind should be answered, I might probably not have found it necessary to get up in my place to-day and insist upon some action on the part of the government. When the Prime Minister of the government evades the answering of such a question, it seems to me the only resource we members have is to bring to the attention of parliament and the country the situation as it actually exists. In fact, when the Prime Minister made that reply to the question I asked him, he said he was going to follow dn the footsteps of the former

Unemployment-Mr. Heaps
government. Now that is a rather unusual attitude for a Conservative Prime Minister to take in this house. But I have noticed of late how eager the Prime Minister is to follow Liberal practices. Upon his return from the Imperial conference be intimated that he was following in the footsteps of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. And when the right hon. gentleman was in opposition he used to quote continually from Lord Morley's Life of William Ewart Gladstone. He seems to have quite a tender spot for such quotations, a desire to follow in the path of Liberals of the past. I sincerely trust, however, that the Prime Minister will not follow entirely in what the Liberal party has done in the past, but will branch out into new lines in order to meet the problems we have, with new ideas, because the old ideas cannot solve the problems of to-day. It is no use attempting to deal with twentieth century problems with nineteenth century ideas; it cannot be done.
In September last the government -had three proposals for dealing with the unemployment situation. The first was the prevention of dumping into Canada. That was one of their proposals and it became law. But not only did it become law; the government took upon themselves the right and prerogative which for many years parliament has exercised There is therefore no excuse to-day that foreign goods are coming into competition with Canadian manufactures. That, as I say, was one remedy. The second remedy was the voting of 820,000,000 to give immediate relief where that was thought necessary. And the $20,000,000 more or less has been spent. Now I want to lay down, first, the maxim that capital expenditures are no remedy for unemployment. In fact, the more capital expenditures are made for unproductive works, the more we aggravate an already serious situation. Consequently the mere voting of sums of money for the carrying on of certain public works will in no way settle the problem of unemployment. Now we come to the third remedy offered by the government-and this was their trump card. They claimed that if the tariff were raised extremely high so as to prevent the importation of goods it would * provide work for people at home and practically solve the unemployment problem. Today, after about six months' experience, we find that none of these so-called remedies are in any way a solution for unemployment.
I wish to show, by the figures supplied by the government, the extent of unemployment in Canada at present. I find there were 228,351 persons who received work as a result of the emergency vote passed by parliament last September. They worked a total of 22110-30
3,975,355 days; that is to say, they worked on an average, approximately 18 days during the last five or six months. Now, the average wage they would receive from those who employed them would be approximately $60. In other words, they earned an average of S60 under the emergency legislation passed last year. What do we find further? In addition to the numbers who received work, there were also large numbers who received relief by way of groceries, meals and so forth.
I find on page 11 of the report of 1931, dealing with the unemployment situation that there were 49,946 families and 64,728 individuals who received relief. In other words, over 130.000 persons received direct relief in addition to the 208,351 persons who were given employment during the past few months. This will give some indication of the serious unemployment situation which exists to-day.
I find that the index for employment on August 1, 1930, was 118.8, and on February 1, 1931, it had dropped to 100.7. If we deduct only a proportion of the number of people who were employed on emergency work, working under some form of government assistance, we find that in that same period the drop in unemployment was in the neighbourhood of 30 per cent-certainly a very grave state of affairs and one that demands the attention of parliament. Then we have to consider the vast numbers of men who at present are on part time employment. We find that throughout this country men who formerly worked on full time are working three or four days per week, and they have a most difficult struggle to make both ends meet. What have the unemployed to look forward to? In previous years, in the spring men would look forward to being able to go on the farms and find employment in that way. This year those men will not be able to do so; in fact I am inclined to believe that instead of men going from the cities to the farms there will be people coming from the farms to the cities to look for work. Consequently the already bad situation which prevails in our industrial centres is likely to become much worse through that reverse movement. I find, Mr. Speaker, that in the few times the Prime Minister has spoken in public since the emergency session of last September he has made special reference to what he would do if the conditions were not changed when parliament again met. Speaking in Regina on December 30, the Prime Minister said:
I tell you that when parliament meets, if there is not then evident further increase in employment, additional steps will be taken to meet the situation.



Unemployment-Mr. Heaps
I believe, Mr. Speaker, we have a right to know what those additional steps are to be.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: If any.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes, as the hon. member for Bow River says, what additional steps there are to be, if any. The hundreds of thousands of men and women who at present are out of work and who are marching through our streets in demonstrations, men and women who are hungry and many of whom are starving, have their eyes fixed on this parliament, and they expect us here to take some action that will in some way deal with this very pressing problem. At the present time, on this 31st day of March, we do not know what parliament is likely to do in an attempt to meet thie situation, and we are not likely to meet again until April 13. There is involved in this question something which I regard as of very great importance. As I have already said, I believe there is no question that ought to challenge the attention of members of this house and the attention of parliament collectively more than the question of unemployment, yet I see scant attention paid to-day to this important problem. I noticed that When my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) spoke on this question recently practically the whole Conservative party walked out of the house, and it just makes me wonder how much hon. members really care for the men and women who happen to be out of work and suffering at the present time. When my hon. friend from South Vancouver (Mr. Maclnnis) spcke on the same question he was met in exactly thie same way; he found complete indifference to the suffering of our fellow-Canadians.


Mr. SPOTTON:: Yo-u never propose anything.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is for the government to bring proposals before the house, and when the government will come to the house with concrete proposals I will be willing to give them all the support of which I am capable, if I believe those proposals will help the situation. If the government will listen to what I have to tell them and will adopt my proposals, they may be equally sure of my support, and perhaps before I get through to-day I will bring forward a few suggestions which they might do well to adopt.


Edward Joseph Garland: But there are only forty-six members of the Conservative party to listen even now.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Well, that is nearly three times as many as were here when my hon. 
friend from Winnipeg North Centre spoke the other day. When the hon. member for South Vancouver dealt with this question he was met with jeers by hon. members opposite when he attempted to tell of the sufferings of the unemployed in the city of Vancouver. It is all right for the party in opposition to show sympathy for the men and women out of work, but it seems another matter when that party happens to attain power.
There is a rather strange coincidence which came to my notice to-day, Mr. Speaker. On March 31 of last year I rose in my place to call the attention of parliament and particularly of the government to this question of unemployment. On that day I brought forward a motion asking the government to take immediate steps to deal with the then existing unemployment situation. The Conservative party was in opposition at that time, and the opposition benches were pretty well filled on that occasion. There were no jeers, and there was no question of my bringing forward certain proposals. The Conservative party insisted on the government of the day bringing in their proposals to deal with unemployment, and I hope that party to-day will be just as consistent in their attitude and will take immediate action to deal with the situation.
I said this parliament had a collective duty in connection with this question. We have a responsibility, and we cannot evade it either individually or collectively. The main responsibility, however, naturally rests with the government, and the responsibility of the government is to deal with this very grave menace that is confronting us. We must bear in mind that the people of this country look upon this parliament to govern, but if we allow hundreds of thousands of workers and their dependents to go without the bare necessities of life I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, what kind of confidence, if any, can -those people have in our parliamentary institutions. I claim that the very fitness of this parliament to govern the country under such circumstances is at stake to-day. If we do not live up to our responsibilities we will deserve everything the people of this country may hurl at us.
We claim that we are living under a form of political democracy; I have heard the Prime Minister speak about the dignity of parliament and the respect with which it should be looked upon by the people throughout this country. The degree of respect we receive from the people of this Dominion will be only in proportion to the way in which

Unemployment-Mr. Heaps
we give the people the things to which I claim they are fully entitled. I want to say in all seriousness that parliament is losing its grip upon the people, because while we have . a form of political democracy we have allowed to grow up side by side with it a financial autocracy, which to-day is more powerful than the democracy. The question now arises whether we are to be subordinate to these economic forces which seem to have a strangle hold upon the very life of the millions of our people. That is the question, and to-day the problem arises, in dealing with the unemployment situation, what steps parliament will take to meet the conditions which exist throughout the country?
It has been claimed by some hon. members opposite that the unemployment situation is due first to the Liberal government which was previously in power, and secondly to the fact that certain economic conditions have been experienced throughout the world. To overcome the maladministration of nine years of Liberal rule, and to give additional employment to the workers of this dominion the Conservative party set about the task of increasing tariffs. If world conditions are responsible for unemployment no local application of a tariff will improve them; that goes without saying. If we are faced with world conditions, a tariff is no remedy for unemployment existing in Canada.
It would seem that the causes of unemployment lie far deeper than can be reached by a tariff and I think this matter should be considered from that angle. In our collective capacity as a nation we are not suffering from any shortage of goods; we have more than we know what to do with. Our elevators are choked with wheat and so much grain has been produced that it does not pay the farmer to ship because he will receive nothing for it. Yet, side by side with that condition, we have vast numbers of people in our cities who are without the bare necessities of life. How are we going to bring about a more equitable distribution of the goods produced? The tariff policy of the government is based upon the assumption that production must be increased. If production is increased how can the people consume that increased production if to-day they are unable to consume our present production? The great masses of the people must be given that purchasing power which will permit them to consume far more goods than they are allowed to at the present time. Production has been increasing by leaps and bounds for a number of years yet side by side with this enormous increase we find that the purchas-22110-304
ing power of the masses has remained practically stationary. If that purchasing power remains stationary and production increases it means that commodities will be piled up, and as that process continues sooner or later men find themselves out of work because they are unable to consume the goods they have produced.
Wages, based upon purchasing power, have remained practically stationary. To-day the human being is being exploited by the machine for the benefit of those who own the machine. Henry Ford said some little time ago that the machine was to be the slave of man. However, what has happened is that man has become the slave of the machine. From a governmental standpoint, we have not the faintest idea of'how to cope with this situation. It is claimed that the labourer is a partner in industry, but that is not so. He is only a drudge who receives a mere pittance for his labour.
I have been asked, what have we to offer as a remedy to meet the situation? I submit that capital to-day is taking too great a toll out of industry. If statistics were consulted I have no doubt that they would show that the amount of money paid out per annum in interest would equal the total payroll of the country. Unfortunately, we have not those statistics from our own Bureau of Statistics, but those of the United States show that that is the case. Industrial conditions in both countries are on a par, so the same would apply to Canada.
I claim that industry ought so to adjust itself as to guarantee to the labourer a fairly steady annual wage. At the present time a man receives so much per hour when there is work to be performed; if there is no work, he receives nothing. A man with $10,000 to invest receives an annual return on his investment and I claim, Mr. Speaker, that a human being who invests in industry all that he has to invest is entitled to an annual return. He is more deserving than is the man who invests a few thousand dollars.
In times of national emergency the government mobilizes our national resources. This is a time of great emergency with many thousands of our people facing starvation, it is an emergency for the meeting of which the government should mobilize all national resources. As I said before, we have in our warehouses more commodities than we know what to do with and side by side with that aggregation of wealth and commodities we have hundreds of thousands of Canadians who do not know where their next meal is coming from. That is the problem facing the government. It may be very well for the leader
Unemployment-Mr. Heaps

of this government to offer certain nebulous proposals as outlined in the speech from the throne, but what we need are definite proposals to meet the present situation. Something is said in the speech from the throne about returning to normal and prosperous conditions the like of which we have never seen in the past. Let me tell the right hon. the Prime Minister that such fine phrases as those contained in the speech from the throne will not fill one empty stomach. We want such action as will return us to the right kind of prosperity. We do not want a prosperity which is reflected in the bank clearings and in the annual statements of financial and industrial concerns, a prosperity affecting only the few and not the many. We do not want a prosperity which will make millionaires out of the few and paupers out of the millions. We want a prosperity which will give to the man on the farm and in our industrial centres a decent livelihood, a prosperity which will afford an opportunity for his children and all those dependent upon him and give that security of life which to-day is denied him.
To-day the responsibility is on the government The Prime Minister said that they were going to deal with the question or perish in the attempt. The time has come when he must deal with it, and although we are a small group, although there may be only three labour members in the house, we are to-day speaking for hundreds of thousands of people throughout the whole length and breadth of the Dominion. As hon. members know, when any matter arises pertaining to labour in various constituencies represented by members who are now in the house on the government side or the official opposition side, resolutions which are sent to those members are also sent to the Labour members. Those working people, whether they live in Nova Scotia or in the central provinces or in the western provinces, look to the small Labour group to bring these questions before the house, and as the government and the members generally deal with those questions, so shall they be judged by the working men and women in those constituencies.
When my colleagues, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and the hon. member for South Vancouver (Mr. Maclnnis) and I raise questions in the house, we feel that we are speaking for far more people than our own immediate constituents. By resolutions which have been sent to us and by dozens of letters which we have received, we know they are looking to us to raise this question; they are demanding

of us that we impress upon the government and the house the urgency of the matter. Therefore I hope the government will rise to the occasion, and will not deal with this question as if it were of no importance, for never has there been before the house a question of equal importance to that of unemployment at the present time. From coast to coast we have vast numbers of men asking for action from the government and I hope the government is not going to disappoint the workers or the agriculturists of this country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to assure the
house that we have raised this question today, not with any desire to delay the ordinary business of the house, but because unemployment throughout the country at the present time is so serious that we could not allow the Easter holidays to pass without at least making an effort to have some definite pronouncement from the government with regard to what they intend to do in this matter. It may be very important that the estimates should be considered before the Easter holidays; it may be important that the contractors on the Welland canal should be paid, but it is equally important that the unemployed of this country should be cared for during the next two weeks.


Edward Joseph Garland: A great
deal more important.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My hon. friend
from Bow River says that it is a great deal more important. I quite agree with him, because, after all, some of these contractors can manage in one way or another to get along for a few weeks. On the other hand, many of the unemployed are on the bread line and within a day or so they will be on the verge of starvation. It is tremendously important that this matter should be attended to without delay.
There are in the house members who claim to stand for the ancient rights of the British people. I am glad indeed that parliament has throughout the centuries permitted the ordinary members to voice their grievances before supply can be granted, and I am pleased we have this opportunity to-day of voicing what I believe are the real grievances of a large number of people in Canada.
When the question of the point of order and the introduction of the motion was before the chair, I ventured to say that I thought this matter was urgent and among other things I suggested that unless it were attended to, we might very easily have riots within the

Unemployment-Mr. Woodsworth
next two weeks. I think those who have been in the house for any length of time will agree that I am not in any way inciting to riot, but I should like to point out that the very first responsibility of the government is to make such arrangements as will at least allow the people to live, to eat, and to-day there are many people who are not in a position, unless something is done in an organized way, even to obtain an existence. I am glad to notice many hon. gentlemen on both sides are giving attention to this matter to-day. I know quite well that as individual members they are very much interested in this subject and I would hope that a subject of this kind could be taken out of the range of party politics. I do not know how many other members feel about it, but the other day, although I have been in the house for ten years, I could not but be rather shocked at the levity that characterized the discussion on unemployment. It seemed to me that we were footballing it back and forth in order to obtain some party advantage and were not dealing with the question as its merits would warrant our doing. I know members individually would take a great deal of interest in any poor person who came to their doors, but a large majority of the members have not been quite so fully in touch with labour as some of us have, and from day to day they are perhaps not besieged as we are by unemployed people seeking relief. Under these circumstances I think they will pardon us if we stress more than they feel like doing, the importance of the question. Someone during my colleague's speech atempted to throw discredit upon his statement with regard to certain unemployed being clubbed. I happen to have in my hand a clipping from the Evening Citizen of March 28, 1931, and in it I find this statement contained in an editorial entitled "No Slave Labour in Canada.":
From Toronto, last Thursday, came word of the mayor's stand against the clubbing of unemployed men when they crowd eagerly before an unemployment portal in search of work.
I think no discredit should be thrown on the statement of my colleague. Further the editorial states:
In Montreal on. the same day, revolver shots were fired at a crowd of free but unemployed Canadian workers when they surged around the office of a private contractor.
The editorial proceeds in discussing these tvco news items, to say:
The wisdom of the law may have to be invoked in Montreal to determine how far the freedom of the Canadian workless is to be observed. They are free to starve, as this winter has demonstrated.
Again it says:
But the limit is being reached. The line is drawn at the portals of employment offices where men go to seek work. They must apparently be satisfied with freedom to starve. They cannot have employment. It is just a question how long this superior freedom of the Canadian workless can go on.
I do not think I need to spend much time to-day in stating the actual facts of the situation. In this corner we were glad last year to have the support of the Conservative party when we introduced the question of unemployment and urged that the government do something about the matter. The situation is worse to-day than it was a year ago. I think that will be frankly admitted. I am not going to discuss the question whether the onus for that should be placed upon the government or not. I do not think the government is primarily to blame for that, but I do say that if we obtained support from the Conservative party last year, we ought to obtain support this year when we introduce the question again and urge immediate action.


Mr. SPENCER:: The conditions are worse.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, the conditions are worse.
I do not propose to deal with the government's own report on the Unemployment Relief Act of 1930, but I would like to emphasize one statement made by my colleague, that we succeeded in providing for less than eighteen days' work, or three weeks' work, for the unemployed. Here was the special session called; we sat for two weeks and voted twenty million dollars for the relief of the unemployed. As a matter of fact, all that effort succeeded in providing only three weeks' work for a very limited number of individuals, 228,351, a smaller number than are now unemployed. That is an astonishing situation, that with all the effort we have made we have provided less than three weeks' work for less than the number of unemployed today.
In some way they have been looked after during the past winter. What is to happen after to-day when the relief is cut off? That is the emergency. I do not think we ought to go home for the Easter recess without provision being made to carry them for at least a few weeks longer because the ordinary spring work will not open up before that time and it should be remembered there will not be anything like the amount of spring work this year which there has been under normal circumstances.
I take just one or two items almost at random from the government's own report. In Manitoba, for example, there were 36,968

Unemploym.ent-Mr. Woodsworlh
individuals granted direct relief. I turn to tlie note at the bottom of that same table on page 11 of the report and read:
In addition to above, the city of Montreal reports having given 178.659 nights' lodgings to single men and 1,063,034 meals.
And so on. These extracts are simply indicative of the conditions that prevailed. If one wanted to go outside of the government's own reports, there are abundant evidences of the seriousness of the situation. There came to me the other day the March number of Social Welfare, a social workers' magazine, in which an account is given of what is being done by churches and philanthropic societies outside altogether of the aid which has been given by the government. One article concerns Winnipeg, and in this particular case includes what is being done by the government. It says:
The employment service of Canada reports no farm, camp or bush work, and the situation has been in the same condition since the early autumn of 1930. Since September 1, 1930, 4.012 married men have applied for assistance, 347 of whom have been placed in work on bridge and subway building, in which the provincial and Dominion governments participate, and 320 of whom have been given work in street cleaning, which is financed entirely by the city.
Or I turn to Montreal, and I find this statement by Dr. F. G. Pedley:
In the vicinity of Dufferin square, where five thousand idle men are registered, our slums are an eyesore to the community. Throughout the country there are countless level crossings where citizens of the Dominion are daily imperilled. In our own city there is great need for a subway to meet the ever-increasing traffic. The excuse that there is no work to do cannot stand in the face of these facts. If social work is to be constructive in this community and this country, it must careful}' consider ways and means to overcome such economic conditions as we are afflicted with this year.
I could turn to Hamilton or to the capital city itself, or Toronto. Let me quote a paragraph in regard to work that is being done by the United Church in the city of Toronto:
In these institutions 85,000 free meals were supplied, and 30,250 free beds provided. Clothing-including boots, socks, underwear, suits of clothes and overcoats, totalling many thousands-was distributed free to homeless men.
Take St. John, away down in the mari-times. From an article by Clarence Smith I quote:
On January 15, 728 men (25 non-residents) were registered, about 80 per cent of whom were day labourers. When the registrations at the labour unions' headquarters were added, between 1,000 and 1,100 was the estimated total. The population of Saint John is about 60,000.

I could proceed to read extracts from papers from coast to coast, but as I said I do not consider that it is necessary. We are all receiving daily, at least I am, letters and resolutions telling about the appalling conditions that prevail.
Now, what is being done? For one thing, the government is deporting a large number of the unemployed. Whilst I agree that it is a considerable relief to the individual municipalities to have these men deported, I think it is a serious state of things when men who have come to this country in good faith to settle here, and have attempted to get work, should be deported just because they are unable to get work. I have had scores of examples of that character. The way it is done is this: A man cannot get work, and he then either has to starve or commit a crime, or apply for relief. If he obtains relief, he is then a public charge, and on the ground of being a public charge he is deported. I think that is hardly fair to the immigrants that we have begged to come to this country. The older members of this house will remember that year after year I have stood in my place and protested against immigration to this country. I thought that we were bringing in more people than we could take care of. I thought these people were tending to crowd the local labour market, and that they themselves were being exploited. Now I urge that when the government has definitely adopted a policy of bringing people to this country and has definitely promised them work, as has been done through the various agencies, it is not for us immediately work is slack to deport them to the countries whence they came. Many of them have broken all their home ties in the old country. Many of them have spent all they had in order to pay for their passage to this country, and many of them would be excellent settlers if they got half a chance in this country. I would suggest that after we have spent millions of money in trying to advertise this country in Great Britain and Europe, it is, to say the least, very poor policy for us to return a great many of these disgruntled people to the old country suffering from what they regard, and I think rightly, as a substantial injustice. From that standpoint alone it seems to me we ought to look after these people.
There is a tendency at the present time to turn off all the single men. We have in the past had so many opportunities for work that it was considered that a single man could get out and rustle for himself. That is not true to-day. A single man is almost as help-

Unemployment-Mr. Woodsworth
less as a married man so far as obtaining work is concerned. Of course, the unmarried group are a little more mobile and can drift more readily from place to place than can the married men, but it is no easier for them to get work. In fact, in nearly all our municipalities a preference is given, and perhaps quite rightly, to married men, but that means that when a single man is turned out of one city he simply drifts to another, and he finds it next to impossible to obtain work. I think of the situation as it was presented to me only a week or ten days ago when I happened to be back in my own city for a day or so. A young man whom I have known for several years came to see me. He was an Englishman. He had been employed on the provincial telephone lines. His work had stopped and he had been unable to obtain work since. He was forced to accept city relief. One day he objected to the treatment a fellow citizen was receiving. He considered the treatment was brutal and whether or not he was right he objected to it. As punishment relief was immediately cut off. "Now," he said, "what am I to do? I have not anything behind me; I have no resources whatever; the city refuses to give me relief; I am ostracized and I am driven to become a criminal." I gave him a small sum of money to tide him over for a day or two. I want hon. members to know that he was not begging but I gave him a small sum; then I came down to Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, I ask hon. members of this house what there is for that man to do? There is absolutely no work in the city for him; there is no work that he may get throughout the province. The only thing he can do is to smash a window.


Mr. SPENCE:: No, no.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The only thing he can do is to become a criminal in order to live.


James Houston Spence: It is such members as my hon. friend who incite them to do it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I am not inciting them.


James Houston Spence: Yes, my hon. friend is doing it right along.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I am not. I am putting .the predicament of that man before hon. members of this house and I ask what there is for a man in that position to do. In the city from which I come dtiring the last winter many men begged to be allowed to sleep in the jails, and they have done this for several years. Those conditions
were reported a year ago before our industrial relations committee in connection with the unemployment investigation. So we have it that this man is put into a position whereby he is forced to become a criminal in order to obtain anything to eat. I do not know what he is going to do. Of course he may beg. He is likely to be arrested for begging, because it is a crime. However, he is only one of hundreds across this country who find themselves in similar positions. If we go on in our present course without announcing any definite way to take care of these people there will be a great many people who will practically be forced into crime. After all it is a fundamental principle that people have the right .to live; I repeat, they have the right to live. Each person feels that right. For the life of me I cannot see how any government can claim the loyalty of individual citizens if it does not in some way provide for them a means of livelihood. In the absence of some such provision the very basis of organized government is swept away.
At this time I would like to call the attention of hon. members of this 'house to other classes who have not been provided Jor. Let us for instance consider the imperial veterans. We are endeavouring and are succeeding fairly well in providing for our own returned men. However, there are a great many people who were encouraged to come to this country after the war; they were imperial veterans. They came to our land with the intention of making it their home and for a year or two they did very well. Then there came the present depression. What are they to do? Our laws are not sufficiently wide to cover those people. Our own veterans are being cared for but the imperial veterans are not. Perhaps hon. members might say that they should look to Great Britain. However, they broke their relationships with the old land when they came to Canada. As individuals they are helpless. Hon. members can readily understand that the individual imperial veteran cannot write to Great Britain in the hope that he may receive relief. It would seem to me therefore that we should make special provision for the care of this group of people.
Then there is a large group of people who have been in the country for a period less than five years, or in individual cities for periods of less than one year. In many cases the period of one year is taken as the period necessary to establish residence. These people cannot be blamed because they found it necessary to drift from city to city. The fact is that a very large number of our
472	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Woodsworth
transient labourers must move from plage to place to find work, so they cannot establish residence in any one city. The governing body of the individual city however feels that it is not under any responsibility to take care of such transients. I sympathize with the ratepayers of those cities. In the city of Winnipeg we have had thousands of people crowd in upon us from every quarter and we as citizens have felt that we have been asked to carry an unjust burden. Yet the indvidual unemployed transient is helpless; what is he to do? He has been in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and in a dozen places of northern Ontario getting jobs for short periods of time. In the proper sense of the term he cannot establish residence in any one of these places. I say it becomes necessary to take care of that group of people. Because of the fact that the relief is being cut off at the end of this month by a great many municipalities it seems to be that some provision should be made for those people, at least for the next few weeks.
The most serious aspect in this whole situation is the fact that the unemployed man is regarded as a near criminal. I take it that that mode of thinking is a relic of the old pioneer days in which most of us Canadians have been brought up. Undoubtedly in the old days any man who w-anted a job could readily find it. If he could not find it on his own farm he could go to that of his neighbour, and in those days they were anxious to have hired men. If he could not find employment on the farm he could go back to the bush; most of our people did go to the bush for several months during the winter. If a man could not find work in the city he could go out on construction work, but to-day construction work is very limited in extent. The days of the rapid building of our railroads are past. There are not the possibilities for work which existed at one time when the west was so rapidly opening up. Now, what are we to do under these circumstances? If a man cannot obtain work in Winnipeg he may-go to Regina, but he may probably find more unemployed men in Regina than there were in Winnipeg. He could go up to the Pas and as happened last spring he would find himself stranded with several other hundred men waiting to go up to Churchill. He may return from the Pas by freight train, as hundreds of them did, and go to Saskatoon. That is the situation with which we are faced today. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we can

deal fairly with this question until we clear our minds of the conception we gained in our earlier pioneer days regarding unemployed men. We must recognize frankly that today it is not a crime to be unemployed; it is no crime whatever. It is not even an indication that a man is of low mentality, that he is lazy, useless or anything of that character. Many of our best men are caught at this time. That fact ought to be recognized and we ought to treat those unemployed men as self respecting citizens. Of course I would admit that if a man has some weakness, if he drinks or is lazy he might be the first to be turned off. The fact remains however that he has been doing work and that if suitable work were provided he would be at work again. I think we ought not to treat our unemployed men as criminals or near criminals.
I do not wish to expect too much from the government with regard to this question of unemployment. It may be true that the Prime Minister said that he would abolish unemployment. Well, if he expected to do that he was evidently mistaken; if the electors voted for him on that ground they also were mistaken. The very worst that can be said is that the government occupies its official position more or less under false pretences, or because they themselves were not apprised of the significance of the situation. I am not going to go into the political side of the question howe'er; probably we have had enough of that. To-day we are actually facing a very serious situation and I ask:	"What can be done
about it?" For several years we in this corner of the house have urged that provision should be made in the form of unemployment insurance. Unemployment insurance has been ridiculed as a dole. If one can properly interpret the speech delivered not long ago by the Minister of Labour (Senator Robertson) it would seem that we were not to have anything in the form of unemployment insurance in the near future. I have never suggested that unemployment insurance was a solution of our difficulties. The only solution is to find employment; and behind that, the still more fundamental problem the distribution of what is produced. But in the meantime I do suggest that unemployment insurance might help to tide over the present extremely critical situation. It has been despised as the dole; but I submit that nothing is more degrading than our present system, or lack of system, in providing relief. This practice of turning people out into the streets

Unemployment-Mr. Woodsworth
to stand in queues before soup kitchens; turning them out to beg until they are passed over to some mission which may keep them overnight; this practice that prevails in my own city, of giving relief tickets and sending men to all sorts of places to tide them over a day or so-this is all absolutely demoralizing. I ask the government therefore to consider most seriously the question whether it would not be possible in the near future to institute some form of unemployment insurance.
I do not want to be hypocritical in suggesting this, because I know the difficulties with which the government would be confronted. This is not a time when there could be any reserve piled up through contributions. We are in a period when the majority of people think it is a time to economize. I do not agree with that policy, but the majority of people take that position. I know the government would face grave difficulties in instituting unemployment insurance at this time. More than that, I am doubtful-and I say it frankly-whether unemployment is not so great that it would almost swamp the resources of any government that might attempt to relieve it in any adequate form. Nevertheless, it is at the same time incumbent on the administration of the day at least to make an effort to do something of this character, even though a full-fledged scheme might not be feasible.
Some of us perhaps are a little handicapped in advocating reforms of this kind, simply because we have come to the conclusion that the present economic system under which we are living is not capable of maintaining itself and at the same time taking care of the people. I think we shall have to face this fact in the near future. I know that when I make a statement of that kind many people think that I am simply ranting. When I cite the evils of the capitalistic system they say, no doubt, that I am simply taking advantage of an opportunity to voice a little cheap socialism. But we have reached the stage of the world's development where we have to face great economic facts; and even though some of the remedies may not be quite to the liking of some of those who in the past have advocated the present system and benefited by it, I submit that if such people want to maintain that system-I will put it on that ground for the moment-they will have to take some action of this kind. You can blow up a balloon to a certain limit, but if you blow it up too far, as we used to do as children, we know what the result will be. The balloon
bursts. Now I suggest that the balloon is pretty nearly at the bursting point, and if you really want to maintain the system as it is to-day I suggest that you let out a little of the air in the form of some relief to some of the people; otherwise there is apt to be a catastrophe. The balloon is apt to burst. I do not think that this danger can be simply swept aside as chimerical. If one looks at the financial system to-day, at the enormous dividends on which we are expected to pay interest, watered stock, and all that sort of thing, taxation and the international debt responsibilities we have, I think it must come home to every thoughtful member of the house that we cannot stand a great deal more, unless indeed the system is considerably more elastic than most of us imagine.
It would seem to me that we have almost reached the point where we shall have to face the issue frankly. To which are we going to give priority? Dividends, profits, vested interests of all kinds, or, on the other hand, the needs of men, women and children? There are those who say it is quite possible to pay large dividends and high wages. There are some who say it is quite possible to maintain our banking reserves and at the same time take care of unemployment. Well, I would suggest that now is an excellent time to try it out. I doubt very much whether it can be done. The overhead has become so great that we cannot very well carry that overhead and at the same time look after immediate needs. If you say we can, then we agree at least on this: You look after the immediate needs in the meantime, with the idea that it may be one way of perpetuating the system, and I will look after those needs with the idea that this is only the beginning of a break up of the system, being convinced that human needs ought to come before so-called property rights.
Going into various municipalities and in my own city. I find on every occasion that it is taken for granted that the bond interest is the first claim, and that if you cannot pay bond interest there is no use talking about helping unemployment. I may be heretical; you may call me bolshevist or whatever you like; but I say that earing for the needs of men, women and children in the community ought to have precedence over bond interest. We shall have to face that sooner or later, and in that connection I am tempted to say this. When we remember that most of the bonded indebtedness was incurred at a time when the buying power of the dollar was approximately twice what it is to-day, I would say that in all justice you should at least cut the bonded indebtedness in two in order to

Unemployment-Mr. Woodsworth
give. even the most fundamental justice to those who have to pay the taxes to pay the bonds. There is the situation as we have it to-day, and in this house we have that alternative presented to us. We come to vote estimates and I find a considerable amount which has to be paid by the government on account of our public debts; or the amounts to be paid are statutory, and that settles it. If it is statutory it goes through without even consideration by the house; it goes through as a matter of course. And immediately we are told, "Well, we cannot provide for any of these fancy schemes, in relation to unemployment for instance; we cannot provide for unemployment relief or insurance because we have not revenue enough to go around." And the bugbear is held up, that we shall have to pay greater taxation, of which we are all afraid. There is enough wealth in this country to enable us to stand a great deal more taxation, if that taxation were upon the great corporations and were not levied, as it is today, upon the rank and file of the small people of the country. So long as there is wealth which is being invested in foreign countries by people who have made it in this country, I say there are sources from which we can obtain greater funds. So long as we in this country are allowing the greater part of the wealth to pass down to the next generation, there are sources from which we can obtain increased taxation. After all, it seems to me that we have to get behind these financial questions to the real fundamentals.
We have enough wheat in this country to feed the people; we have enough timber to build all the houses; we have enough clothing to clothe all the people. At the moment I cannot think oLa single commodity produced in this country of which we have not a sufficient supply to-day. There is no use telling our people to go out and work harder; we should tell them, from an economic standpoint, that they should work a fewer number of hours per day. There is no use telling our people we should lay up more goods on the warehouse shelves when the fact is that we should enable them, in some way, to get the goods off those shelves. The fact, as recognized by every economist today, is that the question now is not one of production but one of distribution, but most of us are still living in the earlier pioneer days when we had to produce more as the only way in which we could eat anything at all.
We are living in an. age of surpluses; the question is not to get more but to distribute what we have. The unemployment we have to-day is a result of the labour saving devices which have been introduced during the last

few years and the labour saving organization that has taken place, which together have resulted in greater efficiency. Unemployment has resulted from these causes, yet we turn around and treat the poor unemployed almost as if they were criminals. If we, as a community at large, have in any way benefited by all this wonderful development of the past hundred years it seems to me that the very least we can do is to care for those individuals who through the maladjustments of our system are thrown out of work.
I would ask the government and the Prime Minister to give the most serious consideration to this question, and I would point out again that if there was any occasion to call a special session in September to deal with this question, there is an equal or greater oocasion for dealing with it at this stage of the present session.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr Speaker, I had intended to speak on the address, and had listed this question of unemployment as one of the matters which I wished to take up, but I am glad to take advantage of the occasion and present my remarks to the house now. This was the one policy amongst all the policies of the government on which I felt compelled to unhesitatingly and unqualifiedly criticize the government, the lack of any mention in the speech from the throne of any preparation for meeting the unemployment situation not in the past but in the future. I admit that if you look at the speech from the throne with a microscope you will find a very delicate reference to it, but a very cautious reference indeed. I find that the reference is to suggested
.... possible safeguards against a recurrence of the present subordination to world forces.
That is a very mild way to refer to the unemployment situation. The other references to unemployment in the speech from the throne all deal with the past, as to what has been done and with what success those measures have met. The speech contains nothing whatever to give us any hope or any anticipation that the government intend to bring forward at this session any proposals to deal with what is immediately, or very soon will be, in front of us. I refer to the destitution which will be in evidence next winter.
I believe that next winter the unemployment situation will be worse than it was last year, and I have several reasons for making that statement. The reserves are all gone. The workingman, the small man who had

Unemployment-Mr. Neill
put aside a little sum of money in order to allow his daughter to go to normal school to become a teacher, or to help his son go to technical school, has had to use that sum of money in the support of the family. The car has been sold, and so on. Then again, the municipalities, and especially the smaller ones, are in the same position. They thought they had an unusual condition to contend with last winter and stretched their resources. They spent money when they had to perhaps borrow it in order to help the situation. They were compelled to do so or they would not have received the assistance of the government in unemployment relief. These municipalities will not be in a position to do the same thing next winter. Even the railways will not be able to help as they have last winter. The big railway companies have been subsidized by the government, at enormous expense, to anticipate their building programs. They can hardly be expected to project their developments so much further ahead in order to do the same thing again this coming winter.
We find that other bodies take a similar view of this matter. I have in my hand a column out of the Vancouver Daily Province dealing with conditions in that city. A special meeting of the city council was called to consider this question of the conditions which will prevail next winter, and one of the prominent aldermen said:
But we must have concrete proposals for next winter, and not just drift along.
I am afraid we are just drifting along here, and will continue to do so until a desperate situation faces us. Then we find, as one of the hon. members who preceded me said, a reference to a small riot that took place last week in Vancouver. There were over 1,500 unemployed men engaged in that riot, in the middle of spring when there should not have been any person out of work. God knows how many more unemployed men were not engaged in that demonstration. In the same paper we find that a delegation went down from Nanaimo to Victoria asking the government what they were going to do to relieve the situation in that coal mining area, which is very bad at the present time. Again, in the last paper I reecived from home I find that Premier Tolmie is coming down here-and this may be news to the Prime Minister- to ask that $100,000 be given to the city of Vancouver to help out their present unemployment situation without the city being asked to match it dollar for dollar, because the city frankly state they have followed that policy up until now, but that the civic funds for relief purposes are virtually exhausted.
What are they to do unless Premier Tolmie can get that $100,000, and not on the basis of dollar for dollar?
As I say, now is the time for us to make preparations for next fall and next winter. We do not want to have to call a special session of parliament to deal with the situation, so now is the time for us to consider what plans can be made to meet the inevitable destitution that will ensue next year. I saw the case of the unemployed summarized in a couplet the other day, and with the permission of the house I will place it on Hansard. It was as follows:
Five wolves hunt for the soul of men
And all have hunted me.
Hunger and cold and fell disease,
Aloneness, misery.
I think that puts the situation in a sentence. I might go further than that and say, "Let us beware lest we allow these wolves to be turned loose on society." They have tasted blood, so to speak, in the sufferings of the unemployed, the destitute unemployed and their wives and children, but suppose they are not satisfied and want more. What a feast they would have if they were turned loose on the leaders of society, the big magnates of business, these people who feel secure in their wealth and position, some of them fortified by having it handed down for a generation or two. These people have acquired a sort of smug, contented outlook on life; they have really come to believe that they are of finer clay than the common run of humanity, and they think that no matter what suffering may come to the submerged masses, as the saying is, it never can come to them. I would suggest, however, that they be not too sure, because what has happened in the past may happen again in the future. We admire the massive bulwarks of the great concrete dam, which holds back waters which have a potential energy of a million horse power. But dams have been known to crumble and the greater the dam the more disastrous its deathdealing capacity, the more terrible the on-rushing force of the water which overwhelms the whole community.
In our day and generation it is not good to permit dry matches and powder to be too close together. It has been said that the cause of the French revolution was a remark made by a gentleman of high rank to the effect that if the common people were starving they could eat grass. Of course, that is quite wrong because a silly remark by an ignorant man was not the cause, but only the match which set fire to the powder, which was the realization by the people of the great chasm existing between what were called the upper
Unemployment-Mr. Irvine

and the lower strata of society; the litter lack on the part of the ruling classes of comprehension of, let alone sympathy with, the misery and degradation suffered by the masses of the people. The result was that the dam burst, and out rushed the pent-up forces of these desperate people, just like the water, careless of where it went, striking recklessly and wildly, doing great harm in the manner perhaps least calculated to produce the needed reforms of which the people themselves were only imperfectly aware. So, Mr. Speaker, I might warn the wealthy, ruling classes.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where are they?


Alan Webster Neill: We should take steps now, not to prepare against a revolution but to prevent the causes of revolution. An hon. member asks: Where are the wealthy ruling classes? They are to be found in almost every country of the world in spite of our supposed democratic systems of government. If you doubt it, Mr. Speaker, obtain Bradstreet's report on the financial resources of the federal cabinet ministers. Or, if you like, do the same thing with reference to the cabinet ministers of the province of British Columbia. If that does not satisfy Your Honour, go to the big moneyed companies of Canada and inquire if they do not expect something in return for their large campaign fund contributions. Were those contributions made simply from a love of humanity? I rather doubt it.
It behooves us to consider how we can meet this situation or overcome these conditions. Remedies will have to be adopted and policies considered which are of a far-reaching character. Greater cooperation than that which now exists will have to come about between capital and labour. To-day some of the farsighted industrialists of the United States are looking towards that greater cooperation. I will not use the expression, "production for use and not for profit" because that would hurt the sensibilities of some hon. gentlemen opposite, but perhaps some of the best ideas conveyed in that phrase will sooner or later have to be adopted in our economic system. However, that is for the years to come, and in order to meet the situation which we will have to face for the next ten years there should be some form of unemployment insurance. As the hon. member for Winnipeg said, that cannot be brought about in a day because it would necessarily take time and be a contributory scheme which would have to be worked out by the best actuarial ability we have. The only thing we can do meantime is to make some provision for the emergency which is confronting us and provide work for the coming winter. That would mean the 
voting of money and the laying out of a program possibly somewhat similar to that carried out at the special session.
Let me conclude my remarks with a quotation from a hymn. I will mention that this is taken from the hymn book of the United church, because otherwise it might be thought that I was lending myself to communistic or bolshevik propaganda. This hymn is as follows :	.
When wait Thou save the people,
Oh, God of mercy, when;
The people, Lord, the people,
Not crowns and thrones but men.
Lord save the people, Thine they are,
Thy children like Thine angels fair.
From want, oppression and despair God save the people.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, the matter which has been brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) is one of great importance to every hon. member of this house and to the country as a whole, but I regret very much that it should have come up in the manner in which it has. The government and the house being very anxious to get certain business completed, I shall occupy only five minutes of the time of the house. This subject is of such importance that I could not sit quiet without taking part in the debate.
I desire to suggest what to me seems to be the practical thing to be done under the circumstances. If the distress in the country is as great as hon. members have represented it to be, there is no doubt that the government will have to take similar action to that taken last year. There is no doubt that had that action not been taken conditions to-day, bad as they are, would have been worse. It will be necessary to dip into the treasury and spend some money if present conditions continue and I suggest the following, not as a solution for unemployment, but as a practical proposition for immediate relief. The farmers are in need of relief. The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) is asking that certain definite relief be granted for agriculture, and the government may have to do that. My suggestion is that the government purchase so many thousands of bushels of wheat, the eggs that are now rotting without a market, as well as the meat impossible of purchase by hundreds of thousands, and establish in every city a distributing food centre for those out of employment. That would settle the grub-stake of those people and with the same money would provide a certain amount of relief to the farmer.

Unemployment-Mr. Heenan
I would suggest also that the government build highways and undertake other public works as quickly as possible so as to create employment. In order to do this, the government should issue treasury notes which could be taxed back again when times improved. Times will become better; we will have another of those funny things they call cycles no matter which government is in power, and then these notes can be taxed back and no increase will be incurred in the national debt. Those are my suggestions and I will not stop to develop them. I am sure that the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is listening, as well as the hon. ministers on the front benches, and probably they will do something about it. Hon. members who have spoken during this debate have spent too much of their time in discussing fundamental problems without considering the matter of immediate relief. I hope if any more speak they will be more specific as to what should be done after to-morrow when the relief will be withdrawn.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Speaker, when a similar debate took place at the last regular session I recall that I was criticized by the then opposition, now the members of the government, for having allowed so many speakers sitting on the opposition benches to discuss this important question without my making a reply on behalf of the government. Several hon. members of the apposition have urged today that something be done for the relief of unemployment, and yet not one member of the government has risen to state the case of the government. At that time I had to confess that although I was vitally interested in the question of unemployment, I had not suggested and could not suggest a cure for it; but the present government, during the last campaign, assumed the responsibility of ending unemployment. Therefore if the members for the Winnipeg constituencies and the hon. member for Vancouver South, the three Labour members, urge upon the government of the day to do something towards relieving unemployment, the responsibility is one which the government has taken upon itself. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) when speaking at Regina on June 10 last, as reported in the Leader-Post of June 11, had this to say, referring to the government of the day:
They play with the lives of men and women. What for? Do they realize there are lives that they are playing with, food for wives and children, hunger? Nine years of wasted effort before the great betrayal. It did not take Judas that long.
Again, speaking at Regina on the same day, as reported in the Toronto Globe of June 11, he said:	[DOT]
When you gamble with a nation's prosperity for power the result is inevitable. The government of to-day has not seen the to-morrow,'- they have only thought of to-day and thinking only of it the result has been that now we have unemployment, people walking our streets, men and women hungry,-we have all these things in this great rich country.
Again, speaking at Moncton on July 10 last, the present Prime Minister had this to say:
The Conservative party is going to find work for all who are willing to work, or perish in the attempt. It is going to call parliament at the earliest possible date after July 28 and take such steps as will end this tragic condition of unemployment and bring prosperity to the country as a whole. . . . Mr. King promises consideration of the problem of unemployment.
I promise to end unemployment. Which plan do you like best?
Again, speaking at Quebec, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of July 14 last, the present Prime Minister said:
There was no necessity for a conference on unemployment, he continued. The solution was too apparent. "What you want is work," he exclaimed, "not conferences, and you are going to get work." Unless his promises to the people of Canada were kept if elected to office, Mr. Bennett said he wanted Quebec and other members of his party to vote him out of office.
There are other promises along those lines, but I am not going to take up the time of the house in quoting them. In view of these statements it seems strange that not one word with respect to how the government proposes to end unemployment is contained in the speech from the throne. It was not surprising, therefore, .that the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) should inquire a few days ago as to what the government proposed to do with respect to the relief of unemployment. I am sure every hon. member W,as astonished that the government made no answer to his question. Under the circumstances it was the duty of the hon. member for North Winnipeg to bring the question before the house in the only way that I suppose he could do so. It was also surprising to find that instead of inviting suggestions from the opposition or from members sitting behind the government, members of the government rose in their place m order to endeavour to prevent a discussion from taking place. I consider it is the duty of the government to make a statement to the house and to the country as to how they propose to end unemployment.
There is no question that the unemployment situation is far worse than it was when
Unemployment-Mr. Heenan

the Prime Minuister made those promises to the people. One has only to take the figures supplied us over the signature of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) as of March 1. Hon. members will find that when my hon. friends took office in August last, the index of employment reported by over 7,000 firms in Canada stood at 118.8, and that a decrease occurred every succeeding month until on March 1 it stood at 100.2, or more than 18 per cent fewer employed in those industries than when my hon. friend took office. That is a confession of failure. I do not know what opportunity my hon. friends from Quebec and other districts who are sitting behind the government are going to take advantage of in order to do as the Prime Minister invited them at Quebec to do, namely, vote him out of office. But while they are considering that matter, we might point out that under the measures brought down during the special session, the government appropriated $20,000,000 for the relief of unemployment and made contributions to the municipalities and the provinces, with great beating of drums and blowing of trumpets, but they actually withheld public works for which appropriations had been made by the preceding Liberal government and which would have employed workmen throughout the country. According to the report of the Department of Labour, work amounting to 3,975,355 days' work was supplied to 228,355 men, an average of sixteen days' work per man from the time the act went into force until the first of March. Under what conditions? The conditions hetT out in the regulations and under which the grant was made to the provinces and the municipalities, provided that the prevailing rate of wages should be paid to the workingmen, and that the same working conditions should apply. Nevertheless we have in northern Ontario, of which I am most conversant, men working to-day at starvation wages, not at prevailing rates that obtain in the district, and under such conditions that if they open their mouths for a minute they are deprived even of the pittance they are receiving.


Mr. ARTHURS:: What are the railway companies paying for the same class of labour?	[DOT]


Peter Heenan: Forty-three cents an hour for the lowest paid men they have. Doe3 the hon. member want me to show him the contract indicating what the men are receiving ?


James Arthurs: I do not think the exMinister of Labour is correct in that.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be interrupted. One of the ministers of the Ontario government, after I spoke at Hamilton, stated that in northern Ontario they were paying the same rate of wages that obtained on the railroad. I have in my office a schedule of wages and working conditions showing that the wages of the sectionmen on the railway run from forty-one to forty-three cents an hour.


James Arthurs: I am talking about the extra gangs.


Peter Heenan: Why does the hon. member not raise the question as to what they are paying in Russia instead of looking for the lowest wages in Canada?


James Arthurs: We are talking of conditions in Canada.


Peter Heenan: I have in my hand a
schedule showing the prevailing rate of wages in northern Ontario. When I had the honour to be Minister of Labour, we had public buildings under construction in northern Ontario and we had officers who went out and secured figures showing the prevailing rates of wages, according to the Labour Gazette for December, 1930, the prevailing rate of wages paid on the public building at Keewatm was 42-J cents an hour for common labour and 50 cents an hour for skilled labour. In the same territory, an Indian public school was being erected at Kenora, and the rate of wages paid on that building for common labour was 42i cents an hour, as reported in the Labour Gazette for February, 1929. On a public building at Fort Frances, according to the Labour Gazette for October 1929, common labour was paid 40 cents an hour and skilled labour 50 cents an hour. The Labour Gazette for August, 1930, reports that on a public wharf at Kenora common labour was paid 42i cents an hour.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are the prevailing rates of wages in my district, and yet in spite of the agreement that was made between this government and the government of Ontario, the provincial government is denying to its labourers a proper scale of wages as provided for in that agreement. I was very glad to hear the Acting Minister of Labour in this house (Mr. Gordon) say in reply to a question I put to him the other day that if any provincial government or other body was not pp.ying the prevailing rate of wages the federal grant would be withheld until the wage rate

Unemployment-Mr. Pouliot
was adjusted. I thank my hon. friend for saying that; it is what I expected him to say.
I would point out to the minister that it really means the holding back of thousands and thousands of dollars of which the workingmen of this country have been robbed up to the present time, and in that connection I would suggest that as there have been three million working days up to the present, and I am satisfied that in many instances as much as one dollar a day has been withheld from these men, say three million dollars, a royal commission should be appointed in order to see that these men get justice. I know the conditions that prevail all through northern Ontario, and I know that if any of these men had complained that they were being deprived of this pittance, they would have felt the heavy hand of the Ontario government, acting for its own selfish ends. I do not intend to take up more of the time of the house; I think that we should have some answer from the government.
I could go on and advocate a policy of unemployment insurance. I am satisfied that if the government of the day will follow up what was done by the late administration, we shall have unemployment insurance in this country before very long. This house has already gone on record as endorsing the principle of a contributory system of unemployment insurance. The house did declare that under our constitution it was a matter coming under provincial jurisdiction, but declared further that the matter should be taken up with the provinces at the first Dominion-provincial conference. We were in touch with the provinces in connection with the matter before we left office. Some of the provinces have endorsed that principle. I noticed that only the other day the premier of Manitoba stated that that province was in favour of unemployment insurance and had conveyed its ideas to the Dominion government and asked for a conference, but as yet had not been advised as to any such conference. I consider that it is the duty of this government to state, not only to the hon. members from Winnipeg, but to the whole house, what they propose to do, not simply to end unemployment but to relieve immediately the present urgent conditions.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): I have a few remarks to make, Mr. Speaker, before the end of the fiscal year Yesterday I asked the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) if the items in the estimates that were not expended during the fiscal year lapsed to-night at twelve o'clock.
He said, yes. I am very glad to see my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) in his place. I am very sorry that the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) is not present, but I would ask the Prime Minister to ask the faithful messenger who brought down the Welland canal contract last night to 'look after the Minister of Marine this afternoon.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways are both familiar with the question which I am about to bring before the house. I have already supplied them with all the facts relating to the non-building of the station at Riviere du Loup by the Canadian National Railway.
There was first a report by the director of the provincial board of health, dated December 21, 1928. It is in French, but I will read it for the benefit of my hon. friends who both understand the French language very well. It is addressed to the Acting Chief Commissioner of the railway commission, and reads:
Quebec, December 21, 1928. Mr. Thomas Vien, K.C.,
Acting Chairman,
Railway Commission,
Ottawa, Ont.
My Dear Mr. Vien:
Complying with my instructions, Doctor A. Barabe, medical officer of the Sanitary Unit of the county of Temiscouta, accompanied by Doctor Dumais, District Inspector of Health and Mr. Labelle, Inspector of the Unit, inspected the station of the National Railways, at Riviere-du-Loup.
I have just received their report and I deem it my strict duty to forward you a copy without further delay.
The perusal of this report will acquaint you with the unwholesome sanitary condition in which the Riviere-du-Loup's station is kept. This railway centre is the most important existing between Levis and Moncton, and 1 hardly can understand why the public place herein mentioned is so neglected.
On many occasions we notified the officials of the Canadian National Railway, from Sir Henry Thornton down to and including the Divisional Superintendent, of the deplorable condition, not to say unwholesome in many instances, of the station under the management of the Canadian National Railways, in our province, and invariably we received the answer "That they would look into the matter, that the lack of appropriation had prevented them, heretofore making improvements, that certain reports received by us were exaggerated, etc," with the result in the end that nothing or little is ever done to meet our claims.
In no way, do I wish to impute to anybody intentions or dispositions which he has not. but 1 wonder how it is having visited many places in this country, that in other provinces we see tidy stations where hygienic precautions exist, while in the province of Quebec, some stations are in a deplorable state.
I am verv sorry to trouble you, but in dealing with dilatory methods to which some have
Unemployment-Mr. Poidiot

recourse in order to evade our requests, I cannot do otherwise than calling your attention to this matter. I hope you will forgive me and trust that I shall not have to publish the report in question in order to obtain satisfaction.
The conditions prevailing in Riviere-du-Loup exist in numerous stations in the Lake St. John and Chicoutimi districts, and in many other stations under the Canadian National Railway system, and to which I have already drawn the attention of the official authorities.
I feel confident that in bringing to your notice the state of things of which I am complaining you will find means to help us in the best interests of the population which the National Railway system serves in our province.
Your obedient servant,
The Director,
Dr. A. Lessard.
The conclusion of the report is as follows:
After reading this report, it seems to us that the conclusions are easy enough to draw. Tho fault lies in the condition of the building which is very old, and poorly kept. Adequate repairs would be difficult to carry out and with perhaps doubtful results.
Without being taxed with exaggeration, we wish to state that only a new building would answer the purpose, if the officials of National Railways have at heart improving this station to the satisfaction of the travelling public.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	What is
the date?


Mr. POULIOT (Translation):: I have not the date, but I may say to my hon. friend that it was sent by Doctor Lessard at the same time as the letter of December 21, 1928, to Mr. Thomas Vien, Railway Commissioner.
Last year during the special session, Mr. Speaker, I brought the attention of this government to the fact that before any further money for unemployment was spent the appropriations which had been made during the regular session of 1930 ought to be exhausted. Of the amounts allocated to the use of the Canadian National railways nearly $80,000 was put aside for the building of a new station at Riviere du Loup. That station, one of the oldest in the province of Quebec, was built by the old Grand Trunk Railway Company. The Canadian National Railways decided that it was time to build a new station. After conditions were explained to the railways and shipping committee, the money was voted by the house, but since this government took office nothing has been done. Money was voted for the improvement of the wharf at Riviere du Loup, but, on account of some strange circumstances which I explained to the Minister of Public Works the other day, only part of it was spent. There was money for the building of a post office at Trois Pistoles. The sum of $20,000 was set aside for that purpose, but nothing was spent.

Money was set aside for improving the wharves at different places, but only a portion of that money was spent as a measure of unemployment relief.
A resolution was passed by the chamber of commerce of Riviere du Loup on April 19,
1929,	asking for the building of a new station. Also on April 22, 1929, a resolution was passed by the town council of Riviere du Loup to the same effect. On May 1, 1929, the general manager of the Atlantic region of the Canadian National railways, Mr. Appleton, wrote as follows:
May 1, 1929.
Louis S. Pornmet, Esq.,
Secretary,
Chamber of Commerce,
Riviere du Loup, P.Q.
Dear Sir,-This will acknowledge receipt of your communication of the 22nd ultimo, enclosing copy of resolution passed at a meeting of the council of the Chamber of Commerce of Riviere du Loup, held on Friday, the 19th day of April, 1929, respecting Canadian National Railways station building at Riviere du Loup and would advise that this matter is receiving our earnest attention and the necessary arrangements are being made to include an item in our budget for 1930 covering the construction of a new station building and appurtenances, for the consideration of our executive officers.
Yours truly,
(Signed) W. U. Appleton,
General Manager.
The deputy minister of railways wrote me thus on Maj' 10, 1930:
In answer to your letter of May 5. I wish to advise that there has been included in the Canadian National Railways budget for 1930 an item of $77,136 for the construction of a new station at Riviere du Loup, P.Q.
This detail is taken care of by section (d)
of vote number 323, 1930-31 estimates.___
Yours faithfully,
Y. I. Smart,
Deputy Minister.
The total amount voted was $52,870,000. The amount necessary for the building of a station would be only a small sum as compared with the large sum I have mentioned. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that there has been no pressure brought to bear by politicians in connection with the building of this station. The matter was pressed upon the railway commission by the board of health, and following that the Canadian National Railways took action by putting an item in their budget for the building of the station. On May 28,
1930,	Mr. L. V. Hummel, principal assistant to the president of the Canadian National Railways, wrote me thus:
Dear Mr. Pouliot:
In reply to yours of May 19, I beg to advise that plans are now being prepared for a new station at Riviere du Loup.

Unemployment-Mr. Pouliot
As soon as these plans are ready, it is the intention to call for tenders, and have the work done by contract. In view of the size of the building, it is impracticable for us to construct the station with our regular B. and B. forces.
Yours faithfully,
L. V. Hummel.
On July 14, 1930, Mr. I. C. Rand, general counsel of the Atlantic region of the Canadian National Railways, wrote thus to the city of Riviere du Loup:
We are anxious that the work be proceeded with without undue delay.
He was speaking on behalf of the Canadian National Railways. I have in my hand a poster published by the Conservative candidate. This poster is full of promises and in section (e) of article 6 the promise is made to build the new station so long expected at Riviere du Loup. This poster was published on July 24, four days before the election.
I now come to the words used by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. During the campaign my right hon. friend spoke at Brandon, the constituency of the former Minister of Railways. What did the present Prime Minister say upon that occasion? In the Winnipeg Evening Tribune of June 23, 1930, I find the following:
Again declaring his opposition to an amalgamation of -Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways, Mr. Bennett said he had just heard a new canard to the effect that if elected he would appoint one of the Canadian Pacific Railway officers to the presidency of the Canadian National. "Can you imagine anything so ridiculous?" he asked. "I want to say that the Conservatives in power will give the Canadian National management a stronger support and a more disinterested support than they have had under the King administration. There will be less log rolling and interference. The management will be better able to carry out their policies without politicians butting in and trying to stop them.
On August 22 the hon. Minister of Railways wrote to the perpetual Conservative candidate in my constituency. That gentleman stated that he was independent from our leader and from Mr. Meighen, when he supported Mr. Patenaude. Later he became a partisan of Mr. Meighen and afterwards of the right hon. the Prime Minister. I hope his fidelity to the latter party will last long.


An hon. MEMBER:: He polled a big vote.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, but since then some
of the people who voted for him have been operated on for cataracts. The hon. the Minister of Railways wrote to that gentleman. The information I have in my hand is in the French language, but with your permission Mr. Speaker, I will translate it.
I have received your favour of August 20, with enclosures. 1 shall be pleased to do all I can with regard to your proposals or suggestions.
I believe I am properly quoting my hon. friend.
On September 19, during the short session, I asked concerning the prices submitted by each tenderer for the work on the Riviere du Loup station. The reply was that it was not in the interest of the public or the railway to divulge any information of this character. Then I asked two further questions:	What
tender was accepted, and on what day; and on whose recommendation would this work immediately be carried out. The answer was that no tender had been accepted and the matter was under consideration. That was several weeks after the tenders had been received in Moncton. I am told that those tenders reached Moncton on August 26. The government were then studying the matter very carefully; I believe they were thinking about it. On October 3 my hon. friend the Minister of Railways was on his way to Hudson bay. He was replaced by the acting minister, the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley), who was sworn as such on October 7. I am sure the Prime Minister will admit that the hon. member for Argenteuil was sworn in as acting Minister of Railways in order to put into effect the policy of this government to take a million and a half dollars from the unemployment relief fund in order to pay the interest on the proposed work of the railways, amounting to $21,000,000. That is the reason why the hon member for Argenteuil was appointed acting Minister of Railways. The Prime Minister is in the house and he will not deny it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know what the hon. member is talking about.


Jean-François Pouliot: I beg your pardon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know what the hon. member is talking about.


An hon. MEMBER:: Neither does he.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will repeat my statement for the benefit of the right hon. gentleman. That is the only statement I shall repeat on account of the limitation of time. I wish to set for him a good example by answering him, so that he may answer me when at a later time I put some questions to him. The point is this, that his colleague the acting Minister of Railways, the hon. member for Argenteuil, was appointed temporarily to that office in order to carry into effect the policy of the government to take $1,500,000 from the unemployment fund in

4S2

Unemployment-Mr. Pouliot
order to allow the railway companies to undertake new expenditures with a view to relieving unemployment. My hon. friends know it is true.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know nothing of it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, I am dumbfounded if the Prime Minister does not know anything about it. I would ask the Minister of Railways whether it is not a fact that the reason the hon. gentleman was appointed acting Minister of Railways at the time was as I have stated.


Robert James Manion: I presume he was appointed to act as Minister of Railways for all purposes. What the hon, member mentions is only one of them. The government dealt with it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Was he appointed acting Minister of Railways in order to refuse to sanction the construction work at Riviere du Loup?


Robert James Manion: Certainly not.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am very glad to hear my hon. friend say he was not, but as a matter of fact it was the first thing the acting minister did, because he was sworn in on October 7 and his first act was to send a wire to the Canadian National Railways informing them that he had refused to sanction the building of that station.
Yesterday I read two telegrams and I asked my hon. friend who had recommended to the acting minister that he refuse to sanction the carrying out of that work. He did not answer me, but he said that the cost involved was the reason why the station had not yet been built. The decision was arrived at under instructions from the acting minister, because -the Prime Minister is enough of a business man not to allow any department to be carried on without one of his colleagues in charge when the minister of that department is away from the capital. October 7 was the very day the newspapers announced that the Canadian National Railways were starting this program of construction throughout Canada from ocean to ocean. I have many clippings here, but I will not quote them now; I have not the time at present.
There is another point which I wish to mention. It was understood that there would be no politics in connection with the unemployment fund, and this is the presumed intention of the order in council of Friday, September 26. There was some correspondence between the Board of Railway Commissioners and the railways, who said that the repairs mentioned by my hon. friend in the telegram which I read to the house yester-

day were sufficient. But they said something further, insulting to my constituency. In a letter dated January 23, 1931, Mr. Alistair Fraser makes this statement:
The floor area is slightly over one-third of the area of the whole building and is ample to take care of all purposes.
There is no cellar in that building, it is falling to pieces; but it is good enough for the people of Temiscouata county.
I have another communication, a report from the medical officer, which was forwarded by him to the secretary of the railway commission on January 30, 1931, by the director of the provincial board of health:
Dear Sir,
I deem it my duty to forward to you the enclosed further report of the Sanitary Medical Unit Officer of the county of Temiscouata with reference to the unhealthy state of the station, at Riviere-du-Loup.
As you will observe on reading this document, a building of such importance should have a cellar of equal dimension. As regards the sewer system, it is certainly defective and of a nature to be noxious.
It would be desirable that your Commission make the necessary representation in this matter with the Canadian National Railways.
My time is limited and therefore I will not read the report just now; I will read it tonight on the railway estimates. I brought the matter to the attention of the Minister of Railways, to whom I despatched the following telegram on February 25, 1931:
May I draw your attention to my letters of 16th and 23rd instant. As proposed repairs to Riviere du Loup station do not include construction of basement therein hot improvement tst ?ewer system nor repairs to foundation. U ill you sanction same as satisfactory although condemned by board of health? If you do not approve proposed repairs will you reconsider decision regarding immediate construction of new station building?
The reply was this:
Your telegram received in absence of honourable Dr. Manion. Minister acknowledged your letter 23rd before he left city yesterday.
F. T. Collins,
Private Secretary.
No further answer came. There is another letter from the assistant general counsel Alistair Fraser, dated March 3, 1931, in which the following statement is made:
In stations it is not customary to construct basements the entire area of the building, and the basement area is generally confined to a size suitable for the requirements of the heating apparatus and coal bin.
This is the policy of the Canadian National Railways. Now let me read to the house this excerpt from the Montreal Gazette of February 25, 1931:

Unemployment-Mr. Pouliot
W. W. Atterbury, president of the Pennsylvania railroad, announces that the company's $175,000,000 improvement program, which includes the erection of new stations, will cover a period of two and a half years. In the United States, as in Canada, it is evident that the railways have great faith in the future. They are giving tangible proofs of this and are furnishing extra employment when it is most needed.
Mr. Atterbury, as everyone knows, was the mentor of Sir Henry Thornton, in his younger days.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to sum up the matter. First of all, the board of health condemned that station as unhealthy and recommended the building of a new station; and the chamber of commerce-and city council of Riviere riu Loup, supporting the report, passed a resolution which they sent to the railway officials. Moreover, the general manager of the Atlantic region declared that it was important to build a new station at Riviere du Loup. And as a matter of fact the Canadian National Railways included in their budget, without any undue interference on the part of politicians, an item from that building. The Conservative candidate promised that that station would be built as soon as my right hon. friend came into power. And now, first of all, he asks the minister not to take any decision in the matter until he comes to Ottawa. That must be so, because the railway was anxious to have the station built. But we find that no action was taken on the tenders for the reason that all expenditures on railway capital, and otherwise, have to be approved by the minister. But this course would be followed in any case, as the minister knows. I say that in the first place there was interference in the fact that the Department of Railways did not go on with the matter, as it should have done, in accordance with the views of the Canadian National Railways.
A resolution was passed by the city council of Riviere du Loup on November 3, 1930. It is quite lengthy and if my hon. friends wish to have it I will read it on the railway estimates to-night. But my hon. friend the ether day said that the Conservative candidate had been working as hard as I have done for the building of the station. Why have I worked hard for it? First of all, because I am proud of my constituency. I believe such a shameful building as the present one is a disgrace to the community, and all thought that last winter, when times were so bad, would be the proper time to have a new building constructed.
My hon. friend the minister was fair to me in saying that I have been working very 22110-314
hard for that station. That is true, and I thank him for that remark, but he was very unfair in stating that the Conservative candidate has been working just as hard. The hon. gentleman himself has written to the contrary to the city council of Riviere du Loup. In a letter dated November 6, 1930, to the secretary-treasurer of the city of Riviere du Loup, he said:
Votre cite ne fut pas proposee d'une maniere speciale lorsque la question fut posee.
The translation is: "Your city was not proposed in a special manner when the matter came up." How did the matter come up? On October 7 the Department of Railways and Canals and the Department of Labour were joining together to give millions of dollars to the railways in order to allow them to spend a great deal of money to relieve unemployment. At that very time the Conservative candidate and his assistant were in this city. They did not go to see the Acting Minister of Railways, the hon. member for Argenteuil; they could not see the Minister of Railways, because he was on his trip to Hudson bay. They did not even see the acting minister, who perhaps has been exiled in disgrace to Buenos Aires because he stopped the building of the station at Riviere du Loup. The acting minister wrote the Conservative candidate and said, "You certainly did not come to see me during the past six months, nor have I had the pleasure of meeting you since the election last summer." If that gentleman worked so hard for the station how was it, when he came to Ottawa on October 7, Christmas Day for the unemployed, that he did not even go to see Santa Claus in the Department of Railways and Canals? Perhaps that was the reason why the right hon. Prime Minister chose one of the oldest members of the cabinet to represent Santa Claus, who was to give so many gifts to the people in order to help them. What has happened to bring about this discrimination against my constituency?
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, on October 7, 1930, Mr. H. P. Hazen, assistant chief engineer, Operation department, Canadian National Railways, wrote the following letter to those who had sent in tenders for this station:
Unemployment-Mr. Poidiot

Montreal, Que., October 7, 1930.
File 1920-217
Gentlemen:
With reference to your tender for the construction of new station at Riviere du Loup.
The Department of Railways and Canals has refused to sanction the construction of this new station, and all tenders and deposit cheques have been returned to the railway.
I am therefore returning herewith your deposit cheque for $8,398.30, and if you have not yet returned your set of plans and specifications, I would suggest that you do so at an early date, so that arrangements may be made to also return your deposit cheque for $50.
That letter would go to show that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals was wrong when he stated that his department had nothing to do with that. The letter Shows that the department refused to sanction the building of the station and that is why it was not completed.


Robert James Manion: May I interject a few words in an attempt to clear the air? This station was dealt with, as were other matters in the constituencies of other hon. members on both sides of the house, as a building program which could not be gone on with because of the decreased earnings of the Canadian National Railway and because of the large amount of money which this government had to raise for the purposes of the railway.


Jean-François Pouliot: When this matter was decided by the Acting Minister of Railways and Canals, the minister himself was not in Ottawa, neither was the Prime Minister or the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre), who has spoken along somewhat the same lines. That is why I have been indulgent so far with the hon. minister, but I will now inform him that he should speak only of things whereof he knows.


Robert James Manion: I do, but my hon. friend is not so particular.


Jean-François Pouliot: When I make a statement it can be proved. I speak the truth. What about what my hon. friend said in Toronto in December, 1927:-"I believe the Conservative party has been too honest in the past. Our party in the past has been too honest in strictly defending its position and policies on controversial and sectional questions." The Liberal party has been honest in the past and will be honest in the future, and that is the difference between the Liberal and Conservative parties.
I have been courteous enough to give two minutes, or one fifth of the remainder of my time, to my hon. friend, and I desire to proceed with my argument. My hon. friend

has stated that the two travellers have been working to have this station completed, but he knows that that is not ithe case.


Robert James Manion: It is the case.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the hon. gentleman does not know it, then he should not speak.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Dube has been working just as hard as or harder than the hon. member.


Jean-François Pouliot: Can my hon. friend speak of things about which he has no knowledge? Did he have a special channel of communication with his department, which was kept open while he was on his way to Fort Churchill?
Mr, MANION: The hon. gentleman called on me a number of times and discussed this matter; that is how I know.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before the Tory candidate knew the amount of the tenders he still expected that his partisan protege or partner would secure the contract and thus benefit both of them to the prejudice of the people in my constituency. Then when my hon. friend found that he could not satisfy the greedy appetites of his Tory friends in my constituency, the population as a whole were forced to suffer.
I have a high regard for the Prime Minister and he knows it. I have high respect for the Minister of Railways and will continue to hold that feeling so long as he does not repeat the erroneous utterances made by the Tory candidate in my constituency.
The Canadian National Railways intended to build this station at Riviere du Loup; the money was voted by parliament, but the elections came along and when the minister was asked to hold up this matter he did so. The department has refused to sanction the building of this station, which is a direct interference with the decision of the railway officials. It is " log-rolling and butting in " of the worst kind. The department was told: " If you cannot give this contract to my protege who submitted one of the highest tenders, do not give it to anyone else." The people were made to suffer because that man could not obtain the contract. I will say this to the right hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways: I have no desire to cause them any inconvenience, but I want to know what is going on. I promise them that if I do not receive a satisfactory answer I will demand an explanation for every dollar in the Canadian National Railways estimates. Those estimates will not pass before the com-

Unemployment-Mr. Denis
ing recess if that explanation is not given to the house. If such action is taken in connection with $100,000, what would be done with $13,000,000?
I believe the Prime Minister was sincere when he expressed such lofty ideals at Brandon. I trust that he will stand by those ideals, and that is one reason why I have attempted to let him know what is going on within the ranks of his party in order that he may have an opportunity of putting a stop to these practices.


Mr. ARTHUR DENIS (St. Denis) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased that the unemployment problem was debated, in the house, from the very outset of the session, because it is precisely the one to which our good Conservative friends resorted most during the last campaign in order to win the election. Since the very beginning of the session, I have closely followed all the very interesting speeches which were delivered in the house. However, I wondered why the hon. ministers of the crown seemed to neglect this matter. Seldom have ministers so persistently absented themselves from the house as has been done since the beginning of this session. They could certainly profit by the nice things we have said and show some gratitude for the good advices we offer them, with all due courtesy and consideration so as not to wound their susceptibilities.
Up to the present, only one or two of them have been bold enough to rise in their seats in order to uphold their policy. I well understand their bashfulness, considering the numerous pledges that they and their friends made during the last election campaign. They had to face a situation which, instead of improving became considerably worse, and, having no excuse to offer for their inability to remedy the ills which they pledged themselves to cure should they assume power, they preferred to remain silent. It is now, sir, eight months since the present government took over the administration of this country. Have we witnessed any change in the economic crisis under which we have been suffering for more than a year? Is unemployment still with us? Have our workers been able to get work to provide for themselves and their families? Have the farmers of the province of Quebec and other provinces found more remunerative markets for their products? Did the Prime Minister, while in England, find markets to facilitate the wheat sales of the western farmers who are grievously suffering because of this handicap.
I can positively state, sir, that the present government has done nothing to relieve the
economic depression which we are undergoing. It was nevertheless a pledge given during the last election campaign: In three days it was to relieve unemployment. The latter still exists, even to a greater extent than in July, 1930. The government failed to carry out its pledges. However, to be fair to our friends on your right, sir, I must admit that there is one pledge they carried out: that of having parliament meet immediately after the elections. The session took place in September last, at this emergency session the government had an amount of $20,000,000 voted to relieve unemployment, and thereby give work to our working classes. It was a splendid deed, and I shall not deny, sir, that the impression created among our distressed workers, was one of satisfaction. It is now more than six months since we voted that amount and I find, in a report published lately, that Quebec heretofore, received, out of the total amount, but $155,414, this includes $36,455 which was given as direct aid.
I wonder, sir, whether the act was of great assistance to the 30,000, or more, unemployed that we had during the winter, in Montreal? Can the government boast of having in any way relieved unemployment? I think, sir, that this legislation-like all their election pledges-was designed to lure the Canadian people.
The hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) feels quite hurt when we charge the government with not having fulfilled its pledges and shown incompetence by not putting an end immediately to unemployment which existed and still exists in this country; a crisis which they were to relieve in three days. On the contrary this crisis is, to-day, more acute. Our workers, in Montreal, are unemployed and I can state that the satisfaction which they felt in September last, has entirely disappeared. They are unanimous in stating that the government deceived them and are not worthy of the trust placed in them. In no way do I wish to put the blame on the Quebec government or the municipal administration of Montreal, but I state that from September to the beginning of this month no work has been carried out to relieve the unemployed. How are we to explain this delay? I, for one, find no other reason than the red tape to which were subjected our provincial government and municipalities previous to receiving the grants. I think, sir, if the present government had been sincere in having those $20,000,000 voted, a sum which was to give the unemployed a ray of happiness and prosperity, they could have handed over this sum to those interested in a more expeditious way, so as to have it distributed during the
Unemployment.-Mr. Denis

winter. No doubt the law had to take its course. For the time being, I do not object, provided however, that all the provinces be treated on an equal basis. That is not what happened and I intend to prove this fact immediately. In their eagerness to help Ontario-the latter having nearly always shown sympathy for the Tory policy-the present government authorized an expenditure of $2,000,000 over and above the amount allotted to her from the $20,000,000 appropriated by parliament, in September last, for the relief of unemployment. And this was done without any other authority than that of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion), who told the contractors:
Owing to the unemployment crisis, you may oarry on the work, I grant you $2,000,000 more. The province or the municipalities will not be called upon to contribute their share in carrying out this work.
What became of the authority of parliament? They scoffed at it, ignored it. To-day, in their meek way the government asks parliament to legalize an act the purport of whioh is to favour Ontario to the detriment of all the rate-payers of this country. I state again, it is always the same Tory policy, "favouring their friends."
Just think, only one job has been started in Montreal out of the grant voted to the unemployed-I mean the tunnel of St. Hubert street, under the Canadian Pacific Railway. Nothing else heretofore has been started. There is of course a shovelful of earth which was dumped into a small pail by a member of the Executive Committee of Montreal, at the Wellington street tunnel, under the Lachine canal, this is kept as a souvenir of this wonderful feat. Moreover the work has since stopped owing to some difficulty which arose between the Department of Railway and Canals and the city of Montreal. If this can be called a remedy to unemployment, then I state, on behalf of the numerous workers of St. Denis riding who suffered extremely from the crisis, that you have not lived up to your pledge and responsibilities, and I charge you with having failed to carry out your duty. You are too incompetent to remain at the head of the administration of this country. You now come and beg of us to give you an extension of time. Our answer is: what you were unable to carry out in eight months, you will not be able to accomplish in a year or more. Your policy rests on absolutely false economic principles. The high tariff changes adopted in the course of the emergency session have not resulted in the benefits hoped for. Quite the contrary the working classes which form the larger part of the consumers FMr. Denis.]
are still obliged to pay for the necessities of life, prices which are not in keeping with their wages. Worse than that, your high protective tariff, sir, has been profitable but to one class of people: the large financial and industrial interests. You have deprived the working class of the benefit of this fair and legitimate competition that we, the Liberals, were happy to grant through a moderate tariff, and which was detrimental to nobody. Both consumers and producers were fairly and equitably dealth with. That is why, Sir, that under the late administration, union and harmony always existed between capital and labour. Our country witnessed happy and prosperous days; now, I fear that under the present regime depression will increase and that the worst calamities are yet to come.
Eight months of administration, is too short a time to relieve unemployment! Yet, it is long enough to increase the public debt by more than $100,000,000, and too brief a time to find markets for the sale of our western wheat. Did not the Prime Minister, as well as his friends, state, that if the people sent them to the Imperial conference, they would force England to purchase our wheat? Did they not state that if dynamite were needed, they would make use of it to blast their way to success? The Imperial conference took place. The Prime Minister, together with some of his ministers were delegated to attend this conference, and they also returned but disconcerted and downhearted. No markets were found for our wheat.
The British government looked upon the proposals made as absurd, and they discovered that a Bennett was not a King or a Lapointe, and still less a Laurier. The government hide themselves under the mantle of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and try to impress on the people the idea that the proposals made in London by the Prime Minister were about the same as those made by our great leader in 1902 and 1907, at the conferences which he attended. Sir Wilfrid Laurier asked that a preference be given to colonial products, leaving, however, Great Britain free to grant it or not. He did not ask Great Britain to tax her food products so as to favour those of Canada. This, however, was done by the right hon. Prime Minister. Laurier would never have been so bold as to proclaim "Canada First" at a conference where all the delegates from the various dominions were convened to discuss the interests of the whole empire.
It is the first time that a Canadian Prime Minister made such a blunder, and I hope it will be the last time. Canada on that score

tJnem ploy men t-M r. Denis
was subjected to the worst humiliation. I am amazed, sir, that the members of the cabinet do not realize the great blunder which the Prime Minister of Canada made. I heard, the other day, the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) apologize, saying: " After all, the proposal of the leader of the government was not bo bad as our opponents contend, since all the delegates of the Dominion gave him their support." Did the hon. Postmaster General take the trouble to study and does he realize what is the total amount of business each Dominon does with Great Britain? Is he aware that Canada alone among the British dominions has a favourable trade balance- and does not this fact give him some matter to ponder over? If we sell to England for nearly $100,000,000 more than we purchase from her, is the Prime Minister jutified in stating: "Canada First"? It might, perhaps, have befitted the other dominions to express such a thought, exactly for the reason just given, as England was justified in her reply to the right hon. Prime Minister, "England First".	,
There is to be another conference this year. No doubt, the Prime Minister, profiting by past experience and remembering his "flop in England, will not be guilty of the same sin. This will be in the best interests of Canadians. No doubt, he will carry out the policy which has been followed up to the present by the Liberal party, and which gave such excellent results. In order to derive the best possible benefit from this conference, I think that the remarks of the Postmaster General should now find their application: "Should not the interests of the country, especially in the present crisis, have precedence over party interests?" The country needs markets to sell its surplus products; home markets are inadequate as an outlet for its products, and in order to engross such markets, we should avoid surrounding ourselves with a prohibitive high tariff, so as to prevent foreign products from reaching us. How do you expect to sell without purchasing from any one? That is, however, the exact policy followed by the present government, and it has been the cause of our export trade decreasing by nearly 894,000,000. Carry on, gentlemen, things are coming your way! In four years, our country will have lost its place of honour among the trading nations of the world to return to the rank of an inferior nation.
I hear it said by our friends on your right, sir, that since they are in power a great change has taken place in trade and industry. How wonderful they are! They have no fear of ridicule! But truth tells a different story.
Everything is tottering! Everywhere threats,
brawls and revolutions appear. Only last Saturday, over 2 000 unemployed tried to enter the city hall at Montreal, to ask for work. They were prevented by the city police. Being unsuccessful, they marched to the Champ de Mars where speeches were made, begging the authorities to put an end to their hardships and privations by giving them work. The working classes are tired of waiting. Again last week, in Montreal, hundreds and hundreds of workers invaded the municipal work-yards. They were seeking work but could not secure any.
This is, sir, the situation as it exists to-day. Not only in Montreal but throughout the country. Is the government aware of this? How can they find an excuse for delaying repair work to the extent of $1,500,009-amount appropriated by the late government -repairs which were to be carried out to the Wharf of the Pointe-du-Moulin-a-vent? Our unemployed would have been much relieved by such work during the cold winter days, bread and butter would have been thankfully received. The government cared not, the fate of the poor people seems indifferent to them. They preferred to delay this work because the lowest tenderer was not a favourite of theirs. The crisis which we are passing through matters little to them. The hardships of the unemployed matters little to them; what matters to the Tory government is protection to their friends. Let the country perish, providing that millions of dollars fill the pockets of their friends! The same old Conservative and Tory policy. People of Canada, my country, my cherished land, you must bear up, be patient. You are at the beginning of your hardships and troubles. Pray to God that He may enlighten the government in order that, at least, the evil done against our country be not irreparable.
Previous to resuming my seat, allow me, sir, to inform the hon. member for Jacques-Gartier (Mr. Laurin), and all those who think like him, that Quebec is not a Conservative province; it was so at one time, previous to 1S96, when education had not spread among the people. To-day, thanks to the education received, Quebec knows better, it has become Liberal, and it will remain such.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: That is why
the Conservatives carried off 24 ridings.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Your hopes are but wild dreams. You are in the opposition at Quebec and you will remain there for a long time, in order that justice and liberty may always reign in our province and the rights of minorities be respected. Harmony exists
4S8

Unemployment-Mr. Rheaume
among all the races which make up its population. May its example be followed by the other provinces of confederation.
The recent events which have taken place in Saskatchewan-among others the disallowance of French in public schools-are not of a nature to cement harmony and union which should exist among us, and such means will not help in making a great and prosperous people in this country. Let us resolve to cease our appeals to race and religious prejudices. Let us be fair and generous in everything and everywhere. We shall thus end by understanding and knowing one another better. It is -by concerted action that our country will more quickly and easily reach its noble destinies.


Mr. MARTIAL RHEAUME (St. Johns-Iberville) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I owe it to my constituents to apprise you that I represent the finest riding of the province of Quebec and of Canada, because, since confederation, it has always remained loyal to the Liberal party-this is evidence of the foresight; and enlightened patriotism on the part of the true Canadians of both sexes whom I am privileged to represent in the house.
My riding is both agricultural and industrial. The farmers carry on mixed farming and endeavour to improve their flocks. They have always been satisfied with the policy of the Liberal party and they understand that in a world-wide crisis the farming class may suffer like other classes in the community.
I listened closely to the speech delivered by my neighbour, the hon. -member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) who contended that the trade conventions of Canada with Australia and New Zealand were detrimental to the Canadian farmer. The farmers of his riding like those of my own carry on mixed farming. They therefore meet with the same conditions.
Last September, sir, we were called to attend an emergency session in order to vote $20,000,000 and thus settle the question of unemployment; that is, to fulfil pledges made by our opponents during the election. In answer to my hon. friend, the member for Missisquoi, who stated the other day, in the house that the city of Farnham, which is located in his riding, had recently made great progress, I 'have a letter here which reads as follows:
Farnham, Que., March 21, 1931.
Mr. Martial Rheaume, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir:-
With reference to our conversation by telephone, this afternoon, I wish to inform you that two new factories were established here in 1929, about the month of March: one the 
Collins & Aikman Company Limited, manufacturers of plush, etc., and the other the Dewey <fc Almy Company Limited, manufacturers of chemical products. In 1930, as I had recently the opportunity to inform you Barry & Staines Linoleum (of Canada) Limited, established themselves here, also about the month of March, 1930.
J. E. Lefebvre,
Secretary-Treasurer,
Town of Farnham, Que.
No other factory has since been established I must point out, sir, if the town of Farnham has progressed, if these factories were established there, it is due to the Liberal policy. I may add, if my hon. friend the member for Missisquoi is among us to-night, he owes his mandate to the pledges he gave during the last election. This gentleman with his friends went from door to door telling every farmer who had lost cattle as a result of the tuber-culine test, that he was authorized 'by his leader, Mr. Bennett, to promise $20 -for each animal killed within the last three years. I know farmers in that riding that have lost as many as 30 head. It was certainly an alluring offer.
As to the question of unemployment, I wish to state that in St. John we have an industry which employed, in 1929 and 1930, 1,400 people. Since September 2, 1930, to January, 1931, this factory worked 32 hours iper week, and since then 24 hours per week; in the week ending March 21, 1931, 42 persons were dismissed. There only -remains at present about 900 people working at this factory. I ask my friends the Conservatives where is to be found their success in relieving unemployment? The hon. member for Jacques-Ga-rtier (Mr. Laurin) stated the other day that the government had fulfilled all their pledges; that he himself had obtained the construction of two tunnels; I do not intend to -further discuss this subject because my hon. friend the member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) discussed it at length.
I do not wish, sir, to miss the opportunity of answering a remark m-ade a short while ago by the hon. member -for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion); he stated that the Conservatives had carried off 24 ridings in Quebec. I think, sir, that the hon. member for Quebec-Mo-nt-morency-I do not know what pledges he made -to his constituents-^must have taken his cue from the other Conservative candidates of Quebec. I cannot resume my seat without answering a remark -made by the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve), member for Laval-Two Mountains, who in his speech on Thursday last, rebuked the Liberals for not having made any suggestion. I think, sir, if the hon. Postmaster General had remained in his seat from the very outset of this debate on the address, he would certainly have heard

Unemployment-Mr. Maclnnis
suggestions made 'by members on this side. He was conspicuous by his absence. I well remember that last year he taunted the exmember for Laval-Two Mountains for having been indifferent to the debates in this house. The hon. Postmaster General at present seems to exhibit the same failing. I think that this indifference at times applies to him.
I also recall the pledges of the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) the member for Chambly-Veroheres-my neighbour-during the last election. I realize that his success in the election was somewhat of a surprise, like that of many Conservative members from Quebec.
I know that the hon. Minister of Marine made numerous pledges, especially to some of my personal friends whom he persuaded to vote for him because of the advantages and favours that he would grant them. Since parliament was convened I know of no bill introduced aiming at fulfilling the pledges that the Minister of Marine gave. He also promised an indemnity to the farmers who had lost cattle, owing to the tuberculine test; he promised that they would be paid at the rate of 82.50 per hundredweight; that their butter would sell at 45 cents per pound, and that the bridge between Longeuil and Montreal would be exempt of tolls. Conservative candidates throughout the country made numerous pledges to the electorate, however, if to-day new elections were held the result might perhaps not be the same.
I do not wish to delay the house any further;
I only wanted to take this opportunity of expressing my views. In the course of this debate on the return of prosperity in this country, the hon. members on your right, sir, censured us and at times these gentlemen told us: "Do give us a chance." A few days ago I had the privilege of listening to the speech of the hon. Postmaster General. I am not aware that he has prepared any program, he who always proclaimed himself, when in Quebec, 'the champion of the farming class. I think that he will take 'his cue from his leader whose policy is rather to favour manufacturers and industrialists.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: I should like to say a few words in
connection with the question raised by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). Probably like many other members representing an urban constituency, I have received during the last few days many letters and resolutions from various organizations in reference to unemployment in the part of the country from which I come. Sharing a room in this building with my hon. friend from North Winnipeg I took these resolutions to him in the hope that out of
his wealth of experience he could tell me what should be done. He told me that he would move the adjournment of the house to bring the question before it. I asked him what support he expected to get. "Well," he said, "last year we had the whole Conservative party with us." "That looks very good," I said, "because there are a whole lot more of them in the house this year, so we ought to make quite a showing." But to my painful surprise, when the question was raised this afternoon it met with the active opposition of the Conservative party, who were so sympathetic when the same question came up last year, and that notwithstanding the fact that the situation at the present moment is worse than it was on the 31st of March last year. In my innocence I could not understand what had caused such a change. Is it possible that to move from one side of the house to the other can change men's minds so radically, although the outward circumstances have not changed in the slightest, in any event not for the better? When the house is not sitting I intend to sit for a few moments on the other side just to note the psychological effect.


Mr. EDWARDS:: That is the only way you will ever get here.


Angus MacInnis: Perhaps, but you may
get over here.
In discussing this question, Mr. Speaker, I shall not approach it in a critical spirit It should be dealt with, I think, from at least four points of view. We should consider, first of all, the extent and the seriousness of the present conditions; secondly, what steps should be taken to meet the present pressing situation; thirdly, desirability of a full investigation of the causes of unemployment and of the economic depression; and lastly, what permanent steps may be taken to meet the situation generally and provide against these ever-recurring periods of depression.
Touching first on the seriousness of the situation, I am continuously in touch with my own city of Vancouver. Although perhaps there are not so many unemployed there now as a month ago, the number is very much greater than it was a year ago. Not only that, but the city's resources to meet the situation are not nearly so great as they were a year ago A deputation from the city of Vancouver met the cabinet of the local government at Victoria on the 23rd of March last. The chairman of the relief com-mitee pointed out to the government at that time that the city could not meet any funds that the government might have left

Unemployment-Mr. Maclnnis
over from the appropriation voted last September, and therefore the making of provision for the unemployed at Vancouver was up to the provincial government. On the same day a deputation waited on the city council to arrange for the reinstatement of 1,500 single men who had been cut off from relief under the act. On March 18, just a few days ago, 6,064 married men were securing unemployment relief. In view of a situation of that kind I think it rather strange that we have not heard a word from the government side of the house as to their intentions in connection with unemployment.
My hon. friend from North Winnipeg pointed out at the beginning of his remarks to-day that he had referred to this question about a year ago. May I quote a few words from Hansard of April 2, credited to the present Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) He said:
Mi Speaker, I agree "with the hon. member who introduced this resolution that it is the most important problem facing our country to-day.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if the subject of unemployment was an important problem facing our country in the year 1930, when the situation was not as bad as it is to-day, when the financial resources of the municipalities were not depleted to the extent they are to-day, and when the financial resources of the people themselves were not depleted to such an extent, how much more serious must that problem be now? Yet we do not hear a word from the Minister of Railways and Canals.


George Spotton: 
An hon. MEMBER:: We are not as wise
as the monkeys.
Mr. MaeINNIS: I quite agree that we are not as wise as the monkeys, in this particular at any rate. I suppose we think we have progressed very considerably since our savage ancestors roamed the forests, but if it were possible to bring one of those ancestors back to the world now, where he could see the hungry, cold, unemployed, with all this wealth at our disposal, he would rightly think we have not progressed so far after all. I continue quoting from this newspaper:
Instead of cooperating men separate themselves into groups. They build walls round these groups and sometimes one group will go mad and begin to throw stones at another. They have not yet learned to regard the earth as belonging to their whole race in common; they have not discovered how to organize themselves-their nations, their classes, their sects are not less quarrelsome and hardly less foolish than the gulls or the tomtits, which are very foolish little birds!
I think that is along the lines of cooperation which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been advocating in this house for many years, and surely it is time we began to have that cooperation in view

Unemployment-Mr. Maclnnis
of the fact that our efforts along other lines of endeavour have failed to assure the great majority of people in this country any decent share of the wealth which we are producing in abundance.
What is the reason for all this? The hon. member for Queens (Mr. Myers)-and I refer to this partly because Prince Edward Island happens to be my native land-stated the other day that no one seemed to know *what was the cause of unemployment. 1 have been wondering whether no one does know, or whether possibly some people do know and do not like to state the cause for fear of hurting somebody's feelings. I believe I know the cause, and in order that my hon. friend from Queens may go away from this house a little wiser than he came I am going to tell him, whether he believes me or not. The cause of unemployment is private ownership of the means of production. That is the one and only cause. Hon. gentlemen may ask for the proof of that statement, and I will give it. Let us suppose all the people in the world were gathered together in this room.
T admit that it would be quite a dreary place in which to live, but for the sake of argument let us suppose all the people in the world were gathered together here and that we owned everything in common. Could you imagine one of us going cold or hungry while we had all this wealth at our command? But supposing Mr. Speaker or someone else owned all the wealth, and the rest of us could have access to it only whenever he wished to let us do so whenever we paid tribute to him for doing so. You could well imagine our going hungry and cold in circumstances of that kind. That is the only cause of unemployment, and it will not be remedied until the machinery for wealth production is socialized and put in the hands of the people to be used for the common good.
Hon. members may think this is a wild statement to make, but we are not alone in that opinion. I hold in my hand a resolution which was passed at the regular session of the Alberta conference of the United Church of Canada, held in McDougall United Church, Edmonton. According to the Parliamentary Guide this is the church to which my right hon. friend the Prime Minister belongs, and for that reason if for no other he should give some consideration ito the resolution, which states:
Whilst we endorse and approve the Remit, in that it states certain items of advancement and improvements in reference to industrial conditions, and the increasing recognition of
human rights, yet we are convinced that such a statement is inadequate for the present time, and that the church should express itself in terms other than those which simply endorse principles that have for some years been ger-erally appreciated, even though the principles involved have not thus far become fully operative;
We believe that, in harmony with the teachings of Jesus, we should proceed as rapidly as may be possible to the creation of an order based on cooperation and service, which would displace the present competitive, acquisitive social order.
That is not my statement; it is the statement of the Alberta conference of the United Church. The resolution continues;
In the centre of the thinking of Jesus was man and his need, as a contrast up to the present the essential feature of the economic system is profit.
That is what we have been contending for years; that is what the hon. member for North Winnipeg and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre have been telling this house for several sessions. The resolution continues:
The present system has now been under trial for a sufficient period of time to lend itself to fair criticism, and the present unhappy condition of over-production, under consumption, unemployment, and attendant uncertainties, is its condemnation.
We certainly never used words any harsher than those in connection with the system under which we live.
We are convinced that in the Father's world there is a sufficient abundance of necessary commodities to meet the needs of His children. The demand of the day is to bring these commodities under Christian control and distribution, a result which finance under private control as the connecting link between production and consumption has failed to secure.
In the meantime, we advocate such methods as unemployment insurance, contributory old age pensions, along with a program looking forward to social control of the means of production, distribution and exchange.
We have never advocated more than that; we have never asked anything more than recognition of the fact that under the present system the more we produce the less secure is the position of the individual. All we are asking is that means be taken to change the system as quickly as possible to one that will give us a standard of living according to our ability and wilingness to work and produce. Just imagine the amount of wealth Ithat could be produced with modern machinery by the 300,000 unemployed who are walking the streets of this Dominion to-day, if they could only have access to the means of life. Just imagine it, and tell me whalt it would mean. Why cannot we have access to these means of life? As I said before, the reason is

Unemployment-Mr. Maclnnis
because these means are in private hands and we cannot get to them without paying tribute to some private person. There may be half a dozen or probably less than a hundred people in this Dominion who exact tribute from all the rest of the people for everything they eat or wear and for every move they make. The resolution continues:
We believe that society should regard enforced unemployment as an intolerable menace, producing an unemployable class with slum conditions, wastage of human energy and personality, and threatening war or revolution. We believe that governments should grapple with the problem with energy similar to what would be used in a national emergency.
I do not believe that the members of the government are alive to the present situation. We have similar conditions in every city, town and country district in the Dominion. The following is a portion of a letter I received from a gentleman residing near Saskatoon :
There is no money wherewith to pay taxes, store bills, interest on loans, etc., and the people in the north, while having produce from gardens, etc., to live on have not any money wherewith to buy clothing. One school teacher has asked for clothing for 57 children; another for 40; another for 34 and another for 16. Children cannot attend school because they have nothing but last summer's cotton underwear and canvas shoes to wear.
I think the suggestion made this afternoon by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) would help us considerably. Much more could be said as to why we are faced with these conditions and why we cannot expect any improvement in the near future.
I have here some statistics given by Sir John Aird at the annual meeting of the bank of Commerce held in Montreal, as follows:
From the period between 1926 and 1928 the population increased by two per cent, food production increased by 8 per cent and the production of raw materials by 11 per cent.
The people are much worse off in 1929 and 1980 than they were in 1928, although there was an increase of eight per cent in the production of food and 11 per cent in the production of raw materials as against an increase of two per cenit in population. We should have some explanation from hon. gentlemen who pretend to run the government of this country.
In conclusion, I beg leave to move-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Mr. MaoINNIS: I beg leave to move that all the words after-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member's time has expired.


Angus MacInnis: I was just about to move an amendment.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are too late.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Might I point out that under standing order 37-


An hon. MEMBER:: Wasting the time of the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I am not wasting the time of the house; I am witihin my rights in speaking on a point of order. Standing order No. 37 reads:
No member, except the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, or a minister moving a government order and the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister, or a member making a motion of "no confidence" in the government, and a minister replying^ thereto, shall speak for more than forty minutes at a time in any debate.
My colleague was about to make a motion and he is therefore entitled to speak for more than forty minutes.


An hon. MEMBER:: He did not do it in time.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member gave no intimation that he was about to make such a motion. He completed his speech when he spoke for the forty minutes.


Angus MacInnis: I move-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I call the hon. member to order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If Your Honour rules that we are to be (tied down to the forty minute rule when an hon. member was in the act of reading a motion, I must appeal against that ruling.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go to it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member had forty minutes in which to make his motion; he did not do so and he cannot exceed his time limit. Shall the motion carry?
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.



[Stage Direction]
Mines branch-for maintenance of the peat plant at Alfred, Ontario-further amount required, $1,450.
Mr. REID:: Is this vote a supplementary
amount, or is it the full amount to be voted for the entire year?

Supply-Labour


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the former Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) will be able to tell the committee, this matter has engaged the attention of successive governments. It has been the hope to establish a supply of fuel at this point. The plant is practically closed down and is in charge of a caretaker, and this amount is required to pay him up until to-day.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Annuities Act

further amount required, $30,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The right hon. the Prime Minister was to give the house some information as to what this amount is required for.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as the Annuities
Act is concerned, this amount is required to liquidate liabilities already incurred for the advertising of annuities and the payment to representatives and postmasters of commissions and allowances earned in getting business for which the appropriation in the main estimates was inadequate. A question was asked as to the change in advertising. The present administration continued until January of this year, the plan which had been carried out by the former administration. At the end of that month the contract with McConnell & Fergusson Limited was terminated. The real fact is that a deficit was carried over from the preceding year with respect to advertising and it became necessary to secure a larger sum to liquidate up to to-day the accounts that have been rendered for the service carried on in accordance with plans created by the former Minister of Labour as indicated in the memorandum which he left with the department, which memorandum I will not take the time to read, but which I will send over to my right hon. friend in order that he may see it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Who are
McConnell and Fergusson?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are a firm of
advertising agents who do business at London, Ontario, and contract for advertising throughout Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The information for which I asked specially was the amount of advertising that had been given since the present administration came into office, with the names of the firms to which the advertising was given, and the amounts paid.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The conditions that
existed at the time the present government came into power were continued till January, when the advertising was discontinued, and so far as I have been advised by the department-and I have inquired-no plans for advertising on a large scale have been made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That does not answer my question. As I understand the matter, the Department of Labour, through an advertising agency, has contracted for advertising in connection with the annuities branch, with certain firms in Canada, certain newspapers and journals. I should like to have a list of the papers to which this advertising was given, and the amount of money that has been paid to each of them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As regards the present
estimates, there are no such accounts that I know of beyond those contained in the statement which I made a moment ago. In the main estimates of last year the expenditure under this classification was $75,000. The estimate now submitted is for $30,000 more, making a total of $105,000. The details are as follows:
Salaries, $4,952.51.
Travelling expenses, $1,331.16.
Sundries, $2,665.86'.
Telephones and telegrams, $1,055.33.
Printing and stationery, $11,309.65. Advertising, $18,049.37.
Commissions and allowances to agents, $52,671.13.
Total expenditures up to date, $92,035.01. Between the twenty-seventh and the end of this month there are outstanding accounts to be taken care of amounting to $12,000 more, making the total of $105,000, including temporary salaries, $240, annuities advertising, $9,338.75, and commissions to agents, $3,386.24, the commission to agents being, as the right hon. gentleman will observe, $55,000 of the whole. That is the position so far as I know. I have not a list of the newspapers in which the advertising occurs, but I have one showing the number of contracts that have been made for annuities. I have a statement giving the amounts of money received and a list of the representatives in the various provinces, with the amount of money received from them. That is all the information I have upon the point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Last night,
before the house adjourned, I said, as my hon. friend will see on looking at page 501 of unrevised Hansard:
I understand that the Department of Labour gives advertising through an advertising agency. If so, I should like my hon. friend to give
Supply-Labour

us to-morrow a statement of the papers which have received advertising or printing in connection with the annuities branch of the Department of Labour since the present administration came into office.
I asked that question last night so that we would have the information before this item was passed, and I should like to have it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very good. No new
contract has been made. The old contract runs out because it has been terminated. The papers that received advertising not from this government but from the former administration, acting through McConnell and Fergus-son, are as follows:
Halifax-Chronicle and Star.
Halifax-Herald and Mail.
Charlottetown-Guardian.
Charlottetown-Patriot.
Saint John-Telegraph and Times.
Fredericton-Gleaner.
Fredericton-Mail.
Montreal-Star.
Montreal-La Presse.
Quebec-Le Soleil.
Quebec-Chronicle Telegraph.
Quebec-L'Action Catholique.
Ottawa-Citizen.
Ottawa-Journal.
Ottawa-Le Droit.
T oronto-Globe.
Toronto-Mail and Empire.
Toronto-Telegram.
Toronto-Star.
Brantford-Expositor.
Kingston-Whig Standard.
Hamilton-Herald.
Hamilton-Spectator.
St. Catharines-Standard.
London-Advertiser.
London-Free Press.
Kitchener-Record.
Stratford

Beacon Herald.
Peterborough-Examiner.
Oshawa-Times.
St. Thomas-Times Journal.
Windsor-Border City Star.
Winnipeg-Free Press.
Winnipeg-Tribune.
Regina-Leader Post.
Regina-Star.
Moose Jaw-Herald Times.
Calgary-Herald.
Calgary-Albertan.
Edmonton-Journal.
Edmonton-Bulletin.
Vancouver

Province.
Victoria-Colonist.
Victoria-Times.
New Westminster-British Columbian. Vancouver-Star.
St. Mary's-Journal Argus.
Then I have the rates, and in addition to that the magazines. Does my hon. friend desire me to read the names of all those magazines?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I Shall be glad to do so, although it has never been done before in this house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What nonsense! I take exception to my right hon. friend's statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has never been done
before in this house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It will be
done now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I am glad indeed to commend this desire for information on the part of my right hon. friend. The list of magazines is as follows:
Montreal-La Broderie Gorci.
Toronto-Canadian Magazine.
Toronto-Canadian Home Journal.
Toronto-MacLeans Magazine.
Winnipeg-Western Home Monthly.
Toronto-Canadian Jewish Review.
The week-end papers are as follows:
Montreal Standard.
Saturday Night.
They carried 500 lines for $205. The weekly papers are as follows:
Cornwall-Freeholder.
Cornwall-Standard.
Perth-Courier.
Toronto-Wilson's List.
Ailsa Craig-Banner.
Alexandria-Times.
Alvinston-Free Press.
Arichat-Record.
Arthur-Enterprise.
Athens-Reporter.
Ayr-News.
Bancroft-Times.
Beamsville-Express.
Beaverton-Express.
B eeton-W or Id.
Belmont-Enterprise.
Birtle, Man.-Eye Witness.
Blind River-Leader.
Blenheim-News-Tribune.
Blyth-Standard.
Bolton-Enterprise.
Bothwell-Times.
Bobcaygeon-Independent.
Bracebridge-Herald.
Bradford-Witness.
Brighton-Ensign.
Bruce Mines-Spectator.
Buckingham-Post.
Burford-Advance.
Caledonia-Sachem.
Campbell ford-Herald.
Cannington-Echo.
Carp-Review.
Cayuga-Advocate.
Clinton-News Record.
Cobden-Sun.
Colborne-Express.
Comber-Herald.
Cookstown-Advocate.
Creemore-Star.
Desoronto-Post.
Dovercourt-News.

Supply-Labour
Dresden-Times.
Dundalk-Herald.
Dunnville-Gazette.
Durham-Review.
Dutton-Advance.
East Toronto-Smiles.
Elmvale-Lance.
Elora-Express.
Embro-Courier.
Englehart-Times.
Erin-Advocate.
Fenelon Falls-Gazette.
Flesherton-Advance.
Fordwich-Record.
Frankford-Sun.
Glencoe-Transcript.
Gore Bay

Recorder.
Grand Valley-Vidette and Star. Gravenhurst-Banner.
Hagersville-News.
Harriston-Review.
Hastings-Star.
Havelock-Standard.
Hawkesbury-Echo.
Hensall-Advertiser.
Hespeler-Herald.
Highgate-Monitor.
Iroquois-Post.
Jarvis-Record.
Kincardine-News.
Kingsville-Reporter.
Kingston Rd.-Herald.
Lachute-W atchman.
Lakefield-News.
Lakeside-Leader.
Lanark-Era.
Lansing-Enterprise.
Little Current-Expositor.
Lucan-News.
Lucknow-Sentinel.
Mara Tp.-Monitor.
Marmora-Herald.
Markdale-Standard.
Markham-Economist.
Madoc-Review.
Magog-Enterprise.
Merlin-Standard.
Midland-Argus.
Millbrook-Mirror.
Mildmay-Gazette.
Milton-Reformer.
Milverton-Sun.
Minden-Echo.
Moncton-Times.
Morrisburg-Leader.
Mt. Pleasant-News.
New Hamburg-Independent. Niagara-on-Lake-Advance.
North Toronto-News.
Norwood-Register.
Oakville-Star.
Oakville-News.
Orangeville-Sun.
Ormstown-Bulletin.
Orono-News.
Paisley-Advocate.
Palmerston-Spectator. Parkhill-Gazette-Review.
Parry Sound-Canadian. Penetanguishene-Herald. Pickering-News.
Port Elgin-Times.
Port Dover-Maple Leaf.
Port Perry-Star.
Port Rowan-News.
Powassan-News.
Prescott-Journal.
Rainy River-Record.
Rich's Landing-Herald.
Ridgetown-Dominion.
Ripley-Express.
Riverdale-News.
Rodney-Mercury.
Russell-Leader.
Smithville-Review.
Seaforth-News.
Shawville-Equity.
Shelburne-Economist.
Southampton-Beacon.
South Mountain-Herald.
St. Claire-Gazette.
Stayner-Sun.
Stouffville-Tribune.
Streetsville-Review.
Tara-Leader.
Tavistock-Gazette.
Teeswater-News.
Thorold-Post.
Thamesville-Herald.
Thessalon-Advocate.
Thornburv-Herald Review.
Tilbury-Times.
Toronto-Chronicle.
Toronto-Intelligencer.
Toronto-Record.
Toronto-Truth.
Tottenham-Sentinel.
Trenton-Quinte Sun.
Tweed-News.
Uxbridge-Times-Journal.
Vankleek Hill-Review.
W aterdown-Review.
West Lome-Sun.
Westport-Mirror.
Wheatley-Journal.
Winchester-Press.
Woodville-Advocate.
Y onge-Gazette.
Zurich-Herald.
Winnipeg-Union List.
Abbotsford-Sumas and Matsqui News. Aberdeen-Times.
Acme-Sentinel.
Alameda-Dispatch.
Alix-Free Press.
Alliance-Times.
Alsask-News.
Amisk-Advocate.
Aneroid-Magnet.
Areola-Moose Mountain Star.
Asquith-Record.
Assiniboia-Reporter.
Athabasca-Echo.
Balcarres-Free Lance.
Baldur-Gazette.
Barrhead-News.
Bashaw-Star.
Bassano-Mail.
Battleford-Herald.
Battleford-Press.
Belmont-News.
Biggar-Independent.
Big Valley-Journal.
Binscarth-Express.
Birch Hills-Gazette.
Blaine Lake-Echo.
Blairmore-Enterprise.
Broadview-Express.
Brooks-Bulletin.
Brownlee-Herald.
Bruno-Leader.
Burns Lake-Observer.

Supply-Labour

Cabri-Times.
Cadillac-Journal.
Canora-Couri er.
Canwood-Times.
Carberry-N e ws-Express. Carbon-Chronicle.
Carievale-News.
Carmangy-Sun.
Carnduff-Gazette.
Carstairs-News.
Cartwright-Review.
Castor-Advance.
Central Butte-Herald. Cereal-Recorder.
Champion-Advance.
Chinook-Advance.
Climax-Climax.
Coleman-Journal.
Conquest-Enterprise. Consort-Enterprise.
Consul-Messenger.
Coronach-Courier. Coronation-Review.
Craik-Weekly News. Creelman-Gazette.
Creston-Review.
Crossfield-Chronicle.
Crystal City-Courier.
Cupar-Herald.
Cut Knife-Grinder.
Czar-Clipper.
Dauphin-Herald.
Davidson-Leader.
Daysland-Commercial.
Delia-Times.
Delisle-Advocate.
Didsbury-Pioneer.
Dinsmore-Enterprise. Dominion City-Star. Drumheller-Review. Dundurn-Enterprise. Eastend-Enterprise.
Edson-Jasper-Signal. Elkhorn-Mercury.
Elnora-Advance.
Elrose-Review.
Emerson-Journal.
Empress-Express.
Enderby-Commoner. Esterhazy-Observer.
Eston-Press.
Eyebrow-Herald.
Fairview-Northern Review. Fleming-Review.
Foam Lake-W. Review. Forestburg-Herald.
Fort Saskatchewan-Record. Foxwarren-News.
Gainsboro-Post.
Gleichen-Call.
Glenboro-Gazette.
Glidden-Broadcaster.
Golden-Star.
Govan-Prairie News. Gravelbourg-L'Etoile. Grenfell-Sun.
Guernsey-Standard.
Gull Lake-Advance. Hamiota-Echo.
Hanley-Herald.
Hardisty-World.
Harris-Herald.
Hawarden-Pioneer. Herbert-Herald.
Hodgeville-Standard.
Holden-Herald.

Holland-News.
Hughenden-Record.
Humboldt-Journal.
Imperial-Review.
Indian Head-News.
Irma-Times.
Kaslo-Kotenian.
Kellihar-Monitor.
Kelvington-Radio.
Kincaid-Star.
Ivinistino-Representative.
La Fleche-Press.
Lamont-Tribune.
Lampman-Chronicle.
Landis-Record.
Langham-Weekly News.
Lanigan-N ews.
Lashburn-Comet.
Leader-Enterprise.
Leduc-Representative.
Lemberg-Star.
Liberty-Press.
Lloydminster-Times.
Lockwood-N ews.
Loreburn-Herald.
Lougheed-Journal.
Loverna-Borderline Budget.
Lucky Lake-Broadcast.
Lamsden-News Redord.
Luseland-Despatch.
MacGregor-Herald.
Macklin-Times.
Macrorie-News.
Maidstone-Mirror.
Manitou

West Canadian.
Manor-Advocate.
Maple Creek-News.
Maryfield-News.
McCreary-Times.
Melville-Canadian.
Meyronne-Independent.
Miami

Herald.
Milestone-Mail.
Miniota-Herald.
Moosomin-World Spectator.
Morris-Herald.
Mossbank-Star.
N aicam-Progress.
Nanton-News.
New Denver-Leaser.
Nipawin-Herald.
Nokomis-Times.
Norquay-North Star.
Oak Lake-News.
Oak River-Post.
Olds-Gazette.
Outlook-Outlook.
Oxbow-Herald.
Oyen-News.
Pense-Herald.
Perdua-Record.
Pincher Creek-Echo.
Plumas-Standard.
Ponoka-Herald.
Preeceville-Enterprise.
Punniehy-News.
Qu'Appelle-Progress.
Radisson-News.
Rapid City-Reporter.
Redcliff-Review.
Rivers-Gazette.
Riverhurst-Courier.
Roblin-Review.
Rocanbille-Record.
Rockglen-Review.
Rocky Mountain House-Mountaineer.

Supply-Labour
Roland-News.
Rolla-Peace River News.
Rosthern

Valley News.
Rouleau-Enterprise.
Saltcoats-Herald.
Saskatoon-Community News.
Sedgewick-Com. Press.
Selkirk-Herald.
Semans-Gazette.
Shellbrook-Chronicle.
Shoal Lake-Star.
Simpson-Lance.
Si ntal uta-Times.
S orn erset-N e ws.
Stavely-Advertiser.
Star City-Echo.
St. James-Leader.
Stonewall-Argus.
Stony Plain-Sun.
Stoughton-Times.
Strasbourg-Mountaineer.
Taber-Times.
Three Hills-Capital.
Tisdale-Carrot River Recorder.
Tofield-Mercury.
Tompkins-Progress.
Trochu-Tribune.
Tugaska-Globe.
Turner-Valley Observer.
Turtleford-Sun.
Vanderhoof-Chronicle.
Vanguard-Times.
V ermilion-Standard.
Viking-News.
Viscount-Sun.
Wakaw-Recorder.
W apella-Post.
Watrous-Signal.
Watson-Witness.
Wawanesa-Independent.
Weldon-Weekly Star.
W elwyn-Herald.
Westlock-Witness.
Wetaskiwin-Free Press.
Weyburn-Herald.
Whitewood-Herald.
Wilkie-Press.
Windthorst-Independent.
Wolselay-News.
Wynyard-Advance.
Yellow Grass-Herald.
Young-Journal.
Zealandia-News.
Ste. Marie de Beauce-Guide.
Quebec-Le Journal.
St. Marys-Journal Argus.
Montreal-Le Miroir.
Montreal-Le Petit Journal.
Farm Papers
Sussex-Maritime Farmer.
Quebec-Le Bulletin la Ferme.
Montreal-Journal of Agriculture.
Montreal-Family Herald and Weekly Star *[DOT] (Dominion edition). Toronto-Canadian Countryman.
Toronto-Ontario Farmer.
London-Farmer's Advocate.
Winnipeg-Nor'West Farmer.
Winnipeg-Country Guide.
Calgary-Farm and Ranch Review.
Regina-Saskatchewan Farmer.
Ottawa-Farm Journal.
Labour and Special Papers
Ottawa-Can. Congress Journal.
Montreal-Knight News.
Quebec-La Nouvelle Revue.
Quebec-Les Affaires.
Toronto-Journal of Medicine and Surgery.
Toronto-New Outlook.
Toronto-Canadian Baptist.
Toronto-Catholic Register.
Toronto-Free Mason.
Toronto-Orange Sentinel.
Montreal-The Commerce of the Nation.
London-Catholic Record.
Winnipeg-Western Catholic.
Estevan-Canadian Postmaster.
Toronto-Labour Leader.
Montreal-Federated Railwaymen.
That exhausts the list.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my right hon. friend tell us how much was paid in advertising to the last six journals he mentioned?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The last six journals seem to have received sums as follows:
Montreal Federated Railwaymen, 300 lines (100 lines each in January, February and March), $75.
Toronto Labour Leader, 400 lines, $57.
Estevan Canadian Postmaster, ) page, $20.
Winnipeg Western Catholic, 100 lines, $12.
London Catholic Record, 1,650 lines, $198.
Montreal Commerce of the Nation, 100 lines, $25.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my right hon. friend advise me whether or not special consideration was promised to any of these publications by the Minister of Labour through advertising from the annuities branch?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Since July?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not so far as I know.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Could my right hon. friend state, as a matter of fact, that special consideration was not promised certain of these publications in the matter of advertising?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have read the list, which is very long. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman would say to what ones he refers, and I will get the information.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I prefer to put the question as I have put it, as to whether any publications were promised by the Minister of Labour special consideration in the matter of advertising under the annuities branch.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not so far as I know. But what does the right hon. gentleman mean by special consideration? Special prices for their services?
Supply-Labour


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am using the words I am using advisedly. Perhaps I shall let my right hon. friend know why a little later.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know what the right hon. gentleman means.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I know. Will the right hon. gentleman say for the Minister of Labour that no special consideration was promised any publication in the matter of advertising by the annuities branch?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman will have to be much more specific than that. I have never heard of it, and my colleague (Mr. Gordon) tells me that he has never heard of it. It would be very desirable for the right hon. gentleman to explain what he means by special consideration, so that we may inquire.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might explain that a form of special consideration would be that a publication might receive an extra amount of advertising from the annuities branch and would receive it because it was that particular publication that was getting it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My information from the minister is that no such promise was given. It is very important that there should be no misunderstanding. Perhaps my rijght hon. friend would say just what he means by those words, "special consideration." If he means that a promise was given of additional advertising, certainly there is no evidence of that that I know of; I have never heard of it. If he means that they were to get a higher price for the services rendered, I think that also could not possibly arise because the advertising is in the hands of an agency which makes the rates.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would ask my hon. friend to ascertain from the Minister of Labour whether he gave to any publication or to anybody on behalf of any one of these publications an assurance that it would receive special consideration. I am using the words that the minister is supposed to have used; that is the reason why I have used the expression "special consideration." I should like to have a definite reply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If those are the words the minister is supposed to have used I certainly will make inquiries and advise the right hon. gentleman to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Combines Investigation Act-further amount required, $15,000.
Thomas Reid: What portion, if any, of the $15,000 was spent in the recent investigation into the prices of bread, and does this amount include the whole cost of the investigation? What does the $15,000 include?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was appropriated in the main estimates the sum of $30,000; by governor general's warrant $50,000 was provided, and this estimate provides for an additional sum to make a total of $95,000 in all. The total expenditures up to March 27 amounted to $77,938. There was the Amalgamated Builders Council prosecution, which absorbed $25,784. There was the motion picture inquiry, which absorbed about $20,000; the bread inquiry; and sundry items to be made up by this estimate. There were the expenses incurred in connection with the payment of counsel for the case which went 'to the privy council determining the validity of the Combines Act. The bread inquiry accounted for $1,728.15. The total includes a sum not contemplated last year when the estimates were passed, necessitating a further sum being obtained for the purposes mentioned.


Peter Heenan: The other day I asked the Prime Minister a question. Probably the fact that I did not give notice of my question resulted in the Prime Minister not doing himself justice in his answer. I referred to a combine which according to reports is to be consummated within a few days, involving about $690,000,000 invested in the pulp and paper industries of Canada. The report went on to say that if this combine took place high priced mills would be closed and low priced mills would be kept open. As my right hon. friend knows, the Combines Investigation Act is more often used to prevent injury to the public than to remedy a grievance after the occasion for it has arisen. I was wondering if the Prime Minister would think it advisable to make some kind of inquiry to learn whether or not this combine is likely to injure the public interest. I am sure my right hon. friend will realize that if this combine is allowed to take place and results in high priced mills being closed down and low priced mills being allowed to operate, the effect will be detrimental to the towns and villages which have been established in the vicinity of these so-called high priced mills. If the combine is likely to injure the public generally, and especially the people in Quebec and northern Ontario, there should be some interference by the government.

Supply-Pensions


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did endeavour to explain to the house, as I do now to the committee, that the question of the jurisdiction of this parliament in the matter would certainly be a controversial one. The authority of parliament concerning the application of the Combines Investigation Act in such a case could not be antecedently determined; whether or not a combine exists is a matter to be determined after the combine forms. At the present moment no such combine as that described by my hon. friend exists. If a company were incorporated in which these enterprises to which my hon. friend refers were merged, I hold grave doubt as to whether the Combines Investigation Act would apply to such a company. That certainly has not been determined. So far as the court decisions go, such a condition would not amount to a combine within the statutes. So far as property and civil rights are concerned, the closing of mills and dealing with property and questions of that sort can be determined by the provinces in which the crown lands are situate and from Which the timber is taken. If it be private timber the same observation applies, except in the case of the province of Manitoba where crown lands were leased to private enterprises. If such lands have been transferred to the crown in the right of the province of Manitoba they are subject to the laws of that province rather than the laws of the Dominion. I repeat that the question whether or not a combine exists is a matter which can be determined only from the facts of the case as they arise, and not antecedently. I assume no company would be created which would contravene the laws of the Dominion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and National Health-unemployment relief

further amount required, $90,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I asked the
minister whether he had had any correspondence with soldier organizations or any persons with respect to the matter here referred to, and, if so, to have the correspondence tabled, or to advise us what it is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have copies of the
communications and telegrams furnished by the minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the Prime Minister indicate whom they are from?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. The first letter on
this file is the one from J. W. McKee, assistant deputy minister, addressed to Major-General Ketchen, instructing him, in reply to a telegram received with respect to the
reduction, that the relief would be continued at the old rate. That telegram to which that is a reply is one from Major-General Ketchen to the minister. Then there is a reply to Mr. Sharpe, of the Earl Haig Memorial Branch at Toronto, in the same sense, answering a telegram sent by him; a communication to Mr. Nash, of the district command, in reply to a telegram from him, and a letter in reply to a telegram from Mr. Morris, who is secretary of the legion. Also a letter from Mr. Meehan, of Toronto, acknowledging receipt of a letter sent by the minister with regard to the matter. These are the communications.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my right hon. friend place them on the table?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I was going to
give them to my right hon. friend.


Mr. GRAY:: I rise not to object to item
51 but rather to ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health-if he may be allowed to answer, because he has borne the brunt of the attack in connection with this matter- for an explanation as to why this relief to pensioned soldiers, from an emergency relief fund granted by this parliament, was cut off without a word of warning, and restored only when such a strong protest of public opinion swept the country, the pressure of which not even this government could withstand. Why were the soldier organizations throughout the country not consulted before this step was taken? It has been stated-and I should like an explanation as to this-that the cut was made in order to effect economy in the administration.
We have heard a good deal to-day with respect to the unemployment question. We know that for the ordinary unemployed the emergency relief measure did not expire until to-day, and it does seem to be due to the returned men of the country, and to the people of Canada as a whole, that some explanation should be given as to why, without a word of warning, the pensions of these men, whose very existence was dependent upon this relief, were cut by the Minister of Pensions and National Health.
I would also ask the returned veterans in the cabinet to give an explanation, because there are some veterans here in the cabinet before me. The hon. the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion), and the Minister of Pensions and National Health
Supply-Pensions

(Mr. MacLaren) are all returned veterans. 1 have here a statement given out to the press by the Mail and Empire as follows:
In justice to the other war veterans in the cabinet it can be said they were not aware of Dr. MacLaren's proposal and it is doubtful if any of the other ministers were consulted.
I am going to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he was consulted in this matter. Did he consent to the pensions of these returned men being cut? If he, was consulted what did he do in the matter? I pause now for an answer. His silence apparently would imply that he was consulted and is not going to say what he said. I will ask the Minister of National Defence: was he consulted by the Minister of Pensions and National Health, and if so, what did he say with respect to the cutting off of these pensions to returned men? Is he not going to be allowed to answer either? I would ask the Minister of Railways, who apparently is the only one in the cabinet who has been allowed so far to speak: was he consulted by the Minister of Pensions in the matter of having these pensions cut at the time they were? Was he consulted? If so, what opinion did he give in that regard? AH I can say, then, is that it does seem strange to me that parliament should be witnessing the spectacle of members of this government, three or four of them returned veterans, remaining in their places and not offering any explanation to the house with respect to this matter. I have nothing but the kindliest feelings towards the Minister of Pensions and National Health. I believe he has the interest of the returned veterans at heart, and I believe it was his desire, to do justice to them. I should like also to have an explanation as to why; although that minister-bore the brunt of the attack, when it came to restoring the order, the right hon. the Prime Minister attempted to take all the glory, boldly announcing the pension would be restored. In fact there was no glory about it; he was merely performing a duty which should have rested upon the Minister of Pensions. I say, Mr. Chairman, that the country awaits some explanation-*


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ross Wilfred Gray: This is not a laughing matter. For the benefit of some who may be ignoiant of exactly what this pension meant, may I say that the relief allowance was granted only to pensioned soldiers. These soldiers whose pensions were not adequate to meet their needs were granted something extra in order to carry them through the winter. Single men were granted $30 per month and the allowance was graded from that amount up to 
some $67, but whatever pension they were receiving was deducted from that amount, so you will see that these men were receiving barely enough to allow them to exist. This is what the Minister of Pensions cut, and I want the country to know that that is exactly what was done by this cabinet in order to effect an economy. That is where they began.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I inform the committee that the amount was never cut? Perhaps if the hon. gentleman had been a little more careful of his facts he v'ould not have fallen into the error of making the statements he has made. He must have known that no pensioner ever received a lesser sum than the sum which is now being paid and which was paid at the time.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I beg the right hon. gentleman's pardon; I never suggested it was cut or that a pensioner received anything less, but the order went through cutting these amounts from coast to coast.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No order went through; no order was made.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Then why did the right hon.
gentleman say he had restored it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was a misapprehension on the part of those who, like the hon. gentleman, conceived that what they saw in the press wras an authentic statement of what had happened. It was not. What happened was very simple, and I should like to explain it to the hon. gentleman. This is not something out of which political capital can be made. In 1928-29 there was an appropriation of $250,000, and there was $378,987.86 expended. Last year $550,000 was voted and only $517,000, in round figures, was spent. This year we originally voted $250,000, and in November of last year $275,000 in addition was obtained by governor general's warrant. I assume it is known to hon. gentlemen in this committee that to obtain a governor general's warrant there must be urgent necessity. The minister obtained the $275,000 in November, and in February of this year $225,000 further was sought. It was represented that the urgency was not sufficient to warrant the payment of the sums that had been paid and it was suggested that a smaller sum would meet the necessities of the case.
The provisions with respect to relief are as follows: Relief may only be granted to a pensioner provided the amount of pension which he receives on his ow'n behalf and that of his dependents, combined with earnings or other family income, is not in excess of the maximum rate issuable in his particular

Supply-Pensions
category. Where the need of assistance has been established the combined income may be augmented by the issue of relief orders to the maximum rates set out. They are as follows:	Single men, $30 per month; man
and wife, $45 per month; man, wife and one child, $57 per month; man, wife and two or more children, $67 per month. It was believed by officers in the department concerned that the payment of the smaller sum would meet the situation at that season of the year, and for some reason it was represented in the press that an order had been made accord-ingiy.
As the hon. gentleman knows, no such order was ever made, nor were any payments at the reduced rate ever provided by the department. The minister obtained a further governor general's warrant for the $225,000, and on March 6 of this year an additional governor general's warrant was obtained for $75,000, making a total of $825,000. To maintain the payments up to date will require an additional sum of $90,000. Up to the date of the meeting of parliament on March 12 of this year, expenditures had been authorized which would amount to approximately $901,000 in all, and the additional sum required will carry it on until midnight to-night, as I have said. I may say further, for the information of the committee, that the number receiving aid increased very considerably this year over last year, hence the anxiety of the minister to be certain that there was the urgency for the warrant which I have mentioned. During the fiscal year ending March 31, 1929, the number of times relief was issued was 36,002; the number of men who received relief was 4,647; those eligible for disability pension numbered 50,620. For the year ending March 31 last the number of men eligible for disability pension had increased to 57,044, and at the present moment the number stands at 65.332. The number of men who received relief increased, up to March 31 of last year, to 5,548, and this year to 8,222, and the number of times relief was issued increased to 51,000 for the year ending March 31, 1930, and to 79,380 for this year.
It was under those circumstances the relief was granted, and the reason the statement was made by myself rather than by the minister was because a delegation waited upon me, and they asked that the statement be made in the terms in which it was made, because there had been no change nor had the minister contemplated a change unless the circumstances warranted its being made.


Mr. POWER:: I am not quite sure that
the right hon. gentleman has stated the facts
as they became known to the public through the press.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is another thing.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps the right hon.
gentleman would permit me to discuss the matter for a moment. My recollection is that a statement was given out by the officers of the department to the various branches throughout the country, to the effect that after a certain date the payments under the unemployment relief provision would be reduced. No sooner was that statement issued than telegrams began to pour into Ottawa. I am quite sure the right hon. gentleman will not say these telegrams were based on nothing, or on vague rumours. They came from such important men as the president of the Canadian Legion at Winnipeg, or perhaps it would be the president of the Army and Navy Veterans' Association. He stated:
Winnipeg branch. Canadian Legion, in general meeting, protest very strongly action of Department of Pensions in reducing allowances to pensioners at this season of year.
He had been advised by someone in the department-


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend should
not add those words "in the department", because I received just such a telegram as that and at once sent back a reply that no such action, so far as I knew, had been taken by the department, and I am informed that no such action was taken.


Charles Gavan Power: I am quite willing to admit that the statement of my right hon. friend is quite correct, but it so happened that I came to Ottawa at just about that time and a statement was issued either by the department or by the. minister himself to the effect that there were no longer any funds available. That appears to be borne out by the fact that the governor general's warrant was issued about that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


Charles Gavan Power: The statement was that there were no longer any moneys available and consequently a reduction would have to be made. I have not before me the statement made by the minister but I can easily obtain it by sending to the library for copies of the press of that day. I do not think the Minister of Pensions and National Health will deny that he made such a statement to the press in which he said there were no longer any moneys available and that the matter would be discussed by the, cabinet. Am I right in making that statement? The right hon. gentleman apparently nods, so I take it he nods in acquiescence.
Supply-Pensions


Richard Bedford Bennett: I read it in the paper.


Charles Gavan Power: Do I take it that the right hon. gentleman says he read a statement purporting to emanate from the Minister of Pensions and National Health?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I read in the morning press, I think it was in both papers, the statement to which the hon. member has referred and I was advised by the minister that it did not interpret correctly the remarks he had made.


Charles Gavan Power: I find now that the hon. minister, who apparently cannot speak in this house for himself, can speak to the newspapers and be misinterpreted. Apparently this is becoming a habit of the government, and it is one which should be corrected. I suggest that the schoolmaster upon all occasions when his ministers speak-they will not speak in this house-be. given a copy of their statements in order that he may correct them, cross all the t's and dot the i's. Otherwise similar mistakes will occur.
The right hon. gentleman admits that a statement purporting to emanate from the Minister of Pensions and National Health was issued to the press. He claims that the press misinterpreted that statement, but surely the minister himself could have contradicted it. However, one or two days went by and then the Prime Minister said: These moneys will continue to be paid. Would it not have been possible during that time for the minister to have made a statement to the people of this country, to the ex-soldiers, that he had no idea of refusing payment, and that his statement had been misunderstood? I feel sure that if Hie. minister had felt that his statement had been misinterpreted or that an incorrect version had been given of it, he would have been the first to tell the newspaper men of their mistake. He is a man possessing broad sympathetic views, he has a kindly heart and is particularly well disposed toward the soldiers of this country, and he should have been the last to permit himself to be misinterpreted in this way. I think if I ask him now to tell the country and this committee whether or not he issued a statement which could be understood to mean that the relief to pensioners was to be reduced in some degree, he will answer. If he does I promise to take his word for it and I will not check him up even by reference to the newspapers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The money had been exhausted.


Charles Gavan Power: I will take the hon. minister's statement and I will not press the matter further.
	. ;


Ross Wilfred Gray: Mr. Chairman-


An hon. MEMBER:: Let the minister
answer.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I would like to follow up the statements made by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) by reading the statement issued to the press by the minister and asking him whether or not it correctly interprets what he intended to say. The following appeared in the Mail and Empire of February 18, 1931, under the name of a very reputable member of the press gallery, Mr. Blacklock:
To-day Dr. MacLaren said the reduction "is regarded as a somewhat temporary measure and it is hoped an improvement in the rates will be effected before long." The text of his statement reads:
"The issue of relief by the department of Pensions and National Health was always regarded as an emergency measure. It was never intended that it should constitute a permanent addition to pensions. The relief issue through this department is restricted entirely to pensioners."
"This year the demands have greatly exceeded the appropriation passed by parliament and much more. The number of applications for relief have more than doubled as compared with previous years. At January 31 last, the amount expended was something more than double the amount expended during a similar period last year."
"Complaints have been made as regards the distribution of this relief, and the relief has been placed on the minimum scale pending investigation. Consequently, the administrative officers of the department were informed that, pending further instructions, a reduction would be made in the amounts issued. This reduction is regarded as a somewhat temporary measure, and it is hoped that an improvement in these rates will be effecter before long."
"In no case will hardship result, for there will be such readjustment as will meet the circumstances."
I now ask the minister whether or not that correctly interprets the statement given to the press, and I plead with the Prime Minister to permit the minister to answer for himself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, one
would think it was more important that justice should foe done by voting this money which will enable payments to foe made, rather than to make political capital out of the need for the payments. Those of us who have listened to the speech of the hon. member for West Lamfoton (Mr. Gray) must be struck with the fact that it was a palpable effort to make political capital.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Mr. Chairman, I take serious
objection-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No one can have any
doubt as to that. It was couched in language which left no doubt as to its purpose. A

Supply-Pensions
statement was read in connection with which I stated a moment ago the minister could claim a wrong interpretation. The minister had no money and a governor general's warrant had not been issued. The law is that governor general's warrants are to be issued only in* urgent cases and that the money is to be treated as a trust fund. The language of the statute leaves no doubt as to its meaning, that at least a matter of necessity must arise. It is not a case of simply issuing a warrant when one feels like it, there must be occasion for it. The exact language with respect to governor general's warrants, must,
I fancy, be known to every hon. gentleman here who has had anything to do with the administration of affairs in this country. The money having been exhausted, it became necessary to issue a new warrant, and complaints were made that there had been aJbuse of the moneys that had been paid. The minister made that perfectly clear, and said that pending an investigation he proposed to carry them at a lower rate. This was construed as meaning that actual payments were to be made at a lower rate. I do not say that the statement was not open to that construction, but no such payments were ever made. The payments were continued because it was apparent from the statements received by the minister from every part of the country that a lower payment would not in any sense meet the demands of the situation. Therefore a governor general's warrant was at once issued and another one has been issued since. With the house in session, no warrant can now be issued, and if this sum is not voted, the payment cannot be made.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: We are not opposing it; we are only asking for information.


Mr. VENIOT:: We are not opposing the voting of this sum. We have a right to the information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am endeavouring to supply all the information asked for. Before a governor general's warrant is issued, the minister must first satisfy himself that there [DOT]is not the ordinary, casual necessity for it, but the real necessity that warrants the substitution of the executive for parliament, [DOT]beause that is what a governor general's warrant means. In the exercise of that power the minister made inquiries and I think as the hon. member for Quebec South has said, very few days had elapsed. It may well be, as the hon. member for West Lambton has said, that the matter was hurried by
reason of the manifestations of disapproval. *No one doubts that, but the minister was seeking to ascertain exactly what the situation was, not to create a prolonged carryforward of the reduction of the amount to be paid, but to determine whether or not there was any warrant for the statements that had caused the investigation to be made, and whether or not the conditions were such as to entitle him to ask a further warrant as he did. He obtained it and payments were made as I have indicated.
Perhaps it is not quite fair to the house to suggest that members are not allowed to speak. I have undertaken the carriage of these estimates through the house and I shall endeavour to discharge that duty. When it is suggested that hon. members are not permitted to speak, of course that is entirely erroneous. No such relations exist between my colleagues and myself. We had an understanding, believing these estimates would be treated as estimates of this character for the period ending the current fiscal year would be treated. We believed the course followed in the past would probably be followed in this instance, and that they would be through in a few hours. We were disappointed in that regard; but having undertaken this duty, and having been supplied with the necessary information, I am endeavouring to carry it out in my capacity as Minister of Finance in charge of the supply bill. I am not complaining, but I do not think it is creditable to hon. gentlemen to suggest that any member of the administration is not permitted to speak. Any member of the house may freely express his opinion; but having undertaken to deal with these estimates, I shall continue to deal with them as long as the house permits me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As regards the concluding remarks of my right hon. friend, I may say that he can scarcely wonder that we on this side have the impression that members of the ministry have been forbidden to speak, since it has not been possible, with one exception, to secure a reply from a single minister of the crown with respect to any matter affecting his department. The Prime Minister may arrogate to himself the right to handle all the estimates, but to do so is not following British parliamentary procedure. It is not treating the House of Commons as it ought to be treated. It is not fair to his cabinet, and it is not fair to the country. He may say that his ministers are free to speak, but the impression the country is getting of the ministry is that it is composed of a number of nonentities.
Supply-Pensions


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: The right hon.
gentleman was a nonentity last summer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am expressing the view that the country has of the ministers, in the light of what has taken place in the course of the discussion on these estimates. I do not say that hon. gentlemen are nonentities. I know some of the ministers very well and I know they are perfectly well able to take care of themselves in discussion. Moreover, I know many of them have a very wide parliamentary experience and might not only have contributed valuable information in the course of the discussions but have done much towards the proceedings of this house in having them conducted in the manner in which hon. members generally would have liked to see them conducted. I submit it is not treating the House of Commons as it should be treated, for the Prime Minister to take upon himself the work of the entire ministry in the House of Commons in connection with the explanation of matters affecting different departments. The Department of Pensions and National Health is one of the most important departments in the government. The war veterans throughout the country wish to hear what the minister in charge of that department has to say with respect to a matter which vitally affects them and their families, and they have a right to hear him. When the Prime Minister begins to lecture the opposition for assuming a certain attitude toward himself, he is entitled to know what the opposition thinks and what the country thinks. What we have been witnessing here looks more like procedure in a kindergarten than what is to be expected of the government of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course I do not intend to reply to language such as that. If the right hon. gentleman thinks that in so expressing himself an ex-prime minister is adding to the dignity of the House of Commons, I am content. This I will say: when he undertakes to speak for the country he seems to think he is still in power; he is not in power.


Jean-François Pouliot: The Prime Minister seems to be very easily offended to-night, and I shall have to bring back again his wonderful smile.
I am much surprised that the Prime Minister takes exception to the word "kindergarten." It will be remembered that a former prime minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, who is still alive and is a distinguished man, at a lecture given in

Ottawa said that the League of Nations, which is an international institution, was just at the kindergarten stage, and no one was insulted.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Post Office-outside service-miscellaneous- for printing and stationery-further ° amount required, $375,623.18.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This amounts to over one-third of a million dollars. Perhaps the Postmaster General or the Prime Minister would advise the committee why this large amount is needed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Neither the Postmaster General nor the Prime Minister will advise the committee, but the Minister of Finance has much pleasure in advising the committee that this sum represents the accumulated deficits from overdrafts commencing in that department in 1927-28. It is moneys owing to the king's printer. This sum will take care of those overdrafts and square the Post Office Department with the king's printer up to the 31st of March, 1931; that is, this day. The real fact is that additional stationery and supplies were required and an overdraft was created in 1927-28 and carried forward to the next year, and every time the Post Office Department was billed it had not the money to pay the additional sums. The Secretary of State requested that payments be made from the Post Office Department, and the accumulation, with what is necessary for this year, amounts to the figure stated in this vote which is inserted in the estimates.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask whether any printing has been given by the Post Office Department to any firms in London, Ontario, since this government has been in office, and if so, to what firms, and what amount has been paid or indebtedness incurred.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not under this item, so far as I know.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That does not quite give me what I wish to ascertain. The Postmaster General knows, or ought to know, what the facts are in this matter. I would like to find out what moneys have been paid or are due by the Post Office Department to any firms in London, Ontario, for printing during the present fiscal year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot supply that information.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my right hon. friend undertake to have it supplied to the house to-morrow?

Supply-Post Office


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All right.


Peter Heenan: I would like to know from the Finance minister or the Postmaster General what has been the average cost of the commissions which have been appointed since this government took office to investigate charges of political partisanship against postmasters and postmistresses.


Richard Bedford Bennett: These commissions are appointed on the same terms as set forth in the order in council that was passed during the regime of Sir Robert Borden after a conference between him and the then leader of the opposition. If charges of political partisanship are preferred, commissions issue. My memory is that the sum paid is twenty dollars per day. The Postmaster General, of course, has nothing to do with the issue of these commissions. They are issued by the government as a whole. Should charges of political partisanship be made and sent forward to any minister, he submits them to council, and a commission is issued by council accordingly.


Peter John Veniot: What provision is made for the payment of the commissioners holding these investigations up to the end of the present fiscal year? How are they being paid, and what provision is being made for that purpose?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot answer that question.


Peter John Veniot: Evidently there is no provision in the supplementary estimates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. I do not think any accounts have come in as yet.


Peter John Veniot: It is an over-expenditure, and according to the principle laid down by the Prime Minister the other day, no overexpenditures should be ohargeable to next year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no over-expenditure in the department. This sum will take care of any expenditures of the department to the end of the present fiscal year.


Peter John Veniot: I am well aware of that, but there must be an over-expenditure in the Post Office Department to meet the very numerous investigations that are going on now, and have been going on for the last couple of months at least. According to the principle laid down by the Prime Minister, the other day, there should not be any overexpenditure in any department. But I cannot see that any provision is being made in the estimates either through the Justice department or the Post Office Department or any other department for that purpose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will ascertain and let
the hon. gentleman know.


Mr. RALSTON:: I wish to refer to a
matter which I called to the attention of the Minister of Justice the other day, and concerning which I have had no further reply from him. At that time I called his attention to the fact that some of the departments -I mentioned particularly the Post Office Department-had been sending out circular letters to officials enclosing an affidavit and calling upon the official to sign the affidavit to the effect that he had not been guilty of any acts of political partisanship. The letter also went on to intimate that if the official did not sign and return the affidavit, his dismissal would be proceeded with. I asked the Minister of Justice if he would look into the matter, and, if these letters were being sent out, take steps to bring the matter to the attention of the various departments and see that the sending out of such letters was discontinued, for the obvious reason that it is directly contrary to the practice which has existed, and to which my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has referred. The principle has been clearly laid down that except where there is a certificate by a member of parliament cases of political partisanship shall be tried and investigated in the regular way, and that the ordinary principles shall apply that a man is presumed innocent until proved guilty, and is not called upon to make an extraordinary affidavit of this kind. The Minister of Justice promised the other day that he would look into the matter and bring it to the attention of the departments, but I have not had any further word about it.
Even at this late hour and so near the Easter recess I feel that this matter is of sufficient importance to bring to the attention of the committee because I am satisfied that a number of these letters have gone out. It seems to me that it is not fair to the civil servants to put them in any such position and they should know the true situation at once otherwise the whole service will feel that they are under suspicion iby being called upon, as I said a moment ago, to prove themselves innocent instead of the usual procedure being followed of their being presumed innocent until found guilty. I want to put on record a copy of the letter which has been sent out. It is addressed to various postmasters, and reads:
Supply-Post Office

Dear Sir,
Representations have been made to the department to the effect that during your term of office as postmaster you have been guilty of acts of political partisanship. It is provided in the Civil Service Act that any government employee who is guilty of political partisanship in connection with any federal or provincial election shall be dismissed from the service.
As this charge has been made against you the Postmaster General is desirous of giving you an opportunity to state your side of the case.
The Prime Minister will note that there is no suggestion as to who makes the charges, but the intimation is that somebody has made representations to the department and the only trial is to require the civil servant to make an affidavit without knowing who charges him or the particulars of the charges.


Mr. GOTT:: That did not make any difference at all to the late government.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend cannot
point to a single instance of a dismissal under the late government without an investigation and the regulations being carried out.


Eccles James Gott: I can point to one in the
town of Leamington, Ontario. Let the exPost-master General look it up.


Mr. JONES:: And I can point to one in
the town of Cambridge, New Brunswick.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is talking about cases that are not under the Civil Service Act at all. The Prime Minister has already intimated that the government are pursuing the course which has been laid down, and which has been the practice for a number of years.


Eccles James Gott: This was a case under the
Civil Service Act.


James Layton Ralston: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, my
attention was directed to the observations made the other day by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) and to the reply made by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). I know that certain letters similar to that mentioned by the hon. gentleman were sent but they were sent only to those against whom charges of partisanship had been made. So far as I know in no case where they have declined to act upon

Supply-Post Office
them, unless they have written a communication in which they have admitted their guilt, has dismissal followed. I am bound to say to my hon. friend that there was a suggestion that if they declined to answer their action should be taken as an acquiescence and that they should be dismissed. Needless to say that suggestion was not acted upon?


Peter John Veniot: And will not be acted
upon?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was not and will not
be acted upon. There are cases in which, to save the expense of having a commission with all the attendant troubles, and where it is well known that there has been partisanship on the part of the individuals charged, that communication has been sent. I thmk the form of that communication leaves much to be desired. I believe if a suspected person were advised that a charge had been made against him indicating that he had been guilty of partisanship and saying that it might be advisable for him to resign rather than put the country to the expense of an investigation, no objection could be taken. However, I wholly agree with what the hon. gentleman has said. Strangely enough in the Civil Service Act reference has been made to both provincial and federal elections. I never knew just why provincial elections were mentioned in the statute, but the statute as it reads makes the incumbent of an office appointed under the act guilty of partisanship if he takes part in either a provincial or a federal election. That is why the word "provincial" is put in the statue. I think hon. gentlemen opposite can rely upon there being not attempt to treat unfairly those who are charged with partisanship, and certainly no effort will be made to relieve them of their positions because by mere silence they are regarded as acquiescing in charges made against them.


James Layton Ralston: I want to say to my right hon. friend that we appreciate the assurance he has given. One thing further I would like to say: I suggest that in a letter of this kind it is not quite fair for a superior to suggest to a subordinate that it is advisable for him to do so and so. That is to say, I think that the farthest one can go is to say that the charges have been made and if those charges are not admitted an investigation will be held.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend would
not consider it as at all improper to say, "If you regard these charges as being warranted, your resignation will be in order," or something to that effect?


James Layton Ralston: I submit not. I think the official is entitled to be told what the procedure is and the principles which have been laid down here, and it would be left to him to decide the course he wished to take rather than being advised by a superior. I suggest to my right hon. friend that the word "advisable" be left out.


Alan Webster Neill: In view of the procedure indicated I would like to take this opportunity of putting in an early plea for forgiveness of one particular postmaster. I never have been in favour of allowing a man's politics to interfere with his right of being a postmaster, and I would not like to see it happen in the future. The postmaster to whom I refer was the campaign manager for my opponent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Gavan Power: While we are on this matter perhaps it would save a great deal of trouble and time if the Prime Minister would make an authoritative statement with respect to complaints made by members of parliament asking that public officers be removed from office. He might give an outline of what these complaints must contain, and just how far such statements of members of parliament should be taken. I would ask the Prime Minister to go one step further than he has already gone when answering the question of my hon. friend from Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) and explain the custom in respect to the question I have asked.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. gentleman think at this hour of the night it is desirable his question should be answered? If some of these estimates do not pass there will be no cheques for those requiring relief, and I would remind hon. members opposite that the hour is now within a few minutes of eleven o'clock. In the main estimates these matters will again be traversed at greater length and perhaps we might save a lot of trouble and expense if my hon. friend's question was allowed to stand.


James Layton Ralston: The only reason for
taking time with regard to this question is that when people get these letters they become panicky. They seem to think they are slated to be dismissed anyway, whether they are guilty or not, and therefore since they do not understand what their rights are they may do themselves an injustice which would be avoided if my right hon. friend would make a statement now. It would not take long for him to do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have made a statement.
Supply-Post Office


James Layton Ralston: I would ask my right hon. friend to make a statement with regard to
complaints by members of parliament.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I know of an instance in the constituency of North Battleford where the procedure described by my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth was actually followed. The man resigned when he received this threatening letter.
An hon. MEMBER . He must have been guilty.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: He says he is not guilty, and personally I do not think he is. A petition has gone to the department asking that the man be restored to his position. In the event of the resignation of a man followed by a petition and an investigation to learn whether or not that man is guilty of partisanship, will an investigation be conducted and the man be restored to his position if it is proved that he is innocent?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the committee
will recall that this matter was thoroughly threshed out last year in connection with a case in which the then Solicitor General had laid a charge of partisanship. The man was found not guilty of partisanship and it was determined by the Civil Service Commission that there was no power to restore the man to his position.


Charles Gavan Power: There was no question of the man having been found guilty or not guilty?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was removed.


Charles Gavan Power: He was removed. But the right hon. gentleman said he was not found guilty of partisanship. There was no finding.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was charged with
partisanship.


Charles Gavan Power: And dismissed on the word of a member of parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the evidence indicated that there had been a mistake.


Charles Gavan Power: To whom did the evidence indicate that? To the minister, not to the House of Commons.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
judicially was satisfied.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think any one was.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then we will withdraw the question of his being satisfied. But it was determined by the Civil Service Commission that once a man resigns his position, even though he may not desire to do so, or once he is removed from his position, he cannot, though he vindicates himself thereafter, be

restored to that position. That has been the finding in that regard. I tried to assert that it was an improper appreciation of the position, but they satisfied me that, as the law stands, they were right.


Edward James Young: Is that the infallible justice of the crown?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, under the statute.


Peter John Veniot: There is a misapprehension. Where an official is dismissed for cause he cannot re-enter the service, even if he qualifies under examination. But where an official resigns he has the right, a vacancy being created, to apply again and undergo the qualifying examination.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


Mr. YENIOT:: But the right hon. gentleman's statement did not leave that impression.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. He has the right to apply, the same as any other citizen, but he starts all over again.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: He loses his standing.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Mr. Chairman,-


An hon. MEMBER:: Let us get through.


Frederick George Sanderson: I have a right to address the committee without back-benchers interfering. We do not hear much from the front benches but a good deal from the back. There is in my riding a case which comes within the discussion that has been going on for the last fifteen or twenty minutes. There is in a small village in my riding a postmaster who received one of these letters read by the hon. member sitting in front of me, and also the form of an affidavit, and I advised him neither to sign the affidavit nor to resign. I took the ground that until that postmaster was proven guilty he was innocent. I also took the matter up with the Postmaster General and received a letter in reply. I am sorry I have not that letter before me. It is in my room.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. It is now almost eleven o'clock, and if the committee desires to proceed beyond that hour it can do so only by unanimous consent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was going to ask, Mr. Chairman, that the ordinary rule of moving the Speaker back to the chair be dispensed with by unanimous consent, and that we sit another half hour.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Is the motion carried?

Supply-Post Office


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that acceptable?


Jean-François Pouliot: I would be willing to agree to it if I got my statement. Otherwise no unanimous consent; I object.


Frederick George Sanderson: The letter, if I remember it-if I am wrong the Postmaster General, if he is permitted to answer me, will correct me

intimated that the fact that I had advised this postmaster not to resign or to sign the affidavit was really evidence of guilt.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Frederick George Sanderson: "Hear, hear," my hon. friend says. Surely no hon. member in this house will say that because a postmaster refuses to resign, or refuses to sign an affidavit, he has been proven guilty. And mark you, in this particular case I tried to find out the names of the parties who laid the information, and apparently there has been no information laid at all. It is only a matter of rumour and hearsay.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has he been dismissed?


Frederick George Sanderson: He has not been dismissed, and in his letter the Postmaster General stated that if the postmaster in question had made up his mind that he would not resign, or if he would not sign the affidavit, a commission would have to be appointed to take evidence. I do not object to that, but if this is done the names of those who laid the complaint must be made known and a full investigation instituted. But I claim that to ask this postmaster, or any other postmaster, to allow himself to be clubbed into a resignation, or clubbed into signing the affidavit before anything is proven, is at least not British justice.


Peter Heenan: Is the Postmaster General prepared to give the name of the informant, or the names of those who complained against the postmistress at Vermilion Bay, Ontario?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The case was investigated, I believe, at a public hearing and a report made.


Peter Heenan: I am asking whether the
Postmaster General will give us the name of the person who laid the complaint in connection with the matter in the first instance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That has been held to
be unnecessary in cases that occurred under the late administration and the one previous to that, provided there is an investigation in which the accused makes his defence. Then the matter can be discussed in parliament in the light of the investigation and report.


Charles Gavan Power: Now that we have decided
to sit an extra hour, surely the Prime Minister will give the explanation for which I asked and which he said he could not give by reason of the shortness of time. I am not endeavouring to stir up trouble, I am trying to get from him his interpretation of the nde which has always been followed-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not always.


Charles Gavan Power: -that a public officer may be dismissed on the personal certificate of a member of parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The matter was placed
on Hansard last year by the Postmaster General, and I should not care to make a statement without looking up the strict terms of the order in council. My memory of it might be defective as to the exact words used. I might send for Hansard, or if my hon. friend would do so himself, he would find the statement to which I refer. I shall be glad at the proper time to accommodate the hon. gentleman in that regard.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not wish to interrupt anyone but I rise to a point of order. According to the rules, the house cannot sit after eleven o'clock except by unanimous consent. I am not going to make trouble or threaten the government, but I wish to have a satisfactory answer to my question regarding the building of the station at Riviere du Loup, and I have-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: What is the point of order?


Jean-François Pouliot: The point of order is that the house cannot sit after eleven o'clock except by unanimous consent.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I nde that the house is not sitting; it is the committee, and there was unanimous consent.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, Mr. Chairman; you
have not mine.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I said that a condition was to be fulfilled.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The point of order has been decided. If the hon. member is not satisfied he can appeal to the committee.


James Layton Ralston: In view of the statement which the Prime Minister has made, and the concurrence he has given in the terms he has used regarding the letter I have read, I wish to ask him whether instructions will be given
Supply-Post Office

to withdraw these letters and if desired to have amending letters written omitting the objectionable portions to which I have referred. He will agree that the letters are not such as should go to civil servants.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the Postmaster General has already directed that no further letters of that kind are to be sent out.


James Layton Ralston: That is not quite enough.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He certainly is not writing further letters to the people to whom they have been sent, but that form of letter has been discontinued.


James Layton Ralston: I express the opinion
deferentially that that should be done., and I think my right hon. friend, who understands as well as anyone in this house, and perhaps better than most, the general principles which govern the investigation of charges, knows that is not a letter which ought to be allowed to stand as coming from a senior to a subordinate. I want to ask my right hon. friend if he will not have these letters withdrawn and cancelled, and such letters sent out if desired as are appropriate under the circumstances.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall be glad to look into the matter.


James Layton Ralston: The other matter I had in mind was with regard to what my hon. friend from Quebec South said. Can we at least have this understanding, that dismissals will not be made on the so-called certificate of a member of parliament unless the member of parliament certifies that the acts of partisanship are to his personal knowledge?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I said a moment ago, whatever has been the practice heretofore has been observed. The exact procedure I do not carry in mind at the moment, hence I do not care to make a statement without looking up the order in council to find the exact language.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I should like to ask the Prime Minister what attitude the various ministers will follow in cases where complaints are made by defeated candidates of acts of political partisanship.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are not dismissed without an investigation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister referred to an order in council a moment ago. Does he mean the order in council which was in force under the previous administration? That is satisfactory if that is what he meant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I mean.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Relief of fire sufferers at Hebertville Station, Quebec-governor general's warrant of September 26, 1930, $5,000.
Charles Gavan Power: I should like to ask, purely out of curiosity, how it happens that the federal government has come to the relief of fire sufferers. Is this something new?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it is not something new. The province of Quebec made an appropriation and an application was made to the administration for assistance. It was found that in similar cases sums had been paid by previous administrations, and accordingly this amount of $5,000 was paid.


Charles Gavan Power: The circumstances must
have been very unusual.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, the place was wiped out.


Charles Gavan Power: It seems very extraordinary that the federal government should pay sufferers from fire. Surely the circumstances would have to be very exceptional.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly the position I took.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Relief of pensioners - governor general's warrant of November 20, 1930, $275,000.
Charles Gavan Power: On this item I should like
to say a word which I assure hon. members will not be of a controversial or political nature. In common with a great many others who are interested in returned soldiers and in pensions I am beginning to fear that the pension legislation of last session may not be as effective as those who took part in the preparation of it had anticipated. I do not propose for a moment to discuss what may have been the reasons which bring this legislation almost face to face with failure. It may be and probably is due to the fact that there were inherent defects in the legislation; it may be that the proper precautions were not taken to see that it was carried out in every particular.
That is not the question I wish to raise to-night, however. I wish to ask the Prime Minister to consult with his colleagues, with the members of these boards and with the officers of the department during the recess with a view to some attempt being made to modify or alter or if necessary to crap the legislation in order that we may be able to dispense that justice to the returned soldiers that those of us who served on the committee as well as the members of this house hoped we were dispensing throught the legislation of last year. I am not making this statement by way of criticism; I think the right hon. gentle-

Supply-Governor General's Warrants
man understands that, and I think those members of the house who were on the parliamentary committees of last year will understand the position I take. I make this suggestion in order that something may be done at the earliest possible moment to remedy any defects which may exist in the present system so. that we shall not be face to face, in a short time, with an agitation throughout the country which might make it impossible for the members of this house and the government to deal with the situation without taking radical steps in the way of granting pensions in a wholesale fashion, which none of us desire.
I am asking the Prime Minister particularly to direct his attention to this very serious and urgent matter of national importance during the recess so that he may come to parliament after Easter with some solution for it. Personally I may say that whatever experience I have acquired during the past few years in dealing with this question is at the disposal of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Pensions and National Health. I do not propose now, any more than I did in the past, to deal with this matter in any political way whatever. I have already offered privately to cooperate with the minister. I make that offer again and I sincerely hope, in the interests of the country at large as well as in the interests of the government and of the opposition, that something may be done in the shortest possible time to deal with this matter.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I should like to say
just a word in support of the hon. member who has just spoken. No one who has worked with the hon. member can help realizing that in dealing with this subject he has been indeed absolutely free from any taint of partisanship or politics. I have worked with the hon. member many years in connection with this matter and always, as chairman of our committee and as its representative here in the house, he has been absolutely fair.
I have placed a number of questions on the order paper, having that same situation in mind, because with many others who have been interested in the matter, I am impressed by its urgency. Possibly there are defects in the legislation, but certainly consequences have arisen already which are going to make for great difficulty in the very near future. I too would ask the Prime Minister and his colleagues to look into the question, and like the hon. member who has just spoken, if there is anything I can do I shall be only too glad to do it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In answer to the hon.
gentlemen who have just spoken I should say that the same considerations which have influenced their judgment and brought about the statements they have made have been apparent to the government for some time, and already the matter is being looked into. We shall be very glad indeed to avail ourselves of their mature advice and generous assistance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Removal, ordnance stores from Ross Rifle factory' buildings, Quebec-(governor general's warrant of November 27, 1930), $26,000.
Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Chairman, if the Prime Minister will give me the undertaking that at some future time 1 shall be permitted to discuss this matter, I will be prepared to do so and shall be glad to point out to the house and to tin country what I consider has been a senious defect in administration and what has been very nearly a scandal in the Department of National Defence. However, I have neither the time this evening nor the necessary information to carry on this discussion. If the right hon. gentleman and the Minister of National Defence are willing that the matter be discussed when the main estimates are being considered, I shall have no objection to this item being passed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman will have that opportunity, but I would point out to him that this probably comes within the terms of the order in council passed on January 9, 1923.


Charles Gavan Power: No, it does not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is thought that the terms of that order are broad enough to cover this matter.


Charles Gavan Power: If the terms of that order passed in 1928 had been broad enough to cover this matter I do not think a governor general's warrant would have been necessary. Under the terms of that order in council an amount of $100,000 was placed in the estimates to cover the removal of the Ross rifle factory. I take it that the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) or the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) advised the right hon. gentleman that the terms of the order did not cover the removal of stores at this time and that therefore it was necessary to issue a governor general's warrant. However, that is a matter to be discussed at the proper time. There will not be an item in the main estimates covering the removal of these stores,

514	COMMONS
Supply-Governor General's Warrants
but there will be other items covering the demolition of the factory itself, and I take it that I shall be permitted to discuss the whole question at that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Relief of pensioners (governor general's warrant of March 6, 1931), $75,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, with the permission of my right hon. friend I would like to comment upon certain of his remarks which appear on page 408 of Hansard, as follows:
This committee, being anxious to retain some semblance of integrity with respect to its dealings, is now legalizing the unwarranted acts of those who made certain expenditures because they say they were instructed to do so.
I hope that my right hon. friend did not mean to imply that the alleged unwarranted acts related to the previous administration. He must realize that many of the expenditures which he classes as unwarranted because they are included in these estimates to which his remarks refer, as for instance the Welland canal item of $2,000,000, were due to actions of his own administration with which the previous government had no connection whatever.
It is desirable at this time to make very clear the course which should be followed in order to secure effective parliamentary control over expenditures. In this connection I would say to my right hon. friend that what he has said with respect to civil servants is equally applicable to the ministry as a whole. The right hon. gentleman quoted from the report of The" Auditor General as follows- the quotation will be found at page 409 of Hansard:
The over-expending of appropriations has the effect of lessening parliamentary control over expenditures and, although in very exceptional eases it may have to be permitted, the practice is to be deprecated and means should be taken to prevent it.
Most if not all of the items we have had under discussion cover matters of overexpenditure. My right hon. friend continued as follows:
The responsibility is, as the Auditor General says, with the accountants of the departments, and if parliamentary control of appropriations is to be maintained except under very exceptional conditions that may sometimes prevail, it follows that discipline must be applied, or the whole system will be wrecked for if accountants and deputy ministers under the control of ministers may make beyond parliament appropriations, expenditures amounting to $1,000,000, they can do it to the amount of $5,000,000 or $10,000,000.

At page 411 the right hon. gentleman continues:
The Auditor General directs attention to what must be painfully apparent to everyone. It means that you substitute the minister and an accountant for parliament, because the money has gone and there was no appropriation for it.
And again at the bottom of the page:
I think an effort should be made to make it possible for each department to live within its appropriation. If not, some men will lose their positions. That is all I have to say.
I agree with my right hon. friend's point of view as here presented. What I would suggest respectfully is that what is true as regards the permanent officials of the government in the matter of preventing overexpenditure and not going beyond appropriations is applicable in even greater measure, and applies with greater force to the ministry itself. There should not be occasion again to have to draw attention to the fact that a ministry of its own volition has exceeded an appropriation or has permitted expenditures to be incurred for which no appropriation by parliament has been made.
I wish to join with the Prime Minister in seeking effectual control by parliament over expenditure. I believe that to be one of the most important functions of parliament, effectively to control the expenditures of the country. This can be done only by restricting expenditures to such amounts as have been provided for by appropriations made by parliament in the regular way.
May I add this word in regard to governor general's warrants. I have stated frequently that the government might have obtained a governor general's warrant for the purpose of unemployment relief. I hope that my right hon. friend and members generally will appreciate that when I made that statement I had reference to the fact that an Imperial conference was to be held last year in London and that it was recognized by everyone that the Prime Minister and his colleagues would wish to attend and should attend that conference. Under the circumstances it was hardly possible to have parliament meet in time to-pass the appropriations necessary for the year and a governor general's warrant would, I think, have served the purpose as regards-what was necessary for unemployment relief. I would not like it to be thought for one moment that I favoured the issuing of such warrants except in circumstances which are most exceptional or where the deferring of the meeting of parliament can be justified only by circumstances which are apparent to everyone as reasonable.

Supply-Governor General's Warrants


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, it is very seldom that the right hon. gentleman and myself agree, but this is a matter upon which we do agree and have agreed for many years. I do not agree wholly with his view with respect to governor general's warrants, for I do not believe that circumstances arising within an administration constitute a necessity for the issuance of such warrants. There is that difference between us. There are circumstances such as the destruction of a bridge, the burning of a building or the establishment and maintenance of the government itself where warrants should be issued, but there must be satisfactory evidence to warrant this action being taken. May I say this to the committee: These estimates have been introduced for the purpose of enabling the government to start with a clean sheet. That is, where over-payments have been made, and some of them attributable to the present administration, as the right hon. gentleman says, on the 31st day of this month, that is to-day, if these estimates pass, there will then be established a clean sheet and a new leaf will be turned on the book enabling the government to do what, I believe, should be done by all governments, namely, to maintain its expenditures within its appropriations. I am sorry to say to the committee that despite the efforts that I made personally, there is one item that has not been brought into the house. It is a small item, it is true, but it was overlooked by the minister in charge. This shows how difficult it is to follow these matters. As I say, it is not a large sum, but we could not insert it in the estimates without a new message which could not be secured. An effort will be made, commencing the new year on April 1, to keep expenditures within the appropriations and we shall ask the house and the country to judge us by our performance in the light of the statement of the principle which, I submit, should govern our actions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am anxious
that the clean sheet of the right hon. gentleman, when we see it next year, shall not have any spots upon it. For that reason I should like to draw his attention to what I believe caused the confusion last evening when we were discussing the unprovided items. They do not relate to the fiscal year in which the supplementary estimates are being presented; they relate to the year previous. As a consequence I say that despite my right hon. friend's good intentions, when we are discussing the estimates at this time next year, he will find he will be obliged to bring in further unprovided items for this 22110-33i
very fiscal year 1930-31, that is to say, for the fiscal year which Jie now thinks he has cleaned off so completely. He will find that the Auditor General will present to him a report to the effect that several of the departments have not paid some outstanding accounts; that they have been overlooked by ministers or deputy ministers or accountants, and he will ask that an item be inserted in the estimates to cover those unprovided amounts. I hope with my right hon. friend that the amounts will be small, but I am afraid that despite his efforts and good intentions one corner of the sheet will have a spot upon it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman has had more experience than I, and I daresay his suggestion is sound; but the ministers, if they were permitted, would tell the committee that they have been asked and asked again as to any over-expenditures, and a very earnest effort has been made to cover every item up to the end of the present fiscal year. I hope-and I thank the right hon. gentleman for extending the information to the government-that such a condition as he suggests will not arise.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Has the Auditor General been asked not to over-spend in his own department?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to say that that step has been taken.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railways. Canadian National Steamships and Maritime Freight Rates Act Loans to Canadian National Railway Company
Amount not exceeding $11,410,490.85 to meet expenditures made or indebtedness incurred (where amounts available from net operating income or investments may he insufficient) by or on behalf of the Canadian National Railway Company, herein called "the company" or any company specified or referred to in chapter 172 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, and chapter 13 of the statutes of 1920, or any company formed by way of amalgamation or consolidation of any such companies, or now or hereafter comprised in the Canadian National Railways or by the company in respect of any railways, properties and works entrusted to it from time to time under the provisions of section 19 of chapter 172 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, or any one or more of such companies, on any or all of the following accounts, such expenditures or indebtedness being herein called authorized expenditures:
(a)	Interest on securities, notes and other obligations: rentals for lease of lines and equipment;
(b)	Equipment principal payments; sinking funds; miscellaneous maturing or matured notes and other obligations secured or unsecured;
516	COMMONS
Supply-Loans to Canadian National
(c)	Operating income deficit, whenever incurred or ascertained;
(d)	Construction and betterments, including coordinations; acquisition of real or personal property, and working capital;
(e)	Acquisition of stock or securities of the Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company when duly issued under the authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The stock or securities so acquired to be deposited -with the Minister of Finance and Receiver General to be disposed of only when thereto authorized by the governor-in-council.
(f)	Acquisition of stock or securities of the Central Vermont Railway, Inc. when duly issued under the authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The stock or securities so acquired to be deposited with the Minister of Finance and Receiver General to be disposed of only when thereto authorized by the governor-incouncil.
The amount herein authorized may be applied from time to time to meet authorized expenditures in the discretion of the governor-in-council.
(a)	In respect of railways, properties and works entrusted to the company as aforesaid;
(b)	In respect of railways, properties and works not so entrusted;
by way of loans in cash, or by way of guarantee, or partly one way and partly the other, subject, however, as follows:
If by way of loans from His Majesty, the amount or amounts advanced to any one or more of the said companies shall be repayable on demand, with interest payable half-yearly at the rate fixed from time to time by the gover-nor-in-couneil, secured if and when directed by the governor-in-council by mortgage or mortgages upon such properties, in such form and containing such terms and conditions, not inconsistent herewith, as the governor-in-council may approve.
If by way of loans from persons other than His Majesty (without the guarantee of His Majesty) the amounts, terms and conditions of such loans shall be such as the governor-incouncil may from time to time approve.
If by way of guarantee, any such guarantee may be either a general guarantee covering the total amount of the issue, or by a separate guarantee endorsed on each obligation, and may be of the principal, interest and sinking funds (if any) of the notes, obligations or securities of one or more of the said companies specified by the governor-in-council, which notes, obligations or securities the companies so specified are hereby authorized to make and issue from time to time, provided that the total principal amount thereof at any one time outstanding shall not. together with any part of the loans represented by cash, exceed the total amount mentioned in this vote,-namely $11,410,460.85, and any such guarantee may be signed by the Minister of Finance or such other person as the governor-in-council may authorize on behalf of His Majesty, in such form and on such terms and conditions as the governor-in-council may determine to be appropriate and applicable thereto. Any guarantee so signed shall be conclusive evidence for all purposes of the validity of the guarantee and that the provisions of this enactment have been complied with.
Should temporary loans be made or negotiated before the lapse of this appropriation either from His Majesty or other persons

guaranteed notes, obligations or securities may subsequently be issued under the provisions of the preceding paragraph of this enactment to renew, refund or adjust such loans, or any part thereof.
Each company herein mentioned or referred to is hereby authorized to aid and assist, in any manner any other or others of the said companies, which expression as used here and hereinafter shall include the Canadian Government Railways, entrusted as aforesaid, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, may for its own requirements and also for the requirements of any or all of such other companies from time to time;
(a)	Issue notes, obligations or other securities, joint or several, at discretion, for the purpose of any guarantee made or to be made under the provisions of this enactment;
(b)	Apply the proceeds of any such guaranteed issue, or the amount of loans received by virtue of this enactment, in meeting authorized expenditures on its own account or on account of any or all of such other companies.
_ (c) Make advances for the purpose of meeting authorized expenditures to any or all of such other companies, upon or without any security, at discretion.
No purchaser of such guaranteed notes, securities or obligations shall be under any obligation to inquire into the application of the proceeds of any guaranteed issue.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, this appropriation shall not lapse before May 31, 1931.
Further amount required, in addition to the sum of $51,600,000 already appropriated, due to increase in the amount of deficit arising from operations in the year 1930, $11,410,400.85.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps I can make a short statement to the committee. The form of this estimate is one settled by eminent counsel who had to do with passing upon the validity of securities issued by the railways. Part of it is not relevant to this particular estimate, but the railway counsel desire that the -form followed- heretofore should be used in this particular instance. The amounts are made up as follows:
Net income and profit and loss requirements after interest charges, $28,327,463.50.
Cash discount and issue expenses paid during the year, $1,167,833.15.
Retirement of capital obligations, $4,667,120.
Sinking fund requirements, $2,957,280.06.
Acquisition of securities, $19,197.
Net financial requirements, $37,100,499.71.
Capital Requirements
General additions and betterments (less retirements), $19,679,172.24.
Equipment trust issue series "L" 25 per cent, $5,251,143.85.
Equipment trust discount and issue expense, $483,379.10.
Total cash requirements, $62,514,194.90.
Discount on securities-non cash, $496,205.95.
Total, $63,010,400.85.
Less authorized under vote 323, $51,600 000.
Supplementary vote required, $11,410,400.85.
It therefore requires $11,410,400.85, the amount mentioned in the estimate, to provide

Supply-Loans to Canadian National
for what was expected would be provided for by the $51,600,000 voted. In other words, the estimate was $11,4(10,400.85 less than the actual expenditures. It therefore becomes necessary to add to the $51,600,000 that I have just mentioned, the sum of $11,410,400.85 provided for in this estimate.


Charles A. Stewart: Before the right hon. gentleman sits down, will he explain the only new feature, that is the extension of time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The ex-Minister of the Interior asks why under this estimate the moneys may be spent prior to the 31st day of May. In the accounting of the railways, the very difficulties that have been experienced in government have arisen, and the auditors desire that this sum which is now known to exist, but all of which has not been audited and settled in the ordinary course of transactions, should be made available for the purposes up to within a reasonable time. The principal reason is that they have no money with which to pay this now and that they may not get the money for some little time, because we have to provide it. It is rather a large sum of money, so they suggest that if the 31st May be fixed, this would enable them, without question, to treat the accounts in the manner I have indicated.


Eugène Fiset: I suppose the right hon. gentleman realizes that the statement he has just given to the committee is rather extraordinary. This is the first time in my experience I have seen a supply bill used to amend the Audit Act. The matter is a serious one. The Audit Act is the root and basis of our financial structure and I do not believe it is proper to use it in this manner.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why?


Eugène Fiset: I will tell the right hon. gentleman why. I wonder that the Prime Minister who, I think, is more familiar than I am with the Audit Act, realizes that section 49 of that act not only enables the government to spend all moneys voted by parliament on the main or supplementary estimates, but also authorizes the government by order in council to extend the time of any such payment for exactly the period he is now asking parliament to extend the fiscal year, namely, from April 1 to May 31. This is provided under section 49 of the Audit Act, if there are any payments pending that have not been specifically and in exact amount provided for by this vote-though the vote as I said a minute ago is extremely explicit, though it is couched in precisely the same
language as the main estimate for the capital expenditure of the Canadian National Railways. This is the first time these means have been used to modify, by a supply bill, an act cf parliament. I think the Prime Minister has the power under section 49 of the Audit Act and strongly advise or request or beg him to strike out of the supply bill the words-
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, this appropriation shall not lapse before May 31, 1931.
I think the right hon. gentleman has the power to do that under the Audit Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question raised by the
hon. member for Rimouski is one that has been considered by the government. Section 39 of the act provides the method whereby it may be done. It provides:
When any sum of money has been granted to His Majesty by parliament to defray expenses for any specified public service, the governor general may, from time to time, under his sign manual, countersigned by a member of the treasury board, authorize and require the Minister of Finance to issue out of the moneys in his hands, appropriated for defraying the expenses of such service, the sums required, from time to time, to defray such expenses, not exceeding the amount of the sum so voted or granted.
This means that the Minister of Finance must send the recommendation to council; secondly, that it must be considered by council; thirdly, when adopted, the governor in council releases it; and fourthly, letters of credit are issued with respect to it.


Eugène Fiset: Will the right hon. gentleman read the second paragraph of section 49?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have it beside me, but 1 do not want to take up time in reading it. This is not our money for the purpose of expending it as we please. It is required to meet specific deficits in the operation of the railway; and their audit is made, not ours. All we do is to pass it out of our hands under the circumstances to which I have alluded. I desire, inasmuch as it may be difficult under present conditions to raise the sum of money required in a moment or two, that we and the railway company both should have an extension of time until the 31st of May in which to deal with the matter. It is unusual, I admit. It has been done only once before, but that was on an occasion somewhat similar to this. If the committee thinks that the public interest is not being as well served in this way as in some other, I am content; but it might result in the sum of money not being made available at all.

Supply-Loans to Canadian National


Charles A. Stewart: The usual practice is to borrow from the bank when you have authority.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Suppose the bank will not lend it; that is the trouble.


Charles A. Stewart: I did not think that the bank would refuse to lend money to the government.


Eugène Fiset: I am not criticizing; I am simply calling the attention of the house to what is being done. I am firmly convinced that you have the power to exercise your rights under section 49 of the act. I would like the Prime Minister to consider for a moment the four modes provided for raising these loans; first, by direct loan; second, by loans from the public; third, by guarantees; fourth, by temporary borrowing. More than that, these four methods must be approved by the governor in council. So you have there all the necessary machinery to raise the money immediately, and in addition you can provide money by governor general's warrant. It has been the opinion of the committee in the past that the way in which we have allowed these loans to be floated by the Canadian National perhaps has not been the proper method, and I think that when the question of adjusting the general finances of the Canadian National oomes up for consideration, there will be a considerable body of opinion that the present method is not the proper way of doing it. I certainly believe that you have all the necessary power under this appropriation and under the Audit Act, without creating this precedent. That is only my opinion, but I felt in duty bound to express it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to say to the committee that I am informed, and my own judgment is, that this is a simpler method of dealing with the situation. It only asks that this sum of money shall, notwithstanding the fact that it would ordinarily lapse by twelve o'clock to-night, be made available to the 31st. day of May.


Eugène Fiset: With this special provision my right hon. friend must realize that it is immaterial whether the money is voted to-day or to-morrow, because you have until the 31st of May.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the date provided here, and those who are charged with the responsibility think it desirable that a provision of this sort should be inserted in the act.
I am bound to say that in my judgment it is a sound provision in this particular instance.
[Mr. BeruiPtt.l


Charles A. Stewart: It is really the auditors of the company who are anxious.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But we also are concerned.


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
understand where your concern is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will tell you: We cannot find the money to-morrow or the next day.


James Layton Ralston: The act provides that the credit shall lapse at twelve o'clock to-night, but the general act, without this special provision, provides that the government may extend the time of credit for a period of two months.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not the kind of case that is meant by that at all.


James Layton Ralston: This is a vote made by parliament for a particular purpose. The money may eventually go to the Canadian National Railway, but for the present it goes to the government and is paid out by government cheque.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely my hon. friend does not mean that. This is a credit not for the government but for the railway, and so far as we are concerned this is the last time we propose to submit it in that form. I repeat, this is not a credit to the government; it is merely a credit to the railway company.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend will admit that the government can secure the money from parliament for that particular purpose as for any other purpose. There is really no difference. The government could not, of course, divert the money from the railway, but the government is responsible for raising the money for the railway and passing it on to them. I cannot understand why the government should require any extra time. There may be reasons why the railway may require extra time.


William Duff: Before we carry this item and the two items following, one for the Canadian Government Merchant Marine and the other for the Canadian National Steamships, is it understood that if these three items are passed to-night we can discuss, either in this committee or in the special committee on railways and shipping, everything in connection with these items when we are considering the general financial structure of the Canadian National Railways, the merchant marine and the Canadian National Steamships?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Carried.

Supply-Loans to Canadian National


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, Mr. Chairman.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is nearly twelve o'clock, and if the appropriation is to carry to-night-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Unless we can have the money appropriated in the regular way, I am afraid it will not be appropriated by twelve o'clock. When the Prime Minister spoke with respect to this matter in the house on the 27th of March last, he evidently had in mind that the course he is proposing here was not wholly regular and might be open to some exception.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: His words I took to imply that, because he said, at page 355 of Hansard:
That has been done before, and the reason is that the obligations have been created. The bills are not all in and will not be in by Tuesday next, and therefore it is desired to have until May 31 to audit the accounts and make the payments. When the bill comes before the house, if the house thinks such a provision-which is purely a matter of bookkeeping to facilitate the operations of the company-should not be there, it can be dealt with later. The estimate does not bind the house.
I took those words to mean that the Prime Minister would defer to the wishes of a considerable body of opinion in the house if it expressed itself as being opposed to this particular course. May I say to my Tight hon. friend that our desire in this matter is to further what he a moment ago expressed himself so strongly as favouring, namely effectual parliamentary control over expenditures. The Audit Act relates to the payment of accounts. My right hon. friend drew attention, in a way that perhaps the house did not observe, to the fact that what is being asked is something more than permission to make payment of expenditures already made. What he is seeking, or perhaps I should say what the officers of the company appear to be seeking through this provision, is authority not only to have expenditures already made regularized, or payment made of services already performed, which is all that we should be asked to sanction, but that payment may be made of obligations incurred but which are 'not in the nature of services already performed and payment with respect to which as a consequence may be made only at some future time. That is a wrong principle for the house to sanction. The whole purpose of the Audit Act is to see that accounts, where services have been performed, are paid within a certain time. If we pass this item in the form here
proposed we will be opening the door to am entirely new principle in government auditing which will mean that the government, despite an aot of parliament passed in order to prevent anything of the kind, will be saying to a corporation that it may incur obligations today but that it need not fulfil the obligations within a given time, but may make payment of them within several months after the fiscal or financial year has elapsed. My right hon. friend used the following words:
Perhaps my right hon. friend will observe that there is a provision making this estimate available until the end of May, although practically all sums have been expended already.
With respect to all sums already expended no objection is being taken, and without the clause to which exception has been taken all such sums will be paid. But my right hon. friend adds the following:
.... or the liabilities have been incurred for which the money is required.
I do not think that we should be asked to repeal a part of the audit act so as to allow payment of liabilities which have been incurred to be made beyond a period of time never contemplated when parliament was surrounding the expenditure of public monies with the safeguard which the audit act places about it. On the following page my right hon. friend said:
The amounts covered by these estimates have been spent, or the deficits have arisen, but all the bills have not come in as yet.
The purpose of an audit is to see that accounts are sent in within a certain time and that the audit will cover expenditures which have been made, but that it shall not be. extended so as to permit commitments to be made to-day to be met several months after the termination of the financial year. When during the special session the government introduced the Unemployment Relief bill it was pointed out that it was desirable that the provisions of that act should expire with the fiscal year. However, my right hon. friend then adopted a new method of permitting payment of public moneys for a period beyond the fiscal year. I should like to read his words as they are found in Hansard, page 164:
However. I would add by way of amendment that any moneys that have not been expended, or that are not liable to be paid under obligations already created, shall lapse on March 31,
1931.
Upon that occasion my right hon. friend was introducing an entirely new principle with respect to appropriations by this parliament. He was not appropriating moneys required to be expended simply within the year but he
520	COMMONS
Supply-Loam to Canadian National
was appropriating sums of money which might continue to be paid out long after the fiscal year had expired, running on possibly inde-. finitely into another fiscal year so long as the obligation might be said to have been incurred within the fiscal year in which the act was passed. That is a very serious departure and a departure which is being emphasized and repeated by What is being proposed at the present time. I would humbly suggest to my right hon. friend that he defer to the wishes of a very considerable number, if not a majority in this house, and adhere strictly to the provisions of the audit act with respect to all government financing and particularly financing with respect to the National Railways.
Possibly I may be permitted at this point to add a word which may help to regularize matters and at the same time help to avoid the embarrassment my right hon. friend fears. Undoubtedly he will be asking parliament for a percentage of the main estimates immediately following the Easter recess. If he finds that the railway company is going to be embarrassed through not having the amount of money that is needed to meet obligations which will be coming due in the new fiscal year, and some of which may be included in the amount which is set forth in the present estimate of $11,410,400.85 I think I can say to him on behalf of the opposition that we will offer no objection to an estimate applicable to the new fiscal year which he may present at the same time to make good that particular difference so that there will be no embarrassment occasioned the company. Under the circumstances I hope my right hon. friend will feel that he might properly ask the chairman to strike out the. clause which if it remains would oblige us in connection with this estimate to all intents and purposes to repeal an important provision of the audit act and establish a precedent which I believe he would greatly regret immediately it had been established.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I certainly do not purpose to take up the time of this house in traversing the observations made by my right hon. friend. The hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) must have overlooked para-|raph 4 of section 49 of the audit act.
No such order shall be made or credit issued thereunder, if parliament shall in the meantime have granted an appropriation out of which such outstanding debts may properly be paid, or such outstanding obligations be properly met.


Eugène Fiset: That is exactly the appropriation that is proposed to be made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The rights cannot be
exorcised for two months. The very minute it is passed it takes effect.


James Layton Ralston: That means if there is a new appropriation the next year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; I shall read it again.
No such order shall be made or credit issued thereunder, if parliament shall in the meantime have granted an appropriation..


James Layton Ralston: After the order in council is made?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No,
.... have granted an appropriation,-
-for these particular purposes. So far as I am concerned this is a matter of supreme indifference. As a Minister of Finance I am endeavouring to discharge my duties and to pioceed in fairness to the corporation for which this money is voted. If hon. gentlemen opposite desire to take a different attitude they may do so. However, I have stated my position. I believe I am taking the position that any lawyer or any business man would take, namely: Can the public interest be adversely affected? Is some audit to be held? Is some supervision of accounts to be made? If the answer to these questions is in the affirmative there can be no possible harm done to the public interest; if otherwise, some harm might be done. When I hear hon. gentlemen opposite talk about departure from precedent I say, "Certainly, that is what laws are for." That is what parliaments are for-to make precedents when occasion arises. The fiscal year of this railway company ended December 31. We have now reached the end of March and they require $11,000,000 to meet the deficit in operations for the year ending December last. Through this estimate we are given the opportunity to provide money until May 31 under the same sanction, with the same provision and the same audit, and it is idle to talk of any other feasible means being provided to supervise this expenditure.
Now, if my right hon. friend thinks that in the public interest this item should be stricken out I am content; take it out. I am not at all concerned about it. I will say however that it will work a great injustice on the people concerned; it will cause needless hardship and needless delay, and parliament with its plenary power should see to it that as little inconvenience as possible is caused to businessmen in the discharge of their obligations.


Jean-François Pouliot: Might I ask my right
hon. friend a question? What amount has been spent on vote 323 of last year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is that?

Ways and Means-Supply Bill


Jean-François Pouliot: What amount has been
spent from rote 323 of last year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The whole of it, $51,600,000.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, I think my right hon. friend is not correct, because that amount included an expenditure for the station at Riviere du Loup which has not been spent. Does my right hon. friend mean that the Minister of Railways and Canals has just wired to the Canadian National Railway officials advising them that one of the tenders has been approved?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It means that the Canadian National Railways through their vicechairman in charge of finance, as well as through direct supervision and inspection by representatives of the Department of Finance, have certified that the whole of the $51,600,000 has gone, and $11,000,000 with it. That is what it means.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, part of the station
must have been stolen away. In order to finish the year well the Tory delegation came to Ottawa to ask the government for a favour, as the Minister of Railways has said. Some people must have blocked the action of that delegation because they did not get what they wanted. I ask no favour of this government; I do not need any favour from them. I claim justice for my people and that is why I stand up now and ask the Prime Minister to be kind enough to give me an answer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I suggest that
every member of the committee hopes that the hon. member does not receive justice.


Alfred Speakman: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that it would be doing this house a great favour were we to provide the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) with the necessary terminal facilities.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I heard the
Prime Minister direct Mr. Chairman, that a particular paragraph should be struck out.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I move that the paragraph at the top of page 3 be deleted.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before it is adopted-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The first three lines of
the resolution on page 3.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Is it the pleasure of
the committee to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: In view of the fact that all this money will not now be required, might not the minister wish to reduce the item?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is already spent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Some of it is incurred.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Incurred means spent.
Item as amended agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial vear ending 31st March, 1931, the sum of $19,842,664.22 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Bennett thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 17 for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1931.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. BENNETT moved the second reading of the bill.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have no
desire to delay the passage of the bill, but it is after midnight and I would ask my right hon. friend whether he has considered the possibility of adjourning over the recess when we get through to-night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think we shall have to meet to-morrow because the Senate is no longer sitting and it will be necessary now, in view of the fact that it is past the 31st of March, to make some provision, by means of a section added to this bill, that cheques may be issued against it for a certain number of days, four, five, six or whatever number may be agreed upon. Otherwise the appropriation lapses before it is made. That is what I was urging upon my hon. friends. We can go into committee now, but that will
World Wheat Conference

not dispose of the matter, because I desire to look into the question of an amendment to provide that the fund voted may be made available in proper form. What I was going to propose was that:
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, the amounts appropriated by this act may be paid at any time on or before the 11th day of April, 1931, and such payments shall be deemed to have been made in and be chargeable to the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1931, but this shall not be construed to affect the special provision relating to the lapse of the appropriation under vote No. 65 as set forth in schedule B to this act.
There is a regulation, which has not the force of law, by which cheques have been dated back to the 31st March.


Eugène Fiset: With the approval
of the Auditor General.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am talking about that; that does not give it any sanction. Surely the hon. gentleman knows that. The statute which he has been reading to-night, and to which he attaches so much importance, should inform him of that. I believe that in departmental accounting they have followed the custom of most businesses and accounted as liabilities those that come in up to within the first fortnight. Cheques issued up to April 11 would be ample for the purpose. Under the circumstances, the house will adjourn until tomorrow, when we shall dispose of the amendment. The committee may have an opportunity to think about it in the meantime. I have not been able to get it printed, but it merely provides that cheques may be issued up to April 11, 1931, and chargeable against the year ending March 31, 1931. Without that this would be a needless expenditure of labour.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is the motion
to adjourn before the house?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and we will finish this business to-morrow.


Robert Gardiner: I understand we are
still on the second reading of this bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the second reading
was given.


Robert Gardiner: I do not think it was carried. May I suggest, in view of the fact that it is now April 1st, that we might very well go into committee of the whole and finish this matter, and then the house could be adjourned until after the Easter recess. That would be preferable if the Prime Minister has the information available.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The motion is that this bill be now read a second time.
IMr. Bennett.]


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Schedule B contains the
words which were struck out in committee. They will have to be struck out in the bill.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Schedule B is amended by striking out the words:
Notwthstanding the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, this appropriation shall not lapse before May 31, 1931.
Section as amended agreed to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire to propose an
amendment to section 4, but in view of the fact that the words in schedule B, to which reference has just been made, have been struck out, I should like to settle the terms of section 4 absolutely between now and tomorrow, so there may be no question as to their correctness. I think this is a better course to pursue in view of what has transpired here, so I now move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again for the purpose of adding an amendment.
Progress reported.
On motion otf Mr. Bennett, the house adjourned at 12.10 a.m., Wednesday.
Wednesday, April 1, 1931


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 20, respecting a certain patent of A. R. Wilfley & Sons, Inc.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 21, respecting The Montreal and Atlantic Railway Company-Mr. Pickel.
Bill No. 22, respecting the construction and maintenance of a bridge over the river St. Lawrence at Caughnawaga-Mr. Dupuis.
Bill No. 23, respecting The Essex Terminal Railway Company-Mr. Robinson.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have to advise the house that I have received from the High

Royal Grain Commission
Commissioner in London a telegram which is dated at Rome and which reads in part as follows:
After days of discussion I submitted resolutions providing for conference of all exporting countries. Motion unanimously endorsed and representatives export countries organized conference last night. As Canada's representative I was selected permanent chairman. Invited conference to Canada and pressed strongly for acceptance. All expressed desire for Canada but felt distance and time made it impossible. As next best I suggested London with Canada House meeting place. Unanimously approved and conference meets there May 18.


Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: Has Russia also been invited to this conference that is proposed to be held in London?


Richard Bedford Bennett: A Russian delegate was present at the selection of London as a meeting place and expressed his intention of being present at the conference.


Jean-François Pouliot: Did he shake hands with Mr. Ferguson?


ROYAL GRAIN COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: A few days ago I promised that before the Easter recess I would make a short statement regarding the proposed commission that is to be appointed to look into matters connected with the grain trade. For some years past there has been prevalent amongst the agricultural class, especially the grain producers in western Canada, the opinion that the sale of grain futures was detrimental to the producer. There is also a certain body of public opinion that holds the exactly opposite view. It is regarded by the government as important that the question should be authoritatively determined. The government has asked the three western provinces to agree on the naming of a representative of the agricultural interests and the grain exchanges to name another, and the government has requested Sir Josiah Stamp, who is the chief executive officer of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway and who is regarded as one of the most eminent living economists, to come to Canada as chairman of that commission. Sir Josiah Stamp has consented to undertake the work, although it will entail some considerable inconvenience to him. He will sail this week, and if nothing happens to the contrary he will arrive in Ottawa about the ninth day of April. He will proceed west and determine with his colleagues the simple, single question:	Does
the sale of grain futures operate to the detriment of the producer? It is hoped that the finding of that commission will lay at rest the difficulties that have so long been present in the minds of agriculturists of western Canada.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) the other day made an observation with respect to a "Canada first" policy. Owing to the fact that there has been a sharp difference of opinion on this continent with respect to the desirability of maintaining markets for the sale of futures, it is believed that the purpose which we have in mind will be best served by securing the services of a chairman entirely removed from the scene of those conflicts of opinion on the American continent. Accordingly, Sir Josiah Stamp has been asked to come, and he has accepted the task.


LAUZON DRY DOCK
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. 0. L. BOULANGER (Bellechasse):	I
would like to put'this question to the Minister of Public Works: Is it true, as reported in the press, that the government is going to lease to a private company one of the government dry docks at Lauzon?
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: All I have to say is that an application for a lease has been made, and the matter is under consideration.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. STITT (Selkirk):: I should like to ask a question based on a report which appears in the Ottawa Journal of this morning, and in order to place my question properly before the house I beg leave to read an excerpt from the statement which appears in the Journal. The statement is headed:
Federal relief to be continued. Minister of Labour issues statement that money is available.
The words which purport to be a quotation from a statement of the Minister of Labour are as follows:
The statement in part concluded:	"No
portion of the moneys appropriated for the carrying on of improvement works throughout Canada, amounting to $68,980,999, will lapse until June 1 next in Ontario, and July 1 in all other provinces, by which time it is
Unemployment Relief

expected the public works authorized by municipal, provincial and federal authorities will have been carried to completion."
With reference to direct relief, the sum of $4,000,000 was specifically appropriated by order in council on September 26, 1930, to pay one-third of the expenditures of municipalities for direct relief where suitable work cannot be provided for the unemployed.
On March 8. 1931, another order in council set aside $4,000,000 for direct relief.
"The estimated expenditure for direct relief to March 31, 1931, is about one and one-half *nillion dollars," continues the statement. 'There, therefore, remains available from the federal government's contribution for direct relief, the sum of two and one-half million dollars, which, it is intended, shall be used f?r the purpose outlined so long as the municipalities and provinces who are under agreement with the federal authorities to each Dear one-third of the total cost, consider conditions ot relief measures necessary."
My question is:	Does the representative
of the Minister of Labour in the house know whether or not this statement was given to the press by the Minister of Labour, and is tho statement correct?


Hon. W. A. GORDON (for the Minister of Labour):: The statement given by the Minister of Labour to the press, and which has just been read by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stitt), is correct. I do not think that the hon. members for Winnipeg yesterday intended, in making the statements they did, to create any false impression, but apparently they were themselves labouring under a false impression when they stated that at midnight the moneys would lapse and there would be no further expenditures, or words to that effect. The expenditure will go on in accordance with the plan outlined by the Labour department; the works which have been initiated will be carried to their conclusion, and the services of those who have been employed on these works will be continued.


Mr. BOTJRASSA:: To complete the minister s statement, would he explain why the extension is for one month less in the case of Ontario as compared with the other provinces?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I can only state in reply that those arrangements were made with the provinces and with the municipalities, and I presume that it suited the purpose to have it so arranged.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I had been about
to rise, Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, to refer to the despatch which has just been quoted by my hon. friend from Selkirk. The statement as handed to the press by Senator Robertson also included a statement that the impression conveyed by our speeches [J. H. Stitt.)
yesterday was wholly misleading. After the words of the minister speaking for the Minister of Labour in this house (Mr. Gordon) there is perhaps no very great need for us to state that we did not intend to mislead the house in any way. We had had no statement before the one read to-day from any member of the government as to the real situation; and, let me add, in some of the provinces at least the date of the 31st of March was definitely fixed as the date beyond which relief would not be given. I am informed this morning by the department that that is an arrangement as between the provinces concerned and the municipalities. That may be so, but I had had communications from outside that the relief was being cut off on the 31st of March and that in a number of municipalities there were no funds with which to pay relief under the arrangement beyond the 31st of March. So I hope the house will accept my statement that we had no desire whatever to mislead the house with regard to the urgency of the situation.


KENORA-FORT FRANCES HIGHWAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Peter Heenan: Might I ask if the Minister of
Labour will not interest himself in a work up in my riding? Two highways have been under construction under the unemployment relief fund, but the work has been closed down, throwing hundreds of men out of employment. The province of Ontario states that there are no more funds available for the work. I would ask the Minister of Labour to take an interest in this question and see that the people in that part of the province of Ontario are not discriminated against.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not think I need declare
to my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) my interest in the part of the country to which he has reference. I am very well acquainted with it and he need have no fear that my interest will not be sustained or that that part of the country will suffer through any lack of interest.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: May I ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) when we may expect the annual financial report of the Canadian National Railways?

Supply Bill


Robert James Manion: I made the same inquiry
myself of the management the other day, and they told me it would be ready about this time. It is not yet to hand, but I expect it here in a few days.


FRASER RIVER DREDGING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Reid: I have a few questions to ask of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart), in view of a communication that I received this morning in connection with dredge No. 303. Can the minister give the house the reason for tying up this dredge and throwing men out of work when the dredge is required to operate before the freshet season commences on the Fraser river? I should also like to ask whether, when the dredge is again put into operation, the minister can give us the assurance that the same captain and crew will be re-engaged.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As the hon. gentleman did not
advise me that he was going to ask this question, I have not the information with me. If he will put his question on the order paper, I shall be glad to answer it.


Thomas Reid: As a new member I did not
know that it was necessary to approach the minister first.


NEW WESTMINSTER PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Thomas Reid: Can the Minister of Public Works advise the house why the laundry work of the Dominion buildings in New Westminster was taken away from New Westminster and placed with a Vancouver laundry?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I really do not know. I am not
running the laundry out there.


ROYAL ASSENT
Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following letter:
Sir,-
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Mr. Justice Newcombe, Acting Deputy Administrator, will proceed to the Senate chamber this day at 3.30 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
James F. Crowdy,
Assistant Secretary.



SUPPLY BILL

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 17, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1931

Mr. Bennett-Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 4-Amounts chargeable to year ending March, 1931.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Since last evening I have arranged to have the amendment printed in the bill, and I suggest that the Chairman read it so that hon. members may know the exact terms in which it is worded.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The amended clause 4 reads as follows:
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, the amounts appropriated by this act may be paid at any time on or before the 11th day of April, 1931, and such payments shall be deemed to have been made in and be chargeable to the fiscal year ending the 31st of March, 1931.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 5-Account to be rendered in detail.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The new clause, No. 5 is as follows:
A detailed account of the sums expended under the authority of this act shall be laid before the House of Commons of Canada during the first fifteen days of the then next session of parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the bill reaches a stage beyond that of the committee of the whole may I remind the right hon. the Prime Minister that I asked for some information last night. I asked him to ascertain from the Minister of Labour (Senator Robertson) whether he gave to any publication, or to anybody on behalf of any one of these publications, an assurance that it would receive special consideration. My question refers to certain papers and journals enumerated by my right hon. friend and he said he would give me the information to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I have explained to my right hon. friend that there are no such documents or communications, at least upon the public files. I was permitted to read a letter written by Senator Robertson to the Hon. Charles McCrea. It was a personal letter in answer to a personal and confidential communication. I cannot give to the house the information contained in that letter. As it makes no commitment so far as the government is concerned, and was a personal communication, obviously I cannot communicate its contents to the house.

Royal Assent


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My question was whether or not the minister had given an assurance to anybody, not merely a written communication, but an assurance that certain of these papers or any one of them would receive special consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as I know the answer must be in the negative. As I intimated to my right hon. friend however that construction might be placed upon a personal communication. Obviously I was permitted to read the letter only as a personal communication between two gentlemen one of whom is not a member of this house and so far as I know is not connected with any newspaper.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend has referred to communications. I should like to know whether an assurance was given to anybody on behalf of a paper. Assurances can be given by a minister verbally as well as in writing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure that he did not. Mr. MACKENZIE KING: All right. Then I asked for some information in regard to printing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have that information before me. Officials of the Post Office Department state the only printing that was done was done through the King's Printer and not otherwise, and the only direct contract for printing was made with the King's Printer. The King's Printer, referring to the inquiry made by the right hon. gentleman, states in a memorandum which I have before me that the only printing order for the Post Office Department placed by or for the King's Printer with a London firm during the fiscal year 1930-31 was an order made under date of July 9, 1930, to Lawson and Jones, Limited, London, Ontario, for 274,500 arrow stickers, in English and French, for the mail service branch. This was a lithographic job. The work was duly executed and the account for $137.25 was approved and paid by cheque No. 3551 under date of August 29, 1930. So far as the records show that is the only evidence of any printing done in London, Ontario, which found its way to the Post Office Department.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the schedule.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The schedule has been amended, Mr. Chairman, by deleting certain words.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Yes.
Schedule as amended agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Richard Bedford Bennett: At this moment I should like to avail myself of the opportunity of thanking hon. gentlemen opposite for having by consent permitted the passing of the supply bill. We were entirely in the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite and they have enabled us to proceed with as little difficulty as possible, having regard to the circumstances.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his generous remarks and also wish him a pleasant Easter vacation.



ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Administrator, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the house went up to the Senate.
And having returned
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Administrator had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bill:
An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1931.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 4.15 p.m.,
Monday, April 13, 1931