1931-07-29

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MARK C. SENN (Haldimand) presented the fourth report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization as follows:	'
At the first meeting of the committee held for this purpose, the Hon. Mr. Weir, Minister of Agriculture, made a brief statement outlining his reasons for making the reference, and the course which he thought the committee should follow:
Your committee has called and examined the following named witnesses:-
W. A. Brown, chief of poultry division, Department of Agriculture.
A. W. Ault, egg and poultry division. Department of Agriculture.
W. L. Brown, member of the firm of William Brown Company, cattle importers, Manchester, England.
A. A. MacMillan, chief of sheep and swine division, Department of Agriculture.
S. E. Todd, Secretary of the Industrial and Development Council of Canada Meat Packers.
W. A. Amos, President, United Farmers' Cooperative Ltd.
W. West, egg dealer, Almonte, Ontario.
Jas. C. Richardson, grain merchant, member of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange.
Sydney T. Smith, representative of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. '
Andrew Cairns, representative of Canadian Wheat Pool.
The agricultural products more particularly studied included eggs, pork and pork products, beef and beef cattle, and exportable wheat.
With respect to the production, grading and marketing of eggs, your committee was fully informed by witnesses, W. A. Brown, chief of the poultry division and A. W. Ault, both of the Department of Agriculture, and also heard representations by witness W. West, an egg dealer of Almonte, Ontario.
Departmental regulations governing the grading and marketing of eggs -were carefully and fully examined and explained and the activities of the department officials charged with the enforcement thereof, fully gone into. The committee was informed that the federal government jurisdiction in this respect extended only to interprovincial and import and export trade, and that enabling legislation by the several provinces was necessary to the enforcement of such regulations. The position in this respect is that all of the provinces with the exception of Ontario and Quebec, have passed the necessary legislation to make enforceable the regulations promulgated in 1929. The regulations of 1924 are enforceable in the province of Ontario.
Notwithstanding the absence of authority to enforce the regulations of 1929 in Ontario and Quebec, the department officials find that voluntary cooperation by the trade is increasing from year to year.
Your committee is of the opinion that the principle of marketing poultry and eggs on a graded standard is in the interest of the producer, dealer and consumer, and recommends that every effort be made to insure the least possible difficulty in the handling, grading and

Agriculture Committee Report
marketing of poultry products, and to guarantee the greatest possible return to the producer.
The committee was fortunate in having appear before it, Mr. W. L. Brown, a member of the firm of William Brown & Company, Manchester, England, buyers and importers of beef cattle. _Mr. Brown gave a comprehensive statement of the conditions obtaining in the British market, the competition met and to be met by Canadian cattle, and the desirable class of beef cattle required by the British market. Mr. W. A. Amos, President of the United Farmers' Co-operative, Limited, also gave the committee valuable evidence.
The committee is of opinion that an export trade of increasing volume and value in beef cattle is open to this country dependent on the following conditions:-
(a)	Careful breeding, feeding, selection and conditioning of Canadian cattle.
(b)	Adequate shipping space.
(c)	Reasonable transportation rates, both rail and ocean.
(d)	A continuous and sufficient volume of available shipments the year round irrespective of the fluctuations in the market prices.
The committee therefore recommends that the foregoing conditions should be carefully and fully studied by the government with a view to bringing the same into effect.
Your committee went very thoroughly into the subject of hog production, breeding and marketing in relation to the requirements of the domestic market and the export trade.
Mr. A. A. MacMillan, chief of the swine division of the Department of Agriculture, Mr. Todd of the Canadian Packers and Mr. W. A. Amos, President of the United Farmers' Cooperative, Limited, gave valuable evidence in this respect. The committee held an informal meeting at the plant of Canada Packers, Limited, where, under the direction of Mr. Todd, a demonstration of the grading of live hogs was given, and an exhibit of dressed hogs of the several government grades was shown. Also cuts were made showing Wiltshire sides and the domestic cuts. This demonstration was exceedingly instructive.
The government hog regulations, their intent, effect, and application were fully considered and your committee is of the opinion that: Every effort should be made to improve the present system of grading so as to secure the least possible difficulty in the handling and marketing of same, and to insure the greatest possible return to the producer. In this regard we commend the Department of Agriculture in the experiments which are being conducted by way of comparison of grading on the hoof and grading on the rail.
Your committee has also given consideration to the wheat situation.
Representatives of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and of the Canadian wheat pools, upon invitation, appeared before the committee and expressed their views of the situation. Suggestions for the marketing of the carry-over wheat and of the export crop of 1931 were advanced. Reference was made to the negotiations now proceeding between the pools, the banks, the western provinces and the federal government.
In view of the evidence given before the committee, it is recommended that the government take whatever steps it may deem necessary to prevent a drastic decline in the price
paid to producers of wheat, especially during the fall months when the bulk of the crop is being marketed.
Your committee commends the experimental work carried on by the Department of Agriculture and particularly urges the continuance of efforts to inquire into and to disseminate information to the farmers in respect to:
(a)	The causes of and remedy for soil drifting. especially on the open prairies;
(b)	Precautions to take in seeding down to grass or clover, or the planting of trees and hedges or other means;
(e)	Any other matter pertaining to or allied with the live stock and live stock products industry in any part of Canada.
The important question of how to get the producer the maximum returns for his produce and the relation of the spread between producer and consumer was given careful study by your committee.
It is recommended that the Department of Agriculture should take whatever steps be deemed most efficient to obtain all available information on factors determining the spread between what the producer receives and what the_ consumer pays.
Your committee submits herewith its minutes of proceedings and evidence as an appendix to this report, and recommends that the said minutes and report be printed as an appendix to the Journals of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime
Minister): I cannot say what progress will be made with the business of the 'house, but I thought it desirable that we should provide for a sitting on Saturday morning next at eleven o'clock, as we may likely conclude business that day. With the consent of the house I shall move the motion, or I shall put it on the order for consideration to-morrow as the house may think desirable.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. BENNETT:: I beg to move:
That on Saturday first August next, the house shall meat at eleven oelock in the morning. That in addition to the usual intermission at six o'clock, p.m., there shall also be an intermission from one to three o'clock, p.m., and that the order of business and procedure shall be the same as on Friday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. MacLEAN:: 1.	Have any steps been taken by the government to negotiate a trade treaty with Cuba to insure the continuation of our market there for Canadian potatoes?
Questions

2.	If so, what progress has been made and what are the prospects for a reciprocal arrangement for the exchange of products.


Mr. STEVENS:: I thought I had the answer to this question under my hand, but I find I have not. I can, however, answer it in a sentence. The subject matter of questions one and two are under study by officers of the department, and the whole matter is under consideration by the government.


MB. JEAN BOUDBEAU
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CAjSGRAIN:
1.	Is the Minister of Marine aware that complaints were made against Mr. Jean Boudreau, Fightkeeper at Havre St. Pierre, on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river
2.	If so, what was the nature of these complaints?
3.	By whom were they made.'
4 Did the Department of Marine, through one of its officers, write to Mr. Boudreau asking him to admit his culpability following the complaints that had been made against him ?
Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1 and 2. The Minister of Marine is aware that charges of political partisanship have been made.
3.	Azade Boudreau.
4.	No, he was asked if the charges were well founded.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. LARUE:: 1.	How much money was spent for the relief of unemployment in the county of Matane?
2.	How much for direct relief?
3.	How many man's days' work were provided?	.
4.	How many families were granted rebel thereby?
5.	What is the actual cost of public works and undertakings which have been carried out in the above county?



CANADA POWER AND PAPEB COMPANY

Richard Bedford Bennett: As this question is a little long, it may stand as an order for return, and the information is tabled herewith.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. MARCIL:: For a copy of evidence and report in the case of J. A. Belanger, postmaster of St. Jean l'Evangeliste, in the investigation made by Mr. Gerard Siniard on charges of political partisanship.



MAJOB M. P. 1'EILLY

Mr. HEENAN (for Mr. Ralston):: For a copy of all memoranda, telegrams, recommendations, representations, petitions, communications, and other correspondence to or from the Minister of Immigration, or any other minister or ministers of the government and to or from any official of the government or of the Civil Service Commission, or any other person or persons, having reference to the dismissal of Major M. P. Neilly from the staff of the Soldiers' Settlement Board on June 30, 1931.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Charles Marcil: For a copy of all correspondence, letters and telegrams passing between the Western Clock Company Limited of Peterborough, or any official of the company, and the Minister of Finance, and to any other member of the Dominion government, during the year 1931.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On Monday I mentioned that this notice comes within the provisions of the exception that we have taken steadily this session, that matters of this kind containing information with respect to costs and business of competitors should not be tabled. There are some telegrams asking what action has been taken. They can be tabled, but nothing beyond that.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Perhaps in the absence of the hon. member in whose name the motion is presented, it had better stand.


Mr. COOTE:: What amount of debentures, subsidiary first mortgage bonds, preferred shares and common stock, or other securities of the Canada Power and Paper Company and associated companies which are affected by the reorganization plan of the security holders' protective committee of the Canada Power and Paper Company were held as at December, 1929, by each of the following companies:

Sun Life Assurance Company,
Great West Life Assurance Company, Canada Life Assurance Company,
Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada, Dominion Life Assurance Company, Manufacturers Life Assurance Company?
[Mr. MacLeanJ
Motion stands.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: I should like to address e.n inquiry to the Prime Minister based upon a communication which I have received from the mayor of the city of Kitchener. He refers to the plan apparently made by the Ontario government for sending single men to construction work in northern Ontario as a method of dealing

Farm and Unemployment Relief
with unemployment relief and also to the relief work which must be given to married men in towns and ciiies. In addition, he refers to the urgency of some decision; he states that a decision in connection with these matters must be made by the federal government and he urges that it be made as soon as possible so that the municipalities may make their preparations. 1 should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he could make a statement in regard to the natter in order that the municipalities may make preparations in due course.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I take it this is a matter in regard to which the municipalities are in communication with the provincial government. There are no communications between the municipalities and ourselves; they are dealing with their governments. It is a matter between the municipalities and the provincial governments.


William Daum Euler: But surely it is dependent on what this government will do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a matter between the province and us, not between us and the municipalities.



JAPANESE IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Immigration and Colonization regarding the exposure of an extensive province-wide conspiracy to evade immigration laws in connection with Japanese entering Canada. Fred Yoshi, former interpreter in the Department of Immigration and a few others are accused of a conspiracy in regard to forging papers enabling Japanese to enter this country illegally. In view of such allegations and the serious state of affairs, is it the minister's intention to pursue this matter with a view to checking up all Japanese legally or otherwise in British Columbia?


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration) :: In reply to the hon. member, the
checking up of Japanese illegally in Canada goes on constantly. That is true not only with respect to Japanese but any other people who are illegally in Canada. Regarding the particular matter to which reference has been made, an investigation was commenced by the officers of my department, with the assistance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The interpreter was, of course, discharged from his position. That investigation is proceeding, and in due course I shall receive a report of what disclosures, if any there may be.



FARM AND UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to confer certain powers upon the governor in council in respect to unemployment and farm relief; and for the maintenance of peace, order and good government in all parts of Canada; and to authorize the governor in council to expend for the said purposes out of the consolidated revenue fund such sums as may from time to time be necessary.
He said: Perhaps it would be advisable for me to make a statement now, or if the house prefers, I will do it after the Speaker leaves the chair and the house resolves itself into committee.
Mr. MACKENZIE  ICING@: Do it now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The adoption of this
resolution lays the foundation for the introduction of a bfll for the purpose of vesting in the governor general in council during the recess of parliament and until the end of the fiscal year full power to redress so far as it is possible the conditions of unemployment and distress now prevalent in certain sections of the Dominion. Comprehensive measures of relief cannot under the circumstances be undertaken without the expenditure of large sums of money. The expenditure of moneys not directly derived from current revenues should not be made without the clearest justification, and the justification which we plead, and which we claim is sufficient. in the interest of Canada as a whole.
The economic situation is apparent to parliament and to the public. It is not the intention of the government to minimize the gravity of it, nor is it its desire politically to profit by it. After the most searching inquiry the full facts of the situation are before us. The causes underlying the present state of affairs may be analyzed at another time when the electors are again asked to determine the form of economic structure most likely to sustain this country in hard times and to prosper it in better times. During the campaign which ended a year ago yesterday I repeatedly said that many of the causes contributing to the disruption of business in other lands had no place in Canada. I said so then; I say so now, and I maintain that this country has a right to expect that however good conditions may be elsewhere, they should be better here. This government
427b

Farm and Unemployment Relief
is not content with the knowledge that others are suffering more than we. What alone concerns us is that many of our people are now in want, and unless extraordinary measures are taken many more will know hardship and privation in the coming months of winter. Knowing this it becomes our solemn duty to aid them. In the short session of parliament last September and in the one now drawing to a close this government did all within its power to strengthen our economic structure and to repulse the wave of worldwide economic depression which was then upon us. I believe that we may fairly claim to have done much. The facts support this belief, but the maximum benefits of any measure of reform cannot be realized in a day or in a year. But, indeed, a short time more I think will prove conclusively that we were right. Of that I am convinced, and of this as well, that the policy of this government will put Canada in the van of the world's recovery.
I have said that I do not wish to make political capital of the present situation. I do not claim that even had this country for many years known the ideal in economic policies we would have been unaffected by the present world conditions, immeasurably aggravated as they have been Recently by the partial failure of t'he wheat crop in the west. In that regard if hon. members of this house will study the immigration returns for the fifteen months prior to the 7th day of August, 1930, they will find some reasons why the economic conditions in this country were as we found them on that day. Further, if they will study the exports of this country and observe that during the fifteen months before the 7th day of August, 1930, they began to dwindle, and if they will study the relation of imports to exports, they will realize the reasons that compelled this government to take the action it has done to repair the injuries to our economic structure which have resulted in the conditions to which I refer. To say, however, that these were wholly responsible for the conditions prevailing in this country would be unjust and unsound. In the past twelve months economic conditions throughout the world have grown gradually more acute. No normal legislation could have immediately and entirely offset them. It therefore becomes necessary for parliament to meet the situation, in so far as :t lies within its power so to do, by legislation specially designed for this abnormal situation. This government has had under the most careful consideration the means most likely to achieve that purpose, and has come to the conclusion that the best way to strike

at the root of the present trouble is to accelerate the natural progress of development by immediately commencing upon the construction of some such public works as will inure to the benefit of Canada. This program of national upbuilding is known to parliament and the country. The Conservative party was pledged to it in the campaign of last year, and after I was called upon to form a government I reaffirmed that pledge. When parliament met in the month of March last it was hoped that the amelioration of world conditions and a bountiful harvest in this country would, before the winter, result in a situation readily improveable by the measures of economic reform which have been passed. While that hope was possible of fulfilment, wisdom counselled the strictest conservation of our national revenues.
1 need hardly point out that the 120,000,000 that we voted in September last has given employment up to the end of July to upwards of 310,000 people, and it has resulted in contracts outstanding and work being done to the extent of some $70,000,000, scattered over every part of Canada, and every one of the undertakings assisted by that grant may be considered a work for the advantage of Canada as a whole, commencing with half a million for subways and going all down the line of public works, including road building. The amount expended for direct relief- I say direct relief-has not exceeded $2,000,000. It has not reached that sum. Under the cir-custances I think it will be realized that the national character of the relief afforded, which would be the only justification of our participating in relief operations at all, has been abundantly shown by the results which have been attained. But, as I have said, when we found this year that there was hope of an abundant harvest wTe realized that the conservation of our revenues was a duty of the first magnitude so far as this parliament was concerned, and we acted accordingly and awaited the harvest. But alas! for the second and even the third season the crops of the west have in large part been ruined by lack of moisture. During the last three weeks there was such an improvement as warranted the belief that there might be substantial quantities of green feed, for instance, available to take care of the stock and herds of those who live upon the prairies. But even that hope is now apparently destroyed, for the very scorching suns of the last few days have entirely changed that picture.
World conditions too, have since grown worse. The harvest as I have said, is in part a failure. In the opinion of the government therefore the circumstances justify an early

Farm and Unemployment Relief
expenditure of a sum of money which normally would have been spread over a period of years. Such moneys do not come from current revenues, and I believe a judicious outlay now will not be reflected adversely in the revenues of the country in the next few years. This, as I say, is a departure from settled procedure and practice based on our program, as we prepared it, from anticipated revenues. Normally it would not be justified, but under present conditions no true Canadian can cavil at it because it means increased employment, comforts and happiness to thousands of our citizens in the coming winter who would have had to go without the necessities of life. Nor need prudent citizens be unduly concerned over proposed expenditure; this country is solvent. If our people are assured of health, happiness and the means of livelihood, no capital disbursements, unless wantonly made, can impede our national fortunes built up by hard and intelligent working out of the vast riches which are our heritage.
I think everyone within sound of my voice to-day will agree with those propositions. Anyone, however, can be optimistic in good times. Optimism in bad times is bred of courage, faith and the capacity to endure. These are the dominant characteristics of Canadians. Not that I would urge the people of this country to nurture unfounded hopes; anxious times are yet ahead, and hard work and patience tad self denial are needed to bring good times out of them. But I hold that if we steadfastly maintain our belief in our destiny, which we do, and are prepared to meet the future with courage, which we are, then in this testing time we may fortify ourselves with the knowledge that following close upon the condition of to-day will come an era of true prosperity, fore-ordained, to those who have not swerved in their faith to themselves and to their country.
The pioneers of this country had to make for themselves their homes, and they had practically to provide from the soil, the sea, the rivers and the forests the wherewithal to enable them to live. We have lived in easier times. But we must fortify ourselves with the thought that the courage of the pioneers was never more required than now, and there never has been a time when faith in the ultimate destiny of our country was more required than it is to-day among the Canadian people.
The government realizes however that no matter how comprehensive this constructive program may be there will remain those who cannot directly benefit from it. That is,
there are those who may not benefit from constructive works carried on by the federal authorities with the provinces, and through the provinces with the corporations, towns and cities of the country. There are classes within the community who cannot work or for whom suitable work cannot be provided. These classes the government will assist either through the instrumentality of the provinces, and either public or private institutions, as may seem best, and in such ways as may seem most likely to assure the greatest measure of relief. No one will be asked to accept direct relief for whom suitable work can be procured.
During the last few days I have received telegrams from the province of Saskatchewan suggesting that it was not desirable that direct relief which might be regarded as charity should be accorded to those hardy settlers who have lost their all for the third, and in some instapces the fourth succeeding year, but rather that they would like to execute some document which would indicate that they regarded the help given as an obligation which they might some time be able to pay. I would say to my good friend from South Huron (Mr. McMillan) that that indicates at least the attitude of most of those who at the present time are without crops and who have had the third succeeding crop failure.


Mr. McMILLAN:: (Huron):	Why does
the Prime Minister address that expression to the hon. member for South Huron?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because of his observation the other day regarding the five cent bonus on wheat.


Thomas McMillan: And the
observation was entirely justifiable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so. Nobody will be permitted to accept direct relief who is able to undertake work which is offered to him.	I need hardly say that even at this
early date in the history of this country there are not lacking evidences of an unwillingness to work on the part of those who believe that this country should give them money for nothing. The other day a parade came up this hill, and I had taken the trouble to make some investigation with regard to it. One at least of the participators in the parade the day before had been driving a Ford car, soliciting charity from various homes in other parts of this city. His conversations on those occasions are a matter of record. In every part of this country there are some evidences of that, already,-that is, evidences

Farm and Unemployment Relief
of a willingness to accept from the state charity, and charity from private sources as well, rather than to work. So the principle upon which we endeavour to proceed and will proceed is that where there is work there will be pay, and that if an individual is capable of work and will not work there will be no benefits. If there be those who think to increase the public burdens by unfairly casting themselves upon the state it will be our duty to make them as self sustaining as circumstances will permit. The people's money is not for those who are able but unwilling to care for themselves. I warn them of that now. The measures we shall take will be denied their fullest benefit without the generous cooperation of all classes in the land. Upon that cooperation we confidently rely. If any deny that cooperation, then they cannot properly look to us for support.
In that regard the measure provides for the maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada. It is not for a moment to be thought that an insignificant number of strongly vocal persons shall be able so to affect the populace of this country as to make it impossible for us, in cooperation together as Canadians, 'to work out our destiny. I say that class, happily, is few in number. But in this present situation they now see an opportunity propitious to the prosecution of their pernicious political doctrines. This is a land of freedom where men may think what they will and say what they will, so long as they do not attack the foundations upon which our civilization has been built. But as we have freedom, so have we justice, and it is not just nor right that now or at any other time we should permit such action by words or deeds as may tend to unsettle confidence in the institutions and customs under which we live. Most of our legislation is framed upon that assumption. For instance, the Naturalization Act provides for the cancellation of naturalization certificates where by act or speech the individual has indicated that his purpose is to create disaffection in the minds of those to whom his speech may be directed. If in times past we have had recourse to the provisions of that act, and will have in the future, it is because we realize that although they are few in number who thus attack our institutions and who in the name of free speech imperil the very existence of those institutions, it is not proposed that in a time of crisis and peril such as the present they should be permitted to make it more difficult for those who would cooperate to work for the common good. If the government is given 
reason to believe, as there may be some cause for its so believing, that there is a settled purpose in the minds of a considerable number of people-not large, numerically, but scattered over the various parts of Canada-to take action against the maintenance of law and order, or make attempts to impede the difficult task with which we are charged, then we will take such action as in the judgment of the executive of this country, the cabinet who are the board of directors for the time being administering the affairs of this country, as will free this country from those who have proved themselves unworthy of our Canadian citizenship.
I have said, sir, that the resolution does not contemplate the fixing of an amount that should be expended. It would be difficult indeed at this time to indicate with any degree of precision the exact sums that may be required to be expended for the public good. For that reason someone has said that the government asks for a blank cheque. It is not that. We ask between now and the expiration of t'he next fiscal year that the board of directors of this country, charged as it is with responsibility, and with a deep sense of its responsibility, shall discharge its duties from a financial standpoint as it best can and take the chances that are incident to so doing by submitting an account of its stewardship to this parliament before the 31st day of March next. That is the position we take with respect to the matter. It is nothing new. I was thinking yesterday, when someone was making an observation akin to criticism of the governor in council being permitted to have a large discretion as to the amount that may be expended for the purposes in question, that only a few short years ago my friends who now sit opposite, and who then constituted the government of this country, passed a statute, chapter 58 of the statutes of 1924, in Which they gave to the governor in council the power to guarantee the bridge bonds of the Montreal harbour commissioners. In the parliament of that day it was said that the cost would be $6,000,000. Did they put any limitation on the bill that gave that power to guarantee? They did not. In the province of Quebec it was said that the cost would be $10,000,000. Yet there are now outstanding on that bridge bonds for $19,000,000.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Would not a limitation have been desirable?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am only pointing out that no such limitation was imposed, and that those who criticize with respect to a matter which affects the welfare of the public cannot

Farm and Unemployment Relief
very well do so on any ground of consistency in view of the position that we know now follows with respect to that undertaking, where $19,000,000 of bonds are outstanding, issued without limitation, pursuant to the provisions of chaper 58 of the statutes of that year.
Would a limitation now be desirable? I have a telegram from one of the western premiers, who, having seen the resolution in. the papers, congratulates the government on imposing no limitation, for the simple and obvious reason that otherwise there would be a contest between the provinces to get their "share" as they call it, of what may be appropriated, and he regarded anything of that character as being inimical to the best interests of the administration of the money. I can only repeat that that view, so far as we have been able to ascertain, is the view held by the major number of those charged with responsibility in the provinces. I can say with great frankness to this house that I have no desire, and no other member of the government has any desire, to incur expenses or create obligations of the country out of keeping with the position which we occupy. But we believe that it is in the. interests of Canada-of the Canadian taxpayer, of the provinces, of the people concerned, that we Should not place a limitation upon the amount that may be expended, either with respect to direct relief or otherwise, because in the one instance you create the idea "Here is a fund upon which anyone may draw without work, and we have a right to live upon this fund that the taxpayers have so provided." And on the other hand you would have a contest among the provinces to get all that they believed to be their "share." We desire to administer the affairs of this country at this critical time having regard to the necessities existing in each part of this Dominion. There is one province, we will say, in which you could not if you chose expend more than $15,000 or $20,000 for any purpose that should come within the purview of this proposed statute. Then there is another province in which, as I have pointed out to this house, it is not improbable that there may be as many as 25,000 families that will have to be provided for.
Nor do we in undertaking our obligations desire to supplant the constitutional responsibility of the provinces. That constitutional responsibility must still be discharged. All we are endeavouring to do is to assist those charged with that responsibility to a due and adequate discharge of it. We are not substituting this Dominion for the provinces under the constitution; we are not substituting this
Dominion for the municipalities or towns under the constitution; but we are endeavouring, and we will continue to endeavour, to give such assistance to the constituted authorities in the several provinces as will enable them with such supervision as we think necessary in the public interest, to safeguard the public exchequer and ensure the three purposes that I have indicated, namely; work for those who are willing to u'ork-and pay there will be for none unless they who can work do work; and secondly, as I said a moment ago, relief for that class to whom work in the ordinary acceptance of the term may not be easily provided'-that is, people of the type who by reason of invalidity or other causes are not able to work; and there is that other class to which I referred, namely, those who have no opportunity at all in the circumstances under which they live to find employment of any kind.
I will say frankly to the house that in asking what euphemistically is spoken of as a "blank cheque" we are not unmindful that we are asking very considerable from this House of Commons. But how otherwise could we discharge the functions and responsibilities that devolve upon us? That is the question. If you fix it at an}' sum you may suggest, I repeat, you but invite the very thing that we desire to prevent, and by so doing instead of serving the public interest we are preventing the greatest service being rendered that the means available are intended to render.
In that regard I think it but fair to say to the house that we have already taken active steps in all the provinces. Commencing at the western coast, the provincial government of British Columbia has prepared a very full and definite program as to what it believes can be done with the assistance of the federal authorities to meet the unemployment situation during the winter. A large number of unattached single men have gone into the great city of Vancouver. That imposes upon the local authorities a burden of great magnitude. Almost every train has taken men into that city. If the provincial government in working out its plans with our financial cooperation and assistance, with such supervision as may be necessary to ensure that the money is not wasted, will make it possible for a large number of these unattached men who have collected in Vancouver to go out of that city and find employment elsewhere, we propose to enable them to do so. With respect to other cities in the central provinces, the same situation prevails and will be met in the same way.
The province of Alberta has prepared a comprehensive program of public under-

Farm and Unemployment Relief
takings. The province of Saskatchewan stands in a class by itself, for the reasons I have already indicated. The province of Manitoba has completed provision for a winter program which it believes will meet the situation. In the province of Ontario there are some signs already of what the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) indicated in the telegram he received from Kitchener, which showed a state of mind reflected in similar telegrams I have received from other Ontario cities, looking to this government to deal directly with them with respect to the problem of direct relief in those municipalities, towns and cities. We have endeavoured to make it clear that if we were to do so in the sense they have suggested we would be indeed breaking down their constitutional privileges and rights and substituting this Dominion for the constitutional authority provided for the very purpose they mention. We do not propose to do that.
In the province of Quebec the letter which was published the other day from the premier of that province made clear his position. In the maritime provinces they have prepared what they believe is an adequate program to meet the situation with which they must deal during the winter. In the province of Prince Edward Island, which has a population of less than 90,000, which is peculiarly an agricultural population, the difficulties are very few because they are not in want, as other parts of the country are, for reasons which are apparent to all.


William Daum Euler: May I ask a question? The Prime Minister stated a moment ago, I think in reply to something I said this afternoon, that direct relief to municipalities would not be given by this government. I presume the right hon. gentleman means that they must proceed through the provincial governments. I understand in the province of Ontario such direct relief has been refused by the provincial government. I say that subject to correction, but if that be so what would be the attitude of the government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hardly think that would be correct, because they have not so informed us. We have made contributions to assist them in carrying out their constitutional obligations. I say to this house quite frankly that if we voted a very large sum of money there would be a great tendency on the part of some communities to do just as my hon. friend has suggested. An emergency does not necessarily change the constitution, and despite the fact that from the federal treasury we must meet a very difficult situation it does not mean that the whole constitution of the 
provinces shall be suspended and that they shall be relieved of their obligations and responsibilities. On the other hand it does mean that we as a national body are endeavouring to assist the provinces who are charged with provincial responsibility adequately to deal with the situation confronting them, but we ourselves, if I might summarize, will undertake as comprehensive a scheme of public undertakings as it is possible to undertake.
Hon. gentlemen may ask why we have not done so previously. The reason is clear and obvious: We have no right to anticipate these matters and make vast expenditures now which would be made in our stride during the years that are to come, when they impose upon the country an additional obligation or debt.


Mr.   MARGIE@: Would the hon. gentleman allow me a question? He has referred to a letter from the premier of Quebec. Is he able to state whether or not he is in agreement with the suggestion contained in that letter as to the means that will be taken to relieve unemployment in Quebec?


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: The Prime
Minister stated a little earlier in his address that he would undertake a comprehensive program of public works. May I ask him to be more specific as to what they are.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The program will embrace every kind of undertaking for which the federal administration is responsible. To that end we have asked the provinces, rather than deal through political channels, to suggest to us just what they believe are the most urgent public works, and the works which will provide the greatest amount of employment. When I say that we will undertake public works, I mean undertakings such as heretofore, under our constitutional practice, have fallen within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. Does that answer the hon. member's question?


Mr. NEILL:: What proportion?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The whole of the federal undertaking. I am afraid I must have spoken too rapidly. What I was endeavouring to say at the very inception of my remarks was that ordinarily all relief measures should be

Farm and Unemployment Relief
chargeable against revenue; but that because of the extraordinary circumstances we would anticipate such public undertakings as we should not take in our stride normally, carrying them out during the next few months in order to provide employment for those who might need it at the present time.


Alan Webster Neill: I meant, what proportion
in regard to the provinces-what share?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No rule or share will
govern with respect to the application of federal moneys, because it will depend upon the number of unemployed. The one word necessity will be the governing rule.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would the Peace River outlet, for example, come within this category?


Mr. BOULANGER:: Or Riviere du Loup station?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not expect that
question to originate with the hon. member; I thought it would come from the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). With regard to the Peace River outlet, I do not know that it will properly come under this designation, because at present there is no such thing as a Peace River outlet. Where the Peace River outlet is to be is a matter for engineers to determine, and that has not yet been settled, so far as I know; the engineers themselves have not agreed upon it. If there were any work that had been agreed upon in connection with the Peace River outlet, as a result of surveys, then it might properly come within the category of federal undertakings. Whatever matters may properly be chargeable against the federal authority will be considered and dealt with as part of the program to which I have referred.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Hon. members have before them a copy of the orders of the day on which appears the resolution which you, Mr. Speaker, have just read to the house. They will observe that if no reference is made to either the committee of supply or the committee of ways and means, this resolution constitutes the only order upon the order paper. It is not only the last government order to appear, but it is the only order which remains to be disposed of on the order paper to-day.
Perhaps I cannot better express in a word what' I have first to say in the way of criticism than to observe that, instead of being the last order in the last week of the session, this resolution should have been the first ordfer to appear after parliament assembled.

When we have regard to the circumstances of the past year, to the fact that a special session of parliament was thought necessary last September to deal with the question of unemployment, and that when parliament met in the month of March this year the unemployment situation was infinitely worse than it was when that special session was called, I do think it was the duty of the ministry to have made the question of unemployment relief the first, as indeed it is the most important question before this house and the country to-day. But far from bringing the matter forward at the beginning of the session, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has so managed affairs in the house as to have made impossible any discussion of the subject until now.
My right hon. friend has spoken of the cabinet as a board of directors, and he says that in this resolution he is asking the house to give to that, board of directors absolute powers in dealing with the problem of unemployment relief. May I say to him that it is not the cabinet, of which he is Prime Minister, that is the board of directors of the nation; it is this House of Commons. Hon. members sitting on both sides of the house are the board of directors who have been sent from the different constituencies in Canada to represent the people of the country, to discuss questions of importance with respect to the economic and other affairs of Canada, and to make laws to aid in the solution of those problems. The cabinet is a committee of the House of Commons; any power it has is derived from the members who sit in this house. It is an executive committee. But the committee of the nation constituting the board of directors is, I submit, this House of Commons. That leads me to direct again a very strong criticism against my right hon. friend. The criticism is this: that with regard to this all-important question he has ignored altogether the board of directors of the nation and has taken it into the hands of a small committee, which derives its authority from this board of directors, to deal with the question in an absolute way.
May I, to confirm what I have said regarding the extent to which my right hon. friend has prevented parliament from considering this question, mention a few records which appear in Hansard, of demands that have been made from time to time to deal with the question. I will not refer either to the debate on the address or to the budget debate. In each of these debates, which were of considerable length, hon. members on thi3 side spoke very freely with reference to this all-important question of the need for the

Farm and Unemployment Relief
relief of unemployment. But my right hon. friend and hon. members opposite were more or less silent; they made no contribution whatever to those debates. Indeed, during the greater part of the debate on the address my right hon. friend was not even present to hear what was being discussed. Here may I say that I think my right hon. friend has taken an entirely wrong course. Is it to be imagined that in regard to great problems such as unemployment relief, out of the number of members assembled here coming from all parts of this country-and I am speaking now with reference to those on the government side as well as on this-there would not be, in the course of a discussion on this question, some contribution which would be helpful to the ministry of the day? The purpose of parliament is to enable hon. members who live in different parts of the country to assemble in one place and there speak freely with respect to conditions in their particular constituencies, in that way to inform and enlighten the ministry with respect to existing needs and possible methods of dealing with them. But in respect to the greatest question of the day all that has been entirely set at naught, and now in the last days of the session, when, as all hon. members know, the proceedings are likely to be concluded within a day or two, we are for the first time afforded an opportunity to discuss this question.
On March 20 the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) asked the ministry if any special measures were contemplated to cope with the unemployment situation. The Prime Minister declined to answer. I am making reference now to matters of which full particulars will be found in Hansard.
On March 23 the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) asked what the government intended to do with regard to relieving the unemployed in his constituency. The Prime Minister said:
The question can stand.
On March 31 the hon. member for North Winnipeg moved the adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the acute distress arising from unemployment. After a lengthy discussion Your Honour ruled the motion out of order.
On April 17 the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River brought up the question again, and failing to get a satisfactory answer from the government, he moved the adjournment of the house. This motion was defeated on division by eighty-two to fifty-six.
On April 24 the hon. member for Bow River (Mr, Garland) asked whether the government intended to call a Dominion unemployment conference. The Prime Minister said:
The hon. member will be advised when the event happens, if it does happen.
On May 25 the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) directed the attention of the acting Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) to the desperate condition existing in the city of Nanaimo, due to unemployment, and urged the government to deal with the situation immediately. The acting Minister of Labour said that the matter was purely a provincial one.
On May 26, on the motion to go into committee of supply, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni discussed the urgent necessity of holding a conference with the provinces to deal with unemployment. A lengthy debate followed during which the various speakers called upon the government to state its attitude towards the question. No member of the government took part in the debate.
On June 8 the hon. member for Comox-Alberni brought the question to the attention of the government once more, and called upon the ministry to declare its intention not only for the immediate future but also for the coming fall. The deputy speaker ruled him out of order, and on division the chair was sustained by sixty-four to forty-five.
On June 16, speaking on the budget, I urged the government to call a conference of all parties in interest to deal with the question of unemployment, but. neither in the course of that debate nor since was any reference made by any member of the ministry to the suggestion.
On June 29 the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River asked for a statement of government policy on unemployment. The Prime Minister replied:
At an appropriate time a statement will be made. The primary duty with respect to unemployment does not rest with the federal government.
Mr. Speaker ruled against the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River in his attempt to continue the debate.
On June 30 the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) directed attention to the appalling conditions in Saskatchewan, and called upon the government to do something at once. The Prime Minister said:
The primary responsibility rests with the municipal authorities and the province.
On July 9, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) asked when



Farm and Unemployment Relief
the government would introduce legislation on unemployment. The Prime Minister said that legislation would be introduced when the business of the house had been practically disposed of. Immediately following his reply I said:	'
I assume my right hon. friend will he introducing some legislation in this connection, and I hope he will not wait until the last day or two of the session to place upon the order paper the resolution which would necessarily precede a bill to relieve unemployment. Hon. members ought to have a little time to consider any provisions before they are called upon to pronounce their view's.
The Prime Minister said that every opportunity would be afforded to discuss such a measure.
Those are only a few of the references that might be made. Hon. members will see that this resolution is introduced in 'the last days of the last week of the session, when there is no opportunity adequately to consider a measure so all-important.
May I say a word with respect to the resolution itself? In order to make clear the points that I wish to direct to the attention of the ministry, let me read the resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to confer certain powers upon the governor in council in respect to unemploy'inent and farm relief; and for the maintenance of peace, order and good government in all parts of Canada; and to authorize the governor in council to expend for the said purposes out of the consolidated revenue fund such sums as may from time to time be necessary.
I shall be pleased if my right hon. friend will allow' me to speak to him more particularly at this time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I assure the right hon. gentleman I am listening to every wrnrd he utters.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should appreciate that very much, because in what I am saying I wish to be of as much help and to offer as little criticism as I can.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My words will speak for themselves. If hon. members wish to laugh, that .is their privilege, but the public w'ill judge from what I am saying whether the proposals are in the interest of the government as well as of the country.
My first point is this: The resolution is really three resolutions embodied in one. I believe my right hon. friend would help materially in bringing about unanimity so far as the house is concerned^-and that is what I think we all desire in a matter of this kind- if he would divide his resolution into three
[Mr. Mackenzie King.l
parts and deal as separate and independent measures with the three subjects to which it refers. The first resolution is with respect to the relief of unemployment:
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure to confer certain powers upon the governor in council in respect to unemployment relief.
Unemployment relief is a subject by itself. It is the subject with respect to which a special session of parliament was called last September. I do not think w'e should confuse what relates to the relief of unemployment arising out of economic conditions with any other particular subject with w'hich the government wishes to deal.
The next subject in the resolution is farm relief. To make my point clear, may I say that until the crop failure in Saskatchewan and the distressing conditions existing in that province had become apparent, there was no thought in the mind of anyone that relief in the rural districts of the prairie provinces would be necessary. The situation in Saskatchewan has grown out of what I suppose would be described as an act of Godi It is in no sense due to any world condition or to any national policy, fiscal or otherwise. It is due simply to the happenings of nature as they have this year evidenced themselves. I submit that a measure to deal with Saskatchewan and the prairie situation generally to relieve a condition arising from crop failure should be a separate measure. After all, when we are dealing with these great economic questions it is important that the nation should know with respect to the different matters on which it spends its public moneys, precisely what its outlay is. The moneys .that are spent for relief in connection with Saskatchewan should be separately dealt with and separately administered, and similarly the moneys spent with respect to unemployment generally ought to be separately dealt with.
But the third is a still more important matter. The resolution reads:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to confer certain powers upon the governor in council for the maintenance of peace, order and good government in all parts of Canada.
There is a third subject which is entirely separate and distinct from relief, either farm relief or unemployment relief generally. May I say to my right hon. friend that it is a great mistake to confuse these two matters. It is in every way most unfortunate that they' should be confused in any particular. We have laws on the statute books at the present time for the maintenance of law, order and good government throughout the country. If those laws are not adequate and my right hon. friend

Farm and, Unemployment Relief
wishes to have additional powers-to maintain law and order in Canada, let him ask for them in a separate measure. He is responsible for the administration, and if he says to this house that he has reason to believe that the powers that exist at the present time are not adequate to cope with any possible situation with respect to the maintenance of law and order in Canada, I will accept his word and support him in any reasonable measure he may bring down for that purpose. But I do say that he should not confuse any question of the maintenance of law and order with the question of unemployment relief or farm relief. Unemployment is an inevitable risk of industry. It is one of the unfortunate incidents of industry. It is bad enough for those who are unemployed to have to endure something for which they themselves are not at all responsible, but I do submit that it adds, if I may use an old-time expression, insult to injury to associate with the question of unemployment and relief for the unemployed any measures for the maintenance of law, order and good government in this country. Surely it is not fair to the thousands of men and women who find themselves without work through no fault of their own. but owing to conditions that are unavoidable so far as they are concerned, some of them owing to world conditions, some of them owing to fiscal policies, some of them owing to the distressed conditions of the prairies, to say that a measure submitted to parliament for their relief, should confer upon the governor in council additional power to deal with peace, order and good government in Canada. I am going to ask my right hon. friend to eliminate that particular clause from his resolution. I would ask him to do it in the interest of the very subject that he mentions, namely, peace, order and good government in all parts of Canada. I do not think it will make for peace, order and good government to include that particular clause in a resolution dealing with unemployment relief. Let that particular clause be eliminated, and then if for reasons that he may have in his own mind, my right hon. friend says, as I believe he sincerely thinks is the case, that there is need to give the governor in council additional power to deal with this question, let him bring in a measure for that purpose, and I think I can promise him the support of hon. members on this side. But I do submit to him very earnestly that he remove that clause altogether from his resolution and from the bill that may be based upon it. That is the criticism I have to make of the resolution in that regard.
May I next point out the difference between this resolution and the resolution upon which 22110-2721
the bill was based that was introduced during the special session of parliament in September last? At that time many of us thought that resolution went pretty far, that it gave the government considerable powers, gave them, not a blank cheque, but a very large cheque. We were inclined to be critical of the resolution on that ground, though we took no exception to the amount which my right hon. friend needed, and we allowed the resolution to pass. The resolution with regard to unemployment relief at the special session of parliament was as follows:
That it is expedient to provide that a sum not exceeding twenty million dollars be appropriated and paid out of the consolidated revenue fund for the relief of unemployment in constructing, extending or improving public works and undertakings, railways, highways, etc., that will assist in providing useful and suitable work for the unemployed, all as set forth in a bill founded on this resolution.
That resolution is direct to the purpose for which it was intended: That it is expedient to provide the sum of $20,000,000 to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund for the relief of unemployment. But this resolution is not specific in the same way with respect to the causes for which it is intended. This resolution is to give the governor in council increased powers, or as I say, absolute powers, to withdraw from this parliament altogether its control over the moneys to be expended and other matters, and to give that power to the governor in council. Here is the wording of the present resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to confer certain powers upon the governor in council.
Then it goes on to enumerate the powers. That is a very different resolution, as I have said, from the one of a year ago. My right hon. friend and his colleagues would have been much better advised had they followed the resolution of a year ago-though it went very far-and adopted it as a precedent instead of going from bad to worse by now seeking to get absolute powers to themselves for these purposes. That would have removed our greatest objection to this measure. We are not going to object to the moneys that may be needed for unemployment and farm relief so long as parliament, the board of directors representing the people of this country, has its control and its say with respect to the expenditure. But we will object as strongly as we possibly can to increasing the powers of the governor in council in the matter of giving them unlimited authority with respect to public funds.
When I read the present resolution I thought to myself: "This has a familiar sound to it,
4286	COMMONS
Farm and Unemployment Relief
but not one that relates itself to times of peace. It reads to me like a war measures act." I went to the library of parliament to secure a copy of the war enactments, to see what legislation was passed, what authority was given to the government, and what action was taken by the government under that authority. I have before me an act to confer certain powers upon the governor in council and to amend the Immigration Act, assented to on the 22nd of August, 1914. This act may be cited as the War Measures Act, 1914. Section 3 of that act reads as follows:
The provisions of sections six, ten, eleven and thirteen of this act shall only be in force during war, invasion, or insurrection, real or apprehended.
Clearly indicating that the parliament of that day felt that the powers under the sections I have just mentioned would not be appropriate powers to ask from parliament in times of peace, that they should be in force only during war, invasion, insurrection, real or apprehended. Section 6 is one of the sections so mentioned. It reads as follows:
The governor in council shall have power to do and authorize such acts and things, and to make from time to time such orders and regulations. as he may by reason 9f the existence of real or apprehended war, invasion, or insurrection deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada; and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms, it is hereby declared that the powers of the governor in council shall extend to all matters coming within the classes of subjects hereinafter enumerated, that is to say:-
The governor in council would have power to- deal with all the following matters if again empowered with the same powers given under the War Measures Act:
(a)	Censorship, and the control and suppression of publications, -writings, maps, plans, photographs, communications and means of communication:
(b)	Arrest, detention, exclusion and deportation;
(c)	Control of the harbours, ports and territorial waters of Canada and the movement of vessels;
(d)	Transportation by land, air or water, and the control of the transport of persons and things;
(e)	Trading, exportation, importation, production and manufacture;
(f)	Appropriation, control, forfeiture and disposition of property and of the use thereof.
I need not read the other powers given, but I wish to direct the attention of the house to the fact that in this resolution my right hon. friend is asking for precisely the same powers by way of additional authority to the governor in council as those asked of this parliament in the War Measures Act.

Let me read part of the resolution as it stands with respect to the maintenance of peace, order and good government, and then read again the section from the War Measures Act, omitting the words, "by reason of the existence of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection." The resolution is:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to confer certain powers upon the governor in council in respect to unemployment and farm relief; and for the maintenance of peace, order and good government in all parts of Canada;
That is the resolution before us. Section 6 of the War Measures Act is as follows:
The governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, as he may . . . . deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is nothing in the
present resolution about "defence".


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. My right hon. friend has said -that he has left out the word "defence"; that there is nothing concerning security and defence. I shall confine myself to the words which in intent are identical in the resolution and the act. In the act I find the w'ords:
The governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations as he may .... deem necessary or advisable for .... peace, order and welfare of Canada.
That is practically the identical wording in 'both instances. On the one hand we have a War Measures Act, and on the other a peace time measure relating to the relief of unemployment and distress. In the War Measures Act it is expressly stated that the provisions of the section I have just read shall be enforced only during war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended. So I repeat to my right hon. friend that I do think he would be well advised to eliminate altogether that clause from the resolution dealing with unemployment relief. It would be most unfortunate-indeed one can scarcely say what might result from the inclusion of words through which the unemployed of the country may have reason to feel, for any cause whatever, that those particular words had been put in concerning their condition.
My right hon. friend has made clear in his speech that it is not with respect to the unemployed that he wants this particular power. He has said there is a noisy minority that may stir up a great deal of trouble in Canada and take advantage of the distressed .conditions to make additional trouble. He has said that he wants power to deal with

Farm and Unemployment Relief
them. Again let me say to him that if he wants to deal with a noisy minority difficult to control and if he wants special legislation for that purpose, let him ask this parliament for it and it will be given to him. He should not confuse the two issues however, for the sake of the feelings of those who will be forced or obliged through necessity, as well as for other reasons, to avail themselves of help offered. I would implore that these two different purposes should not be confused in the one measure.
My right hon. friend has predicted a criticism, which he must know is inevitable, when he asks for powers such as those sought in this resolution. He himself has said that they may be described, euphoniously, I think, as giving a blank cheque to the administration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that they "had
been" described.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, that they had been described. Let us drop the word "euphoniously" altogether and view in a clear and direct manner the simple fact that the government is asking this parliament to give it a blank cheque to deal with unemployment relief in such a manner as it may think wise. Mv right hon. friend has gone on to indicate to the house that he intends to spend money on all kinds of public works, and in that connection he has named different matters. One may see in a moment that such works may include anything, anywhere, in the nature of work or construction.
A day or two ago my right hon. friend laid on the table of the house the supplementary estimates containing works for which he asks appropriations. In them we see appropriations for wharves, public buildings and the like. There was no necessity for those supplementary estimates however, if this measure goes through. Under the measure now before us he would have authority to carry out the works mentioned in the estimates. There is no need for estimates at all, with respect to a great part of the construction work in Canada, if in this particular measure the government is to be given a blank cheque with authority to proceed. Again I say it is an injustice to the people of Canada who need relief through unemployment to be placed in the position whereby what they may receive comes only as a result of a blank cheque given to the administration to spend as it thinks best on public works.
I do say that I think my right hon. friend should amend his resolution by fixing a definite amount. I realize there are difficulties in that connection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not wish to disturb or interrupt my right hon. friend but I should like to say that the distinction I endeavoured to draw was that in one instance the supplementary estimates for public works were chargeable against revenues for the year, and that the charges involved by the proposed resolution were not properly chargeable against revenue.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: These will be charged against borrowings.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, they must be.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That makes
the situation even worse. So long as there is a certain control with respect to taxation, which it is the obligation of this house above all others to guard, there will be, I believe, an attitude of generosity on the part of hon. members in the house to go a very great length in allowing the ministry wide latitude in such matters. However when the ministry goes a step farther and asks not only that they shall be free to spend moneys which are to be voted by parliament and are to come out of the taxes of the people, but that they are to be free to borrow to any extent to do whatever they like, all of which means more in the way of taxation, 1 think they are going a very great length and are creating a situation which it is impossible for the House of Commons to countenance, if it is at all to maintain its position as representing the people of Canada and controlling the expenditures of . the nation.
I can see where my right hon. friend may have difficulty in fixing an amount. He has given as his reason for wanting a blank cheque and not fixing a definite amount that a stipulated amount might lead to something in the way of competition or dole. May I say to him that if that is a true argument with respect to a limited amount, the force of the argument is vastly increased if the government is to be given a blank cheque. What is there to prevent the dole system becoming inevitable if the government has power to borrow and to spend as much as it pleases to relieve unemployment. By such a measure my right hon. friend is simply inviting the dole. There is no control of any kind the ministry can assert. The ministry can no longer assert, which is the strongest of all positions it can take, that parliament itself has not given it authority to go that far. It is relieving itself entirely of that restraint and saying to the country at large, "We have power to borrow all that we wish; we have unlimited power to use those borrowings for purposes of unemployment relief
4288	COMMONS
Farm and Unemployment Relief
in any way that we like." Nothing of that kind has ever existed in this country before.
I am not at all sure that even during the war for war purposes parliament gave the ministry any such unlimited powers. I do not believe parliament did. Certainly in time of peace this parliament cannot afford to go farther in matters of extending powers to the governor in council than parliament would have been prepared to go in time of war. I say I can realize where my hon. friend has difficulty in limiting his amount. That difficulty comes I think among other things from the large sum he fixed last year as that which he believed to be necessary to deal with the unemployment situation as it was then existing. We on this side did our best to have him realize that it was advisable to fix an amount that would serve up to the time that parliament reassembled, that the public would not distinguish between a sum of money which was put in the estimates last September and which could be spent over a prolonged period from a sum which would be just sufficient for the fiscal year and until parliament reassembled. But my right hon. friend wished to have large figures and he asked for S20,000,000.
To give the house a realization of what that sum of money meant in relation to relieving unemployment, may I recall the circumstances after the great war when the soldiers were returning and were being reestablished in civil life. At that time there were large numbers of unemployed, and that was the beginning of such relief. It was not under the Liberal administration, it was under the administration o-f the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, when the present Minister of Labour (Senator Robertson) held the same portfolio. At that time there was a great deal of unemployment and the minister laid down the policy that unemployment relief was a matter, first, for the municipalities, then for the provinces, and finally it became a dominion responsibility where the emergency was large enough to be a national one. That is the ground on which unemployment relief has been given ever since. We took the same position when we were in office with respect to unemployment relief. I made it quite clear that when these conditions existed we were prepared to deal with them as the former administration had dealt with them. But how much money was found necessary to meet the unemployment situation, grave as it was at that time, and grave as it was for some years after? I have here figures of the amounts that have been spent on unemployment relief through grants to the provinces since 'the war; they are as follows:

Fiscal Year	Amount
1920-	21	
$341,831	681921-	22	
498,321	18
Those two years belong to the period of the preceding Conservative administration. Then during the Liberal administration the figures were:
Fiscal Year	Amount
1922-	23	
$923,272	161923-	24	
4,127	681926-27	
77,474 56
Or a total of $1,845;027.26 over a period of ten years. That was the 'total amount found to be necessary for this federal parliament to vote to the provinces and the municipalities in aid of unemployment relief during those years, some of which were almost as serious from the point of view of the need for unemployment relief as certainly the last fiscal year has been. Yet my right hon. friend with these figures before him asked parliament at the last special session to vote $20,000 000 for unemployment relief. Not all of that $20,000,000 has been spent, but the public have that figure in mind. Now my right hon. friend is in this position, that having at a special session started ivith an outlay of $20,000,000 for a certain period, he finds it difficult at the present time to know what particular amount to fix.
Now, may I say this to him? So far as the opposition is concerned, we will be prepared to allow him to make any estimate he likes, so long as it is an estimate based on good judgment, and we will not question that estimate, we will allow him to have the amount he asks for. But we do assert, if it is only for the sake of maintaining what is the most fundamental of all obligations of the Commons, namely, its control over expenditure, that he should not ask us to give him a blank cheque to borrow as much as he pleases to deal with this particular matter. That is our position in a word, and I would again very strongly urge my right hon. friend to modify the bill that he may introduce by fixing a definite amount.
Here may I say it is always possible to call parliament together. It was deemed all-important last September to have a special session when unemployment conditions were far from being as serious as they are at the present time. If a special session was necessary last September, and my right hon. friend cannot make an estimate as to what he is going to require to meet the situation ahead, if the situation is going to be so serious that larger amounts than the sum he may ask this parliament to vote will be necessary, then it seems to me it is not only his right, it is his duty to bring parliament in session and allow

Farm and Unemployment Relief
parliament to deal with the greatest question that is before the country at the time. That is what parliament is for-to deal with questions that are all-important to the nation. My right lion, friend has now a breathing space, he has a clear road ahead of him, and if he asks for a sum of money, which doubtless will be sufficient to meet his purposes up to the end of the year, he can call a regular session of parliament early in January. And I think every hon. member on both sides of the house will thank him if he brings parliament into session in January rather than in March, or even in February. My right- hon. friend has said he will convene parliament in the middle of February. May I say to him that it would better suit the convenience of everybody if he would bring parliament into session early in January. Let him name the sum that he thinks necessary to meet the situation up to January, and we will give him what he asks. Then early in January if he needs further money let him ask for it, and I do not think he will encounter much in the way of opposition to what he considers is necessary to enable him to finish out his fiscal year. But I do say he is going altogether too far when he asks that he shall be free even of the sittings of parliament to deal with what is now, and, what he told us in his speech to-day, will be the most serious situation that Canada has been confronted with perhaps at any time in her history.
One other objection I have to this resolution. It offers no advance over the step which was taken at the special session of parliament. At the time of the special session we very strongly advocated that the whole question of unemployment relief should be put into the hands of an unemployment relief commission, which would have power to study carefully the wdiole situation, which *would be in touch with the provinces and the municipalities and which would be a body gathering information and knowledge as well as dealing with the situation which was before it. Had such a commission been appointed last September, and had it been given administration of the $20,000,000 which was placed at my right hon. friend's disposal, that commission would be in existence to-day and would know more or less exactly the position with respect, to every province and every municipality and would be able to advise the ministry and parliament what was necessary to meet the continuing situation. But all the good that might have been obtained from a permanent body created for that special purpose has been lost; although the money has been spent, there is nothing in the way
of further information upon which parliament can act. Speaking on the budget, I suggested that it was advisable immediately to call a conference of those parties that are likely to be best informed on the whole question of employment and unemployment, to bring together representatives of the provinces and of the leading municipalities, representatives of employers and of trade unions, representatives of agricultural associations and of boards of trade, representatives of women's organizations and of any other bodies that have to do with the forming of public opinion. I suggested that when that conference met they should choose a body that would be non-political in its character, and would constitute a commission for the purpose of dealing with unemployment relief. I suggested that the government might well place in the hands of a body of that kind the disposition of such funds as parliament might vote. On that body could be placed the expert men and women of this country, regardless of their politics, who understand social, industrial and economic conditions. They would be a body infinitely better qualified to deal with this question than the cabinet possibly could be, with its many other obligations and its particular duties what they are.
I still suggest that something of that kind should be done. I am not suggesting that any organization should be formed that would invade the jurisdiction of the provinces and the municipalities. What I would suggest is that a body of that kind should see to it that every province has its own organization along lines laid down by the federal commission as being the most advisable and desirable, and that each province should see that each municipality had its particular organization also to deal with the situation as it might affect that locality. In this way there would be something in the nature of uniformity and equal treatment throughout all parts of the Dominion. It is useless to say that a body of that kind could not be readily created. I remember very well when we were celebrating the diamond jubilee of confederation; there was a national committee which had to do with the arranging of the celebration throughout Canada. That committee arranged for each province to have its provincial committee, and each province arranged that each municipality should have its committee, and the result was that with respect to that particular celebration there was not one part of the Dominion which was not linked up with the great parent organization, and with respect to which the national organization had not full particulars.
Farm and Unemployment Relief

A body of that kind dealing with unemployment relief would be of great national service. May I point out this further feature: We have been discussing at this session the question of unemployment insurance. I cannot conceive of a more useful fund of information to enable this parliament to deal with that question at a future session than that which could be gathered by a body of the kind. What are we to get in the way of information from all the millions that will be spent on unemployment relief under the method suggested by the Prime Minister? We will have nothing to show for it; the money will have been spent; certain employment will have been given, but the wide knowledge which might be obtained as to the causes of unemployment, the circumstances surrounding it and the like will have been lost entirely.
I do not wish to go again into the many points I raised at the special session with regard to these grants to the provinces from the federal treasury without adequate control over expenditure on the part of the federal parliament. In a word I will just say that what was said at the special session in that particular stands also by way of criticism of the resolution now before us in the form in which it has been brought down.
In conclusion may I say to my right hon. friend that in speaking on the budget I expressed, speaking not only on behalf of myself but as well for the entire opposition, a sincere desire to cooperate with the Prime Minister to the best of our ability in working out any plans which would help meet this serious situation in Canada as it exists at the present time. But my hon. friend is taking away from us any opportunity of cooperating with him at all when he asks us on almost the last day of the session, without any possibility of discussing plans at all, to give him a blank cheque to borrow what he wishes and then dismisses parliament for an indefinite period Our powers of cooperation as members of this house are definitely gone. By his resolution he virtually tells us that he does not thank us for our offer of cooperation and does not expect to receive anything in the way of helpful suggestion not only from the opposition but from members on his own side of the house. I think that is most unfortunate with respect to a situation as grave as the present one, and I can only regret that my night hon. friend makes it necessary for me to make that observation with regard to his method of dealing with the matter.
If, as my right hon. friend did, I might summarize in a word what I regard as the im-

portant points with respect to this resolution, I would say first of all that he should not seek to obtain all the powers he desires under this one resolution but should divide the resolution into three parts. I would suggest that he ask this house to vote a sum of money for unemployment relief; that he- ask the house to vote a sum for farm relief and that he ask us to enact whatever he may think necessary to give him additional powers for the maintenance of peace, law and order. That is the first point. Then having divided his resolution into three separate measures let him fix the amount with respect to each measure which he deems necessary to meet the situation from now until he may call parliament again. If he does this, speaking for the opposition I may say that we will let him take the responsibility in full for what he may feel to be necessary in regard to the amount for which he asks, and we will give him that full amount. But we cannot completely surrender the rights of this House of Commons and of parliament with respect to its control over expenditures for any purpose that may be named, and we cannot accord him our approval of the resolution in the form in which it has been brought down.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, from the standpoint of labour this is the most important measure of the session, and I am sure a large number of working people across the country will welcome the news that some definite provision is to be made for unemployment I quite agree with the Prime Minister that the object ought to be to provide work rathej than merely to give charity. Further than that, it seems to me an advance has been made over previous arrangements in the enunciation by the Prime Minister of the principle that the necessities of the several communities should be the governing factor in the administration of relief measures.
I think the Prime Minister made a mistake, however, when in his exhortation that we should have courage he went back to the pioneer days. It seems to me the comparison is very slight between the conditions in which men find themselves to-day and the conditions in which our grandfathers or great-grandfathers found themselves. The Prime Minister suggests that we live in easier times than they did. I am not at all sure that this is so. I have heard stories of pioneers, that they had to dig up the potatoes which they had planted and so on; I know they had to make for themselves shelters in the woods, but I point out to the Prime Minister that in the old days men had opportunities of go-

Farm and Unemployment Relief
ing into the newer parts of the country. They had an opportunity of taking up land for themselves; they had an opportunity of going from one place in which there was no work to another place where they might obtain work. They had an opportunity of going into the woods for certain seasons of the year. I would say that the conditions of the thousands of our people who are now riding the freight cars from industrial town to industrial town, finding no more work in the place to which they come than in the place which they left, are a great deal harder than the conditions any of our people had to meet in the pioneer days.
The Prime Minister suggested that certain men seemed to be willing to accept charity rather than work, and he instanced the fact that one among those who came here in the unemployed parade had been seen begging, and had been driving around in a Ford car. I am quite well aware that there are men who take advantage of conditions in almost every walk of life. But speaking by and large, the vast majority of the unemployed to-day are men who are willing to work, who have worked in the past, and who would be working now if anything like suitable employment were provided. We must recognize clearly, along with this, that if men are allowed to drift about from month to month for any long period they readily become unemployable and before long they will settle down into an undesirable class. But it is altogether unfortunate that the Prime Minister should suggest that any large number of these people are out of work because they are lazy or shiftless.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said the number was
small but vocal.


Mr. WOODS WORTH:: I quite admit that. But I want to make it clear that the vast majority are neither lazy nor shiftless. I think that ought to be very definitely understood.
With regard to the proposal before us, it seems to me that the statement which the Prime Minister has made is much of a piece with the resolution itself; the arrangements are very indefinite indeed. The Prime Minister has said that relief shall be given through the provinces or direct in such ways as may . seem desirable. That is to say, he takes, or his government takes, full authority to act in whatever way they may please. I find myself in this regard in considerable sympathy with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). We have been sitting now for nearly five months and no plans have been
brought down showing how this relief work is to be carried on. The Prime Minister says that we should not anticipate difficulties. It seems to me that this is what a government is for. It was very clear to anyone who considered the general situation that there was going to be a continuance of unemployment, and it was the business of the government, as we have tried to point out from time to time since the beginning of the session, to make provision ahead of time so that no one would suffer.
The Prime Minister has all along taken the ground that we ought to beware of the dole. But I would point out that this haphazard way of giving relief, of providing relief or jobs here, there and yonder just as necessity may arise, constitutes the very worst and most demoralizing form of the dole that could be invented. I am inclined to think that the leader of the opposition is correct, that this resolution essentially involves the abrogation of parliamentary authority. I can understand that in a matter of this kind very large discretionary powers have to be given the government. But at the same time, I think that some amount should be named, a generous sum if you like, but one beyond which the government could not go. Further than that, some definite idea should be given of the general principles which will underlie the administration of this fund.
I believe the leader of the opposition has distinguished three measures that are herein included. In my study of the motion I discovered five distinct measures. First of all there is emergency relief for farmers in the drought-stricken area. That, I think, should come in a class by itself. The leader of the opposition suggested that the crop failure wa3 ordinarily referred to as an act of God. May I remind the house that Sir Josiah Stamp referred to it as a godsend. Possibly that means the same thing, though I am a bit doubtful. It may be a godsend to the world at large, but decidedly it is anything but a godsend to the poor people of Saskatchewan. It seems easy for us to blame divine providence for conditions over which, after all, we have considerable control. Although some one part of the west may be in a very serious condition, on the whole a sufficient amount of wheat is produced to meet the needs of all the people, and a proper system of distribution could easily be arranged so that no one would suffer.
Second, there is relief for the farmers suffering because of general economic conditions -lack of markets, and other difficulties, which some of us are inclined to think are accentuated by the government's policy. I admit

Farm and Unemployment Relief
that the government has already brought down certain measures called compensating adjustments which may provide some help for many of these farmers. But there are others who have very little grain and who will be but slightly helped by the five cent bonus.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. member
suggest that the government is to blame for the drought?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He said that just now


James Shaver Woodsworth: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what you said.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was the suggestion


James Shaver Woodsworth: Oh, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Clearly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not only would 4
not suggest that the government was to blame for the drought, but I suggest further that the government, together with nearly all politicians, are assuming that they have a great deal more authority or influence than they really possess. I suggest that not only so-called acts of God but the great economic laws are very largely independent of the particular government that happens to be in power at the time. I would urge upon the Prime Minister that if we had a proper system of general crop insurance and a proper distribution of wealth we could largely take care of any particular distress that might result from drought in some areas.
Third, there is involved in this resolution the establishment of certain unemployment relief schemes. And fourth, there will have to be direct relief for large groups of unemployed, which again is a distinct thing from an unemployment work scheme.
And, lastly, there is provision for the maintenance of law and order. May I suggest that the very fact that the government are asking for some special provision along this line indicates that they are somewhat doubtful of the adequacy of the measures they are proposing. When men are well cared for and work under proper conditions there is not very much danger of a departure from law and order.
With regard to unemployment schemes, the house should be definitely informed as to the general character of the schemes proposed. We should have some fairly definite regulations laid before us in addition to the general principles underlying administration. We have that in connection with the administration of almost any law on the statute

books. In this matter I do not see why the house should not be given an opportunity to pass upon the general underlying principles as well as to criticize the regulations under which these principles will be carried out. We are told by the newspapers that one of the schemes may be camps in the north country. The Minister of Mines and Forests of Ontario, the Hon. William Finlayson, has suggested that labour camps will be established in northern Ontario. I have not the slightest objection to labour camps in the north country for the construction of roads, reforestation and so on. It may prove an excellent idea. But I should like to know what conditions will prevail in these labour camps. Mr. Finlayson has said there may be only a nominal wage paid. If that be the case, on behalf of labour across the country I would raise a vigorous protest against any such arrangement.


Peter Heenan: He said fifty cents a day.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Fifty cents a day
would be merely spending money. There is plenty of productive work to be done in this country and these men who find themselves out of work to-day have a right to be found work at a remunerative rate. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) said that he was in favour of giving pay only to those who would work. I suppose, in a general way, we are all agreed as to that. But I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is willing to give decent wages to those who are willing to give good work? That is a matter-and an important one-upon which lie made no pronouncement. It is one in which the labour people across this country are very much interested. In passing may I say that it is rather curious that we have to go to the minister of a province to find out what the federal government intends to do, but that is the only place at the present lime to which we can go for information. The federal government has not announced its policy, so I presume some arrangements have been made with at least some of the provincial governments. Mr. Finlayson suggests there will be no relief given if the men refuse to stay in camp. That seems to be rather a serious situation; at least it might work out in a disastrous way. A little earlier in the session we heard a great deal about forced labour in Russia. I was rather interested in noting, according to a despatch in the Montreal Gazette of July 21, 1931, that a British group had investigated the charges made against the Russian lumber trade. The despatch reads:

Farm and Unemployment Relief
Members of the British trade delegation which spent three weeks inspecting the lumber centres of northern Russia returned to Moscow to-day with the statement that they had found no evidence to support charges that forced labour is used in the Russian lumber industries.
The despatch goes on to elaborate this statement. While we have been criticizing forced labour in Russia, which appears from investigation not to exist, we are in very great danger of establishing something like forced labour in northern Ontario and other parts of Canada. In other words, we will say to these unemployed men: You go into camp and do your work under whatever conditions we prescribe for practically no wages, and if you do not do that, you starve. That is a serious situation and those are serious conditions to impose upon any free people. In fact such a situation would differ very little from slavery.
Moreover it is actually being suggested in the newspapers that these camps should be placed under military control. I hope the government has nothing of that kind in contemplation, because I feel sure it would raise a storm of protest, not merely from all sections of labour but also from all thoughtful citizens. AVe ought not to set up detention camps in Canada in times of peace. It is a dangerous proceeding and it is not fair to those men who are unfortunate enough to be out of work.
I should like to say a word with regard to the transients. No one has these days very much good to say of them. They have been forced to adopt more or less the life of hoboes, but in past years they have done much of the hard work of building up this country, in the lumber camps, the construction camps, the harvest fields, the mining camps and so on. Everywhere in the early stages of the development of this country we have depended upon the now despised transient workers, and they ought, I think, to receive at least a decent living. I should like to emphasize the point of view that I have been trying to bring before the house, that a decent living to this class of men has a prior claim to the interest charges of the banks, or to the dividends of the bondholders in any of our corporations or even to the interest on government bonds. I do not think this can be too strongly impressed upon the house.
Especially ought this to be emphasized with regard to foreign labour. Undoubtedly we have admitted altogether too many aliens into this country, and I think we in our corner of the house have done our best during the
past ten years to protest against the immigration policy of the late government, a policy that I may say was endorsed pretty generally in the house and in the country at large. But now that we have these people here, we Should treat them decently. We have spent millions of dollars in trying to induce them to leave their homes in mid-Europe or Norway or Sweden and to come to Canada to throw in their lot with us. Some of them unfortunately have not been able yet to become naturalized, and when a time of crisis comes, because of their lack of knowledge of the English language and because of their lack of connections here, they are the first to be laid off and to suffer the most heavily. Nevertheless, they have taken their full share in doing the heavy work of this country, and I rvould urge that nothing be done at this time of crisis that would lead to injustice in our attitude towards those whom we have asked to join with us in building up a new country.
Think of the conditions under which many of these transients are forced to live. Some weeks ago I called attention to the bad conditions that existed in the east end of this city. I find that similar conditions exist in almost every large centre from coast to coast. In the Toronto Star of June 28, I find an article on the "Jungles of Toronto." I will read a paragraph or so:
Some five hundred residents of the Don valley, Toronto's unique residential quarter, were just getting up when the Star arrived to-day. Crawling out from huts and shacks which look for all the world like beaver colonies, men of every nationality, nearly all of them unemployed, started lighting breakfast fires, washing at the stream, or cleaning their teeth.
Homeless, these men have built for themselves "homes" from the flotsam and jetsam which clutters the valley in the vicinity of the Don valley brickyards. Dried burdock plants, sticks of wood, heavy wrapping paper, and branches of trees have been interwoven and thatched to make several colonies of the little shacks. Some of the men, who were termed "transients" by a well-spoken shack owner, were sleeping in the open, on sheets of rusty tin to prevent ground moisture from seeping through.
Sleeping in the brick kiln where the officials of the works have strung up electric lights for the use of the sojourners, are the men about twenty of them who have been in the valley all winter. They are very jealous of their prerogative of sleeping in the comparatively swanky and dry kilns. Further to the east, and strung out along the railroad tracks have grown up within quarter of a mile of Rosedale, the miniature village, a unique product of the current depression.
Except for the more or less permanent residents in the brick kiln, everything in the village is in a continual state of flux. "Gangs of fifty or sixty leave here every night on the freight trains, and about the same number drift in by the same means," one of them told the Star.

Farm and Unemployment Reliej
Conditions of that kind, which I say are typical of those in nearly all our cities today, are a disgrace to any civilization. Those old lines of Lowell's have frequently been running through my mind lately.
Think ye that building shall endure
Which shelters the rich and crushes the poor!
It seems to me that a time of depression of this kind brings upon us the absolute necessity of giving fair play to those who are perhaps the least influential members of our community.
Let me give a warning to the government. I believe if camps are established under anything like military control, they may become schools of bolshevism. It may be that the government may be able to increase its mounted police force and keep individual camps in order. It may be that they will call in the military, but again let me warn that the army may easily become a Haman's gallows, the means by which capitalism itself will be done to death. The authorities of the present order are undoubtedly in a dilemma. They may be damned if they don't, but certainly they will be damned if they do, and I hate to think of the suffering that may be involved.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Is my hon. friend not aware that both the Hon. Mr. Finlayson and the premier of Ontario have categorically denied any thought of establishing camps such as he has been describing?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have seen denials in the papers, and I have also seen statements that such camps were to be established.


George Brecken Nicholson: Who made the statements?


James Shaver Woodsworth: They have been
common in all our papers. This is almost our last opportunity for protest. AVithin a few days parliament will prorogue, and then the members of this house will have no opportunity of making their protests in the house, and I do want to urge upon the government that they will not permit anyone to influence them to establish camps of that character.
There is a very great deal of constructive work that might be undertaken in this country, I think, of our highways, of reforestation, of tree planting on the prairies, which in part would help prevent the drifting of our soil, of clearing the land in many scrubby districts, of drainage, of preparing semi-ready farms and better homes for the settlers on the prairie, of level crossings, of improving our parks and clearing out our slums, and par-

ticularly I would say the slums in the great city'- of Montreal, and of providing decent homes and healthful surroundings for the people. Only the other day a gentleman who had just returned from Vienna was telling me of the wonderful housing schemes being carried on in that fine old city. It seems to me that our government might undertake something of this character.
Of course, the old question comes up, and I think the Prime Minister will be the first to raise it: how are you to finance such schemes? I would say that if the country is as strong as he would have us believe, we have the whole credit of the country upon which to draw. The Prime Minister would finance the schemes by drawing on the consolidated revenue fund, that is, by borrowing. I would point out to him that a few years ago there was a precedent set for another type of financing. In 1914 and 1915 the government issued currency to the amount of S26.000.0CIO, 510,000,000, if I recall aright, for the Canadian National railway, $6 000.000 for the Grand Trunk, and 810,000,000 for the treasury. I would suggest that a policy of that kind would mean that we would have the money without interest, and further than that, as my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote) has pointed out, such a procedure would at the same time lessen our load of debt. That is no cheap money scheme, but at this time when we have some of the leaders in finance pointing out the necessity of policies of this character I think it would be wise that the government should carefully consider action along this line rather than continuing to borrow and thus burdening the country in the years to come with a load of debt.
The Prime Minister in this motion and also in his speech indicated that he desired greater power than is now possessed by the government to deal with those who would in any way imperil law and order. The Prime Minister said that he wanted such powers with a view to such action "as in our judgment" -I presume he meant in the judgment of the government-"will free this country of those who have not proved themselves worthy of Canadian citizenship." Again let me say that this seems rather in harmony with some of the statements that we have had recently in our newspapers. I noticed just recently an Ottawa despatch that appeared in the western newspapers, as follows:
Ottawa, July 7.-The federal government is planning a round-up of communists and revolutionists in all sections of Canada, but more particularly in the west. It is definitely established here to-day that there are a number of "Reds" in the Winnipeg district who have beer

Farm and Unemployment Relief
marked down for arrest and deportation, and action certainly will be taken before the summer is over.
As I have tried to say in this house before, I wish that I were not placed in the position where it would always seem as if I were defending all the actions of our local communists. I am not doing that. I think, however, there is a bigger question here, and that is the question of freedom. We are in danger of becoming hysterical. For example, in the Montreal Gazette of July 23, 1931, I find an interview given by Lieutenant-Colonel R. H. Webb, the mayor of my own city, from which I quote a few paragraphs:
Bolshevism's insidious "Group G" is getting a grip on Canada's recent immigrants, especially around Winnipeg, and the Dominion, hampered with a legal system that is not made to cope with such a situation ought to enforce a. national emergency measure, something like Great Britain's "Dora," or Defence of the Realm Act of war-time fame, Lieutenant-Colonel Webb said in response to a query on that subject.
Ordinary forensic methods were out of the question in dealing with bolshevik agents, he said. The Dominion ought to maintain a secret service expressly for combating the bolshevik menace, and ringleaders, instead of being hauled up in the ordinary law- courts and allowed to hire high-priced counsel, ought to be just spirited out of the country and back to where they came from.
Canada ought to take a leaf out of the American book of sedition, and place the matter in th e hands of the Immigration department, which is responsible for bringing foreigners into the country and making them into citizens, and of the federal police, who are here the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
It does seem to me an extraordinary thing, Mr. Speaker, that in times of peace we should have any citizen, to say nothing of the mayor of one of our large cities, telling us that ordinary forensic methods are out of the question in dealing with a certain section of our community and that we should adopt secret police methods and spirit these people out of the country without trial. I would say that anybody who makes such a statement is not only doing his best to foster bolshevism, but I think is copying directly what we denounce as bolshevist methods. If there is to be any deportation I would say that the mayor of Winnipeg might be the first to be deported for trying to introduce bolshevist methods into Canada. But I am glad to say that the position of our "travelling mayor" is not the attitude of a good many people in Winnipeg. For example, I had a letter the other day from the city clerk, enclosing a copy of a resolution passed in connection with the Alien Identification Card Bill, which I believe has been before the Senate. The resolution reads:
We, the members of the municipal council of the city of Winnipeg, are of the opinion that the "Alien Identification Card" bill now before the Senate of Canada will not accomplish the object sought by its sponsors, and tends to stigmatize newcomers to Canada. It is considered an undeserved insult by immigrants who came to this country with the best intentions of becoming, and are honestly trying to be, worthy Canadian citizens. We therefore urge the hon. members of the Senate and House of Commons not to press such legislation, but to maintain unsullied our Canadian ideals of civil equality and social justice.
May I repeat that last phrase, and I would urge upon the Prime Minister, that we should maintain unsullied our Canadian ideals of civil equality and social justice.
While I have had hundreds of communications from labour organizations across the country protesting against some of these proposed methods, I should like to read a paragraph from an editorial in the Manitoba Free Press of July 24, which I think represents fairly well the judgment of a large number of the citizens of my own community:
The communists may be imposing on the good nature of the community, and taking advantage of rights which their own creed, in its own country, would refuse to tolerate for a moment, but such action as the council takes with the communists must leave uninfringed the right of free speech exercised in Winnipeg.
Free speech cannot be allowed to come under police supervision or discretion, which is what would happen were police permits required before meetings could legally be held.
I feel proud to be a citizen of Winnipeg when one of our leading papers takes that attitude. Sometimes it seems to me that in adopting these rather haphazard measures the Prime Minister is facing a great conflagration with a little squirt gun. He is trying to put out the conflagration, and when anyone expostulates that he definitely promised to put out the fire he exclaims, in great indignation, "No, I promised to meet it. Time will tell how successful I will be," whereupon he works harder than ever with his squirt gun and the fire rages more furiously than ever.
Almost in despair he at this time seeks autocratic powers. Sometimes I have wondered how to characterize the position and methods of the Prime Minister. On occasions he seems to be the conductor of a great orchestra composed of the members of his own party. As conductor, however, he does not permit each member of the orchestra to play very long or very loud on his own instrument but he conducts as would the leader of a jazz orchestra showing his versatility by playing in turn on each instrument as it is passed up to him.


Mr. POULIOT:: Sousa's band.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It seems to me that in this resolution not only have we auto-

Farm, and Unemployment Reliej
cratic action, so far as the party is concerned, but the Prime Minister is taking the powers entirely out of the hands of parliament and placing them in his own and in those of his immediate colleagues. I think the situation is too dangerous for that. Further, may I venture to suggest that the world wide depression demands a great deal more in the way of constructive, far reaching planning.
I feel sure that the Prime Minister is sincere in the belief that his policies will solve our problems. I will say that he is almost fanatically sincere in that regard. Those of us however who have not his particular brand of fanaticism may be pardoned if we question his methods, when he asks us to hand all power over to him.
In closing may I say that while we have been talking to-day about unskilled workers, nothing whatever has been said about the skilled workers of whom there are very large numbers out of work, and for whom provision would not be made by the measures which have been indicated. Further, there are a very considerable number of women workers about whom very little has been said. The same is true of clerical workers who are perhaps in a more serious plight than manual workers. Last, I would point out the thousands of young people in this great land of opportunity who have not been given a chance as they left school to procure work. I cannot see that haphazard emergency methods, such as that now before us, are going to solve the problems of the classes which I have merely enumerated. Even now, before this house prorogues, might it not be possible for the government to reconsider the situation, take the house into its confidence and work out some sort of general plan, appoint a central committee which would not merely supervise the giving of relief-which in fact might not supervise the giving of relief it all-but which might study the underlying ;auses of unemployment and have the general direction and planning of what might be done to meet the situation.


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not purpose to delay the house at any great length, but I feel I should say a few words. With much that 'the speaker who has just taken his seat has said, I agree. With some of the criticisms by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), I agree. The unfortunate fact is that it does not matter very much what the leader of the opposition, the leader of the Labour group or myself may say in the present instance. I am convinced that for the purpose of meeting a crisis the government is determined to carry through its dictatorial and autocratic policy of usurping

the powers of the state. That the need for drastic action is there, I do not deny. There is no doubt under heaven that one of the most serious situations has arisen in Canada, and it is now proposed to meet it planlessly. The proposal before us in of a broad and general character. The amount of money involved we know nothing about; we do not know what will be spent., and I doubt very much if the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) himself has any comprehensive idea or estimate of the amount actually required. I doubt if he knows what works he will undertake. I suggested to him to-day one public work which might be proceeded with, but he replied that the engineers were not yet in agreement concerning that particular work. I do not think it would be a difficult matter, now that the surveys have been completed concerning the Peace River outlet, to have an agreement. I think action by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways and Canals would result in that very useful piece of work being proceeded with
Because of the refusal of the leader of the opposition himself, as well as the present Prime Minister, to accept recommendations made a year ago and in previous occasions by hon. members in this corner of the house, we find ourselves in the present unfortunate position. A year ago last May I closed my remarks on the unemployment debate by saying to the then Prime Minister that he would not have taken the first step towards the solution of this problem until he authorized a comprehensive survey of economic and social conditions in Canada, with a view to planning for the solution of those problems. Nothing was done; no such body was appointed nor has it been appointed by the present administration. There has been no survey. In a previous debate this session one of the ministers opposite suggested that such a survey could be undertaken by the census takers-an absurd proposition.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if this government or the preceding one had been gifted with that vision, which ought to be a prerogative of statesmen-and Pr;me Ministers in particular-they would have seen this situation. All they had to do was to listen to and cany into effect -the suggestions of hon. members in this corner of the house, or to listen to the suggestions of such outstanding men with wisdom and brains as Sir George Paish, Lord d'Afoernon and others who forecast the present situation in regard to unemployment. The situation in Europe alone would have justified anybody assuming that such a condition would come about.

Farm and Unemployment Relief
What do we find? At the very outset of this session hon. members opposite, including the Prime Minister, attempted to minimize the seriousness of the situation, attempted to gloss over it. Then, on July 1, the Prime Minister made a pronouncement to the country more devastating in its gloomy forecast than anything that the people of Canada or hon. members in this house had heard of. He comes into the house to-day and by implication at least, if not by actual words, states that the situation has now become so desperate that nothing short of war measures could be calculated properly to deal with it. I doubt if there is any country in the world-* there is not one that I know of-which so far has found it necessary to undertake such drastic and far-reaching measures to meet the economic situation. In other words it would appear that the Prime Minister is now so exercised-and I congratulate him upon being troubled, even though he be late-that he is prepared even to usurp the powers of parliament itself and resort to what might virtually be termed a dictatorship for the purpose of meeting the situation. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think he would be wise to meet the suggestion of the leader of the opposition to state a definite amount sufficiently large to cover every need anticipated, and then proceed with a general plan of constructive public works to give employment to those requiring it. To-day the situation is quite a bit worse than it was a year ago or even two years ago. In those days the contention that the constitutional position in dealing with unemployment was that the municipalities came first, the provinces second, and then the federal government; that contention was perhaps unassailable at that time. But now, as the Prime Minister himself would describe it, and in fact does describe it, we have a national calamity, a national crisis, so great in its magnitude that he is now prepared to ask parliament for these sweeping powers. The fact of the matter is the whole situation is now reversed, and instead of the municipalities bearing the first responsibility the federal government must do so. The Prime Minister himself accepted that position when, speaking on behalf of his party during the last election campaign, he said:
I will end unemployment, I will take such measures as will provide for the giving of work to every man and woman in this country prepared to work.
Now we find a measure introduced which, in part, is a proposal to provide public work -at what wages we do not know yet-and, in part, makes provision for the dole. That
is what it amounts to. I wish I could have some comprehensive idea of just exactly what is in the Prime Minister's mind. I do wish hon. gentlemen opposite had not made those statements they did make early in the session, when even the Minister of Labour himself, speaking in Hamilton on April 28 last, expressed these views:
In Canada the unemployment problem is diminishing. We have experienced the most distressing winter in many years, but we emerge into the sunlight of hope at the beginning of another season, and it is within the realm of reason to say that before the snow falls again our wories will have largely-disappeared.
The situation now is so bad that we need a war measures act to cope with. I congratulate the government, however, on proposing to meet the problem by providing work. I am afraid difficulties face the administration in this regard. If the government does succeed in meeting this problem with useful and remunerative work it will bo the first government that I know of that has ever been able to do so. All governments are agreed that the policy of providing work is the best, and so are all individuals who have studied the question. And after all, all the men ask is work or maintenance. But all governments on coming into power have one eye on the treasury and the other on the unemployment problem, and the result is that one is controlled by the exigencies of the other. In Great Britain the grave situation has not been met by comprehensive public works, but a great deal of direct relief has been provided; much the same situation prevails in Germany; much the same situation exists in the United States, where charitable organizations are the present resource of the unemployed, the starving, and the miserable.
I think the time has come, Mr. Speaker, when governments should reconsider their whole method of borrowing for purposes such as these, and I support most strongly the latter suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), when he submitted to the Prime Minister a plan for providing the necessary moneys for all public work that might be required to take up the slack of unemployment by simply issuing dominion notes on the basis-if he wants to go through that formality-of dominion bonds deposited with the treasury board. We do it for our chartered banks now; why not do it for the state? It is a sound, a reasonable proposal. We could do that without charging the state a single dollar of interest. The additional currency thus created could be repaid subsequently out
Farm and Unemployment Relief

of taxation. It appeals to me as a far superior method to borrowing money on longterm bonds and paying high rates of interest.
Before I sit down I want to call the attention of the Prime Minister to the demoralization due to the semi-starvation pay that is being given at the present time and during the last winter has been given to those who secure either direct relief or the inadequate work offered. In the city of Calgary, ior example, until quite recently unemployed single men were receiving meal tickets for one meal a day and a bed in return for one day's work. I do not need to invite hon. members opposite who will spend a dollar and a half on a single meal in the Chateau Laurier to imagine just what the life of these people must be. One meal is all they get a day, in return for which they have worked eight hours. Recently the regulations were altered, and now the men are asked to give two day's work each week for the same return-two day's work for one meal a day and a bed. And even at that, Mr. Speaker, the single unemployed men in the city of Calgary are in a superior position to the single unemployed men in most of the cities of this country, for with few exceptions there is no provision for unemployment relief for single men.
The next thing to which I want to draw the attention of the Prime Minister is the situation in Drumheller, in my own constituency. There the married people, unemployed since last spring, very slightly employed in the winter of 1929-30, and with practically no employment, or very little, in the winter of 1930-31, have been receiving $125 a week per adult, and 25 cents per week for each child, irrespective of age or size. Can you maintain the moral fibre of the citizens of t'he country on the basis of pay of that kind? I ask the Prime Minister, can he expect that optimism and faith and pioneering courage which he seeks in our people on pay of $1.25 a week for each adult and 25 cents a week for each child? It is nothing but slow starvation. That is the situation that has existed in connection with hundreds of people in my own constituency in the mining valley of the Red Deer. Recently as the result of constant agitation, as the result of parades and demonstrations, the single unemployed men in that vicinity secured a measure of relief-one dollar and a half a week for a full-grown man. All they ask, Mr. Speaker, is work. Here is a message sent to the premier of my province, by these very men who held a mass meeting of some thousand odd, over four hundred of whom paraded to the police station at Drumheller seeking relief:

Unless relief is immediately granted, workers must help themselves. They will not die at the time when warehouses are full of all kinds of food and other necessities of the workers. We have produced the wealth and we have the right to live.
Dangerous words, Mr. Speaker, for men in dangerous circumstances. We have the mayor of Edmonton emphasizing this in an emphatic prediction that we shall see, "Worse times than we yet have seen." His statement that the situation was getting beyond the power of the civic authorities to deal with deserves consideration at the hands of this house. According to the newspapers, after meeting Premier Brownlee and discussing the situation in Lethbridge, he said:
The situation in Lethbridge was acute and the costs to the city so high that it was the intention to cut off the relief April 26. At least 700 families in the city were in a state of destitution.
The- miners in the Drumheller valley-the Prime Minister is not .particularly interested, but I do not suppose it makes any difference- wired the premier of Alberta as follows:
We want work or full maintenance-
In order to make absolutely clear what they meant by "full maintenance" they added: -the latter meaning three meals a day and a place to sleep.
Surely every Canadian man and woman and child is entitled to three meals a day and a place to sleep.
We want no discrimination between single and married men and no eviction for nonpayment of rent while unemployed.
They complained that their light and water had been cut off and that they needed clothing. They preferred work to relief. It is the cry of every man who has anything real in him,-work, not relief.
There is just one other matter to which I should like to direct the attention of the Prime Minister. I have here the report of a meeting of the town council of Smiths Falls. Earlier in the session we heard that the district about that town was comparatively well off. Here is the quotation:
.... town council at its regular meeting last night ....
This is dated July 7, 1931.
. . . . heard the startling statement that families in this town were starving and that in some cases were absolutely without provisions. ... In speaking on unemployment conditions, Councillor P. A. McKeown declared that some families in Smiths Falls were "starving" and thought a committee should be appointed to work in connection with church and welfare societies in order to raise a fund to provide relief for the families of unemployed during the coming winter.

Farm and Unemployment Relief
"There have been cases," he said "where families were absolutely without provisions for the week end. They have come to me on Saturday nights and I have had to go out and dig up enough food to carry them over the week end."
Returning to the situation in my own constituency for a moment, I crave the attention of the Prime Minister to the last report of the welfare board which was appointed there. Let me briefly state that the situation became so desperate towards last spring that a meeting was called of the church authorities, the civic authorities and other influential persons in Drumheller, and at that meeting it was decided to set up a local relief board. This was done. That relief board functioned as long as all the funds the town council thought they could possibly vote lasted. Recently the resources being exhausted, even the official relief officer has gone, and the only body dealing with the situation there is a voluntary body created by some warm hearted Canadians who are doing their best to carry on the work formerly done by the relief board. This is the quotation I wish to read:
"We only have a small supply of tea and some dry bread," said a lady asking Mrs. L. Maekay, local relief officer, for relief early this week. "My husband is laid off from the mine permanently (at least until next fall) and we' have no hopes for the future." This is only one of the many pitiful talcs heard daily at the relief office.
Another case is that of a destitute family who could not send their children to school because of lack of footwear. There are four children in the family, the youngest four years old. Since the welfare board has stepped in to help, the three children going to school have been provided with shoes and the younger one, who can only stand at the door and watch the other children play, will be -provided with shoes as soon as further donations are made to the welfare board.
In some eases there are six children in the family and the board is supplying these with milk in an endeavour to restore health and strength to the little bodies.
Donations of money and clothing are needed by the board to continue the work. Mrs. Maekay is always busy investigating cases, and so far as can be learned very few undeserving cases are slipping by. If any of our readers can spare a used suit, shoes, or any kind of wearing apparel the same would be gratefully received at the local relief office, upstairs in the city hall.
These, Mr. Speaker, will give this house some conception of conditions with which we are not all closely familiar. The situation is more terrible than anything that has already been said. Now I give to the house an editorial written by a man of whom the Prime Minister knows well, a man held in high esteem in the city of Edmonton. I refer
to Mr. Elmer Roper, editor of the Labour News, who says:
I have something to get off my chest this week. Sunday I had a talk with Mr. Edward-son, the director of Hope Mission in Edmonton, and Monday morning I spent some time with him again, during which I saw the unemployed single men getting their porridge. About a thousand men are being fed in that way, and twenty-five hundred to three thousand bowls of porridge are being ladled out each day. The place opens xip at seven-thirty and stays open until eleven in the morning, then opens again at three, and mush is dispensed until seven. The most striking thing about the whole business, to me, is the ages of the men. They range, I should say, from twenty to thirty. There is only a sprinkling of older men. Another noticeable feature is the cleanliness of most of them, and the fact that the majority whom I saw seem to be English-speaking fellows. I came away with a deep sense of the tragedy of the whole affair. With a few noticeable exceptions, they were a fine looking group of young men. (They'd have made wonderful recruits in the war). _ They possess the potentialities of good service to society. But because of society's lack of intelligence they are being demoralized and their energies are being wasted.
, That is the situation, Mr. Speaker. Due to the delay all summer long countless thousands, nay, tens of thousands of single unemployed men have drifted across this country from city to city in misery; almost hopeless; begging; living at missions; sleeping where they can; riding on freight trains; learning how to steal; learning how to beg; learning how to starve. What an indictment of a country rich beyond the dreams of nations; what an indictment of a government that pledged itself to solve the problem; what an indictment of a nation that prides itself on its vast wealth as well as its potentialities.
If you want the final word, Mr. Speaker, it is to be found in the letters I have received from those who beg to be deported. We have heard much in this house from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others against the policy of deportation for certain reasons. I have no particular complaint; so far nothing has come to my attention in that regard. But I have this complaint:	We have a situation here under
which, having invited Britishers to Canada, and having promised them steady work at good wages, we now find the same Britishers failing to get the promised work begging to be deported. Not only that, but they thank you when you secure deportation for them.
I have a letter here from a man named Joe Lewis, a Welshman, who says:
I came out here two years ago from Aberavon, South Wales. M.v wife has been sick ever since, and last February applied for deportation. I have been interviewed by the officer, and this I know is hard to ask you but could



Farm and Unemployment Reliej
you ginger them up that end so as to get the family back home out of this misery? With all fraternal greetings,
I hope to remain,
Fraternally yours,
Joe Lewis.
I think that man now is on his way home. I have another letter here from Wayne, Alberta, written by another Britisher, George Ritchie. I helped secure deportation for him and his family, and he writes as follows:
Well, Mr. Garland, I humbly beg to thank you on behalf of myself and family for the way you handled my case and the trouble and pains you used to help me in my great difficulty of getting away. Needless to say my wife has improved in health already, and looking forward to getting back home.
This country must learn to offer more to its people than the hopelessness depicted in letters of that kind, which have been received not only by myself, but I presume by other members as well. The situation is now in the hands of the Prime Minister; whether we will or not he is going to take to himself power to deal with unemployment in the widest and most drastic fashion. The responsibility for failure will be upon him, but in conclusion I say to him that he will have been derelict in his duty and will have betrayed the best interests of Canada if he permits, so long as he is Prime Minister with the power to vote money, any man or woman to exist on $1.50 per week, or 25 cents per child. If he is not able to provide useful and remunerative work I say at least he should provide these people with enough to supply them with three meals a day, a bed and necessary clothing.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: I wish to make a few remarks on this very important resolution. I have always regarded the unemployment question as being the very centre of the great problem of our modern world, the problem that has yet to be solved. We may regard the problem of civilization as being focussed in this unemployment question with which Canada, like all other countries in the world, is confronted to-day.

The resolution before the house recognizes the necessity of giving some relief to the unemployed of our country and it makes a definite proposal as to how this is to be done, seeking from this house the necessary authority to enable the government to carry into effect the policy indicated in the motion.
I look upon that, in itself, as a real step forward. I am quite sure' that the people of Canada will feel relieved when they read the resolution; and they will be more satisfied when they read the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to-day, when he said most definitely that no one was to be hungry or cold or in dire distress in Canada in the coming year, who was willing to work if work could be found. And the right hon. gentleman intimated that where people could not work, or where it was impossible to get work for them, they would be similarly taken care of.
That, to my mind, is the announcement of a policy from which no government in the future will ever be able to depart until the problem of unemployment has been solved. I do not think it has ever been so clearly stated by any government before, that the people of the country should be protected from hunger and cold. And when we realize . that the country itself is well able to meet the situation; when we realize that there is no richer country in the world, certainly not in proportion to population; when we realize that there is an abundance of all kinds of goods which the people require, then we can see that it is only a matter of ordinary common sense and wisdom for a government to declare that it will see to it that the people shall not suffer from any lack of food and clothing.
In this resolution the government undertakes to do what the capitalistic system has failed to do. Whether capitalism will undergo some modification in the future and continue, I do not know. But I do know, as everyone else knows, that it has fallen down; it is not able to distribute to the people who require them the goods which it has produced. Here the government of Canada has definitely undertaken that in the coming year goods will be distributed to the people, at least to such an extent as will prevent hunger and cold.
Now, the question i.s whether or not the policy of the government in this regard is the best one to follow. The Prime Minister has challenged the commoners, if the proposed method is not satisfactory, to suggest a better way of going about it. The criticism so far has been against a request from the

Farm and Unemployment Relief
government for a 'blank cheque from parliament as it has been described. The government is criticized for asking authority to spend as much money as it may see fit, and the Prime Minister has declared that a limitation is undesirable. He asks us-How can it otherwise be done-I do noH think it can be done otherwise with efficiency, nor do I think that if another way could be found it would be wise to take it. I think the proposed method is the wisest under the circumstances. And I have not been converted to that view by the resolution itself nor by the arguments in its defence; for I said the same thing when addressing myself to the unemployment question in the budget debate. At that time the government was criticized for failure to state in the budget a specific amount to be expended in unemployment relief. During that debate I said as clearly as I could that in my opinion the budget was not the place in which to make that provision. I did not think that the government was in a position to say definitely how much was required, and therefore, in taking the same view now, I am not admitting that I have changed my mind in consequence of the resolution. I recognize, in view of all the circumstances, the wisdom of the policy now proposed.
If the government did fix a figure it would be immediately open to criticism that that figure was either too small or too large; some would take one view and some the other. And if a specific sum were indicated, it could be at best only a guess. Moreover, all the municipalities and the provinces would be immediately trying to get their share of what there was, and to get it as quickly as they could. If the appropriation were a large one, chey would be competing with one another to see who could get the most. They would argue, as I have often heard them argue, "We have to pay for it anyway out of our taxes and we may as well get as much as we possibly can." Another consideration is this. If a specific sum were mentioned the tendency of the manufacturers and large employers of labour would be to rest on their oars more or less. They would feel that they had less responsibility than 'before in our present industrial situation, because the government had decided to spend so much to relieve unemployment.
Taking all phases of the question into consideration, I am quite satisfied that the government could not declare what specific amount would be required. They could only guess at it, and even if they were approximately right it would not be good policy. It is far better for us to give the government
what it now asks, namely, the right to expend whatever sum is necessary and where it is necessary. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we must entrust any government, under circumstances such as we are faced with now, with that much authority. The government in accepting responsibility in this regard, cannot, if it fails, escape its responsibility to the people; if it misspends the money or if its policy proves to be a fiasco, parliament and the people will have to deal with the subject again. The government cannot escape its responsibility in this regard even if it were desirous of so doing. We are now taking the logical and wisest step in order to deal with a specific situation.
It has been contended, especially by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), that the government by this measure is being granted too much power. I am not sure that I can quite follow the logic of that argument. According to our system the government. for all practical purposes, is parliament, and parliament is the government. I would say that the objection that, the government is getting too much power under this bill has not even a technical basis upon which to rest, for the government makes its appeal to parliament and parliament is the majority of this house. The majority of the house belongs to the government side, and the government controls the party in power. Therefore, in reality, in respect to not only this government but all governments under the party system, the government is parliament and parliament is the government. Theoretically we can argue otherwise if we choose to do so; theoretically we can say that parliament has this, that and the other thing, but the only thing that parliament has is the decision of the majority. The decision of the majority is that of the government party in every case, and the government party is controlled very largely by the cabinet. Perhaps this is a good thing in most instances. There you have the situation, so what is the use of saying that parliament is now being ravished and the government is obtaining powers greater than it has any right to receive? Under our system the government cannot do that if it brings the measure to the house, for it is parliament that is now acting. In that regard I could not follow the reasoning of my good friend and colleague, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), when he stated that the government under this bill was usurping the power of parliament. I am at a loss to see how parliament can usurp the power of parliament; for, I repeat, this bill will have to be passed by the majority of this house which

Farm and Unemployment Relief
is the voice of parliament, and parliament cannot usurp its own powers. As a matter of fact, this bill does not seek power; it expresses power, and anyone who wishes to challenge that statement must challenge our entire system of government. I have done that many a time, and I still do it. I do not think this is the best system of government, but it is the system that exists and in this bill the government is carrying out the constitutional method. There is nothing wrong with that. Anyone who criticizes it ought to challenge the system itself, because that is the only ground he would have in this connection.
To pass on to the other phase of the question which has been touched upon by the Prime Minister and those who replied to him, in regard to the powers whereby the government seeks to enforce law and order, any government must be clothed with powers to act in an emergency in order to protect the system for which it stands. That is a principle which cannot be put aside even though we may not be supporters of the government or of the order of society which it represents. The power to meet any emergency is inseparable from the idea of government; it is inherent in government. A government without power to protect itself is not a government at all. I do not know that Canada is in any great danger of revolutionary uprising at present; I would say that probably it is in less danger in that respect than any other country in the world, but I know as well as any other hon. member that there are those Who seek to upset by force this system, not only in this country but in all others, and they do not hesitate to say so. They declare that all governments exist by force, which is true, and they say that we can upset that government or system only by force. They openly say: We are out by force to upset that system. They know quite well that power of this kind is inherent in government and they do not hesitate so to declare. I do not know to what extent the danger may be from that quarter; I think it is very small; but if there were a danger I would not want to accept the responsibility of not having provision made to take care of it. When there are numbers of people in the country who openly declare they are out to upset the Whole system by force, I do not consider that method intelligent, and I am still trying to hold on to my faith in the possibility of modifying our present system through intelligence. While I do not agree with the system as it exists to-day; while I have every hope that a new system will be established, nevertheless I can

see that if the system as it is were swept away by those who would seek to detroy it, I would be defeated in trying to modify the system through intelligence just as those who believe in the system would be defeated. To that exent there is no middle course: we must either openly and avowedly take our side with those who stand for the overthrow of the system by force, or else give our support both moral and direct to the protection of the system at it exists. Therefore, I see no objection to giving the government the authority which it asks. Even if there is no danger of their having to use it, the government must be clothed with that authority.
I hope the clothes will fit well; if they do not, the government will have to pay for the misfit.	_ ,
I would deplore nothing more than civil disruption to any degree in Canada next year or any other year; I would deplore that there should be any act which would warrant the government in exercising that power, but-it would be equally deplorable if conditions arose which demand its exercise and the government did not have the right to use it. So from that point of view I see no reason why this measure Should not be passed.
Let me turn next to the main proposal, and the one in which we are all more interested than even in these points of academic discussion. I refer to the question of how to meet the unemployment situation that at present exists in Canada. Of course I know the government, in taking this course, does not consider it is solving the problem of unemployment for all time. It will give employment to the people only while they are doing the work which is provided for them, and not any longer. There is nothing in the proposal that would indicate a fundamental alteration in the system itself that would do away with unemployment. But the action that is being taken is very necessary at the present time, and the question is: what suggestions can we make to the government in this regard?
I was glad indeed to hear the declaration that the government intended to enter upon extensive public works, to provide constructive. real work, not work that is manufactured by groups and municipalities as is sometimes done, merely to keep idle hands busy, like carrying a heavy stone from one end of the garden to the other for eight hours a day in order that a man may feel morally justified that he had done sufficient work to entitle him to eat three meals. That kind of work we do not want, but real constructive work which is required, work which will be an asset

Farm and Unemployment Relief
to the nation, work which will assist Canada to produce greater wealth in the future than it has in the past. That is the kind of work we desire to have done, and I am delighted that the government has seen fit to announce that policy now because I believe that that in itself is a mark of progress.
As I have perhaps too often said to this house in criticism of government policies generally in respect to unemployment, most governments during times of depression spend less money than at any other time, and most governments during times of great prosperity have a tendency to spend more money than at any other time. That is the natural reaction. I say, to the general public feeling, but I argue that it is bad policy. The governments of the country, municipal, provincial and dominion, taken together represent a greater control of the capital expenditure of this country than any other force, and if all these governments would undertake to plan carefully even their own expenditure, they could to a very great extent regulate the periods of depression and unemployment. They have control. They may spend this year or next year. I think that the adoption of such a policy by the government would be a step in advance; not that it would cure anything, but it might prevent a good deal of unnecessary suffering if all the governments of Canada, municipal, provincial and dominion, would undertake to think ahead and to engage in capital expenditure to the greatest extent in times of depression and to husband its resources in times of prosperity. That would have a regulating effect upon the boom and slump cycles which unfortunately come because we have not intelligent control of finance in relation to production and distribution.
There are many kinds of work which the government could undertake, and may I suggest that the government ought to do this thing in a big way if it is going to do it at all. I hope the government will do it in such a way that it will not be necessary for working people to lower their standard of living next winter. I hope that they will engage in it in such a way that it will not be necessary to reduce wages below the ordinary standards, and that they will engage in it in a big enough way to give a stimulus to the whole business life of Canada. It may not take so much to do that as we might at first think. Unquestionably the depression in this and all other countries is due to the fact that there is not sufficient purchasing power amongst the people to distribute the goods the production of which the modern machine
has made possible. You may explain that any way you like. But put the money into the pockets of the people of Canada to-day and you will not require any money for unemployment relief. There would be plenty to do. You would then have the purchasing power necessary to move the goods now lying on the dust-laden shelves of the warehouses, and as soon as those goods are moved the wheels of industry will start replenishing the shelves, and then you are off. The great question is to distribute purchasing power, and I hope the government will enter into this building of public service in such a way as to make a real impression on the economic life of the country. There are so many things that might Ire done. I shall enumerate a few of the smaller ones first, and then finish up with a few of the larger ones.
There could be built schools and colleges. We need more of both. Roads and bridges could be built. Electric and Steam railways, footpaths, parks, the making of improvements, such as pavements and so forth, the building of hospitals, sanatoria and laboratories, public buildings, the improvement of harbours, the development of canals and generally the means of inland navigation, the reclamation of waste lands, reforestation, the making of supplies for public institutions, such as clothing, uniforms and furniture.
May I add to that list, the building of houses for the people of Canada to live in? There is not one of our large cities in Canada, so far as I am aware, which has escaped the slum condition characteristic of older cities. Go to Montreal or Toronto, or even to Winnipeg, and you will find street after street of houses that ought to be burned down. You will find people struggling to pay high rents for houses because houses are scarce. At the same time you will find hundreds of idle carpenters, hundreds of idle plumbers, hundreds of men idle who would like to dig cellars and make concrete basements. You will find lumber burning up in the sun in the lumber yards of Canada, and tall timber in the forests waiting to be cut down with the axe. We have all these things in abundance, and yet we have people without houses to live in. Go on the prairies among the farmers and you will find dozens of farmers living in hovels, shacks, with t'he rain pouring in on them when it rains, and the occupants freezing almost to death in the winter time. These people require better houses, and it would be in the interest of Canada to build them. It is far better for us to build houses, to remove the slums from our cities, to raise the standard of living for our agriculturists,

Farm and Unemployment Relief
than merely to give hand-outs in relief in order to keep people from starving. Such is the kind of constructive work that I hope the government will undertake.
Let me now indicate a few things that might be done in a bigger way. We hope that some day in the near future the deep waterway on the St. Lawrence will be developed. We hope that in the near future it will be possible to travel by motor from the eastern coast to the western coast. We want that highway built, whether it is built as a national highway all the way through or the stretches of provincial highways are merely linked up. That work should be done. It would be of great service to the people of Canada. To give another example, take the Peace River outlet, which has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). There is a necessary railway to be built; the people are needing it, and there cannot be a more advantageous time to build it than now when money can be borrowed perhaps more cheaply than in the midst of a period of prosperity. There are three great undertakings. Let them be undertaken as speedily as possible, as well as similar undertakings. Suppose it puts Canada $500,000,000 more in debt. Suppose it even went so far as to put Canada 81,000.000.000 more in debt, for construction, for peace, for the development of national life, a billion dollars in the interests of constructive human" statesmanship. Suppose it did. Could not that well be defended? We cannot defend the expenditure of two billion dollars for war. I do not know of anybody who either then or now would say that we could have got rid of that expenditure, but after all, what have we to show for it but thousands of graves of our best in Flanders, hundreds and thousands of our citizens crippled, and all the ill-feeling which develops as the result of a world war of that magnitude, with all the problems which have been created thereby? And still we have to meet all the little wars and all the big wars which the peace following the last war made possible. That is all we got, out of it. All the goods were produced and destroyed, but for a peace program of this kind the goods we produce will remain to reproduce themselves in the greater wealth of the nation. I do not think any government has to fear criticism from intelligent people when they undertake the expenditures necessary to meet the country's needs in the midst of an economic breakdown of society such as is common to all nations of the world to-day. The government has committed itself to a policy of protecting Canadian citizens from hunger and starvation,

and it proposes to do so, not merely by doling out a few dollars -now and again, but by constructive work. I have tried to indicate some of 'the things I believe should be done under that .program by the municipal and provincial governments in joint operation with the federal government.
The question now arises:	Where is the
money to come from to carry out these works? That is the greatest problem which any government of to-day has to face. I do not know whether the government has agreed with what I have said so far, but I am sorry to say I am sure it will not agree with my next statements. From now on I go alone, so far as the government is concerned. The government does not believe it is possible to finance our national undertakings in any way other than the method which in the past has been adopted. I am quite convinced that the day is not far distant when this or some other government wlil change its mind on that point. Throughout the entire world the question of credit is to-day the chief matter of discussion. We know that at the moment Europe is almost at the point of breakdown, through lack of proper credit facilities. We know that condition has been brought about by a debt creating system which, by its very nature, grows from day to day and from generation to generation until the burden of the world's debt becomes so terrific that the financial structure crumbles under the weight. To put it another way, international and national debts have so absorbed the credit of the people that there is nothing left to live on, and nothing left to circulate or to make goods move. There is nothing left with which to enter into new productions, so great has become the debt system. If we proceed with a program such as that indicated in the resolution we shall have to borrow or create money to do it. If we borrow the money, the banks create it; if we create it, we do ourselves what the banks would do for us. That is the only difference.
I am going to suggest, as I have done ad nauseam to this house, that the government consider the possiblity of financing this matter by putting the national credit behind it, and not by issuing debt and interest bearing bonds which will not only add to the debt but in twenty years will be doubled, and will add to the burden of debt from which the nations of the world are at the present time struggling to free themselves. I do not suppose it would be edifying to hon. members if I were to attempt to analyze the credit system of Canada. I do not think I would be justified in letting this opportun-

Farm and Unemployment Relief
ity pass, however, without emphasizing that this is a time when an experiment could be made, at least on a small scale. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) has been urging that we should alter the gold basis of our currency sufficiently to place us on a par with countries with whom we have to compete in business. Here is a method of achieving that result without doing anything with the gold. Let there be issued in Canada sufficient credit to undertake these public services, and immediately, as the Prime Minister will declare, if asked, currency will be debased to correspond with the currency of other countries, and immediately we shall have done what the hon. member for Macleod has been asking us to do and would place ourselves on a level with Australia, Argentine and the countries with which we must compete when selling our goods in the markets of the world. They would not have an advantage, as they do now, of between 25 and 30 per cent when they sell their goods to countries to which we desire also to sell.
I do not think I could add much more to the discussion. That the government has undertaken to deal with the problem of unemployment is a mark of progress. I believe it should be a part of the government's policy to regulate its public works with a view to doing most of them at a time when we have greatest unemployment, and doing least when we have greater prosperity. Further, I believe that the financing of such an undertaking should be done directly from the treasury of the state without any interest charges beyond those which are necessary to meet the handling charges. In that way we would increase the purchasing power of the community without increasing its debt, and by increasing the purchasing power we would stimulate industry in Canada and go a long way towards relieving the present unemployment situation.


Mr. W. W. KENNEDY (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the city of Winnipeg is vitally concerned in the measure of relief foreshadowed by this resolution. In point of population Winnipeg is the third city in Canada; in normal times it is the third city in point of the value of its industrial output. To-day Winnipeg stands first among the cities of Canada in the gravity of the unemployment situation; surely that is a matter of real concern. I think I am not overstating the facts when I say that in that city and its immediate environs there are to-day 30,000 workless. Who are those workless people? Many, it is true, are transients; many are unskilled workmen; many,
too, are skilled artisans; there are clerks and divers other classes of citizens who in times of normal prosperity administer to the multitudinous needs of a great metropolis.
It is my privilege to represent in this house an important constituency in that city, that of Winnipeg South Centre. That constituency, including that portion of the municipality of St. James immediately adjoining on the west, contains, conservatively speaking, about 125,000 people. Its aotual voting strength at the last general election was approximately 47,000. In it there are all classes of people living under normal standards. There are people of moderate wealth, but the vast majority are engaged in business, in retail trades, in various working and building trades; some are clerks-indeed I think I may describe the constituency as one representative of the working people of Canada who depend upon their day's work for their daily bread.
It has been intimated in the press throughout the country that Winnipeg of all the cities of Canada is a city where there congregate in large numbers those who for want of a more accurate description the papers call "reds." I am here to-night, sir, to say that that is untrue. The vast majority of the people of the city of Winnipeg, as I believe of all other cities in this country, call them what you like, are plain, honest citizens, seeking only the right to work and to maintain their families in reasonable comfort. It is true that in Winnipeg, as in other cities, we have certain professional agitators whose dividends depend upon dissension, discord and agitation. But, thank God, they are few. While they are articulate and vociferous, and consequently acquire a notoriety and a publicity far beyond their numerical importance, let me say that at heart the city of Winnipeg is sound. In fifty years it has' grown from a hamlet to be the third city of Canada; I am proud to-night to be a representative from that city.
The people of Winnipeg-and may I presume to speak not merely for the people of my constituency, but for the fair-minded people of Winnipeg, generally-are looking with hope to the legislation that is at present before this house. I am happy to say that I think they have reason to look with hope, indeed to look with far greater hope than would be indicated by the criticism offered by the ex-Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon and by those who have followed him in a similar vein. Since I have referred to the ex-Prime Minister, I think I could not better describe the plight

Farm and Unemployment Relief
of these people than to use his own language in his book on Industry and Humanity. At page 51 in discussing people in like circumstances he says:
The sufferings of the victims of economic pressure are not so dramatically displayed as are the sacrifices of men in war. They are none the less real, though being silently, slowly and obscurely borne.
That is true, sir-it is comparatively easy, booted and spurred, with bugles calling to ride into action with death tugging at your stirrup leathers; but to be denied the right to earn your daily bread, to sit without employment, hope or aim by an unlighted hearth, to watch your children, your dependents in hunger and in want-that is something that plumbs the greatest depths of human fortitude. That is the plight to-night of these
30,000	people in the city of Winnipeg. I hope, sir, that this house will not consider I am parochial in referring only to the city of Winnipeg. I refer to Winnipeg because it is my city, and I think it is consistent with the duty of every member on an occasion such as this to concern himself particularly with the needs of his own constituency. I realize that similar conditions exist, not to that extent perhaps, but to whatever extent they do exist in other part3 of Canada they are equally critical. For that reason I am glad to know that when parliament prorogues I can go back to the city of Winnipeg, knowing that the Prime Minister and his cabinet have seen fit to place, as they will place, upon the statute books an instrument by which the government during the long winter months that are to come will be in a position to deal effectively and adequately with the crisis that is upon ua
To ameliorate these conditions is, and should be, the first duty of government. Ha3 this government recognized its duty? The matter need not be extended. Let me simply say this: The Conservative party, led by the Right Hon. Richard B. Bennett, in the campaign just closed a year ago yesterday, told the people of Canada that when our citizens :ould not find work in a land of plenty, when they were denied the right to work, that was a matter of national concern. He told the people of Canada that if the Conservative party were returned to power it would recognize unemployment as a national problem and would so deal with it. A special session was called; that w'as the first step in fulfilment of the promise. Following that there was initiated in this house-however it may turn out eventually-a policy which in the judgment of the government of the day is predicated upon this principle: That Canadian workmen in Canada shall have the right, as

far as is economically possible, to work up into the finished product the goods that will be consumed in this country. That is the principle upon which this government is proceeding with a view to bringing about permanent amelioration of general conditions. But in the meantime, since we have unemployment slill with us, there will be introduced now a measure to provide for the immediate circumstances.
It is rather surprising to me as a comparatively new member in this house to find that members opposite seek always apparently only something to condemn, nothing to commend. It has come as a surprise to me that those who claim to represent labour in a special sense could find so little to commend in the legislation now before the house. I am glad the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) is in his place, because I want to make a brief reference to his criticism. Read the speech of the hon. member and recall that it is relative to a resolution recognizing unemployment as a matter of first national concern, that asks this house to place in the hands of the government an instrument whereby it can adequately cope with the situation as it arises. Yet how little of commendation is to be found in the hon member's remarks. There may have been a phrase of commendation-if there was I missed it-but I did not miss the carping, factious criticism. The hon. member charged-what? That this government seeks autocratic powers. Autrocratic powers, forsooth! What are they? The government of the day seeks only this right: the authority of parliament to work out in cooperation with the municipalities and the provinces a measure of relief for our own workless, and to that end to use such funds of this country' as the occasion warrants. Autocratic powers! The scope of the request is measured by the need, and by the need alone That far, and no further, the government seeks authority from this parliament.
The hon. member found occasion too to refer to newspaper despatches relating to alleged statements by the Hon. Mr. Finlayson of the Ontario government, intimating what was likely to happen in certain camps in the north of the province. So far, so good. But not until his attention was definitely directed to it by the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) did he say, "Yes I did read denials by Mr. Finlayson." Is it too much to expect, sir, that one who in former years was engaged in the promulgation of the principle, "do unto others as you would they should do unto you," would be fair enough in the first instance to place the two statements side by side?

Farm and Unemployment Reliej
The hon. member also seems to fear that some sinister use is intended to be made by this government of the special powers asked for looking to the preservation of peace, order and good government in this country. Does any fair-minded man throughout the whole of Canada believe that either the right hon. Prime Minister or any member of his cabinet really seeks that power for any ulterior or sinister purpose? I am sure there is not one. Who are apprehensive? Only those who have cause. Let me remind the hon. member of a text with which I am sure he will be familiar: The guilty flee when no man pursueth.
Reference was made also, Mr. Speaker, by the same hon. member to the first citizen of the city of Winnipeg. I hold no brief for Colonel Ralph Webb, mayor of the city of Winnipeg; he does not need me to tell the people of Canada where he stands, but coming from that city I felt I could not let the observation pass. When speaking of deportations it was suggested by the hon. member that the first deportee be Ralph Webb. Let me say that if we deported from Canada every citizen of the type of Ralph Webb of r.he city of Winnipeg, and left only citizens of the communistic type who want to subvert our constitution and all our principles of liberty, Canada indeed would be a very bad country in which to dwell.
The right hon. the ex-Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) devoted his whole speech to criticism, and without going into detail I took this to be his major criticism: He intimated that by giving this government power to draw upon the resources of this country without limitation, for unemployment relief, we would be doing violence to the constitution of Canada and abrogating the powers and privileges of parliament. He contended that something in the proposal was fundamentally wrong, and that in asking parliament to grant this power we were shattering precedent. Sir, how often in the past has the Conservative party in Canada had to listen to the taunt that they were a party of reactionaries, fettered by precedent and afraid to move without some precedent to back up that movement? It is a happy change, then, for those who have been accustomed to indulge in those taunts to have this outstanding example to the contrary to meet a national crisis. If it be-and I do not think it is-that we are asking parliament to stretch a little the garment with which the constitution of Canada is clothed, then never before in the history of Canada was there such warrant and such merit for the request. Although the ex-Prime Minister may be disturbed by the shattering of this precedent; although some of the others who followed him in like strain may be disturbed, let me
say that I think the people of Canada are not particularly concerned whether we stretch that garment an inch or more. But they are concerned with this government dealing in an adequate and courageous way with the problem now preeminently occupying the minds of the people.
At the most it is this: Parliament is asked to trust this administration, in dealing with this matter of unemployment, not to squander the money of the people. Shortly, that is all there is to it. The ex-Prime Minister says we should fix the sum, that it should be limited. What sum could be fixed, with conditions changing from day to day? Who in April last, by the utmost prevision, could have foreseen that in the great province of Saskatchewan there would be an area of some five million acres practically without a crop? Who could have foreseen that situation? Now we know it to be so. The ex-Prime Minister says this legislation should have been brought in at the commencement of the session; had that been done there would have been no relief for the cropless farmers in the west.
During this whole summer the Department of Labour has been in touch with the situation and has been gathering information, and I submit that now is the most opportune time to deal with this question. Just as conditions changed fundamentally from what they were in May last, so in October, November and December they may vary again. Then what sum can be asked of this parliament for this purpose? A maximum could be fixed, but if that were not enough what would happen then? It is a matter of trusting this administration to act judiciously as trustees of the funds of the people in order adequately to meet the situation as it arises, and as it varies from time to time. If that is too much it means that this house cannot trust the present administration. Happily the people of Canada have seen fit to trust them, and it is my belief that this whole question of unemployment will be so met and dealt with that the government will continue to merit the confidence of the people.
Just one further word and I am through. The ex-Prime Minister is now very much disturbed about our workless. Is it too much to expect that our unemployed will measure the magnanimity of his present concern when he has not the power to execute, by the parsimony of his performance when he had the power to help?


Mr. BOURASSA:: Mr. Speaker, it has been stated-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for
Gloucester has the floor.	,

Farm and Unemployment Relief


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: This is the third time
I have risen, but evidently I have not caught the eye of the Speaker.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: Before
this resolution is adopted I wish to say a few words. It is not my intention to arraign the government for not having solved the unemployment problem as they promised to do, nor is it my intention to reiterate the statements already made from this side of the house as to the action of the government in not carrying out the pledges they gave the people of Canada during the last campaign. But before giving the reasons for what I am going to say on this resolution, I wish to refer to one or two of the arguments advanced by the last two speakers.
I think I rightly understood the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) when he laid down this principle: The government ;s parliament and parliament is the government; therefore the measure before the house does not take away any of the prerogatives of parliament. This is the first time in my political career that I have heard a gentleman occupying the responsible position of an hon. member of the House of Commons laying down so absurd a principle. It is a pity indeed that the government have not seen fit to take the hon. member into their ranks; I am sure an hon. member with such principles as he professes must be a source of great strength to any government of which he might form a part.
I listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy), and he complained that so little commendation had been given this legislation from this side of the house. He went on to leave the impression that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) was opposed to this measure. The hon. member should have been fair in his criticism. The leader of the opposition is not opposing this measure; he is not opposing any relief that the government may give to the unemployed. He is opposing the method adopted by the government to carry out that relief; and in doing that, I feel that he is perfectly justified in the position he has taken. Personally I am in hearty accord with anything the government may do to bring relief to the unemployed. But after they have been in power one year, I submit that they should be in a position to inform this house what they are going to do, how they are going to do it, and how much it will cost the country. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre says that we refuse to trust the government. Yes; so far as I am concerned, after one year's experience of
fMr. Speaker.]
the present government, I refuse to trust them with this blank cheque. And I intend before I get through to give my reasons.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: Would you suggest limiting it to a nickel?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: How clever!


Peter John Veniot: Farm and Unemployment Relief
Brunswick Department of Public Works and paid for without examination, and that not one dollar of that money was spent during that month. I have certified copies of the official pay sheets, and I have the affidavits of men who say:	My name is on that pay
sheet for so many hours in the month of December, but I never worked and there never was a man at work. They say: Although my name is on that pay sheet, I never received a cheque; I never saw it; the cheque was issued and my name was forged as endorsing it. I have other affidavits for the month of November from men whose names are on certified copies of official pay sheets that I have received from the provincial Department of Public Works in Fredericton, and who say that they did not work during that month. They say:	I saw So-and-so's name
on the pay sheet, and I know he did not work. I have the affidavits


An hon. MEMBER:: Read them.


Peter John Veniot: I am going to read them.


Mr. McDADE:: Has the hon. member
Mr. Hachey's pay sheet?


Peter John Veniot: I have Hachey's pay sheet, and since the hon. member mentions it, I will read it. I will prove what I say and I have put my seat at stake. On Mr. Hachey's pay sheet the men are down for eight hours' work at twenty-seven and a half cents an hour, and Mr. Hachey is down for ten hours' work at fifty cents an hour, although the men were working only eight hours. The men were paid at the rate of only $250 a day, although the provincial Minister of Public Works had promised that $2.75 would be the rate for eight hours. Mr. Hachey is no more entitled to $5 for ten hours' work and he knows it, than I am to $7,000 for my parliamentary indemnity this year. Let me go further, since we are talking about the Hachey matter.


George Manning McDade: It was coming to him.


Peter John Veniot: It was not coming to him. He did not earn it. He worked only eight hours a day, and all he should have got was $4.


George Manning McDade: Does my hon. friend not
realize that he was structural superintendent of the department, and as such was entitled to remuneration at the rate of $6 a day?


Peter John Veniot: That is not correct.


George Manning McDade: Does my hon. friend deny it? I wish to tell my hon. friend I have the authority of the Hon. David Stewart, provincial minister, for this statement.


Peter John Veniot: I cannot accept it. Mr. Hachey is structural superintendent of the provincial Department of Public Works. He is entitled, when working for the province of New Brunswick ten hours a day, to $5 for salary and $1 a day for the use of his horse.


George Manning McDade: That is S6.


Peter John Veniot: Just a minute. He charged for his horse, but he charged for his horse twice and the department cut out one charge. Let me go further. Mr. Hachey was working under federal regulations, not under provincial regulations, and the federal regulations were eight hours a day at a certain rate per hour. He was working under federal regulations just as the men were doing, and was entitled only to a proportionately higher rate than that paid to the men.


George Manning McDade: He worked more than ten hours.


Peter John Veniot: He did not work ten hours, and he is not a permanent employee. He was employed, not by t'he month but by the day, being engaged under the orders of the department. I ought to know this because I was for ten years head of that department.
Since my hon. friend has brought up this matter, let me take Mr. Hachey's pay sheet, and this will show the work of the provincial Department of Public Works in looking after the expenditure of this money. Mr. Hachey bought for the government 15,000 feet of lumber. The government paid $4 stumpage on it to the lessee of the crown land, but this lessee had got a reduction of one-third of the stumpage from the provincial Department of Lands and Mines and the federal government reimbursed the provincial Department of Lands and Mines the one-third reduction they allowed to the crown lessee. The government of New Brunswick paid $4 stumpage for lumber off their own lands under lease when they should have paid only $2.20. It only goes to show that the Department of Public Works in New Brunswick should have looked after the matter and should not have allowed the lessee to get the stumpage he got when they were being reimbursed by this government one-third of the provincial stumpage which that man had paid to them.


An hon. MEMBER:: What has that got
to do with this?


Peter John Veniot: I notice that there is always a great deal of interruption when I get on my feet. The hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. McDade) knows that he is out of order when he says that I do not stick

Farm and Unemployment Relief
to the facts. I would go a long way before I would go to him for a lesson in telling the truth, knowing him as I do. The hon. gentleman cannot even be polite when he interrupts.
Here is an affidavit signed by Elie Selesse, before Ed. Bernard, justice of the peace for the county of Restigouche:
I,	Elie Selesse, of Upper Balmoral, in the county of Restigouche, in the province of New Brunswick, minor, make oath and say as follows:-
1.	That I am the son of John Selesse, of Upper Balmoral, and that I am sixteen years old.
2.	That I have seen a copy of a payroll purporting to be a payroll of Octave Lepage of Upper Balmoral for work done on the roads during the month of November, 1930.
3.	That in the said payroll I appear as having worked 128 hours at hand labour and as having received the sum of $35.20 in payment; that during the said month of November, 1930, I did work one day in place of my father, John Selesse, and that my father received a cheque for $11 which included payment for the day that I had worked in his place; that I did not work on the road except during the said day, and that I did not receive the cheque for $35.20 or for any other amount.
4.	That I have also seen a copy of a payroll purporting to be a payroll of said Octave Lepage for the month of December, 1930, and that in said payroll I appear as having worked 24 hours at hand labour and as having received $6.60; that I did not work at all on the road during the month of December, 1930, and that I did not receive a cheque for $6.60 nor for any other amount for such work.
Sworn to at Upper Balmoral, in the county of Restigouche, in the province of New Brunswick, this 17th day of June, A.D. 1931, before me. Elie Selesse.
Ed. Bernard.
A Justice of the Peace in and for the county of Restigouche.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the date of that, please?


Peter John Veniot: There is no date to this. It is last fall, November and December, 1930. It was sworn to before Ed. Bernard about three weeks ago. But here is one with a date, and this one will perhaps open the eyes of hon. gentlemen:
I, John E. Bernard, of Upper Balmoral, in the county of Restigouche, in the province of New Brunswick, farmer, make oath and say as follows:
1.	That I am secretary to the board of school trustees for school district No. 3, in the parish of Balmoral, and that as such secretary I have the custody of the school register for the year 1930.
2.	That J have seen a copy of payroll purporting to be a payroll of Octave Lepage, of Upper Balmoral, in the county of Restigouche, for work done on the road in said parish of Upper Balmoral during the month of November, 1930.
3.	That in said payroll Gabriel Bernard appears as having worked 128 hours at hand
labour and as having received $35.20; that said Gabriel Bernard appears in the school register for the month of November as having attended school every school day during that month, in all nineteen days, and that at the opening of the school in January, 1930, said Gabriel Bernard was twelve years old.
4.	That' I have also seen a copy of payroll purporting to be a payroll of Octave Lepage for the month of December, 1930, and that said Gabriel Bernard appears as having worked 16 hours at hand labour and as having received $4.40; that the school register shows that said Gabriel Bernard attended school all school days, 14 days in all.
5.	That in said. November payroll Louis Fournier appears as having worked at hand labour 128 hours and as having received $35.20; that said Louis Fournier is shown on the school register as having attended school 18J days and as having missed J a day during said month, and that in January, 1931, he was eleven years old; that in the December, 1930, payroll said Louis Fournier appears as having worked 48 hours at hand labour and as having received $13.20. That in said month he appears on school register as having attended at school five days.
Sworn to at Upper Balmoral, in the county of Restigouche, in the province of New Brunswick, this 17th day of June, A.D. 1931, before me. John E. Bernard.
Ed. Bernard.
A Justice of the Peace in and for the county of Restigouche.
I have here an affidavit touching another bridge superintendent:
I. Wilfred Blake of Nash Creek, in the parish of Durham, in the county of Restigouche, and province of New Brunswick, farmer, make oath and say as follows:
1. That I have seen a copy of payroll purporting to be the payroll of Archibald Murchie, superintendent of bridges for the county of Restigouche, for work done on the Carney bridge, in the^said parish of Durham, during the month of November, 1930.
He goes on to state that on the said payroll there were the names of William McMillan, Arthur McAllister, Dan Murchie, the son of the superintendent, Arnold McCurdie and Charles Laughlin for time that they did not work, he himself being one of the men who worked on the bridge.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What was the date of that last one?


Peter John Veniot: The 17th day of June, 1931; that is the affidavit of Joseph Fournier. Here is an affidavit in reference to the pay sheet for the month of December, and it is sworn that not one cent's worth of work was done on the roads at that time. The man who makes this affidavit names the people on the pay sheet who he knows did not work.
This man, Lepage, as well as eighteen other supervisors of road building in New Brunswick, are now under investigation, and Lepage has admitted under oath to the padding of pay sheets for the expenditure of direct pro-

Farm and Unemployment Relief
vincial money-not federal money-amounts ing to about $2,000 in the summer's operations. I knew this man Lepage was crooked. I knew he was expending federal aid.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter John Veniot: What is wrong, Mr. Speaker? It is now under investigation by this government, and I knew that this man was crooked. Let me say to my hon. friend from Northumberland county that he should go right down into that county and find the supervisors who acknowledged their guilt and had to resign their positions because, of investigations before the public accounts committee of the province of New Brunswick.


An hon. MEMBER:: What had that to do with the federal government?


Peter John Veniot: Never mind; I have the
proof concerning Lepage and Murchie. Before the Department of Public Works of the province of New Brunswick is allowed to spend any more money in federal aid I want the federal Department of Labour to have these investigations carried out. All that is necessary is that the federal Minister of Labour request the Minister of Public Works of the province of New Brunswick to have the pay sheets produced before the investigation now being held.
I have outlined only two cases, but there are plenty of others. Those two men ought to be brought before the commissioner who is conducting a royal commission with the assistance of the attorney general of the province. The Minister of Public Works should be asked to produce the pay sheets, and it could be proven that those men have padded pay sheets in connection with expenditures for federal relief. I am prepared to hand the affidavits to the acting Minister of Labour, and have him go into the matter with the Minister of Public Works of New Brunswick.
I bring this matter up because I want that sort of thing stopped, and I want it publicly known that such practices shall not be permitted to continue. If those men have been dishonest in the handling of public money, especially relief money, they should be punished. Apparently the present provincial government is not going to punish them. Because the men resigned after the charges were proven and have promised to reimburse the government for the stolen moneys, apparently the provincial government is satisfied.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not go to the
minister about it and save the time of the house?


Peter John Veniot: What minister? I think I should have the privilege of taking up at least forty minutes of the time of the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member should be allowed to speak without interruptions.


Mr. SMITH (Victoria-Carleton):: I should
like to ask a question. Are those charges to which my hon. friend refers not being investigated to-day by the deputy attorney general of the province of New Brunswick?


Peter John Veniot: No; he has refused to
investigate them, because the charges were not made during the session of the last legislature and he is investigating only the charges which were made at that time.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: The case of the man Hachey is being investigated.


Peter John Veniot: It has not been investigated.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: It has
been.


Peter John Veniot: It has not been. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. I make that statement with all due respect.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Yes, that is very respectful.


Peter John Veniot: The Hachey case has not
been investigated by the commissioner appointed by the provincial government.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Has not the deputy attorney general given notice that he is holding an investigation within a few days?


Peter John Veniot: I do not believe he would do that without informing me, the man who laid the charges.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: It has
been so reported in the public press.


Peter John Veniot: The report is not correct. I have made charges against Hachey, and the attorney general, who is my friend and a person for whom I have every respect irrespective of politics, would never undertake [DOT]to make the investigation without informing me.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: He will
make a fair investigation.


Peter John Veniot: He will make it, but he will not make it in my absence. If he did it would not be a fair investigation. I am running that case, and when I was connected with the province my hon. friend did not have a great deal to say about it.

Farm and Unemployment Relief


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I know how the hon. member conducted investigations.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Peter John Veniot: If the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton wishes to go into the matter of running the province of New Brunswick he and I could have a field day, and I would guarantee I would not come out the worse. My record will stand alongside of his, any day.
After all these interruptions, Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude. Once more I request the Minister of Labour to pass on his recommendations to the Minister of Public Works in the province of New Brunswick, and for that purpose I shall hand him these affidavits. Let him request the Minister of Public Works to investigate the cases I have laid before parliament. At the present time investigations are being conducted by the loyal commission at Balmoral. They met on Monday, but had to adjourn because four witnesses did not attend and warrants had to be issued through the provincial police to capture the witnesses and bring them before the commission.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, may I have a chance once in a while to catch your eye?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for
Northumberland (Mr. McDade) has the floor.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I rose four times since eight o'clock.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Former occasions have
nothing to do with the present one.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: You saw me every time.


George Manning McDade: In view of the observations of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) let me say that if he fully realized the unemployment conditions on the north shore of the province of New Brunswick he would not place obstacles in the way of the passing of this important legislation.


Peter John Veniot: I am not placing obstacles
in the way of it.


George Manning McDade: There are pitiful conditions on the Miramichi, and I am pleased to see that the administration, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and his colleagues, are wholly seized of the seriousness of the situation. As a result of the passing of this measure we expect that some remedial relief will be afforded to us. For my hon. friend to criticize this legislation comes with very bad grace, and it is unfortunate that he should take up
the time of the house referring to petty charges of illegal use of public funds by minor officials in the province of New Brunswick. Let me say that there was no Dominion government official involved in the charges made by the hon. member for Gloucester.


Peter John Veniot: There was.


George Manning McDade: 
Peter John Veniot: There was an item of $350 on one pay sheet alone.


George Manning McDade: For some time I have
stood for the insults handed out by the exPostmaster General.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to
a point of order. I submit that the hon. member who has just taken his seat is not in order when he continues the discussion of a matter of purely provincial concern. I think the whole of the discussion is out of order.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member is
half an hour late.


Peter John Veniot: I did not refer to provincial matters.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think the hon. member for Northumberland has been in order.


George Manning McDade: The ex-Postmaster General has handed out a gratuitous insult to the people of New Brunswick. He would leave the impression that the people of that province are robbers,-and his remarks are an insult to the French Acadian people of the county he represents. The trouble with my hon. friend from Gloucester is that he is actuated by political bias. He thinks all the good in the world centres around the Libei'al party, of which he is one of its most insignificant members. The trouble my hon. friend experiences concerning the Hachey case is purely political. Mr. Hachey happened to be a candidate at the last provincial election in support of the then Baxter administration, and opposed the candidates of my hon. friend opposite. Mr. Hachey, however, holds the position of structural bridge superintendent in New Brunswick, and my hon. friend knows that the remuneration attached to such a position is $6 per day, including the use of

Farm and Unemployment Relief
a car or a horse to transport him to and from his work. His duties of necessity involve inspection work and also entail a large amount of labour at home in connection with the preparation of accounts and payrolls and making out details of itemized costs of the different materials and their purchase. I might state to my hon. friend on the authority of the Hon. David A. Stewart, Minister of Public Works in New Brunswick, that Mr. Hachey received the fair and equitable wage that is paid per day to all structural bridge superintendents in the province, and no more.
In these critical times, with the people of the north shore of New Brunswick in such distress, surely my hon. friend must realize that this government is actuated by the highest motives in introducing relief legislation, and I am sure the province of New Brunswick, in particular and the country generally would much prefer to see him employ his talents in cooperating wholeheartedly with the administration in working out these relief measures to a happy conclusion.


Peter John Veniot: Will the hon. member permit a question?


George Manning McDade: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: Where can the hon. gentleman find in any of my remarks that I am opposed to the granting of relief? I am simply opposing the method by which the relief is proposed to be applied.
Mr. McDADE. My hon. friend certainly gave the house that impression.


Peter John Veniot: No, I said at the outset that I was in favour of $20,000,000 or $100,000,000 for relief.


George Manning McDade: In my humble opinion the present is the time and the. opportunity for the big Canadian, rather than for the small politician. My hon. friend-and I regret to say it-has had a political career which has been characterized by vilification, vituperation, scandal and abuse of his political opponents.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, I think I should have the protection of this house, and that such language should not be allowed.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. McDade) is going far afield in using such adjectives, and I suggest that he withdraw them.


George Manning McDade: Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling. The people of my province, however, have their own opinion of my hon. friend.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Withdraw.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the question of
order, I wonder if Your Honour heard what was said here to-night by the hon. member for Gloucester about men who are absent? I did not desire to intervene-Yonr Honour is in charge of the house-but those statements were such as, I think, should not have been made in any chamber. They touched on provincial matters.


Peter John Veniot: On the point of order, I did not refer to any provincial people except those-


Henry Herbert Stevens: You abused them for a whole half hour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those men were employed by the provincial government, and an investigation is being held by the provincial authorities.


Peter John Veniot: N ot at all, they are spending federal money


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend in respect of provincial matters used such terms of denunciation as I think were very improper to foe used by any member of this house in the absence of persons affected. The senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) certainly raised the point of order when the member for Northumberland began to answer, because he said he was dealing with provincial politics. But surely when the good name and fair fame of men are attacked in this house opportunity should be afforded to answer the attack. Men should not be called thieves and robbers to gratify political rancour. As leader of the house I should have intervened, but I did not do so because I thought the chair should take cognizance of the matter.


Peter John Veniot: There is no investigation being held to-day. Those whom I accused of padding the pay sheets, and-I use the word again-robbing the country-


George Manning McDade: Thieves and robbers.


Peter John Veniot: Yes; they are spending
federal money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, that is incorrect; they are spending money of the province and we reimburse the . province part of the expenditure made.


Peter John Veniot: A fine distinction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a distinction, it is a fact.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: What is taking place in New Brunswick is a matter of argument. The point of order taken by the hon. member for

Farm and Unemployment Relief
Ottawa (Mr. Ohevrier) was not sustained by me because I fel't opportunity should be given to the hon. member for Northumberland to reply to the hon. member for Gloucester. At the same time I think the adjectives used by the hon. member for Northumberland in describing the hon. member for Gloucester are not parliamentary and I understood him to withdraw them.


George Manning McDade: Mr. Speaker, I can only add that a competent non-partisan commissioner, the deputy attorney general of the province of New Brunswick, has been appointed by the provincial administration to investigate fully the charges preferred during the 1930 session of the provincial legislature of alleged misappropriations of road moneys. That investigation is still going on. The fullest facilities have been afforded the Liberal opposition in the province to be represented by counsel, and some of the most distinguished and eminent members of the bar have appeared on behalf of the Liberal party, including the provincial leader of the opposition. Undoubtedly the investigation is being carried on in a strictly non-partisan manner. My hon. friend makes charges with respect to the misappropriation of $35 or even of $350 out of the $1,500,000 expended by this administration in New Brunswick as a result of certain measures adopted by them, as opposed to no expenditure of any consequence whatever in the province on the part of the late federal administration, when conditions were immeasurably worse than obtain to-day. If my hon. friend in the public interest is desirous of seeing that justice and equity are vindicated, then I would respectfully suggest that he invite the deputy attorney general of New Brunswick to look into these affidavits and see if there were such misappropriations as alleged. But I would point out that my hon. friend does not say that one official of this administration or one member of the provincial administration at Fredericton was involved in the charges he has taken so much of the time of this house at this late stage of the session in discussing when we are engaged in the momentous work of endeavouring to relieve the distress and suffering and hardship that unfortunately is the lot of the people of Canada to-day in common with most of the nations of the world, I repeat, if he is so desirous of proceeding with the charges he has made to-night he should get in touch with the proper provincial authorities in New Brunswick.
In conclusion, on behalf of the constituency that I have the honour to represent, indeed,
on behalf of the people of the whole province, I wish to express my congratulations to the Prime Minister and his administration upon having tackled this problem in such a determined and courageous manner. I feel that conditions in New Brunswick-I am speaking again particularly of the north shore-will be remedied, and that once again employment will be afforded to our citizens.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: This robust New Brunswick red herring having been drawn across the trail, perhaps now we may have a chance to come back to the very important question before the house. It seems to me that in these last days of the session, with everyone anxious to see the session concluded, hon. members are apt to minimize the importance of the proposition before us. We should distinguish quite clearly between the object in view, the policy propounded by the government in order to attain that object, and the means chosen to give effect to that policy.
As far as the object to be reached is concerned I think no one disagrees; everyone admits that a very grave crisis is upon us, and I do not think any useful purpose would be served by rehashing the arguments which took place during the last election. The Conservatives, perhaps not without reason, condemned the Liberals for not having grasped the situation fully before the election, while on the other hand the Conservatives themselves committed the fault of making promises which I do not say they knew then but which they realize now could not be fully implemented. No doubt a great deal of the moral disquietude and the somewhat bitter feeling which have grown up in the country arise largely from the fact that the people, not seeing the immediate fulfilment of promises which could not be immediately implemented, are apt to take a rather wrong view of the situation and of the government. For my part I feel quite at ease, because, having nothing to do with either party during the last election, I could say quite plainly to the people whose confidence I enjoy that whatever party came into power the crisis was bound to be worse the year following and for perhaps another year, whatever policy was adopted. Knowing a little of the conditions of the world as they were; knowing that the deep causes of that crisis went far back into the past and that most of the apparent prosperity which followed the war was a fake prosperity kept up by a system of credit which could not but fail when the conditions which existed in Europe should

4316	COMMONS
Farm and Unemployment Relief
reach us, I felt quite sure that the farmer, the industrialist and the workman had worse days to anticipate, and they have come.
At the special session the government obtained from the house, without much difficulty, permission to spend $20,000,000 under certain conditions. As far as I am concerned I do not blame the government for not having realized that some of the conditions attached to the spending of that money would put many municipalities in a bad position. I cannot blame the government now, because I did not blame them then. I took the view, which was taken by the ex-Prime Minister and I think by the present Prime Minister also at one time, that there was a joint responsibility; that the first responsibility was that of the municipality, then that of the province and finally that of the federal government. Therefore I thought the legislation was proper.
With regard to the amount of money voted, naturally, it was only in the course of the months which followed that the government could realize what further needs would have to be met by parliament; but here the failure of the government begins. It comes about largely, I think, because of that peculiar viewpoint expressed by the Prime Minister this afternoon, when he evidently thought it his duty and the duty of the government to maintain in the country a spirit of optimism. Optimism is a good thing provided it is based on realities; but I do not think enthusiastic optimism is any better than pessimism for the curing of such evils as that with which we must deal. What is needed on the part of statesmen, of men of influence, of everyone who can direct public opinion and manage public affairs, is neither optimism nor pessimism but cool-headed realism, plently of courage to face the situation and also courage to tell the whole truth to the people.
As far as that is concerned I think no one would accuse the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) of lacking in courage, but I am afraid he has failed to speak the whole truth to all classes of the community. No doubt he was more or less tied up by the declarations he made during the campaign; but now, after a year in power, after the experience he had in dealing with the situation last winter, he ought to have put himself, and the members of the government ought to have put themselves, in the position of stating clearly-I will not say in every detail but on broad lines-the policy which they proposed to adopt. This resolution fails to do so. It is all very well to say that these are abnormal circumstances and

that we should not tie up the government by a legal technicality or an article of the constitution, as the eloquent and charming member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy) suggested. We are not concerned with a clause of the constitution in this matter; we are concerned with a fundamental principle of parliamentary government. It is not written in the British North America Act; it is not written in any statute of this land or of the motherland; it is that basic principle that the elementary duty of the representatives of the people is to keep control of all the sums of money gathered from the people by way of taxation, anid to confide to their executive committee such powers as are necessary properly to apply that money derived from the people by taxation, according to the will of parliament. I claim, sir, that we have no right to abdicate a particle of that duty and of that function. It is not a question of trusting or mistrusting this or any other government. It is a question of keeping in their proper order the functions of government and the functions of parliament.
My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) suggested in passing that this resolution smacked of bolshevism. No; I think he was wrong there. But it does show a strong touch of fascism, undoubtedly. Now, what has substituted fascism for parliamentary government in Italy? I am not criticizing the attitude of the Italian people; they knew their circumstances. And I knew enough of those circumstances to appreciate their position, because I was in Italy in the very year of the advance of the. fascist army; I left Rome a few months before they took possession. Possibly, with conditions as they were in Italy at that time, the only material salvation of the country was the abdication of parliamentary control into the hands of a strong government. But have we come to that in Canada? I do not think that the Prime Minister, in the very plausible speech he made this afternoon, has given a single cogent reason for asking, for the first time in the history of parliamentary government in Canada, that this house should divest itself of a fundamental, I will not say right, but function and duty.
The suggestion has been made that the government cannot very well say precisely what amount is needed. That suggestion came either from the Prime Minister or from some of his followers, and it was repeated even by an over-zealous member in this comer, who in the first thirty minutes of his speech seemed to me to be making a bid to be the first to benefit by the law passed a few days ago to allow

Farm and Unemployment Relief
members to be appointed to the cabinet without re-election. The hon. gentleman seemed better informed of the policy of the government than the Prime Minister himself. But let that pass. It has been said that the circumstances are such that the government cannot state exactly what amount of money they need. But surely that is true of any large enterprise which is subsidized by parliament. When Sir John Macdonald came to parliament and asked for the first subsidy in lands and money to the Canadian Pacific Railway he did not know what that undertaking was going to cost. Indeed, no one knew. But he asked for 25,000,000 acres of land and $25,000,000; and later on various forms of assistance were given. Or let us come to the time when the Meighen administration decided to take over the bankrupt enterprises of Mackenzie and Mann and the Grand Trunk Railway, and when that right hon. gentleman was described by his successor, the present Prime Minister, in rather exaggerated language, as the gramophone of Mackenzie and Mann. The circumstances then were very difficult, and I am not one who blames Mr. Meighen for having done what he did. But he did not know exactly to what he was committing Canada; yet he asked for something precise to start with.
When the war broke out it created an issue as grave, surely, as the present one. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon quoted some of the war measures. At every session of parliament during the war Sir Robert Borden came and asked for so many millions to carry on war operations until the following year. Everyone knew it was not enough; he knew and the opposition knew. But it never entered Sir Robert Borden's head to ask for a blank cheque for the duration of the war. He did not say, "I do not know what it will cost; I do not know what will be the loss in men and money; let parliament abdicate its functions and have confidence in the government".
I have as much confidence in the integrity and ability of the present Prime Minister as I had in the integrity and ability of Sir Robert Borden or of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. But in the old days, under Liberal or Conservative administrations, I did oppose any attempt to increase unduly the powers of the cabinet at the expense of parliament. And to-day I oppose that attempt, remaining true to the principle of parliamentary government.
It is not a question of men; it is not a question of parties; it is not a question of personal trust in this or that man. It is a question of principle. I have stated before, 22110-2744
and I repeat now: If the people of Canada have come to the conclusion that parliamentary government is not the best form of government for our country, it is for them to say. I have already said, and I say again, that I have lost a good deal of my faith in parliamentary government. But so long as we have it we must work it out in the spirit of its fundamental principles * and not encroach upon those principles without realizing what we are doing.
History, and particularly English history, shows that the great danger to popular liberty and to popular representation in times of crisis is twofold. At one extreme there are those who are apt to minimize the gravity of any situation and, so to speak, to tie the hands of government by adhering too rigidly to many legal technicalities which, while necessary under ordinary circumstances, are undesirable in a crisis. At the other extreme there are people who are blinded by the exigencies of a passing situation, and without due reflection, or with a desire to please people by satisfying their immediate material needs, will sacrifice great principles which it has cost centuries of effort to establish. This has been several times exemplified in the history of parliamentary government in Great Britain. At the moment I will refer only to one instance that comes to my mind. At the beginning of the French revolution, a hundred years after the English revolution, and after a long process of liberalizing legislation, religious and social; after all those declarations of right for wffiich men had fought in the hope that succeeding generations would benefit thereby; in the reaction from the French revolution one who was perhaps the greatest English parliamentarian, Edmund Burke, went to the right and Charles Fox to the left. Charles Fox, imbued as he was with the principles of liberty, attempted and to a certain extent succeeded perhaps in shaking the confidence of the English people in its monarchy. But Edmund Burke, that great reformer whose words, uttered in time of calm and peace, will remain forever a source of inspiration to all who believe in English parliamentary government-Edmund Burke, I say, in his dread of French Jacobinism, outdid some of the most rabid English Tories. He went further than the Pitts and those who were then employed in strengthening the hand of the government to combat revolution and to carry on the war on the continent. Surely the situation in Canada to-day is not such that we should lose our heads to the point of abrogating the duties and the functions of parliament.
4318	COMMONS
Farm and Unemployment Relief
The Prime Minister has made an allusion rather than a reference to the difficulty in which, perhaps, he has found himself or in which he may find himself in the future, in the apportionment of the amount of money needed as between provinces. I hasten to agree with him that we should at once dispel the idea that may exist right or left, east or west, that. this fund is going to be given to the provinces according to population. Neither the leader of the opposition nor anybody that I have heard has suggested that the government should declare what amount of money they are going to spend in Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan or elsewhere. Nobody could reasonably ask that. Of course, if the situation in Saskatchewan is such that in proportion to population they require to spend in that province twice or three times as much as is needed in Quebec, they are welcome to do so, but that does not change the position with regard to the principle of the resolution. The government could have asked for an amount of 850,000,000 or $75,000,000 or $100,000,000 to be apportioned as between provinces and various works of relief according to circumstances, and I for one, would have ungrudgingly granted the government that power.
I have already touched upon the question of the limitation of the amount by referring to past examples. I consider the argument advanced by the leader of the opposition this afternoon is incontrovertible. The government has the power of calling a session of parliament whenever it is needed. Surely in those twelve months, I khall not say of enjoyment of office, because I know the Prime Minister has not had twelve months of enjoyment; but in those twelve months of fulfilment of his duty-and I give him this credit, that he has done perhaps more than he should have done personally in the accomplishment of his duty-he has gathered sufficient information to be in a position to state to parliament that in order to carry on this work of relief until the month of January next, a certain sum of money will be required, just as on the 18th day of August, 1914, Sir Robert Borden was capable of stating to the House of Commons what amount of money was needed to commence the work of the war. The positions are the same; the principles are alike; and I see no reason why we should change them now.
I do not want to dwell at any greater length upon this broad aspect of the situation, but as one of the oldest members of the house I appeal to every hon. member, to whatever party he belongs, to think twice before he

sets aside those great principles of parliamentary government. It is all very well to unfold the British flag and to sing the National Anthem upon all occasions; but there is a more effective way of showing that we are attached, not to the person of a king, not to the emblem of a form of government, but to the principles of a system that has done more to unite the various races and classes of Canada into one contented nation than anything else could have done.
With regard to the application, again I agree entirely with the leader of the opposition. I see no reason why the government should not have asked first for the right to come to the relief of the unemployed and, as a means to accomplish that object, to help the provinces and the municipalities. Then they could have brought in a special measure for farm relief. ' As a matter of fact, I think it would have been far better to have those two measures separate, in order to define precisely the powers of the government. We shall see, of course, by the bill to what extent this separation is accomplished, and therefore I shall not dilate any longer upon this point. I wish simply to answer the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who said that in the month of April the situation in Saskatchewan could not have been foreseen. If the government had done in this instance as they did in every other; if they had treated each subject on its merits, they could have been in a position on the 12th day of March to forecast in the speech from the throne what they proposed to do with regard to unemployment which has been upon us for at least the last two years. Later on they could have come in with a measure regarding Saskatchewan. But to take the situation in Saskatchewan in May and June to excuse the government for proposing nothing to the house and the country prior to the last days of the session, to settle another problem which was just as acute in March as it is now, which, in fact, was just as acute in January as it was in March, is no explanation or excuse that can be reasoned out.
With regard to the application, leaving aside the question of Saskatchewan which is one by itself, let me assure my hon. friends opposite that, whether they believe it or not, I am speaking in the most disinterested spirit. It is true there is bad feeling as between east and west and as between provinces. This is due to many causes, but let us be frank about the matter. It is due largely as regards the province of Quebec to the campaign which was carried on during the last election.

Farm and Unemployment Relief


An hon. MEMBER:: By whom?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Farm and Unemployment Reliej
the United States cross the border and flock to Montreal. That we are given to understand on the authority of the municipal council of Montreal, and it was reproduced in the Montreal Gazette last week. I know this much, that from week to week, on the streets, in the tram cars, on the mountain, where hundreds of them lie out every night because they have no other dormitory on the island, you meet every day physiognomies that evidently are entirely new to the city.
Now as a first suggestion to the government, without entering into the details of the apportionment of this sum-I am prepared to trust them in that-may I say that if we want to accomplish something that will endure, if we are going to take into account the social structure and the social instincts of the population, and are determined to make the best of the situation, then there should be a concerted effort between the federal, the provincial, and municipal authorities, first to keep the fathers of families at home as much as possible and give them work at home. The work should be apportioned according to the number of members of the family. If in a family of ten two are capable of working, let those two work. If in a family of five, two are capable of working, let one work so as to give the two families an equal chance. That is a matter to be adjusted by the municipality. As far as the boys are concerned, familiar with the surroundings in Montreal or the province, and the same will apply to every large city and to every province, try to give them work not too far away from their centre.
But where the duty of the government is more complicated, and where I think the exclusive duty of the federal government comes in, is in dealing with the foreign transient. I agree with my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre that we should not let grow up on the part of the native-born Canadian a feeling of animosity against foreigners. I opposed the immigration policy of the Liberal party for twenty-five years, and therefore I am free to speak on this question. But we now have these foreigners here, some for five years, some for ten years. Even if they have been here only three months, they are human beings just the same; are we going to let them die because they do not speak English or French or because they may be orthodox Russians or Roumanians? No. We have a social and a national and an international duty, as well as a human and a Christian duty, to perform towards them, and I consider that the federal government is the proper authority to look after these people. As was stated

by Mr. Brierley-I do not know what his politics are, but he is a very good social worker in Montreal-we should consider these foreigners as the wards of the nation. Where do they belong to? I do not know. Some have come to Montreal from Saskatchewan, some from Alberta, some from British Columbia. It has been suggested that they be repatriated. The municipal council of Montreal adopted unanimously a resolution to that effect at the suggestion of one of the Jewish representatives there. But there are two sides to that question. If we should repatriate these foreigners on a voluntary basis, the best of them physically, the best socially and the best morally would jump at the chance, just as the two did who were mentioned by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), and we should be left with the dregs. Therefore I am not quite sure that to announce a policy of repatriation is quite the proper thing. I think the government should keep itself absolutely free to deport those who are really undesirable, with due equity, of course, and perhaps to repatriate some. But if we want to accomplish that, we need, first, to develop in each province a sense of responsibility towards the Canadians who have gone from one province to another. For example, I was sent this week a certified copy of a letter written by Mr. A. A. Mackenzie, supervisor of the relief branch, Department of Municipal Affairs, in the province of Alberta. It reads:
Edmonton, Alberta, May 13, 1931. Dear Sir,-
I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 8th inst., in which you state you are in need of direct relief. The issuing authority of your district is the Alberta Provincial Police.
I think you would have been well advised to consider your situation before the children were brought into the w'orld to starve-
May I say, in parenthesis, that this man had stated that he had ten children, so he received from the supervisor of relief a lesson on birth control:

but I am willing to give your application consideration on the merits of your case, and would be prepared to recommend to the government to ship you back to the province from which you came.
Yours truly,
A. A. Mackenzie, Supervisor of Relief Branch.
Certified copy.
L. A. Giroux.
I believe that Mr. Giroux is or was a member of the provincial legislature and a notary public. This man who was applying for relief was bom in the county of Wolfe. He went to Alberta in 1921, ten years ago. He has ten children. He has been married twenty years, and has a family of ten children, a typical

Farm and Unemployment Relief
French-Canadian family. The oldest is nineteen, and the baby five months. As I said this man is a native-born Canadian, a French-Canadian going back, as most of them do, for five or six generations. He went to Alberta ten years ago to settle, and now finding himself in distressed circumstances he is told by the chief relief authority of that province that all he can hope for is to be shipped back to his native province. In the arrangements that are going to be made between this government and the various provinces I respectfully suggest to the Prime Minister that he should invite the authorities of those provinces to agree to the proposition that Canadians who have gone from one province to settle in another are at home in any of those provinces. I would be the last to ask the authorities of the city of Montreal or of the provincial government at Quebec to ship back to Alberta or Saskatchewan the transients who have come from those provinces. Nobody in his proper senses in Quebec, Ontario or the maritimes would treat as undesirable aliens, Canadian citizens born and brought up in Manitoba and offer to ship them back to their native province.
No. I entirely agree writh the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition that we have before us a great national problem which first should be treated from a Christian and human point of view, and then from a national point of view, because it is a national duty we have to perform. Taking into account, however, conditions in our country, politically, socially and otherwise, the problem should be considered as a provincial and municipal matter as well, but we should insist that the city of Montreal or the city of Edmonton, as the case may be, are Canadian cities and are not states within the state. Provincial authorities east and west should be convinced that each province is a component part of the Dominion of Canada, and that the Dominion as a whole will not begrudge help to each province, provided it grapples with the problem from a broad human and Canadian viewpoint.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few words along lines somewhat different from those thus far pursued. It is not my intention to speak to those phases of the matter which may be regarded as controversial. There was one word in the Prime Minister's speech that claimed my attention, because for the last three or four weeks, in fact for months, it had been on my mind; I refer to the word "cooperation". The necessity for cooperation not only between parties in this house but among all elements in Canada is apparent. When we were face to face with
the war there was a wonderful example of cooperation among the different classes of Canadian people. We sent our soldiers to the front and many of us at home who could not go did the best we could to support our soldiers. We experienced, in a large degree, the spirit of self-sacrifice. At the same time, while the majority of Canadians exhibited that spirit there were here and there some people making the war an opportunity for self-aggrandizement. There were grafters in the sale of surgical supplies, grafters in the sale of horses, grafters in the sale of potatoes, all of which did not redound to the honour of Canada. That is one thing we do not wish to take place concerning the expenditures of these money's, if it can possibly be avoided. I know that such conditions almost inevitably creep in, and my appeal to the people of Canada would be to exercise something of the spirit of cooperation and self-sacrifice they manifested during the war.
I shall now say something I had not intended to say, but which is prompted by what happened in the house this evening. The hon-member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) made certain charges regarding the expenditure of part of the S20,000,000. Whether or not those charges were true I do not know, but I must say I noted with regret that when the hon. member was making them many hon. members opposite seemed' to treat his remarks with great levity, and as if there were no seriousness in them. It was with very great regret I noticed the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. McDade) stand in his place and attempt to belittle the remarks of the hon. member for Gloucester. I believe the time will come when the hon. member opposite (Mr. McDade) will have the grace to be ashamed of that portion of his speech, and will widh it to be expunged from the record.
In making a plea for cooperation among the people of Canada the point that has been in. my mind during the past few weeks has been the necessity for cooperation on the part of those who are in need of relief, whether it be direct or through the furnishing of employment. I wish particularly to appeal to labour members in the house who, I am sorry to say, I do not see iij their seats. The hon. members for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) and Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) have frequently emphasized the necessity for high wages. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that it is not desirable that this money Should be spent in the spirit of trying to keep men down to a bare living wage. I do not think the people of Canada would wish that men should be
4322	COMMONS
Farm and Unemployment Relief
paid a mere pittance for a fair day's work. At tlhe same time, however, it would be well for those who undertake to represent labour in this house to impress upon their constituents the necessity of giving the heartiest kind of cooperation to the people of Canada in this great emergency. It may be that the great majority of their constituents are willing to do so, but we do know that unfortunately there are large numbers of people who would not be willing to cooperate.
Perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been an employer of labour, and because of that would be able to view the matter of employment from both sides. I hope that at some time in his life the hon. member has had that experience. Some of us have worked as labouring men, and have afterwards been employers of labour. We are in a position to view labour matters from both angles because we have lived and worked on both sides. My own opinion would be that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has very seldom, if ever, been an employer of labour and for that reason he may not be able to view labour matters from the standpoint of having to pay a very unsatisfactory labourer the high wage he might demand.
I shall give an illustration. Last harvest time we in the prairies provinces recognized that owing to prevailing conditions we would not be in a position to pay the wages we had formerly paid to labourers at that time of the year. When prices were good we did not begrudge paying high wages, but it was not an uncommon thing last harvest time for men who were offered wages we were able to pay, to say, "Oh, it is no concern of ours that the price of wheat has gone down; that is nothing to us. We want certain wages." Just so far as that spirit prevails, just that far will our whole efforts to relieve present difficulties meet with failure. My plea to Canadian people in all walks of life would be to exercise that spirit of self-sacrifice and cooperation which was shown during the war and as far as possible let their actions be free from the graft which took place during the war and which brought nothing but dishonour to the fair name of Canada.
We are passing through a difficult time. I know there is no doubt in this house as to the necessity for relief measures. With a proper spirit of cooperation among all classes of the people I believe we will weather this emergency, severe though it be.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: The resolution before the house, Mr. Speaker, is a frank recognition by society of its obligation towards its less fortunate members. Per-

haps it is unnecessary now to discuss the situation in Saskatchewan, but I might say that in a speech delivered recently by the premier of that province he stated that there were 160,000 people living in districts in which there was no crop whatever. There are also many thousands of others in districts where there is very little crop and these also will need some assistance.
In a number of articles in the Winnipeg Tribune, written by the editor of that journal, Mr. McTavish, which articles were reproduced in the Ottawa Citizen, he points out a rather interesting thing. He noticed that the people in the districts in which there was no crop whatever seemed to be taking it quite philosophically and had ceased to worry. They knew they were safe from the bailiff, from the mortgage companies and from the banks, that nobody was going to interfere with them or try to dispossess them of their homes or their stock as long as they had no crop whatever, and they knew also that in the last analysis the government would see that they were provided with feed for their stock and the necessaries of life for another year. But he pointed out that strangely enough when he went to another part of the country where the crops were fair he found the people were worried because they knew they had to rely on their own resources, they did not expect the government to look after them, and the mortgage companies and other creditors would be expecting to get something out of the crop in reduction of their claim. That is one of the anomalies of the situation. Where there is a fair crop-and there is in my constituency -the farmers are in distress because that crop will be taken off probably at a loss; at any rate it will mean no profit whatever. My point is that the distress will not be entirely confined to the districts where there is no crop.
Now, we have a tremendous trek of population from the dry districts to the districts in the north, the bush districts, where at least there is grass and water and something growing. Hundreds of people from the southern parts of the province have come into my district, and in dealing with this trek, which is something unprecedented in that country, I might quote, in part, an editorial in a recent issue of The Western Producer. It says:
Another evidence of the condition in western Canada is the increasing abandonment of farms by harassed agriculturists. During the past month or two there was to be seen any day the spectacle of a family moving northward with what is left of its meagre possessions. A thousand tragedies are slowly moving north on the dusty roads: a man, a woman, two or three

Farm and Unemployment Relief
children, a few skinny horses, a decrepit cow or two, some sticks of furniture, a few worried hens; moving north, in search of water, in search of food, in search of the means to sustain life.
These people are now in the north, many of them in my constituency, many of them I understand in the constituency of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). While they have moved in there on to bush homesteads too late to produce any crop, while they may have grass and feed and water for their animals, yet they will have to be provided with the means of sustaining life through the winter and of putting in a crop in the spring.
I was glad to hear what the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) said about the necessity of providing work rather than giving charity. I think we can all agree that that is the best way to look after needy people-to give them the means of earning something rather than a direct charitable hand^out. In that country we need roads very very badly. One may travel hundreds of miles on roads that are barely passable after a heavy rain. The province would no doubt contribute its quota towards their construction, and I think that with some cooperation between the two governments roads can be built and work provided for needy farmers at the same time.
There is a great deal, too, in what the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) said. In prosperous times when interest rates are high and commodities and materials are high in price, we seem to build our roads, erect our buildings and1 construct railway branch lines and other public works. Then when there is depression, when interest rates are low, when money can be borrowed very easily, when lumber and all other materials are low in price, we sit quietly by waiting for prosperity to come. I do believe that the government has a direct responsibility to do what it can in such periods of depression. The money spent in a period of prosperity means a double debt when we come to a period of depression. The money we borrowed in 1928 and 1929, that is the actual debt, has doubled today; whereas if we spent money now, in a couple of years when we hope there will be a period of prosperity, when we hope commodity prices, wages and so on will be high again, we would find it very much easier to pay the debt so incurred than if we deferred the expenditure to that time. So I do think it is good business on the part of the government to engage in all the public works they can at the present time. In so far as a good deal of the province of Saskatchewan is concerned, I feel that the best means of providing
relief would be to do some necessary roadwork in cooperation with the province. The situation is so serious that the government should place the whole resources of the country behind the effort to deal with unemployment and with agricultural distress.
Now, there has been a lot of discussion across the floor because the Prime Minister, it is objected, is asking parliament to give him a blank cheque for the amount of money to be spent. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) objected very strongly to that and, if I caught him rightly, he used these words: "We will give him"-referring to the Prime Minister-"anything he asks if he will only name the amount." Now, I do not see very much difference between that and giving the Prime Minister a blank cheque. The Prime Minister in effect says: "Give me a blank cheque and I will not spend any more than is absolutely necessary." The leader of the opposition retorts: "If you will just say the amount, regardless of what that amount is, I will support you." So in effect the leader of the opposition is prepared to give the Prime Minister a blank cheque; that is what he is offering to do. In any case I do not see that it makes very much difference. We talk about the rights of parliament, but how much does it mean after all? In the last analysis the expenditure of money is controlled by the government. The government has a majority in the house and can always force those expenditures through. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) seems to be shocked because the hon. member for Wetaskiwin subscribed to this principle in the resolution. I am sorry the hon. member is not in his seat, but I would say to him that as a private member he has never had any control over expenditures. He can get up and protest against any expenditure, as he did to-night, but the estimate or the bill goes through because the government has a majority. So I do not see any particular difference so far as that is concerned.
I am not altogether clear as to what is involved in the measures that are proposed to be taken to maintain law and order. That is something we do not like to think about at a time like this. 1 think we all agree that the first duty of a government is to maintain law and order. Every member of the house will subscribe to that principle, but I do hope nothing very drastic will be undertaken by the government in that regard.
The Prime Minister spoke rather severely about certain agitators in the country who should be dealt with, and with whom the government intended to deal rather severely-

Farm and Unemployment Relief
I think often we take these men too seriously; in fact we dignify them and enhance their importance by taking them seriously. The ordinary soap box orator, with the little group around him, is only as serious and as dangerous as we take him to be. In discussing this question the late President Wilson said:	"I tell you the so-called
radicalism of our day is simply nature's way of relieving the generous energies of our people." So I would say to the government that if they are faced with any threats of disorder they should fight that threat with bread rather than with bullets. Bread is always much more effective in times of distress, and when hungry men get riotous bread is always a much more effective weapon than bullets. I trust that is the weapon upon which the government will rely.
As a last word I would ask the Prime Minister to look seriously into this question of providing relief in Saskatchewan by having necessary road work done in order to give employment to needy farmers.


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timiskam-ing):: I desire to make a few remarks in connection with the very important resolution now under discussion. First of all I must say this measure will have a wonderful reception in that part of the country I have the honour to represent, because of certain local conditions we must face immediately. I believe we fully understand now that this matter of unemployment is of national importance; for that reason alone we will have a central organization and the old hit-and-miss policy under which we proceeded last winter will be done away with. That will be doing something tangible in a national way.
One of the details I have in mind is the way wages were paid the workingmen under the unemployment relief fund last winter. I have in my hand a statement made by Senator Robertson as reported in the Toronto Mail and Empire of February 7, 1931, in which he stated that the Ontario government and the federal government cooperated in the expenditure of over $2,000,000 in the construction of rural roads in northern Ontario. The quotation is as follows:
The federal and provincial authorities agreed that it would be wise that the opportunity to secure work should be spread to as many needy people as possible. It was therefore decided that the men should work eight-hour days instead of the customary ten hours. We felt that 25 to 30 cents an hour was not enough, particularly with men working only eight hours and we fixed 35 cents as the minimum in all road work in which the Dominion government cooperates. The men working in northern

Ontario are getting from 5 to 10 cents an hour more than was the scale before unemployment relief was inaugurated by the Dominion government and are working two hours a day less.
I believe the Minister of Labour was sincere in making that statement, but I am sorry to say that principle was not applied in the section of the country from which I come; it was not applied to the ridings of North Timiskaming, South Timiskaming or Nipissing. During the progress of a recent provincial by-election in Hamilton I was amazed to learn that a minister of the Ontario government stated that in the Fort William-Port Arthur and Kenora districts the men doing road work under the employment relief fund received $2.80 for an eight hour day. In my section of the country they were paid only at the rate of $2.40 for an eight hour day. I believe the same rate should have applied in my section of the country; we are part and parcel of northern Ontario and the cost of living is just as high there as it is in other sections of the north. So I ask the government to go into this matter and if possible pay to the settlers and the workingmen who did that road work last winter that difference of 40 cents a day.
Hon. gentlemen must realize that 40 cents per day means a great deal to a man who has been out of work for weeks or 'perhaps months. Hon. Mr. Finlayson said, only a few days ago, that this anomaly would be remedied in a very simple manner, that the government were going to lower the wages of men working on the roads in northern Ontario to $2.40 per day. This is not playing fair with the north. The men should be paid at least the wage promised by the Minister of Labour last winter when he was speaking in Toronto. We expected, and had the right to expect, that the settlers and workingmen of our section of the country would receive that wage. Very strong protests have appeared in the press of northern Ontario. The Porcupine Advance, a Conservative paper, made an urgent appeal to the provincial government making it plain that they were not playing fair; the Northland Post of Cochrane, an independent paper, and the Kapuskasing Tribune both took the same stand.
I appeal to the Prime Minister to see that this situation is remedied as soon as possible. Hon. gentlemen will readily see the importance of this matter in our section of the country where most of the men were allowed to work only three days per week at $2.40 per day, making a total of $7.20 per week. We must remember the climatic conditions which exist in that part of the country, and I may tell the house that during most of the winter the average time spent on road work did not ex-

Questions
ceed 20 days per month. It will be seen that for the father of a family or a settler trying to hew a living out of a new section of the country it was absolutely impossible to make ends meet. Again I ask that the difference be paid to every man who worked on the roads last winter in my section of the country; they should be paid the wage which was paid in other sections of northern Ontario.
There is one other protest I desire to make. I believe that in centralizing the control of the expenditure of the money for unemployment relief single men should be given a fair chance in the north. Perhaps I am treading on dangerous ground when I discuss this question, but it must be realized that in the newer sections of the country, whether they be in northern Ontario, northern Quebec or the western provinces, many single men have settled from the older sections of Canada. They have tried to start farms, and it is not their fault that they are single, because in many instances they intend to marry when they are in a position to do so. Last winter in my section of the country we had the sad spectacle of poor single men who had been working on farms for many years absolutely refused work, with no inquiry made as to their circumstances. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that this is not playing the game with a very good section of the population of northern Ontario.
I would direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that it is now eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, July 30, 1931.