1931-05-26

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. II. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce): I have not given notice of the motion I propose to move, Mr. Speaker, but probably there will be no objection whatever to its passing to-day. If there is such objection I shall let it stand as notice of motion, but the reason I ask that it pass to-day is that we have brought a gentleman to Ottawa from Winnipeg to appear before the agriculture committee. It would be a decided convenience to him if this motion carried to-day. Therefore I move, seconded by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion):
That matters referred to in returns Nos. 147 and 147a be referred to the agricultural committee with instructions to examine such records as may by the committee be deemed necessary, and to hear such witnesses as it may desire and to call for such papers in connection therewith, and to report to the house.
This refers to the returns in connection with what is known as the Robert Whiteside correspondence, and is in accordance with an understanding we had the other day to refer the matter to the committee on agriculture.
Mr. YOUNG:: Will that include also the investigation of the disposal of the balance of the 1916 crop, mentioned by the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers)?


Mr. STEVENS:: It will deal with all this correspondence.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I should like to ask the minister if this will also include the file that was asked for by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke), from which the minister quoted rather copiously. I hold in my hand the two returns mentioned. I suppose the evidence submitted by the hon. member for South Winnipeg and also the file from which the minister quoted will be included in this reference?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The committee is empowered to call for any records or files it may deem necessary to have, and all the files at my disposal are at the disposal of the committee, to the extent of about a ton.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. SAMUEL FACTOR (Toronto West Centre):: Before the orders of the day are called, may I be permitted to draw to the attention of the government recent legislation passed in the state of Michigan, which in effect provides that Canadians and others residing in the United States, who are not American citizens, must be finger printed and registered. I should like to ask the government if any representations have been made in respect of that measure?


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: I would ask the hon. member to allow his question to stand until to-morrow. The Prime Minister will not be here to-day. I am not aware of representations having been made, but the Prime Minister will answer the question more fully to-morrow.



RAILWAY COMMISSION VACANCIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: Some time ago I asked the Minister of Railways when the government would fill the vacancies on the Board of Railway Commissioners. I now read in the press, that this may be done this week. May I ask the minister if he is in a position to confirm that rumour?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Yes, I will say it might
be done this week.
Vocational Education



VOCATIONAL EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the promotion of vocational education in Canada, and to appropriate the sum of $750,000 per annum for fifteen years for such purpose, payments to be made conditional upon agreements with the respective provincial governments.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Hugh Guthrie: This is a motion dealing with what is called vocational education rather than with what has been better known in this house as technical education. I understand that in recent years a distinction has been established between the two terms, and it is now considered among educationists throughout the world that the term technical education has become associated rather with work of a scientific or investigational nature and work of university grade, while vocational education is considered a broader term, including what we formerly referred to as technical education. The new term, vocational education, I understand has been adopted pretty generally in the Department of Labour during recent years, and the publication of that department is now known as a pamphlet on vocational education. I see by newspaper reports also that in some of the provinces of Canada officers of provincial governments who formerly were known as technical education officers now are known as vocational education officers. Therefore the term "vocational" education has been adopted in this resolution instead of the term formerly used, which was "technical" education. Otherwise, the motion in its general scope proposes an annual expenditure of $750,000 for a period of fifteen years next ensuing, to aid in the great work of vocational education and vocational training throughout the Dominion of Canada.
The house will remember that as far back as the year 1919 an act was passed by this parliament providing for an expenditure of 810,000,000 at the rate of 81,000,000 per annum to assist in the work of technical education throughout Canada, in conjunction with the provincial authorities in every instance. That act ran its course and expired in the year 1929, and at that time there had been expended on technical education in Canada by this government the sum of $7,964,000, or

an average annual expenditure of $796,000 instead of the $1,000,000 which was provided by the act of 1919.
In the year 1929, therefore, it was found that there was still a substantial balance on hand of the money which parliament had appropriated to this special purpose. The balance in 1929 amounted to roughly $2,350,000, and it became a question whether the work should be continued and the original amount fully expended, or whether the work should be abandoned in that year. In 1929 this parliament passed a further act, which is chapter 8 of the statutes of 1929, making provision for further expenditure in regard to technical education in order to utilize the unspent balance of the money, and it was then provided that the unspent money might continue to be appropriated and spent among the provinces still entitled to a grant until the year 1934. At this date there is still an unexpended balance, amounting in round numbers to a million and a quarter dollars, which is available for the purpose of technical education. It is now proposed to make a new grant to apply to all the provinces upon equal terms and in proportion to their respective populations. The grant now proposed amounts to $750,000 per annum, and the period during which that grant will be paid is the next fifteen years.
The general purpose of this grant will be very largely the same as that of the grant made under the statute of 1919. There are some slight changes, it is true; these will be developed as the matter proceeds before this house. One or two of them I might mention now. In the grant made in 1919 agriculture was excluded as a matter of technical education. Under the present proposal agriculture will not be excluded, -but it will be open to the provincial governments to make such representations as they see fit to the government here in order that the grant, or parts of the grant, may be appropriated to special courses such as those provinces desire to have carried on within their respective territories. Another distinction between the present proposal and the former is that under the former proposal a limitation was placed upon the amount of this fund which might be expended by any province for school buildings, equipment and the like. The limitation in the former act was placed at 25 per cent of the amount granted; that alone could be expended on buildings and equipment. That limitation has been removed under the present proposal, and it will again rest with the provincial authorities, in consultation with the government here, to expend such part of that money as is

Vocational Education
deemed essential for the purposes of buildings and equipment. It is realized that in some provinces the work of vocational education has been carried on to a much greater extent than in other provinces. Some of them have only within recent years seriously taken up the question, and in such provinces the provision of buildings and equipment is a more serious matter than it is in some of the older provinces which for years have been engaged in this w'ork and have carried it on most successfully. There are other minor distinctions between the present proposal and the act of 1919 which will be developed as the measure proceeds through the house.
I do not think there will be more than one opinion as to the propriety of granting money for this special purpose. I had the honour a quarter of a century ago of discussing the question in this house and elaborating as fully as I was able to do the case in favour of a federal grant for technical education. I think it is realized on all hands that the technically trained man has become an essential in a country like this, and that technical education is so closely identified with the trade and commerce of the country-a matter which is entirely within the jurisdiction of this parliament-that we can well justify a grant which is going to improve our trade and commerce position or methods. And I think it is realized throughout the trading world today that technically trained men are necessary not only for production purposes in the various branches of production, but that they are just as necessary in regard to the salesmanship of the various goods produced, I remember last autumn speaking to a large manufacturer from Sheffield, a producer of cutlery goods, and he said, "We find that not only do we need highly trained men in the production of our goods, but that we need just as highly trained men in the salesmanship of our goods." So in both these instances Canada will require the same training, and the grant is made for the purpose of encouraging education along that line.
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that at this stage I can usefully add anything to the remarks which I have now made. I have outlined the broad proposal contained in the resolution, and when the resolution comes to the committee stage I shall be able to give full information as desired.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Leader of the Opposition):	Mr. Speaker,
I rise not to take exception to the object of the resolution, nor indeed have I any exception to take to the remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). This parliament has already by its enactments given ample evidence of its belief in technical education, and in the power of the federal government to give assistance to the provinces in furthering the work of technical or vocational education. So that with respect to the object or purpose of the resolution and the powers of this parliament, I should like it to be distinctly understood that I have no exception whatever to take. I do feel, however, that this is a moment when it would seem advisable to consider the soundness of the principle of making parliamentary grants from the federal treasury to the provinces in a manner or to an extent different from that which was contemplated in the financial arrangements made at the time of confederation and the various revisions of those arrangements which have since been made. That is the point to which I wish to speak at this time, because it seems to me to have an immediate bearing upon this resolution, and will also have a bearing upon other resolutions which will be introduced, I presume in the course of the present session, by hon. gentlemen opposite.
Confederation, as the house well knows, was effected as the result of a compromise made more particularly with respect to financial matters. When the original provinces were considering the various resolutions at the Quebec conference it became apparent that different views were entertained as to the rights which the provinces and the Dominion respectively should have in the matter of raising the necessary revenues. The provinces theretofore had had the right of raising revenues by indirect taxation; they had their own customs tariffs. It wag obvious that confederation could not be effected if the provinces were to continue to have tariffs of their own. An alternative suggestion was that this central government-the federal government- when it came into existence should raise all revenues and distribute a portion to the provinces. To that, obviously, there were certain objections. A third proposal was that the provinces should raise all of their taxation by direct methods, though the Dominion should have the right of raising taxation according to any method that in the wisdom of its own parliament seemed best. The provinces would not hear of coming into confederation on the understanding that they must raise all of their revenues by direct taxation, so the compromise effected was this-that such revenues as they did raise would be raised by direct taxation, but that the federal government out of its revenues would make annual contributions in the nature of subsidies to the provinces to
Vocational Education

make good what they might be presumed to be sacrificing in giving up their rights to raise any taxation by indirect methods. The subsidies which were agreed to at that time w&re agreed to as being of a character which would equalize the financial arrangements as between the different provinces of Canada and the Dominion. They were worked out on a per capita basis. That is the fundamental basis on which the financial arrangements between the Dominion and the provinces were made at the time and have existed ever since. As the years have gone by it has been observed that, as agreed upon originally, the subsidies were inadequate, and revisions have been made, but they have always been made with a view to effecting final and equitable arrangements as between the Dominion and the provinces so far as financial considerations are concerned.
If that method is continued I see no danger of conflict, over matters of jurisdiction, over questions of raising the necessary revenues or matters of taxation, but if it is to be departed from, if a new custom is to be permitted to grow up whereby this federal parliament is to make grants to the different provinces for all kinds of purposes, grants which are conditional upon agreement with the provinces, grants conditional upon the provinces undertaking work which possibly many of them would hesitate to undertake but for the financial aid being granted, I submit we will soon coma into a very serious situation in the relations between the Dominion and the provinces with respect to finances. For that reason, I feel that at this time the ministry might well take into consideration the wisdom of proceeding very slowly in countenancing a custom which, as I am frank to admit, has already grown up but which if continued will, I believe, give rise to serious complications.
The best brief treatise I have seen on the financial arrangements between the provinces and the Dominion is one which was published as McGill University Economic Studies No. 12, by Mr. A. W. Boos, M.A. This treatise was published by the university under the title of The Financial Arrangements Between the Provinces and the Dominion. The writer sums up in a paragraph or two the essence of what I have up to' the moment been endeavouring to say. On page 13 appears the following:
It was provided that the grants authorized by the act were to be "in full settlement of all future demands on Canada." With the exception of the possibility of a limited increase in the per capita grant, owing to an increase in population, for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, these financial arrangements might be said to be inflexible and non-adapt-
able to changing conditions. There were several reasons for this. On the one hand, the fathers of confederation thought that they had made adequate provision for provincial expenditures and, on the other hand, they thought that by placing an obstacle in the way of additional or increased grants, they would effectively cheek provincial extravagance and that the local government would be compelled to control their expenses. "And it must be observed," declared Sir Alexander Galt, in the debates on confederation in the province of Canada in 1865, "that the agreement does not contemplate any future extension of this amount. It is hoped that being in itself fixed and permanent in its character, the local government will see the importance-I may say the necessity-of their exercising a rigid and proper control over their expenditures."
And then:
In this respect, a quotation from one of the Hon. George Brown's speeches delivered in the year 1867, is especially significant. "Let this, too," he declared, "ever be kept in mind, that the $2,630,000 to be distributed to the local government from the federal chest is to be in full and final extinguishment of all claims hereafter for local purposes, and if this from any cause does not suffice, the local government must supply all deficiencies from direct taxes on their own localities."
And in conclusion:
The financial arrangements were thought to be final and complete: they were consummated in an environment of concession and compromise, in a spirit of fairness, and with a sense of equity.
I believe that the soundness of the position taken at the time of confederation by those who had to do with the framing of the act must be wholly apparent. The argument which was urged most strongly with respect to not making contributions from the federal treasury to the provinces was that any course of that kind would render the executives of the provinces independent to a considerable extent of their legislatures, and, moreover, that- it would prevent the effective control of public expenditures being exercised by the government which was responsible for making the grant. In other words, a practice of that kind was viewed as being contrary to what is essential under any system of responsible self-government. I think that must be wholly apparent. If the executives of the different provinces are granted considerable sums of money from the federal government they are in this manner placed in possession of amounts of money which they are at liberty to spend without reference to the legislatures themselves; it may be that the object upon which the money is to be spent may be named, but the executives are at liberty to expend it without encountering the necessity of raising a corresponding amount in taxation in order to have the required revenue. They are put

Vocational Education
in the position where they, as executives, are rendered wholly independent of the legislatures from which, as executives, they derive their authority. In the old days when revenues in part were derived from territorial and casual sources the executive was in .that position. It was free to ignore its following in the legislative assembly because its revenues came from sources other than taxation. Responsible government put an end to that kind of thing because it necessitated that revenues should be raised through taxation and that the executive'should be responsible to the legislature with respect to all moneys so raised.
If the amounts contributed as grants were small and incidental the question might not come to assume the proportions it is now assuming, but there has grown up in this country a practice entirely different from anything contemplated at the time the original financial arrangements were made or at the time of any subsequent revision, a practice which seems to me to be most unsound.
The present resolution places in the possession of the provincial governments a sum of $/50,000 annually for a period of fifteen years, amounting in all to something like SI 1,250,000. With respect to that $11,250,000 the executives of the provinces will not have to consider their followers; they will have the money handed to them and quite independently of the legislatures they will be free to deal with it. I submit that the effect of that will be simply that the executives undoubtedly will apply this money for the purpose for which it has been granted, but they will take money which otherwise would have been required and raised for the purposes of technical or vocational education and apply it to some other kind of service which they may find it desirable to initiate. In the way of technical or vocational education there will be neither more nor less than there otherwise would have been. That means that the provincial governments will get into the habit of extravagance; it means that they will not be obliged to control their revenues as they otherwise would, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that surely this is the time, of all times, when with respect to municipalities, provincial governments and the federal government there is need for the utmost scrutiny of expenditures and for economy wherever that can be possibly brought about. To render an executive independent of a legislature, to however small a degree, is a step backward; it is a step in the wrong direction and it is a step which should not
be countenanced by this parliament. In addition, a step which will render a provincial legislature more extravagant with its expenditures than it would otherwise be, is not one which should be encouraged by this house.
I know the late Liberal administration was criticized on the floor of the house and throughout the country for having permitted some of these grants from the dominion to the provinces to expire when the statutory term was reached and for not having renewed them. May I say that the reason the late government took that course was not through any lack of sympathy with respect to the various purposes for which these moneys were voted. It was solely due to the necessity which the government saw, in view of the great obligations which had come upon the federal government as a result of the war, of exercising all the economy possible in the matter of public expenditures and of seeing to it that where great sums of taxation had to be raised to meet entirely new obligations, those sums should be devoted to federal purposes first. In other words, we found, as the present administration I am sure is also finding in its case, that the revenues at the time we came into office were not sufficient to meet the expenditures. There was a great national debt. The country was going deeper and deeper into debt. The right hon. Mr. Fielding, at the time minister of finance, took very strongly the view that unless we could balance the national budget the credit of Canada would continue to suffer from year to year; that the first duty of the administration of the day was to seek to balance the budget; and that having balanced the budget, its next duty was as far as possible to reduce taxation. We felt that unless we kept down debt and taxation, we could not hope to improve the financial position of the dominion. The present administration is now faced with a similar situation. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Bennett) brings down his budget, we shall hear how much the public debt of the country has increased. We shall probably learn that there is a deficit running up into the vicinity of $100,000,000 for the last fiscal year. If that be the case, is it not reasonable to ask the administration to consider whether this is the time that it should begin to extend to the provinces grants for the purpose of carrying on work which is avowedly theirs, or whether it should not first consider the methods that will best serve to reduce debt and taxation.
To make quite clear the point that I have in mind, may I ask this question:	Why
should the provinces with respect to par-
Vocational Education

ticular services be dealt with in a manner different from that which governs with respect to any other services which under the constitution they may have to perform? Take for example the administration of justice. Under the British North America Act this parliament appoints and provides for the payment of the salaries of judges. It does not prbvide for the administration of justice apart from the payment of salaries of judges. The administration of justice is essential; it is something which all will regard as highly necessary. Why should the dominion not vote certain sums of money to the provinces to assist them in the administration of justice? Why limit financial grants to technical education? Why limit them to highways? Why limit them to old -age pensions, agricultural instruction, housing or other specially selected services, essential as they may be? If the principle is a sound one, its application should not be limited at all. My contention is that it is unsound to adopt, with respect to any services which are imposed by the British North America Act upon the provinces, a principle that cannot be universally applied.
May I say further in support of the view I am seeking to present, that I am not aware of the provinces making any contribution towards the increased obligations which the federal treasury is ealled upon to meet, and, with the passing of the years, the obligations of the federal treasury have increased many times over those of the provinces themselves. The federal government assumed practically the whole obligation with respect to the great war. It assumed the obligation of the cost of the war, and practically all of the obligations that have arisen out of the war. It assumed the complete burden of pensions, and we know how vast in their total amount pensions are becoming. The men who are receiving the pensions are citizens of the provinces as well as of the dominion, but the provinces are in no way contributing towards the extra obligation which the dominion has, and to-day federally we are going deeper and deeper in debt. If our national debt and our taxes are increasing, this is because of the extra federal burden which the federal government is assuming but which the provinces do not share in at all. In these circumstances it seems to me that the anly wise and sound course to be followed financially is that each party should meet the services it is expected to meet and not go beyond them without some revision of the entire financial arrangements. For example, in regard to the obligations on the part of the federal government in one matter only, a

return was called for a day or two ago by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) with respect to pensions. In the return the following figures appear:
Pension
On Account of	list
Judges and civil servants.. ..$ 2,489,325
War pensions	 44,234,232
Northwest Rebellion pensions.. 24,756
Militia pensions	 865,176
Civil flying pensions	 346
War veterans' pensions	 318,029
Old age pensions	11,314,670
Total of all pensions in
Canada	159,246,538
Or roughly, 96 per capita of the population, fixing the population at 9,934,500. This is roughly $60,000,000 of an annual pension list, the greater part of which did not exist when the first departure was made from the old practice of making no financial grants to the provinces other than by the subsidies that were arranged as a result of conferences between the dominion and the provinces. If the financial arrangements between the dominion and the provinces are not what they should be; if they are unjust; if they bear unfairly upon the provinces or upon the dominion, .they should be revised and care should be taken to see that the revision is just in all particulars. But I do not think it is right that without such a revision, parliament should, little by little, depart from what was the pact of confederation and assume all kinds of burdens which it is not in a position to meet and which are resulting at the present, of all times, in greater extravagance federally, provincially and municipally.
May I give one other quotation from the writer whom I have quoted? This is one that he makes from Mr. Dunkin, who participated in the debates at the time of confederation. The quotation shows very clearly that the fathers of confederation were in no doubt at all where the practice would lead if once there was to be a departure from that laid down by them as the one that should govern in financial matters between the Dominion and the provinces. At page 9, Mr. Boos says:
In the course of the debates on confederation in the parliament of the province of Canada, Mr. Dunkin, in opposing the subsidy principle, declared: "I am afraid the provincial constituencies, legislatures, and executives will all show a most calf-like appetite for the milking of this one most magnificent government cow" .... "With one accord the provincial governments will, in a quiet way, want money, and the provincial legislatures and people will want it more; grants for roads, for bridges, for schools, for charities, for contingencies of the legislature-for all manner and ends they will be wanting money, and where is it to come

Vocational Education
from? Whether the constitution of the provincial executive savours of responsible government or not, be sure it will not be anxious to place itself more under.the control of the legislature, or to make itself more odious than it can help, and the easiest way for it to get money will be from the general government/'
The writer goes on to say:
The poignancy of these remarks is revealed to a remarkable _ extent by subsequent developments and the vicissitudes of the subsidy question during the next sixty years lends a great deal of accuracy to these prognostications.
I do not think I need to stress further the point of the number of services the provinces will wish to have aided or financed by the Dominion. I should like, however, to emphasize where the practice is leading in other directions that in- other ways are inimical to our public life.
In the first place, if the practice is to be encouraged of the Dominion making special grants to the provinces for different purposes, to that extent the federal government is going to be put in a position to bring pressure to bear upon the various provinces with respect to the several matters with which they are to deal. That is not a course that should be countenanced. At the last Dominion-provincial conference, if I am not wholly mistaken, the provincial premiers were virtually unanimous in their view that such moneys as were to come to them from the federal treasury should be in the form of subsidies which each province would be free to deal with as its own requirements seemed to warrant. They were opposed to these special grants for special purposes. They wanted all the money they could get, but they wanted to be free to deal with their different requirements as they arose with an absolutely free hand, and not to be bound by any direction from a federal source.
My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has referred to two or three changes in the present measure from the act which previously passed this house. Those changes help to illustrate the very thing I have in mind. In the first place, my hon. friend says that in this bill provision is made that a province may use for agricultural instruction purposes moneys voted under this resolution for vocational education; in other words, the grant can be switched from one purpose to another. Now the switching of appropriations is another violation of a fundamental principle.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not intend to give that impression. I said, subject to an agreement. But no switching.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Exactly, subject to an agreement, but we are now
appropriating the moneys for vocational education, and my hon. friend in his speech says that if a province does not wish to use these moneys for vocational education, then by agreement it may use the same moneys for agricultural instruction.


Hugh Guthrie: That, I take it, is vocational education.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It may be capable in a broad sense of that interpretation. I will go that far: I am not trying to score any point; I am simply trying to bring out the truth. When parliament previously voted money for technical education, it was found that one province in particular, possibly more than one, but one certainly, the province of Prince Edward Island, I remember, did not wish to start any technical education system at all. That province contended that it was largely an agricultural province, not a manufacturing province, and it did not wish to enter upon a technical education system. Representations were made to the federal government by the province that inasmuch as they had not drawn any money from the federal grant for technical educational purposes, they should be given permission to draw an equivalent amount for agricultural instruction. That request was met, and some of the moneys previously voted for technical education went to the province of Prince Edward Island for purposes of agricultural instruction. But agriculture is something that comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces as well as under the jurisdiction of the dominion, and I submit that it is not a wise thing to begin to have appropriations for agriculture made in this parliament for the work of agriculture as it is to be carried on federally, and, as well, moneys voted in this parliament to give to the provinces to help them in their agricultural work by supplementing their own appropriations for agriculture. It results in confusion, and wherever there is confusion with respect to financial matters there generally comes to be a considerable amount of waste as well. In other words, the making of money grants is practically paying the provinces to relinquish part of their autonomy; that is what it comes to, where grants are made from the federal treasury to the provinces under agreement or with any string attached to them.
But in addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the practice is almost certain to give rise to a very serious problem in our political life, and that is the inducement it affords to a government in office or to a party seeking office to win the support of the electorate of provinces through promises which they may
.964
Vocational Education

be prepared to make for payment to the provinces on various services out of the federal treasury. I do not wish to go into recriminations with respect to the last general election or what took place then, but I do not hesitate to say that the promises made by hon. gentlemen opposite that if returned to power they would vote moneys to the provinces for technical education, that they would vote moneys to the provinces for highways, that they would vote moneys to the provinces for unemployment relief, that they would vote moneys to the provinces for agricultural instruction, and above all for old age pensions, and for very many other things-I do not hesitate to say that these promises more than anything else are responsible for hon. gentlemen opposite being in power at the present time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say
this, to make quite clear what I have in mind? Had the administration which was in office at the time pursued a like course, and it might have pursued it in a way much more effective than the way taken by hon. gentlemen opposite, there is no question as to where the former administration would be in the matter of power to-day. If before the general election the Liberal government which was in office had placed in the estimates which it brought down in this house the sum of $20,000,000 for unemployment relief, to mention nothing else, I venture to say we would have heard very little of the unemployment problem in the last election; but because the government of the day sought to protect the federal treasury with respect to what it conceived to be the obligations of the federal treasury, and took a position which was essential with respect to public expenditures at a time of great obligation and great need, we suffered politically in contrast with the methods adopted by hon. gentlemen opposite. But if we had gone a step farther and had said, we are prepared to give one hundred per cent of the old age pensions, we are prepared to construct a federal highway either through aid to the provinces or by the Dominion itself, we are prepared to aid technical education and agricultural instruction in the same way as it was done before, and if we had put estimates before parliament for that purpose and voted them with the power that we had while in office, I venture to say that there could be no two points of view as to what the outcome of the election would have been. It is a very serious thing, Mr. Speaker, if in our country a course is to be embarked upon which at all subsequent elections is going to lead to

competition between the various political parties in their appeals to the electorates of the several provinces as to which is going to be most generous with public money. That I say is a very serious thing. It is easy to make promises. Hon. gentlemen opposite are going to find out how easy it is to fulfil them. But it should not be possible for any government or political party to be able to promise if returned to power to use federal moneys for provincial purposes. The constitution itself should make that impossible and such I believe was the intention. The fact that this kind of thing has happened is the strongest reason why we should now consider, at an early stage, at this second session of the new parliament, whether such a practice should be permitted to grow up in our country. I make that statement with great seriousness. My hon. friend stated that he was interested in this matter a quarter of a century ago. I can scarcely believe that at a time so long ago I had the privilege of being associated with him in connection with this very subject of technical education. A quarter of a century is a considerable portion of a man's life. Looking forward to what may happen within the next quarter of a century, I hope that before we get much farther advanced this parliament, for the country's sake, will find it possible to stop possible competition between political parties as to the use of federal funds for provincial purposes in appeals to the electorates of the provinces. When a grave danger exists it had better be frankly faced. I believe the fathers of confederation perceived the possibility when they made the very wise provision for dividing the duties and functions of governments between the dominion and the provinces and laid down the rule that the authority which expended the taxes should be the one to raise the required revenues. May I point out how fundamentally unsound is any other principle? The body which has to do with the raising of revenue should be the only one to have to do with the spending of it. A thoroughly unsound principle lies at the heart of the proposal now before the house. The proposal is that the federal government which has had and will have to raise the taxes shall transfer to the provinces the moneys received and the provinces will be free to spend such moneys without giving any account to the federal government beyond the assurance that they have received the moneys and are using them for the particular purpose prescribed. The adequate control of public expenditures in this parliament goes

Vocational Education
farther than the voting of moneys by parliament and their transfer to a legislature allowing the legislature to deal as it pleases with the money. The control of public expenditures, rightly understood, necessitates following to the last stage in expenditure the manner in which public money is expended. This legislation is a denial of that principle. At the special session of parliament a similar right and duty was denied this parliament with respect to the measure concerning unemployment relief. The government said, "When we pay the money to the provinces and the payment is acknowledged by them, our responsibility ends." Hon. members on this side of the house took the position that the Auditor General of this country should audit in detail every dollar of expenditure appropriated by this parliament. If once we get away from that principle not only in regard to hundreds and thousands, but m regard to millions of dollars, where shall we have any sound basis for the control of public expenditures in relation to the financing of the country?
To give hon. members an idea of the proportions these grants are assuming I will quote to parliament what was paid out of the federal treasury to the provinces during the time the late Liberal administration was in office. On occasions the electors have been told that the late administration was heartless, that we made no payments to the provinces and that we were depriving them of all funds from the federal treasury. While in office we carried out the provisions of the statutes we found on the books when we assumed office and made payments in accordance with those provisions. I have the figures before me showing the grants for the fiscal years ranging from 1921-22 to 1929-30. Here is the statement in tabulated form:
Total Grants to Provinces by Liberal Administration
fiscal years, 1921-22 to 1929-30
Subsidies	$ 99,334,132
Special subsidies to
maritimes	 4,800,000

Highways	 16,065,990
Agricultural instruction	 1,993,482
Technical education.	6,890,375
Amortization of debt against certain
school buildings..	133,389
Unemployment offices.	1,337,032
Eradication of
venereal diseases..	1,000,353
Old age pensions.. .	3,770,991
Unemployment relief
-Labour	 1,004,874
*

	32,196,486
Unemployment relief -pensions and
national health.. .	3,858,184
War pensions	 233,804,397
237,662,581

*Estimated grants for fiscal year ending March 31, 1931, for above services	 71,931,229

From the table it will be seen that in a period of eight years, not quite the whole period of time we were in office, the grants made to the provinces in subsidies by the Liberal administration amounted to $99,334,132. Special subsidies to the maritime provinces amounted to $4,800,000, or a total paid out in subsidies of $104,134,132. The grant for highways was $16,065,990; for agricultural instruction, $1,993,482; for technical education, $6,890,375; for amortization of debt against certain school buildings, $133,389; for unemployment offices, $1,337,032; for eradication of venereal diseases, $1,000,353; lor old age pensions, $3,770,991; for unemployment relief paid out by the Labour department, $1,004,874; making a total grant for these services of $32,198,486. In addition the federal government assumed the obligation in connection with the relief of war veterans by the payment of war pensions. In connection with unemployment relief the amount of $3,858,184 was paid out by the Department of Pensions and National Health. The total payment for war pensions was $233,804,397, the two last-named items making a total of $237,662,581. The grand total of payments out of the federal treasury in pensions and relief to persons living in the provinces and for provincial services amounted to $373,993,199. It was estimated that the grants for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1931, for the purposes I have mentioned would be $71,931,229. If that estimate is nearly accurate it would appear that in the time within the 9 years during' which the late administration held office S445,924,428 was paid out of the federal treasury to the provinces. If we take an average of the figures I have quoted to ascertain expenditure over a ten year period, we find that within the past decade there was an expenditure of over half a billion dollars from the federal treasury to the different provinces. Certainly such expenditures were never contemplated at the time of confederation when the subsidies were fixed at a definite amount nor were grants to that extent contemplated when subsequent revisions were made.



Vocational Education
May I add that in addition to all these grants the provinces in other respects have been dealt with in an exceptionally liberal manner by the federal government. During the time the late administration was in office the maritime provinces had their grievances, reviewed by the Duncan commission, and as a result adjustments were made which have resulted in additional payments to the maritime provinces in special subsidies alone of $4,800,000. There have been for provincial purposes many additional payments. The prairie provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, have had their natural resources returned to them. In addition to that this parliament has generously continued to those provinces the subsidies which they had been receiving in lieu of their resources. They have received back what was left of their resources, and the subsidies which originally were given in lieu of resources have been continued. In the province of British Columbia the government gave back the Peace River block, the railway belt lands, to which the province had no legal claim and in addition continued to the province of British Columbia the subsidy that province was receiving during the period this government had control of those particular lands. The position taken by the late administration concerning the water powers in the old provinces of Ontario and Quebec was that these powers would by agreement between the dominion and the provinces be treated as though they belonged to the provinces although the matter had not been finally judicially decided. The correspondence reveals that as a matter of public policy we were quite prepared to concede to the province of Ontario with respect to water power on the St. Lawrence exactly the same rights as the province of Quebec asserted were her rights with respect to such water power. I may say that continuously the federal parliament has treated the provinces most liberally with respect to all natural resources, giving them additional sources of revenue, and the like. On the other hand, the federal government has received from the provinces nothing in exchange voluntarily or otherwise. The time I think has arrived when this matter should be made the subject of a conference concerned with a financial readjustment between the dominion and the provinces. If it does appear that the provinces are entitled to something more than the subsidies as fixed at the present time, by all means let the subsidies be revised and an increased amount given. A step which might serve the purpose equally well, and possibly even better, would be for this federal government to take over some of the sendees which at present 
are being left to the provinces. Whether this should be done in addition to payment of subsidies, or in exchange, in whole or in part, for subsidies to which the provinces are entitled, would be a matter for negotiation. If, for example, the intention of the administration opposite is to meet one hundred per cent of the cost of old age pensions apart from administration. I submit it would be entirely wrong for this parliament to vote all the money required to pay old age pensions and leave it to the different provinces to administer the vast sums thus appropriated. If one hundred per cent is to be paid, by all means let the appropriations made by this parliament be administered by the government which is responsible for voting the money, and let every cent of the expenditure be checked up by the Auditor General, who is responsible to this parliament and removeable only by an address of both houses of parliament. Any other basis would be altogether unsound. I know that the late Liberal administration did assume half the obligation with respect to old age pensions, and to that extent our action at the time did not conform to what at the moment I am putting forward as the right course to be pursued, but that step was taken at the time because of certain constitutional difficulties believed to exist with respect to the federal government administering an old age pension scheme. If those difficulties still exist they should be removed, before the appropriations are increased. I do submit that fundamentally, with respect to the finances of the country, this parliament should adhere to the essential view that the body which raises the money must be the body which will have the responsibility for expending it and vice versa, and that the responsibility must be exercised in the light of a full and complete audit by the officer appointed by this parliament for that purpose.
Now, Mr. Speaker, just this word in conclusion: The Prime Minister is filling the important portfolio of Minister of Finance, and has given, as we all know, very careful thought and study to many of these financial problems. He has addressed this house on different occasions with respect to what in his view was the position that should be taken by this parliament in financial matters, and he has stressed, as the leader of any political party or any government must stress, the necessity for economy in public expenditures and above all the necessity for a nation, having regard to its credit, not to go deeper and deeper into debt but to seek to balance its budget. May I say that if the budget of this parliament were balanced and taxation were down to a

Vocational Education
moderate level, perhaps I would feel a little less concerned about being over-generous with the provinces in the way of contributing a portion of our revenues to them for provincial purposes. But when we know the public debt of the country to be what it is to-day, when we know it is going to be increased this very year by something like $100,000,000, then I say this is a time we should begin not to look around to see w'here we can spend more money, but where we can successfully economize in public expenditures.
The Prime Minister, as leader of the opposition in this house on March 18, 1928, spoke as follows:
I say that we should place upon the statute books of this country at the earliest possible moment a provision by which a sinking fund will be set up such as they have in Great Britain and in other countries, so that we shall be enabled, within a period to be mentioned, absolutely to wipe out and eliminate the national debt of Canada.
I assume that when the Prime Minister brings down his budget we will find therein some provision in the nature of a sinking fund. If that provision is made, the object will be to wipe out and eliminate the national debt of Canada. I ask my hon. friends who are members of the administration, are you helping in that direction when you ask this parliament, at this of all times, to increase its expenditure by making this contribution in the nature of an additional grant to the provinces for vocational education? Will you be assisting the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister in his great objective when other demands of a similar kind will be made later on? What is the next sentence:
What is the province of Ontario doing?
This is interesting:
What is the province of Ontario doing? Do hon. gentlemen realize that in Ontario they have provided for the setting aside, of $3,000,000 every year so that at the end of forty years their debt wall be entirely wiped out, half being provided by public utilities, and the other half from the taxpayers of the province itself? Do hon. gentlemen realize that?
Those were the words of the Prime Minister, speaking two years ago from where 1 am speaking now. May I ask the house, using his words:	Do hon. members realize
that while the province of Ontario has made provision for wiping out its debt in forty years, by a sinking fund which sets aside $3,000,000 a year, we in this federal parliament are voting in appropriations to the province of Ontario on one account or another a sum, not of $3,000,000 a year but of over $4,000,000 a year to be paid from the federal treasury out of the taxes of the 22110-1251
people? Do hon. members realize that? Let us see what was voted to the province of Ontario over a period of eight years, when the late Liberal administration was in office. The figures are as follows:
Subsidies	$21,140,893
Highways	 4,550,945
Agricultural instruction	 590,304
Technical education	 2.400,024
Employment offices	 519,411
Unemployment relief (Labour) . .	505,446
Eradication of diseases	 336.938
Old age pensions	 1,127,844

That is an average of just about $4,000,000 a year. That is the amount that goes out of this federal treasury to the province of Ontario, leaving that province free to spend it with respect to the different services named or, as regards the subsidies, as the province wishes, and the province on its part is- setting aside not $4,000,000 a year, the amount it receives from us, but $3,000,000 a year, as a sum sufficient to wipe out its entire pubiic debt in that time. When Canada has a debt such as exists at the present time in this Dominion, a debt of over two billions of dollars, why should this parliament pay off the debts of the provinces before it begins to pay off its own public debt? I submit that at this time, when we are seeking to raise the revenues necessary to meet current expenditures, and find this impossibie and have to resort to the extremes in taxation to which we have already gone, and may yet have to go, we had better begin to pay off our own debt first and then, when that is done, there will be time to consider what is advisable as regards being more generous to the provinces. Let us be just before we are generous. Following what I have read, the Prime Minister said:
Suppose we seek to retire only $1,500,000,000 of this debt by a statutory sinking fund, by means of a provision placed upon the statute books of this country, so that the demands and pressure by political supporters would not induce the finance minister to part with public moneys because he would have to meet these sinking fund payments. It would ensure economy in the public service, and what is more, it would make the people of this country increasingly proud as they saw what President Coolidge has described as this greatest menace to our economic development, this great load of debt hanging over our necks, being gradually retired.
There is an interesting phrase used by the Prime Minister in that paragraph:
.... the demands and pressure by political supporters would not induce the finance minister to part with public moneys because he would have to meet these sinking fund payments.
196S
Vocational Education

What is this resolution other than the result of the pressure which is being put on the finance minister for political reasons, and no others, pressure mostly of his own creation? Now, I should like to read two paragraphs more of what the Prime Minister said:
Is this country to continue to be menaced by this economic evil, by this debt hanging over our heads? Are we to continue, of all countries in the world, to make no provision for the future? Are we to be content to expend our patrimony day by day, without putting anything aside to take care of the long days of the future that are before us? I say it is unfair to ourselves, it is unfair to the taxpayers of this country to extract from them each year these increasingly large sums of money and make no provision for the retirement of our national obligations.
A little further on he says:
It has been said that no government is ever defeated because it is extravagant. That well may be. It well may be that the people may be debauched with their own revenues, and be taught that all you have to do is to spend their taxes freely among them and then you have succeeded, but what is the effect upon the life of the nation as a nation?
I commend that last paragraph to the Prime Minister and the members of his administration. The Prime Minister says: You may retain power by debauching the nation with its own revenues, but he also asks what is going to become of the nation in the long run?
Now, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to my hon, friend1-and I do so with all respect and sincerity-that he consider how far he should press this resolution at this time in the light of the financial situation of this country as he and his colleagues know it to be. Why fix a term of fifteen years as the period over which this sum of money should continue to be paid? I do not see why we should bind subsequent parliaments and possibly administrations to payments of this kind running on for fifteen years, that is until 1946. The time surely ought to be shorter than that. May I say this? Frequently of late we have heard mention of the Dominiomprovincial conference that is soon to be held. I would suggest to my hon. friend that he consider the wisdom of limiting the period of time for which this amount is to be paid to the period that may intervene between the present and the holding of that conference. Or, as an alternative, the withholding of the measure altogether- which would be preferable-until after the Dominion-provincial conference and until after there has been opportunity for careful discussion there of this whole matter. I know my hon. friend is seeking to fulfil an obligation. He has made promises that something of this kind will be dong, and being a fMr. Mackenzie King.]
man of his word, he is seeking to fulfil those promises; but I believe the public at large will credit him with an even finer sincerity if in view of the situation as it is in Canada today, he declines to proceed further with this resolution or the bill based upon it until the provinces and the Dominion in conference have jointly considered what should be done with respect to the financial arrangements between them.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, so frequently from this quarter we are obliged to offer adverse criticism that I am very glad indeed to-day to be able to commend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) on the admirable statement -which he has given to the house, and I shall be very glad indeed to support the resolution.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), it seems to me, has been attempting to magnify a molehill into a mountain. He tells us that this year we shall probably be $100,000,000 behind. If we are so far behind in our budget, it is well for us to remember that all the expenditure called for by this resolution is three quarters of a million dollars -considerably less than 1 per cent of the deficit that the leader of the opposition believes we shall have to face this year.
I am afraid that if I were in a facetious mood I would have to begin by rather objecting to the resolution on the ground that "it is contrary to the terms of the British North America Act". Really I would commend the Minister of Justice for the skilful way in which he has avoided the British North America Act. I would suggest to the member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) that if she could simply show that peace was in some way connected with trade and commerce, that it tended to promote trade and commerce, she would not have the slightest difficulty about being able to secure a grant for her professorships and scholarships from the present government, notwithstanding the British North America Act.
The leader of the opposition was rather captious in his criticism, when he went so far as to criticise the changes which have been made in the proposed resolution as compared with the terms of the old act. I take it that these changes indicated by the minister represent the lessons which have been learned during the past years. It is surely perfectly legitimate that the great vocation of agriculture should be placed on the same basis as other vocations. There seems no reason why that should not be done. In fact, now that agriculture has developed so many tech-

Vocational Education
nical features it is eminently in keeping with general developments that this should be the case. Further than that, the other change mentioned, that of permitting the provinces to decide just what percentage of the grant should go into equipment and what into actual teaching, appears to me to be a reasonable one; the provinces ought to be allowed some discretionary power in that regard, especially when we consider, as the minister has said, that their development is at different stages.
The leader of the opposition had a good deal to say about the heavy financial burdens that this country had undertaken, and to offer that as an excuse why his government-the late government-had not continued the grants to technical education. He urged that there ought to be a balanced budget, and then that we ought to have reduced taxation and reduced debt. It is quite true, as he said, that we have a huge annual pension list of 860,000,000, but I would point out to the house that the greater part of that $60,000,000 has not been contracted because of any peaceful expenditures, but because of war, and hence this argument ought not to be used when we are discussing a matter that relates to the civil life of the country.
The leader of the opposition brought forward a number of technical objections, and as I listened to him I could well imagine myself back fifty years in the age of Gladstone with his "retrenchment and reform", because on these matters I do not believe the right hon. gentleman has travelled much in his thinking beyond the age of Gladstone and the ancient Liberals of that day. But the times have moved on. And that, may I sa3r, is the trouble with the Liberal party in Great Britain-and apparently it is going to be the trouble with the Liberal party in this country. They are refusing to recognize the changed conditions, and they satisfy themselves by mumbling old slogans at a time when they will not work.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is the hon. gentleman talking as a prophet?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. member
can take it that way if he likes. I think that in such a matter prophecy is justified. When you see the decline of the Liberal party in Great Britain, and you find the Liberal party in this country advocating similar policies, it does not take a prophet nor the son of a prophet to know what the outcome is going to be. The leader of the opposition spoke almost as if we had not been in the habit of doing this kind of thing. Let me remind the house that since confederation we have had subsidies to the provinces. Of course, he did mention those subsides, but this is an
example of what he would regard as a "vicious principle". Yet confederation itself was founded on what he would term the vicious principle of the collection of moneys by the federal authorities and the turning-over of those moneys to the provinces. Further, it has been a sound and well-recognized principle in British finance that certain higher authorities would give "grants in aid" to other organizations, and it has been lauded as a very satisfactory arrangement. We have had provincial grants in aid of municipalities, we have had provincial grants in aid of school boards. In short, grants in aid have become a commonplace, and in carrying out this idea of the federal government giving grants in aid of vocational education, we are but carrying out an arrangement that has frequently been practised by the British government, and by the federal government ever since confederation.
I should like to direct attention to some other ways in which we have given grants in aid. For example, we have given aid to the Canadian National Railways. I know there are dangers connected with that proceeding, but the Canadian National Railways have not been in a position to raise their own revenue. This house has raised the revenue required and we have turned over the actual expenditure of the moneys and have exercised very little control.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: We have done
exactly the contrary.


James Shaver Woodsworth: How so?


Eugène Fiset: We have authorized the Canadian National Railways to raise their own loans.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, they have
been given permission to raise loans but we have backed those loans and we have also met deficits. We have stood behind them financially but they have been erected as a separate organization to carry out the details of their business. My colleague suggests that we have also given grants to the Canadian Pacific Railway. Of course, that is true because hundreds of millions of dollars have been given in subsidies and in land grants, and the company has carried on its own administration. There have been a great many forms in which grants in aid have been given.
I am not here to criticize one party rather than the other, but I would remind the leader of the opposition that if anyone is to blame for the extension of this principle it is he and his government in connection with the Duncan report. I do not know of any action
Vocational Education

which more directly encouraged the provinces to look to this government for assistance than did the Duncan report. Probably we in the west would be well advised if we asked for a Duncan commission for western Canada and in that way sought to get some of the help we need at the present time.
The leader of the opposition referred to the obligations which this country had incurred during the great war and said that the principle which should be adopted was that we should follow to the very last degree the spending of whatever money was given. I wonder whether the Dominion government was responsible to the last cent for the expenditures during the four years of the war. I am not sure as to how that money was spent in detail, but I am quite sure that we did not follow to the last degree the expenditure of every cent for which we were responsible in connection with the great war.


Eugène Fiset: Every cent of it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. gentleman says "every cent," but I do not think so.


Eugène Fiset: I will go further
than that and say that the Auditor General had a special branch of his office to audit every expenditure.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In spite of what
the Auditor General did, my point still stands. The fact is that as far as Canada was concerned we were not primarily responsible for the conduct of the war or for the way in which it was carried out, as we should have been if the reasoning of the hon. leader of the opposition were followed out.
It is all very well to have a readjustment of taxation as between the dominion and the provinces and I am in hearty sympathy with the leader of the opposition when he says that there should be a conference called for that purpose. That is long overdue. Undoubtedly the relationship in this regard between the dominion and the provinces is very unsatisfactory, but I would like to point out that in addition to that we have to consider other matters such as redistribution of powers as between the dominion and the provinces. It is not right simply to select one out of a number of matters and concentrate attention upon it to the exclusion of all the others. The consideration of who is responsible for unemployment should go along with the problem of who is to pay for unemployment insurance. Because of the development which has occurred in the industrial sphere it is next to impossible under modern conditions for the provinces to handle a matter of this kind.

Further there is a definite trend in the development of the industrial, commercial and financial life of this and all other countries which we ought to recognize. We live in an era of concentration. We know that we cannot have a bank limited to the provinces- that was recognized even at the time of confederation-we must have institutions which are Dominion-wnde. As a matter of fact they cannot be limited even to the dominion, they must establish relations between this and other countries. So to-day we are moving in the direction of an international bank. That illustration from the financial field is indicative of the movement going on the world over- a movement of organization and concentration. In the face of a movement of that kind it seems to me to be absolutely futile to suggest that we can revert to the conditions which existed fifty years ago or decentralize in our governmental policies and expenditures. I do not believe it can be done; we shall have to find some other solution than that.
The leader of the opposition suggests certain political dangers which may be met should this policy be persisted in. He suggests political pressure from the provinces, or by the public at the time of elections. He went so far as to say that had his government suggested the grant of 320,000,000 for unemployment relief they might still have been in power. That may be true, but I would have thought that instead of attacking the present government he would have considered that by this time he ought to have learned his lesson. After all, those in authority cannot altogether disregard popular demands. What is a government for? Surely it is to carry out the will of the people. We cannot as a house, or those who are in charge of the government cannot as a government, hold themselves aloof from the needs and the desires of the people.
It is all very well for the leader of the opposition to talk about the necessity of economizing. We all believe in economy; it is a good thing under certain circumstances but one can withhold "more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty." There is danger that we may withhold to-day the money which we ought to spend. Whatever our theories of government may be, governments to-day must assume a larger measure of responsibility for social expenditures all along the line. Nearly all governments have been forced to accept that position, and the government of Canada cannot be different in that regard from the other governments of the world.


Edward James Young: Who is going to pay for it all?

Vocational Education


James Shaver Woodsworth: That suggestion
very well comes from the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young). I suppose he will say the farmer is to pay.


Edward James Young: Yes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is the only
thing he can say.


Mr. DUPUIS:: That is enough.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not enough. The hon. member for Weyburn and those who think with him would be well advised to get away from the narrow philosophy which they hold. The farmers of this country would be far better off if they adopted a different viewpoint. I am proud to belong to the west and I know there are many western farmers who have adopted a viewpoint different from that adopted by the hon. member for Weyburn. It is only as we get a social viewpoint with regard to these things that we will begin to solve our problems.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is that viewpoint?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not necessary to go into details, but in answer to my hon. friend let me say that after all this is not so much a question of refraining from spending money as it is a question of where we are to get the money. As long as we have resources that are as great as they are in Canada, as long as we have bank reserves that are piled up as they are in this country, there is no earthly reason why we should fail to spend when the people need the expenditure.
Mr. ST-PERE: How will the hon. member get those reserves from the bank?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Does the hon. gentleman
not think such a policy as he has outlined has brought grief to Australia?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not discussing the policy of Australia, but I would say with regard to the Australian policy:	If it is
*a fight between the moneyed interests including the Bank of England interests and the welfare of the people of Australia, the people of Australia come first. The situation we have to face in this country is somewhat similar and it is a serious one.' We have, I believe, sufficient resources:	It is a case of
utilizing these to meet national needs. How do they raise their revenue in Great Britain- income tax. Have we done much along that line? We have just a light income tax now long years after the war. We should have raised our war expenditures as we went
along, but we refused to adopt that method of financing. Had we done so we should not have had any debt now, our policy differed from that in Great Britain in that during the war we refused to impose an income tax and we came to it later very gradually. Somebody suggests that it would have stopped the war if we had raised the whole of the debt at that time from an income tax. Perhaps, but we did not do so and we have been very cautious in extending it. I think here I shall have to commend the late government that they did not yield when considerable pressure was brought to bear upon them to wipe out that tax 'altogether, but rather held out for it. My contention is that it ought now to be greatly extended and that the major part of the revenues of this country should be raised through income taxation rather than, as it is to-day, through indirect taxation which -bears so heavily upon the people. In this I agree with the hon. member for AVeyburn (Mr. Young), and if he and other members on this side of the house would join with me, we would get a great deal further in raising a larger proportion of our revenue through the income tax which ought to be more steeply graded than it is at present. If that were done the $750,000 now proposed to be spent on technical education would be a mere bagatelle.
Another source of revenue that we might use is an inheritance tax. This is being practised to a considerable extent in Great Britain and I do not see why we should not adopt it in this country.


Mr. EULER:: The province of Ontario
has it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: They have it also in
my province, Manitoba, but the Dominion does not have it.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Quebec has it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I know the provinces have it, but I am talking about the Dominion.
Mr. ST-PERE:	They	have an inheritance tax in the United States and they are trying to get rid of it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I know the
moneyed interests there are tremendously strong; but I am speaking about the Dominion parliament. We in the Dominion parliament have never adopted the inheritance tax with the result that we have huge estates being passed on from generation to generation.
Vocational Education

Mr. ST-PERE:	So the hon. member
would favour a double inheritance tax?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would double,
treble and quadruple it. Years ago it was stated in the manifesto of the Labour party-in Great Britain: We have gone on the principle that our death duties should take a very small percentage off and the greater part should be passed on to the heirs. We should go rather on the other principle that naked a man came into the world and naked he should go out. We should proceed on the principle of allowing an individual simply a sufficient amount of money to educate his family and provide for his dependents, the rest to be retained by the state for state purposes. If we were doing that in this country, we would not need to worry about spending $750,000 on technical education.
What does technical education mean? If we are to progress in Canada and take our place with the other great nations of the world, we must spend a great deal more than three-quarters of a million dollars a year on technical education. We ought to pour our millions into that work, if we would place ourselves beside other nations which have developed to such a great degree.
Mr. ST-PERE:	The province of Quebec
is already spending money on technical education.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, and the other provinces too. But instead of talking about economizing in these matters, we should rather vie with one another as to how much we can spend when every cent that we spend is going into the lives of our children and into the building up of a finer and better nation.
I know there are theoretical objections which may be and which have been raised this afternoon, but such matters can be straightened out when a conference has been called. That should have been called ten years ago, but it has been put off and put off. I hope the present government will call it in the near future. In the meantime I would say that the quickest way to get a conference is to break in on the British North America Act in this manner, and then when the conference comes, we shall be more inclined to make even greater modifications of that act. The quickest way to get the proper adjustment of taxation is to spend and spend until the people generally wake up to the fact that they have to adopt means of taxation other than those which have so far been adopted in this country.


William Daum Euler: I have frequently listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) who has just spoken, and always with a great deal of respect. I should like to say to him to-day that while I have never questioned his sincerity, I believe he would have a great deal more influence in the house if he did not do quite so much scolding in both the manner of his presentation and the tone of his voice. The house will perhaps be surprised that I should make remarks of this kind because I very seldom do so. The hon. member has seen fit to read a lecture to both the Liberals and the farmers in this house. He has referred to the Liberal party in England-and I have no special brief for that party-as being a dying institution. Perhaps that is so, but he might indulge in a little self-examination as to why, as he says, the Liberal party in England is dying and the Labour party is apparently taking its place-


James Shaver Woodsworth: I did not say a
word about the Labour party.


William Daum Euler: But I do. I have nothing
to say against the Labour party because I am just as strong an advocate of the rights of labour as he is, although perhaps he will not admit it. I may ask: whereas the Liberal party in England is apparently going down and the Labour party is going up, why in the world does the same thing not happen in Canada? Perhaps after all, the Labour party in England is well led and I would put the stress upon the word "England". I say that in all kindness to my hon. friend and I hope he will so consider it.
Just a word in regard to the merits of the question itself. I know it is more or less dangerous for any hon. member to place himself in a position which might be interpreted as opposed to technical education. I believe every hon. member, myself included, is in favour of technical education, and after all, the only question is as to who should carry out the work. My attitude is simply this-and I think it is eminently reasonable: education is a matter for the provinces. Constitutionally the provinces are charged with the work of education. That being the case, why should we depart from that principle? I am entirely'in favour of technical education, but unless there is some special reason why the federal parliament should intrude upon the rights and responsibilities of the provincial parliaments, I see no ground why in this particular instance we should violate that principle.

Vocational Education
The leader of the opposition has advanced an argument which to me has always seemed strong, so far as contributions to the provincial treasuries are concerned. He has stated that the debt of Canada is enormous, which is true, as a result chiefly of the war, and that our responsibilities by way of expenditures and taxation are exceptionally great. It cannot be successfully contradicted, that the financial responsibilities of the Dominion parliament are infinitely greater than those of any of the provinces. The province of Ontario and the province of Qudbec, comparatively speaking, are rich provinces and can well afford to carry out the obligations that are imposed upon them by the constitution. I am in favour of technical education, but I believe that we ought to keep things in their proper compartments, and if the duty of furnishing technical education or education of any other kind is imposed upon the provinces by the constitution, then why in the world should we depart from that? Each should discharge its own responsibility. The father is supposed to take care of his child. It it comes to want, if it needs assistance, its father, and not the father of somebody else, is supposed to take care of it. That is a homely illustration, but I think it holds good. It is merely a question of who should discharge the responsibility, and my argument is that the responsibility is placed upon the provinces, and I can see no good reason-certainly none has so far been advanced-why we should assume a responsibility that is strictly placed upon others, and who can afford to discharge it.


Hugh Guthrie: May I offer just a word,
Mr. Speaker, before the question is put. I would point out to my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) that this resolution does not propose to take away any power from the provinces nor to take away any responsibility from the provinces, but rather to increase the power of the provinces in one particular direction in which I think it is generally conceded that this parliament, representing the whole Dominion of Canada, has a special and, indeed, a particular interest.
Just a word in regard to the very learned address offered to the house by my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition. This I will say in regard to his address, that the attitude which he has taken to-day in regard to the proposal to make federal grants in aid of technical education in the various provinces has been pretty consistent with his whole course since this question was first brought to the attention of the federal parliament, for I well remember that when I moved for
the first time in this parliament a quarter of a century ago for the appointment of a commission to inquire into technical education, my right hon. friend the present leader of the opposition was the one who moved a motion which killed mine, and I was the only one then on the Liberal side who voted in favour of such a commission. However, a year or so afterwards, he decided that the popular demand in favour of something being done by the federal government was so great that it was time to act. and my right hon. friend, who was then Minister of Labour in the Liberal administration of that day, did issue a commission for the purpose of inquiring into technical education, and that commission made a very valuable report to parliament.
During the course of his remarks to-day the right hon. leader of the opposition alluded to the late Right Hon. Mr. Fielding, one of the most eminent finance ministers that Canada has ever produced, a man who for fifteen years was finance minister in the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and was afterwards for five years finance minister in the government of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition. The late Mr. Fielding was a member of the administration of Sir Wilfrid Laurier when my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition appointed his technical education commission, and speaking in this house on June 20, 1919, as reported at page 3924 of Hansard for that year-


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1909.


Hugh Guthrie: No, 1919, when the bill to make a grant of $10,000,000 for technical education was before the house.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Fielding was not finance minister at that time.


Hugh Guthrie: He was a member of the house and was sitting in the house at the time. This was the language that he used:
As regards technical education, it is worth remembering that this grant, although it is late in coming, is the outcome of a policy which the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier took up some years ago, when we appointed a technical education commission which made a tour of the world and gathered information, upon which they made a most valuable report. It is sometimes made a matter of complaint against the government of a later day that they pigeon-holed that report and did nothing Well, the government is doing something now, and I would rather have them do it in this wav than do nothing at all. When the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier appointed that commission, headed by Professor Robertson and including a number of able men, we certainly created the impression that in some degree the
Vocational Education

matter was a Dominion one, and I look upon this movement as a belated endeavour on the part of the government to carry out the intentions which the Liberal government had in mind when they appointed that commission.
Such was the opinion of a very eminent member of the government of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition, a gentleman whom my right hon. friend has quoted once or twice in his address to-day as an authority of very great eminence.
The attitude of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition, as I said, has been consistent on this question. Speaking in this house in 1929 he took the same position that he did to-day. In 1929 the matter came up on a bill to renew the grant which at that time had expired, and my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition said on that occasion, as reported at page 162 of Hansard for 1929:
There was no thought at the outset that the federal government would be called upon to go further than simply to supply the information to the provinces which would enable them to develop their educational systems along lines of industrial training and technical education.
Evidently that was not the view of the late Mr. Fielding, who was a member of the government that appointed that commission, nor was it the view of Mr. Fielding in this house in 1919 when the bill providing a grant of $10,000,000 was passed. But Mr. Fielding was a staunch supporter of the bill and of the principle.


William Daum Euler: It is conceded, and I made the point a moment ago, that education comes within the purview of the province. What good reason is given for departing from that principle? That is what I should like to know.


Hugh Guthrie: The easiest way for me to answer that question, I think, is to refer my hon. friend to a very elaborate speech I made on the constitutional point twenty-five years ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
hon. friend will find in the report of the royal commission to which he has referred that there is there printed an exchange of correspondence between the federal government and the governments of the different provinces. The premiers of the various provinces were approached before the federal government instituted the commission, with respect to what its powers should be, and my recollection is, and I think it will ibe borne out by the correspondence, that, they agreed that no exception could be taken to the federal parliament having information gathered on any subject, 'but that, the

commission could not go beyond that, that its duty was to gather information and place the information at the disposal of the provinces. That was the intention of the commission at the outset. I recognize that in 1919 the government of the day went much further than was contemplated by the government that appointed the commission-


Hugh Guthrie: Not according to Mr. Fielding.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Fielding
undoubtedly, from what my hon. friend has quoted, said that the action of the government in 1919 grew out of the measures initiated by the Liberal administration but I am sure that the correspondence will bear me out when I say that when appointments of this commission received the sanction of parliament it was with the distinct understanding that its task began and ended with the gathering of information and the making of a report which should be placed at the disposal of the provinces.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to oppose this resolution in committee. I wish however to make it understood that I should like to reserve my right, when the bill is before the house, possibly to make an amendment in accordance with the tenor of my remarks.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Guthrie thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 53, for the promotion of vocational education in Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved the second reading of Bill No. 41, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Edmonton):: I understand that this bill contains only one provision, the purpose of which is to change the personnel of the board and to appoint a commissioner. Probably the minister would make a short explanation of the bill.


Mr. GORDON:: The bill has for its purpose the abolition of the present board which now consists of a chairman and two members. The intention is to substitute for the board

Soldier Settlement Act
a single individual who, it is suggested, should be called the director of soldier settlement. The reason for the amendment to the Soldier Settlement Act of 1919 contemplated by this bill is that at the present time the board is not acquiring any further land. The work of the board in a great measure has decreased but there has not been any corresponding decrease in the administrative staff. At the present time the head office is at Ottawa, and by reason of having three commissioners on the board nine separate branches are necessary at the head office. Each branch performs work of a similar character, and a great deal of overlapping takes place. With a single director there will be an immediate saving of administrative expense in connection with the board alone of about $26,000. Under the leadership of a single director there will be required only three branches at the head office, namely, the accounts branch, the agricultural branch and the estates and securities branch. The other districts throughout Canada will be made to conform to the organization at the head office, and the total yearly administrative expense will be reduced. I believe the result will be greater efficiency in the administration of the affairs of the board, and a reduction in cost of over a quarter of a million dollars. I am convinced that this reorganization should take place, and that greater efficiency would be the result.


Charles A. Stewart: Is it the
intention of the government to confer more power, so far as accounting is concerned, upon district inspectors, or as heretofore, will the accounting all be done in the offices in Ottawa? I believe the minister mentioned some powers which would be transferred.


George Gordon: There will be no additional powers conferred upon those in the field.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
On section 1-"Board."
Mr. BEAUBIEN:: May I ask a question
before section 1 is carried. In the reorganization I suppose there will be a complete reorganization of the soldier settlement board. Is it a fact that the whole staff will be reorganized?


George Gordon: Yes, that would occur in
the course of reorganization.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Will any of the services received by settlers be curtailed?


George Gordon: No; no services will be
curtailed. After the reorganization is completed the services contemplated by the statute will probably be of a more efficient character.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Commissioner of the board.
Mr. ELLIOTT:: I notice the commissioner of the board means the director of soldier settlement under this section, while under section 1, "board" means the director of soldier settlement. Is there not some inconsistency between the two sections?


George Gordon: The reason the commissioner of the board is interpreted to mean the director of soldier settlement is because there are a number of places in the act of 1919, which is being amended, where certain powers of the board are delegated to a commissioner of the board, as for instance in sections 55 and 56. In order to vest in the director of soldier settlement all the authority the board had, acting as a board, and all the authority of the board acting through one of its members, it was necessary to insert that clause in the interpretation of this amending bill, making the commissioner and the board mean the director.


John Campbell Elliott: But under section 1
"board" means the director of soldier settlement. Is there not an inconsistency between the two? In one case "director" means the whole board, and in the next section it means the commissioner, which I assume to be only part of the board.


George Gordon: Let me try to make that clear. Section 3 of the Soldier Settlement Act of 1919 provided:
The soldier settlement board, as constituted pursuant to the former act. . . .
That was the act of 1917.
.... shall continue to consist of three commissioners, each to hold office during good behaviour, but to be removable by the governor in council at any time for cause and to become ineligible upon attaining seventy years of age.
In order to substitute the director of soldier settlement for the board as contemplated by the law, section 1 is inserted. Then I turn to section 56 of the act being amended, which is a good illustration of why the further interpretation was given. Section 56 reads:
Any commissioner of the board, or any officer or employee of the board authorized, specifically or generally, in writing, by a commissioner of the board ....
The amendment contemplates that the director shall not only have all the powers and
Soldier Settlement Act

privileges of the board acting as such, but also those of any commissioner of the board to whom the board might delegate power. The board has the right to delegate its powers under the act, in certain circumstances, to one Df themselves, and the amendment has in contemplation that all those powers and privileges now shall be vested in the one director of soldier settlement.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Will the full power at present vested in the board be turned over to this director? The board really functions as two separate bodies, though with the same personnel. The one Body deals with soldier settlement matters, while the other deals with general land settlement matters. Under that branch comes the three thousand family scheme, for example and various other branches of settlement. I notice in the act this official is referred to as the director of soldier settlement only. I wonder if the dual functions of the board will be vested in this new director, and if he will carry on the work of general land settlement as well as the soldier settlement work.


George Gordon: The director of soldier
settlement, by this bill, will be vested with the same powers heretofore possessed by the board or any commissioner of the board.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: My question has
reference to section 1, which has been declared carried. I understood the minister to state that according to the original act the soldier settlement board is described as consisting of a certain number of officials. Therefore in the first section should not the word "board" be changed to "soldier settlement board" as it relates to the director of soldier settlement?


George Gordon: If my hon. friend will
refer to the act of 1919 he will see that the word "board" is there interpreted to mean the Soldier Settlement Board of Canada. Subsection 1 of the amending act merely interprets the board to mean the director of soldier settlement, following exactly the same phraseology.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Appointment of director.
Charles A. Stewart: There are
no changes here?


George Gordon: None whatever. With
respect to this section, after the bill was printed it was drawn to my attention that no provision had been made for the temporary appointment of a director in case of the absence of the director for a short period. 
It, happens almost daily that documents have to be signed on behalf of the board, and I suggest that there be added as subsection 5 of section 3 the following:
In the absence of the director of soldier settlement, an officer named by the minister shall have the powers and perform the duties of such director.


Mr. CAHAN:: I move the amendment.


Charles A. Stewart: The director has not that power himself, I take it from the explanation of the minister. Of course there is just one director, while there were three members of the board previously, so I suppose it is necessary for the minister to have that power. I was going to suggest, however, that since the director is to be vested with all the powers possessed by the former board, he might have sufficient authority to name a substitute.


George Gordon: This is only to provide
for a substitute in case the director should become ill or be absent, for some reason, from his office. I do not know that I particularly want the responsibility, but it was suggested to me that following similar authority vested by other statutes, the minister should be given the right to appoint someone, probably in the office, to carry on the administrative work of the director during his absence.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The director might be
taken ill suddenly and be quite incapable of appointing a substitute. The appointment might well be made by the minister who is administering the act at the time.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Has the minister the figures now as to the number of holdings abandoned during the last year, or would he rather discuss that matter on the estimates?


George Gordon: I do not think I have
that information before me.


Alfred Speakman: As a matter of fact I was just going to bring up the question of a substitute when the minister presented his amendment. From my own experience in connection with the board I know that from day to day there are situations continually arising which demand immediate executive action. I was going to ask what provision had been made to carry on during the temporary absence of the director, but I think this amendment meets that difficulty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is one
clause with respect to the salary of the director of soldier settlement. All his functions

Unemployment-Mr. Neill
seem to be similar to those of a deputy minister. Is it the intention that there shall be any difference between the salary of the director and that paid to deputy ministers?


George Gordon: If the government is able to procure the services of a very efficient man -and I trust we shall be able to do so either from the present staff or elsewhere-he will be adequately remunerated; but the question [DOT] of salary has not been given consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I agree with
my hon: friend that there should be adequate remuneration. But in the public service it creates unrest if officials other than deputy ministers receive salaries higher than those paid to deputy ministers. I wanted to ascertain from my hon. friend whether by leaving the act in its present form, which gives the minister practically a free hand in fixing the salary, it is contemplated to go beyond the salary of a deputy minister, or whether he would give the committee the assurance that this official will not have, by virtue of his salary, a higher rank in the public service than that of deputy minister.


George Gordon: It was never in my mind, nor do I think it is in the mind of the government, that the director should be placed higher in rank or salary than a deputy minister.


Alfred Speakman: Could the minister give an estimate of the number of employees in the central office here who may be retired in consequence of this change?


George Gordon: At the present time there are three members of the board and a staff of thirteen at an annual cost of a little over $40,000. Under the proposed reorganization there will be one director and a staff of four at an annual cost of about $15,000. I have not the figures for the head office, because the reorganization has not been completed, but I can give information with respect to the staff generally. In August last the total staff numbered 526; since then a gradual reorganization has taken place. I thought it desirable not to make a sweeping reorganization at the beginning of winter, but all the staff knew that the reorganization would take place. As of May 26, 1931, the staff had been reduced from 526 to 393, with a reduction in administration expenses from $973,014 to S759.600. The reduction of the staff up to date is 133, and the annual saving amounts to $213,414. From the reports I am receiving I believe that the settlers are more content under the reorganized plan, which I hope will be completed in the course of a year.


Alfred Speakman: My question was hardly along the lines of the general reorganization;
I may discuss that when the estimates are before the house. I wanted to know what the immediate effect of this change would be on the central office, and what number of officials might be retired in addition to the members of the board in consequence of the change.


George Gordon: As a result of the abolition of the board, a staff of 31 will not be required at the head office; 27 of those have already been retired, and possibly 4 others, but I have not been advised as to the latter; that is, both directly and indirectly as the result of the substitution of one director for the original three.	.


Alfred Speakman: My question refers
simply to this change as indicated in the act, not to the general administration.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 4 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.



SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT STATEMENT OF MR. NEILL ON MOTION OF MR. GUTHRIE, FOR THE MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE for the Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity once more to impress upon the government the urgent necessity of holding a conference with the provinces in connection with the subject of unemployment. I have brought this subject up several times already, and I would not bring it up again if it were not that in addition to the facts that I presented before there has since been a growing weight of circumstances, and also a very definite growth of public sentiment.
On the 31st of March I said:
I believe that next winter the unemployment situation will be worse than it was last year.
Events are rapidly corroborating that statement. I also referred to the fact that a delegation had gone down from Nanaimo to Victoria asking the provincial government what they were going to do to relieve the situation in the coal mining area, which was then in a very bad condition. It has got worse since. I also mentioned that Premier Tolmie was going to come down to Ottawa to ask that $100,000 be granted to the city of Vancouver, without the city being asked to contribute on
Unemployment-Mr. Neill

a fifty-fifty basis, because they were out of money and in a desperate condition. Later, on May 7, I called the attention of the house to the unemployment situation as regards the logging industry, and also to the fact that two towns in British Columbia, which I named, had advertised that men were not to come to those places because there were already 600 men looking for work and unable to obtain it. I ended by impressing upon the government the need for an immediate conference with the provinces on the question of unemployment. Apropos of this, the following headline appears in the evening papers to-day:
Winnipeg Jobless Wreck Labour-Saving Machine
That shows what me.n will do when they are desperate. We will go across the continent, beginning with Winnipeg. The following appeared recently:
Hon. W. R. Clubb. Minister of Public Works, is on his way to Ottawa to urge the Dominion government to continue direct unemployed relief during the summer months.
It will be noticed that that refers to the summer months. Before we were discussing winter relief, but we have to face an immediate situation. The report continues:
He will also ask for a readjustment of the basis upon which the relief has been granted.
We come next to Vancouver, where the following was published:
Expenditures of the city relief department in the first four months of this year amounted to $290,403, which is $27,103 more than the sum estimated for the period.
The report continues:
Estimates and expenditures are as follows:
For April:
April, estimate, $43,700; expenditure, $56,545.
That is a month when ordinarily there would be little or no relief required. The report continues:
The relief officer drew the committee's attention to the "continued serious condition of unemployment in the city." Instead of the usual seasonal improvement in April he said there appears to have been a decrease in the number of men employed in Vancouver. Dominion reports, he said, show a decrease of almost 1,700 workers in that period.
These conditions, said the officer, are reflected in the department's records; and since April 1 married unemployed cases have increased to 1,346, an advance of 269. This total, he said, is greater than any in the past winter.
Note that. The report continues:
The city has already drawn this situation to the attention of the federal and provincial governments. remarking that the city cannot adequately cope with it. Acknowledgment of the letter was received, but no further progress has been made.
[Mr. Neill.)
Hence the necessity for bringing this matter before the house. The report continues:
"The present situation shows that the council's forecast was only too correct," states Colonel Cooper. "The city's inability to cope with the situation is even more pronounced than on March 28. I would, therefore, recommend that the strongest possible representations be made, in order to convince the governments of the need for prompt and effective [DOT] action."
Then we have the mayor of Vancouver, a man of some repute, reported in Winnipeg as follows:
Admitting a national responsibility, Premier Bennett should call the governments of the four western provinces and the mayors of the larger cities to an unemployment conference, Mayor L. D. Taylor of Vancouver stated in an interview here last night. If Premier Bennett refuses to call such a conference, Mayor Taylor declared that he and Mayor R. H. Webb, of Winnipeg would themselves take the responsibility of calling this meeting early in July at either Edmonton or Calgary, whichever city was most convenient for those taking part.
The report continues:
The unemployment situation in western Canada, he told Mr. Bennett, was likely to remain acute "for at least another year," and everybody should recognize it as a national emergency, he declared, and act accordingly.
The city of Vancouver, he told Mr. Bennett, was willing to care for its own. But last winter it had had 10,000 unemployed single men who are non-residents to feed and house. In fifteen months the city had paid $1,000,000 for emergency relief. It could not shoulder this burden for another year.
We should have an adequate program of public works to be carried on throughout the west. This is the belief of Mayor Taylor of Vancouver and of Mayor Webb of Winnipeg, the latter being a well-known friend of the government of the day. The next report comes from Saanich, a semi-rural and semiurban municipality on Vancouver island, and reads as follows:
The problem of unemployment will be much more serious next winter than it was last year.
Then we come to Nanaimo. I received the following telegram from the president of the board of trade of Nanaimo:
Local conditions very serious. Seven hundred eighty men out employment in this district. City Nanaimo near . end of its resources. Council, board trade and merchants met Hon. Bruhn, Minister of Public Works last night. Minister fully understands seriousness situation due to non-operation coal mines and realizes that immediate action necessary but cannot take any steps alleviate situation until federal government decide what proportion inevitable burden they are going assume.
I brought that matter up in the house yesterday and received the usual stereotyped reply that if something else happened some-

Unemployment-Mr. Neill
thing else would happen; that it was a "purely provincial matter", and "that if it is found that the municipal and provincial authorities cannot relieve the situation, there is no doubt that proper steps will be taken, and taken without delay, by this government, to assist." The government has been told time and again that this situation exists. The word of a minister of the crown in the province of British Columbia should not be treated lightly when he says the condition requires alleviation. A report in this connection reads as follows:
The Hon. R. W. Bruhn, Minister of Public Works in the provincial government, paid a visit to the city yesterday, and last night in the city hall, met a large delegation consisting of members of the city council, members of the Retail Merchants' Association, and members of the board of trade.
The chairman stated that there was no immediate hope or prospect of any improvement in the situation, and asked the assistance of the government. The city, he said, had done what it could, and was still prepared to do what it could, but the government would have to find relief for these men out of work. The report continues:
Mr. Bruhn explained that he was quite familiar with the facts of the situation, and realized that something would have to be done and at once. The provincial government was prepared to do its part, but was seeking the cooperation of the federal government. He had sent telegrams to Ottawa but had as yet received no definite reply upon which action could be taken. He could promise nothing until the return of Premier Tolmie, and he could not see that the province could undertake any further relief work until the federal government promised to do its share.
I suggest that some kind of political tracer be sent out to locate this Hon. Mr. Tolmie, because he seems to be lost. Where is our wandering boy to-night? He is not here and he does not appear to be there; he does not appear to be anywhere when he is urgently needed. If he is a requisite necessity in the program, by all means let us get hold of him at any cost. Another local man of good standing reported that the situation is appalling because of the coal mines having been shut down. The same situation obtains at Cumberland-which is in my district and in which I am naturally most interested-where one of the mines have been shut down. They have appealed to the government but have been informed that nothing can be done until some remote and distant period. We now come to Victoria where the Hon. W. A. McKenzie, who is I understand the chairman of the government committee dealing with unemployment, is reported on March 12 as having said:
A national conference on unemployment to be held at the earliest possible date, and to line
up plans for handling unemployment relief next winter, was urged in a government statement by Hon. W. A. McKenzie, Minister of Labour.
"Now is the time to shape these preparations and the sooner a conference, national in scope, is called, the better," Mr. McKenzie said.
"What we should do at this time of the year, when unemployment is least serious, is to consider as a nation what we should and what we can do to relieve unemployment in the slack winter months. There is no use putting our heads in the sand like ostriches, as if no unemployment problem would face us again. We look for improving conditions and believe the improvement has set in, but it will be the worst kind of folly to make no plans this summer for meeting an unemployment situation next w'inter. Let us face this issue and line up definite programs which can be put into prompt and efficient operation if and when the necessity arises."
That is from Victoria, the head of the government, and at least one of the prominent men in it. That is the situation. We find these four cities in British Columbia, and also the city of Winnipeg, which is a very large one, asking not only for some action for next winter but for immediate relief and for the calling of a conference at once. They do not want it next winter or next fall; they want it now, and they say so at length. More than that, they say that some definite allotment of the money will have to be arranged. The cities are not now able to put up 50 per cent of the cost, and it is no use disguising that fact. In British Columbia we are limited by law to a certain amount that we can borrow in proportion to our assessment rolls. Many of the cities have reached that point and they cannot legally borrow more. Where are they to find the money? That situation has to be faced between the provinces and the Dominion, and the sooner it is faced, the better.
There is another thing that will have to be attended to. For example, in the little town in which I live the provincial government, in my opinion, imposed upon us a condition not required by the federal regulations. The undertaking was that we should pay 50 per cent of the cost of the relief work, the province 25 per cent and the Dominion 25 per cent. What did the province do? I cannot find it in any regulation made by this government, and the regulations were printed and distributed. We were compelled to put up all the cost of the material. If we built a sidewalk, we had to put up the whole of the cost of the ldmber and we were given only 50 per cent of the labour cost. I cannot find any provision of this kind in the act. I cannot say that this was graft, because it was not graft in the sense of somebody making money by it, but it was a gross injustice to the smaller towns, and I hope when we are discussing the sub-
Unemployment-Mr. Neill

jeot of the distribution of more money, we shall be protected. I warned the government at the time that they should keep the control in their own hands, and then they would be responsible. Very little complaint can be made against this government in connection with the way the money was handled, because they gave it to the provinces, and then when we come with our complaints, they say, as I predicted they would: It is the provinces that are handling the money; we cannot control them. In some cases the Dominion officials acted promptly when a complaint was made to them for the purpose of investigation, but it was the provinces who used the money unfairly and politically.


George Gordon: Has the hon. member
any instances he can give?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, if the house will give
me another forty minutes.


George Gordon: Will the hon. member give me them now or afterwards?


Alan Webster Neill: I cannot do so now; but I am quite willing to come to the minister's office and give him the details. I am sorry I have not time to go into them now. There are instances like this: If you go into the matter, they will not say: This is politics. Of course not. They will say: Tom Jones was refused relief because he did not own any land in the district; and then they will say: Bill Smith was denied relief because he had land and therefore did not need relief. That was the way it was done. They do not say: This man voted wrongly; he is not going to get a job.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Was that done by the municipalities? _
Mr, NEILL:	No, the municipalities ran
:hing3 fairly. This was outside of the municipalities in what is known as unorganized territory and it was done by the province. In the municipalities it was run all right, because they comprised men on both sides of politics. The municipalities did it fairly and squarely; I have not a thing to say against their conduct.
My suggestion is that the conference should be held now, for two reasons: first, to deal with the immediate distress, the distress that is now existing in some parts of the country; and,' second, to formulate some scheme to handle the relief that will undoubtedly be needed next winter, and vote the' necessary funds. It may be said that it is useless to have this conference now as regards next winter; that we can have it after the house has prorogued. If we wait until parliament

prorogues, where are we going to get the money next winter?-because it will be not $20,000,000 but $30,000,000 that will be required. Assuming, however, that $20,000,000 will be required, and parliament prorogues without voting it, where are we to get the money? The obvious answer of course will be by governor general's warrant. But the government could not take that position, because that is the very opposite of the position they took last year. It was thrown up to me time and again in the election that I was not in favour of holding an immediate sitting of the house to vote money for relief. I said that this could be done by governor general's warrant, and this was made the subject of an attack upon me. Surely we cannot conclude that the government will now turn around and do the very thing they rejected last year. If they do so they would be admitting that the session held last September was needless and a wasteful expense. Where is the money to be found if it is not voted before parliament prorogues?
Those are the two reasons on which I base my demand, without any political aspect to the matter at all. A further" reason why we should have the conference now while the house is sitting is that it would have the advantage of the presence in Ottawa of able men-whether they 'belong to one party or the other, it matters not-from the various provinces, who could give the local information needed. For these reasons I wish to impress upon the government the necessity of an immediate conference, in order to give immediate assistance, in order to arrange for a winter program, and in order to have the money voted while we are here to vote >t.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) when he has to bring this matter up on the motion to go into supply, has evidently despaired of getting any satisfactory answer from the government with respect to their attitude on unemployment. During this session some attempts have been made, but without much success, to ascertain the attitude of the government. I can recall at the moment the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) asking several times what the government proposed to do with respect to unemployment, but he received no reply. In fact, instead of an answer there was a show of complete indifference with respect to the question. When on one occasion I tried to discuss the subject in the house there was a report in the press to the effect that 6,000 unemployed had paraded in Winnipeg. At

Unemployment-Mr. Heenan
that time the house ruled against me; it decided that this was not a question of national importance.
To what the hon. member for Comox-Al-berni has said I can add by saying that I have a knowledge of what has transpired in my own district. In the towns of Kenora and Fort Frances there are hundreds of un. employed, although those towns are not very large centres. Moreover, we have the spectacle of the provincial government appropriating only S5.000.000 for highway construction this year, whereas last year, just prior to the . election, they appropriated 810,000,000. We have endeavoured to elicit from the federal government some indication of what they are going to do in connection with highway construction as was promised by them during the election, but we have not succeeded in getting it. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni, therefore, is quite justified in bringing the matter up on the motion to go into supply, not, as I understand it, as a vote of feck of confidence in the government, but to try to ascertain just what the government proposes to do with respect to this question.


Alan Webster Neill: I did not move an amendment.


Peter Heenan: 

Unemployment-Mr. Maclnnis
This government, let me remind the house, was elected on a definite pledge to end unemployment. Up to the present time, since the government has come into office, unemployment has increased rather than decreased. Alter the government gave that pledge to the electors to end unemployment, and assumed the responsibility of office, after their declaration that unemployment relief was not a provincial or municipal obligation, but a national obligation, why are they now simply waiting, sitting in their seats, and not telling the house and the country what attitude they are going to take with respect to unemployment? I had always thought that unemployment relief was a question for the municipalities and the provinces. In that regard I followed the lead of the ex-premier of Ontario, Mr. Howard Ferguson, who invariably declined to look upon it as other than a municipal obligation. We have sufficient evidence of that. Then in 1921 we had the Conservative government passing an order in council which began by stating that the unemployment question was a provincial and a municipal responsibility. When the Conservative party appealed to the electors in 1930 they declared that this was not a provincial or a municipal responsibility at all, but a federal responsibility. But the very first act of the new government, at the special session last September, was to bring in a bill which on the face of it declared that the question was a municipal and a provincial one.
Unemployment is undoubtedly on the increase. We have the government's own statistics to prove that. There is suffering all over the country. The hon. member for Comox-Aiberni has told us quite plainly of the suffering entailed in some parts of the country. I have spoken of the suffering in northern Ontario, where delegations have gone down from some of the towns to Toronto to interview the provincial government. I might mention the town of Sturgeon Falls, the town of Espanola. In my own town of Kenora and in Fort Frances, the pulp mills are working about only one month out of the whole twelve. And mind you, that is because of the attitude of the provincial government. The provincial government has agreements with these industrial concerns which obligates them to work ten months in each and every year, yet for some reason or other they have released these concerns from their obligation as contained in those agreements, so I think the provincial government must assume some responsibility to the citizens of that part of the country.

But apart from all that, the federal Conservative party is undoubtedly on record as declaring to the electors of this country that if they were elected in 1930 they would take upon themselves the responsibility of curing unemployment as a national problem. Yet only the other day the minister stated on the. floor of this house, in answer to a question from the hon. member for Comox-Aiberni, that undoubtedly, as no doubt the house understood, this was a provincial and a municipal responsibility.
I was struck with the argument of my right hon. leader this afternoon when he pointed out that wherever there is a division of authority, with one party passing the buck to someone else, we never get anywhere. Today we find provinces that will not inaugurate old age pensons, believing that it is a federal responsibility. Because the federal government first of all contributed 50 per cent of the old age pensions, some of the provinces now want the federal government to contribute 100 per cent. But the worst feature of all is this, that we find provincial governments, like the government of Ontario, for instance, refusing to go on with provincial undertakings unless the federal government contributes a proportion of the cost. That is a position which they never took before.
The question which has been brought up by my hon. friend from Comox-Aiberni is deserving of an answer from the government. So far as I am concerned I consider that the federal government should do what they promised to do-take the responsibility of finding employment for the workpeople of Canada, of dealing with the unemployed, and of bringing in a system of unemployment insurance in order to take care of our Workpeople when unemployed.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add
a few words to what has been said by the hon. member for Comox-Aiberni (Mr. Neill) concerning the unemployment situation in British Columbia and particularly in regard to the city of Vancouver. Yesterday I received a communication from the relief officer for the city of Vancouver outlining conditions of unemployment in that city. I can assure you that knowing the situation which existed there last year and having before me the figures he has forwarded to me, the situation at the present time is much worse than it was a year ago.

Criminal Code-Vnlawjul Assembly
I have before me a letter which was addressed by an official of the city of Vancouver to the Hon. W. A. McKenzie, Minister of Labour in the provincial legislature, part of which I should like to read. The information the letter contains will give an indication of the serious conditions existing in Vancouver. It says:
Sir:
1 have the honour to inform you that at a meeting held on March 28th, the Vancouver city council considered the question of recommendations regarding the unemployment problem, following interview's between your committee and city representatives on March 24tli and 25th.
It was decided to place before the provincial government the following facts regarding the situation in Vancouver:
Employed on relief work under the Unemployment Relief Act, 1930, are 2,200 married men.
On direct unemployment relief are 1,111 families, an increase of 385 since March 1st.
Hon. members will note that this letter indicates an increase while, in ordinary years, we would expect at this time of the year a decrease in the number of unemployed. The letter continues:
Single men on direct unemployment relief number 1,800.
Regarding the immediate future, the completion of projects under the Unemployment Relief Act, and the exhaustion of the funds which the city has been able to raise to match the governmental contribution, will cause a steady increase in the number of married men on direct relief. The relief works will probably he completed about April 30th.
It is understood that the government appropriation for direct relief will be exhausted about April 24th. It is estimated that on that date there [DOT]will be in the city, eligible for relief, at least 1,600 married men and 1,500 single men, and by May 15th, two weeks before the expiration of the present Unemployment Relief Act, there will probably be at least 2,000 married men and 1,000 single men, or in other words, approximately 11,000 people to be provided with the necessities of life.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house.resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 52. to amend the Board of Management of the Canadian District of the Evangelical Lutheran Joint Synod of Ohio and other states, and to change its name to the Board of Management of the Canadian District of the American Lutheran Church-Mr. Gershaw.
221X0-1264


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 5,' consideration, of the motion of Mr. Woods-worth for the second reading of Bill No. 19, to amend the criminal code.
Mr. ANGUS MaeINNIS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) I should like to say a few words in support of this bill.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in bringing forward this amendment, made certain references to what had taken place in certain cities of this dominion in reference to free assembly and free speech, with particular reference to the city of Toronto. It is very difficult to deal with this amendment without knowing really what occurred in that city.
It has been suggested by some who are opposing the amendment that there is a section of the criminal code having to do with unlawful assembly which is quite sufficient as it now stands. I am almost inclined to believe that is quite correct, but the difficulty we find here is that the police commissioners in many cities suspend, as it were, the criminal code as far as unlawful assembly is concerned and make rules and regulations of their own to cover the circumstances -of the case. The code, as I see it, lays down that the gathering itself and what is said at the gathering must be the criterion for a conclusion as to whether or not the assembly is unlawful. However, unless a meeting is allowed to take place I cannot see how it possibly can be said to be an unlawful assembly. There is a provision in the code itself for preventing gatherings under certain conditions-section 99-and the procedure is by proclamation of the governor in council. If it is intended, therefore, that any authority should set aside any section of the criminal code, that action should be done in the same manner, by proclamation of the governor in council.
As to what really was intended in the city of Toronto I should like again to draw attention to a quotation made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in this connection. I refer to a letter from Colonel Biggar, formerly chief electoral officer. Before a person can qualify as a candidate during a federal election there are very strict regulations with which he must comply. Having done so he has fulfilled the law and is entitled to stand
1984	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Assembly
as a candidate for election to the Dominion parliament, and it is taken for granted, I believe, that he is entitled to express his opinion on the public platform at least in the constituency in which he is standing for election. In Toronto this right was interfered with. The quotation I wish to give from Colonel Biggar's letter is as follows:
The real question raised by these and Mr. Cohen's present letter is the question whether in Toronto the police are enforcing the law or are persecuting persons who hold opinions of which they disapprove, by the confiscation of printed matter found in their possession, by physical violence, by the misuse of licensing [DOT] powers, and by threat of the institution of criminal proceedings for which there is no foundation.
I am not quite sure whether the amendment will help clarify the section in reference to unlawful assembly in order to cover a case of this kind, but I rather think this Dominion was fortunate in having a man like Colonel Biggar as chief electoral officer. He drew the attention of the police of the city of Toronto to what they could and could not do in connection with preventing the gathering of people who did not hold the same views as they held.
The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), in opposing this bill said as follows, at page 1277 of Hansard:
I submit to you, sir, and to the hon. members of this house, that the law as it now stands is perfectly clear and needs no clarifying, and further. that the privileges of any honest citizen in this country are to-day amply safeguarded under the existing provisions of the criminal code.
It seems that according to the police in Toronto, an honest citizen is anyone who holds the same opinions held by the police commissioners, and consequently it follows that all the others are dishonest. I understand that the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) was asked to address the Canadian Club in Toronto. At the same time he was asked to address another association, the Fellowship of Reconciliation. He was allowed to address the Canadian Club, but the other association could not get a hall in which to hold its meeting. I take it that not only were the privileges of this association interfered with, but that the privileges of the hon. member for Bow River were also interfered with.
Mr. GEARY:: Will the hon. member tell
me who interfered with the privileges of the hon. member for Bow River?


Angus MacInnis: The police commission
of the city of Toronto.


George Reginald Geary: Does the hon. member know that? Probably he has heard somebody tell somebody else that somebody said so.


Angus MacInnis: Well, let us say I heard
the hon. member for Bow River say so. Would that not be sufficient knowledge?


George Reginald Geary: The hon. member is here,
and he will not say so.


Angus MacInnis: Anyone who has knowledge to the contrary may say so, but in the meantime I think my statement stands.


Mr. PECK:: What was the nature of the
interference?


Angus MacInnis: They could not get a
hall in which to meet. That is the point I wish to make; the privileges of citizens are being interfered with. Later on, the hon. member for Northumberland, N. B. (Mr. MeDade), speaking against the amendment, questioned the right of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for North Winnipeg to speak for what he called that large section of the community known 'as the labour element. I do not think the member for Winnipeg North Centre put forward the amendment in the interest of any class, but rather in the interest of what we always used to term the British institutions of free assembly and free speech. The hon. member for Northumberland, N.B., referred to two other citizens from his province and said:
I would far rather take the advice and counsel of such outstanding labour men in the province of New Brunswick as Mr. John S. Martin, former Labour member of the legislative assembly at Fredericton, or of Mr. Stanley S. Fleiger, of the town of Chatham, than that of my hon. friends opposite. The men I have mentioned, I submit, represent true Canadian labour; their judgment is sound and their capacity is unquestioned.
I think those of us who know both the member for Winnipeg North Centre and the member for North Winnipeg will agree that their views are sound, and that at least, with the exception of one other, they are the only representatives that labour definitely has in this house.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, no.


Angus MacInnis: However, I am going to read parts of a letter received from Mr. John S. Martin, one of the persons mentioned by the hon. member for Northumberland, to show that he and other Labour men in New Brunswick agree with the position taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

Criminal Code-Unlawful Assembly
The letter is dated May 14, 1931, is addressed to Mr. J. S. Woodsworth and, in part, is as follows:
The reason for this letter arose from the debate in the house on Tuesday, May 6, re your amendment to the Criminal Code. My name as well as the name of a particular friend of mine, Stanley Fleiger, was mentioned by the member for our county, Northumberland. His remarks might lead you to believe that he was authorized to use our names and that he was further authorized to speak for Labour. Such is not the case.
1 am a vice-president of the New Brunswick Federation of Labour for the northern section of the province and you have my support in the bill you presented as well as in any other efforts you put forward in behalf of the workers notwithstanding what any party politician may have said in the past or may say in the future.
The fact that my name was brought into the debate only came to my' attention to-day. I immediately 'phoned the president of the New' Brunsw'ick Federation of Labour, Mr. Eugene Steeves of Moncton, and w-as informed by him that your amendment to the Criminal Code has his hearty support. So you are now' aware that you had a right to speak for Labour in the province of New' Brunsw'ick as well as other sections of Canada. . . .
Now, sir, what I have said re your right to speak for Labour in this section is endorsed by Stanley Fleiger, the other name mentioned by Mr. McDade.
You are at liberty to use, if you so desire, anything that I have written in this letter in part or whole, and if at any time you should want information on any matter in this section I will be pleased to assist in any way I can.
I am sure that if at any time you pay a visit to this province I will be very glad to make arrangements so that you can meet the people whom you represent.
John S. Martin.
Now, I do not think that letter should leave any doubt in the minds of anyone as to whom the member for Winnipeg North Centre is representing not only in his own constituency but in various other parts of the Dominion. A3 I said before, the amendment will help to clarify the section in regard to unlawful assembly. But what, I think, is needed more than anything else is someone in authority who will inform the police commissioners in our various cities that they cannot at their will and pleasure thrust aside the laws of this land and make regulations to suit their own purposes.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr Speaker, it seems to me a strange thing that if you happen to be of some particular church persuasion or of some well-known political affiliation freedom of speech is accorded you almost without any restriction, but if you happen to be the member of a labour party or one of the independent groups that freedom of speech is sometimes criticized and it is
suggested that it would be better if you were put under a ban. Fortunately most of us do not live in a city so convinced of its own righteousness as the city of Toronto. In most parts of this country we are, comparatively speaking, free to express our viewpoint upon conditions and upon affairs that are before the public for consideration. But it seems that in the city of Toronto you endanger almost your liberty-yes, you do endanger your liberty if you express any radical views on almost any matter whatever. At the same time you will find men like Mr. Beatty going up there and giving expression to a thought on the cancellation of war debts and getting away with it; but if we even here in the House of Commons suggested the cancellation of war debts-as we did in 1923-we are assailed both by hon. members and by the press as being unpatriotic, as being quite disloyal citizens and unworthy of the positions that we hold. Words to exactly that effect were used about us when we did make that recommendation. I looked with interest to the Mail and Empire, the Orange Sentinel, the Globe and one or two other strange publications from that city in order to find some criticism of Mr. Beatty's radical utterance, but there was only praise for a statesmanlike pronouncement of a policy that should have been expressed long ago!
Some years ago I clipped from the Manitoba Free Press a paragraph which at that time interested me enormously. I found that in Winnipeg at any rate one could express himself with the utmost freedom, one could urge sedition, one could say, for example, that no great social or economic change had ever been accomplished in any nation of the world without revolution, without overthrowing constituted authority,-and all this, if you please, at a meeting of some society for the celebration of St. George's day. Let me give the house an idea of what some people can get away with, but what, economic students or those who are considering the actual conditions that face the common people and trying to propose remedies for them must not speak-at least in Toronto, with its police force under the commissionership of a gentleman who has no more understanding of economics or the effect of them on the people than perhaps have some hon. gentlemen in this house.


Samuel Factor: If the hon. member will permit me? Has anybody ever stopped my hon. friend from addressing the Canadian club in Toronto?


Edward Joseph Garland: No. You see, the, Canadian club there is a respectable body,
19S6

Criminal Code-Unlawful Assembly
and I must say it is also a very hospitable body and a very attentive body-and apparently a very intelligent body even for Toronto.


Mr. JACOBS:: Did the hon. member make any converts there?


Edward Joseph Garland: I doubt
it very much. However, there is always hope, because it is not so many years since the hon. member himself would hardly have said the same things that he is quite willing to say to-day-at least after dinner. Mr. R. B. Graham, K.C., a fairly well known gentleman-[DOT]


An hon. MEMBER:: A magistrate.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, I
am informed he is a magistrate now. He was proposing the toast to "England" before the Royal St. George society. The hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor) will appreciate that it is all right before audiences of this kind to say quite violent things, but one must not say them at labour meetings; that is altogether improper. Let me read this clipping:
The occasion was the annual St. George's night dinner of the society over which the president, Jackson Dodds, O.B.E., presided as chairman.
I understand that Mr. Jackson Dodds is also a very respectable man. He is, I think, the president or vice president of the bankers' association, or something like that.
Music was furnished during and after the dinner-
So you see they stayed while the speeches were being made.
-by the regimental band of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry-
And by one or two other gentlemen who contributed solos. The address delivered by this gentleman in the presence of these august and representative Canadian citizens was in the following terms:
No nation ever became truly great save by successful sedition and revolution. The lamp and the torch and the tumult have overcome tyranny. The signature of King John was placed to the Magna Charta, wrenched from him by the nobles; revolution led King Charles to the block; the corn law riots-these were crimes against the law and seditions, but no one hangs his head in shame because of them. "Liberty, equality, fraternity," were no mere catchwords as in the French revolution, but the expression of the earnest striving for the substance that lies behind the words.
I submit that if any member of the Labour party in this house used words of that kind in Toronto he would be put in gaol. It was riots which brought about these improve-
'Mr. E. J. Garland.]
ments of economic conditions and, as I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said already, it may require riots to bring some indication of appreciation of conditions to hon. members of this house, particularly on the government side. We have an illustration appearing in the newspapers. Fifteen hundred men applied for a job in Winnipeg which had been advertised as requiring one hundred men. Fourteen hundred men were disappointed, and what did they do? There was a riot and they broke up the machines. The only thing which relieves such pressure is the possibility on the part of the people concerned of discussing their problems. Continue the policy of the suppression of free speech and as surely as I am standing here you will drive underground and make stronger the forces antagonistic to society, as has been evidenced here. One of the finest outlets for this pressure is to have some form of safety valve such as is found in freedom of discussion.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Did these men have a trial?


Edward Joseph Garland: If my hon. friend the Deputy Speaker (Mr. LaVergne), who is so bitter in matters relating to labour problems, free speech, and the socialization of conditions as we have them to-day, would be more tolerant and less like Toronto, his utterances in this country would be restored to their old virility.
Mr. LaVERGNE: The hon. member must be mistaken, because I am in favour of the bill. I was just wanting to know whether these men had had a trial in Toronto.


Edward Joseph Garland: Whether
they were tried in Toronto?
Mr. LaVERGNE: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: No.
Mr. LaVERGNE: How could they have been arrested and not have had a trial?


Edward Joseph Garland: These men were not arrested at all. I am giving an illustration of how you can get away with it if you are a "respectable" person appearing before a "respectable" audience, but if you happen to be a labour man addressing a labour audience, particularly in Toronto, you would be put behind the bars for using the very words employed in this instance. I am satisfied that if the inward thoughts, and sometimes the privately uttered thoughts, of many of the hon members of this house on

Criminal Code-Unlawful Assembly
both sides were made public, in Toronto, the hon. members concerned would be in danger of being put in gaol.
The purpose of the hon. member in introducing this amendment is to make it clear to police commissions and to the cities that Canada intends to pursue the old British ideal of free speech and liberty to express one's thoughts so long as they do not urge armed revolution or direct action at the moment. Permission is to be given to people to endeavour to convert others to their philosophy, whether it be the Russian philosophy, to which my hon. friend takes objection, or a philosophy atheistic in character so long as it is not calculated to be a breach of the peace. Free speech should be permitted in this country.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Is there not a statute in Ontario-there is one in Quebec-under which any meeting could be made legal?


Edward Joseph Garland: I am not a lawyer and I have not had time to look into all the statutes. I only know the facts. A respectable body of citizens in the city of Toronto-the city has gone to extremes in this respect-composed of such well known and splendid characters as Doctor Salem Bland, Rabbi Eisendrath and others, was prevented from securing a suitable hall in which to hold a meeting. This organization, known as the Fellowship of Reconciliation, was compelled to cancel its meeting.
Mr. LaVERGNE: How .could they be prevented?


Edward Joseph Garland: They were prevented.
Mr. LaVERGNE: No one is obliged to rent a hall.


Edward Joseph Garland: From his last statement it would seem the hon. gentleman has not been listening to this debate with the same care evidenced by others. I think the hon. gentleman who preceded me, the introducer of the amendment (Mr. Woodsworth), pointed out that by devious methods the police commission of Toronto revoked the licences of the owners or renters of the halls in which it was intended to have meetings of this or other organizations.
Mr. LaVERGNE: There must be a redress in law somewhere,


Edward Joseph Garland: It may be found that the police commission of Toronto broke the law in taking this action, but they took it.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey): Mr. Speaker, I intend to say only a sentence or two in support of the principle of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). It happens that I am one of the people who were refused permission to speak in a hall in the city of Toronto, although at almost the same time I addressed different clubs in that city. The difficulty occurred when the Fellowship of Reconciliation attempted to rent a hall in which to have a public meeting to be cddressed by me. I should like to think I was a dangerous person if that term means one who attempts to undo many of the things now existent in Canada. If that term means one who would assist to decentralize finance, for instance, then I should 'be glad to think I were a dangerous person. However, it might be considered as being conceited to think so, and I do not consider myself as such yet. I was refused the right to address a public meeting.
However, that is not the thought which persuaded me to make a few remarks in support of this bill. Whatever dangers there may be in free speech, and I suppose there are some, they are small indeed as compared to the dangers of the prohibition of free speech. I have always found, and I think other hon. members have had the same experience, that if people utter thoughts which are foolish, while a few people may believe them, in the long run they do not win out. It is sound common sense which wins in the end. I stand for free speech and the right of free assembly. If things are said at these assemblies which would constitute a breach of the peace, the law Can take its course and the offenders can be put where they may change or it is to be hoped they will change their minds.
I do not like to say it, but apparently there are hon. members in this house, and there certainly are people in the city of Toront? who think that communistic gatherings and propaganda can be stopped by prohibiting the right of assembly and free speech. That is utter nonsense. Communistic tendencies can be stopped by a return to prosperity, if anyone knows how to bring that about. People who are comfortable are not interested in communistic doctrines; it is the people who are uncomfortable who listen to sueh talk. The method adopted by the police commission of Toronto was an exceedingly foolish one. Ever since the person at the head of that commission took over his duties there has been one constant turmoil. He may have brought about one sort of peace, but he has
1988	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Assembly
created a great deal of disorder in so doing. Apparently he was a man who was out to command, and he wanted everyone else to obey. I think the interference with free speech and assembly is being carried altogether too far. To my great surprise I found that even the liberal-minded city of Montreal had been following the lead given by Toronto, a thing I would never have suspected it of. Even on the prairies which one thinks of as the home of what radical thought we have in Canada, there has 'been a tendency to follow the lead given by the police commissioners of Toronto. So it is in protest against this that I say that I am most heartily in support of the bill of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth).


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: After all the things that have been said about the city of Toronto, I feel almost like coming to its defence. I was one of those who, like the previous speaker, had great difficulty in finding a place to hold a meeting. The reason I wish to say a word or two in defence of Toronto is because the day I arrived in that city I found that in one of the leading theatres a play written by none other than George Bernard Shaw, was being produced. When I saw that play, which is purely socialistic in its philosophy, produced by an English company, I was rather surprised that' the police commission of Toronto had overlooked the fact. Evidently there is still some idea of allowing something in the way of free speech in that city.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: What was the name of
the play?


Abraham Albert Heaps: The Apple Cart. I was very agreeably surprised when I went into the theatre to see sitting not far from me a gentleman who no douibt has something to do with the suppression of free speech in Toronto. I refer to Sir William Mulock. Moreover, sitting in one of the boxes, enjoying the socialistic philosophy of George Bernard Shaw, was none other than the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario.


Mr. POULIOT:: Did they seem to be enjoying themselves?


Abraham Albert Heaps: So far as I could make out
they seemed to be enjoying the play. So I want to say that in the city of Toronto both the humble and the rich can enjoy something in the way of free speech.
The question has been asked in the house, particularly by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) as to who prevented the obtaining of a hall in which to speak, or

at least the inference was that there was no interference by the police of Toronto in connection with the hiring of halls. I think in this instance the hon. member is not quite as fair as he usually is in regard to matters that come before the house.


George Reginald Geary: Is the hon. member aware
of the fact that the Labour Temple, which is controlled by the Labour movement, refused to allow a meeting of this nature to be held there ?


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is a difference between the owners of a hall of their own free will refusing to rent a hall for a meeting, and the chief of police or his representative going down to the owner of a hall and threatening him if a meeting is to be held there.


George Reginald Geary: That was not done.


John Vallance: During the time the
hon. member was in the theatre, was he the guest of one of the Toronto members?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I certainly was. May I say
in answer to the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) that I will give him an incident with which I was personally connected. I was asked to speak at a certain hall in Toronto and before the hall was allowed to be used, the police went down to the hall and threatened the owners that if it was used for a meeting at which I was to speak, they would suffer as a consequence. In addition to that, when they defied the police and held the meeting in the hall, policemen actually came there to see what was going on, whether it was a peaceable meeting, I suppose, or otherwise. Strange as it may appear, when the police arrived at the hall where the meeting was taking place, the gentleman who happened to be speaking that night was none other than Controller Simpson of Toronto. I do not know who was more surprised, the police when they walked in and saw Controller Simpson, who was speaking, or Controller Simpson who was on the platform and saw the police walk in. I have been informed by people who have tried to obtain public halls for meetings of the Labour group, or the Independent group ot those who think along our lines, that it is impossible to hire a hall in Toronto on account of the intimidation of the police force of that city. When I spoke there not long ago in the Labour Temple, I was told that before they held the meeting they attempted to get a bigger hall than the Labour Temple, but they were not able to get it for the very reasons I have mentioned.

Criminal Code-Unlawful Assembly


Jean-François Pouliot: Is the city of Toronto
not the holy city of modern times?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not know. I know of
only one city where I can see the holy cross lit lip in the evening, and that is the good city of Montreal.
We have, however, found the same form of intimidation taking place in other cities. I wish to say a word or two in reference to the bill itself. I do not know whether the bill as drafted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will altogether meet the situation. It is quite possible that in spite of what is stated in the bill, the police commission of any city may still have the power to prevent a meeting from taking place. I contend that no police officer or commission should have the right to prevent the holding of a meeting which is in its intent peaceful, which is called for the purpose of discussing public questions. This is what has happened in Toronto and possibly in other cities. I understand, although I have not the actual wording before me, that there is some difference between the wording of our criminal code and that of Great Britain in reference to unlawful assemblies. In our code there are certain words which give power to the authorities to prevent meetings from being held [DOT] if those authorities in their own minds believe such meetings will likely lead to breach of the peace.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: British tradition
has always held to the right, of free speech.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The British tradition of
free speech is well known to every hon. member. I was referring to the law in Great Britain and the law in this country. There is some difference in the wording in our law as compared with that of Great Britain. I think, however, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will be an improvement on what we have at the present time. It may to a certain extent take away from the police some of the powers which they have been using in the way of preventing the free expression of thought in Toronto as well as in other parts of Canada. For that reason I wish to support the bill as introduced by my colleague.


Samuel Factor: I really did not intend to speak on
this question, but I feel that the reputation of Toronto is at stake and I thought as the Toronto representation on this side is numerically small, hon. members opposite would rise to the occasion and defend the fair name of that city. I understand the hon.
member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) did cany out that duty fairly well the last time the bill was before the house.
In the first place I should like to make this general observation that so far as the internal administration of the police department is concerned, we have in Toronto a very efficient chief of police. Crime is at its lowest ebb in Toronto, and that city is no haven of refuge for any criminal. A great deal of the credit for this is due to the chief of police, and to the fact that there is a very efficient board of police commissioners. I do think, however, in all seriousness that the chief of police and the police commission made a very serious error on the question of free speech, in the first place in assuming that the communists in Toronto are a considerable force. I recall speaking to one of the communists before the election, and he told me that the communist party, which consists of about seven individuals, more or less, could not have got the same amount of publicity that they got by reason of the actions of the Toronto police if they had paid thousands of dollars for it. I really believe that the chief of police and the police commission of Toronto are not in touch with the feelings of the great mass of the people on this question. May I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am not a communist myself, although perhaps communism as an economic theory may be a proper subject for- debate even in this house. Certainly I am not in favour of the adoption of methods of force to advance any theory. I want to assure the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis), who has cited some correspondence that passed between the chief electoral officer and the communist candidate in Toronto West Centre, who obtained two hundred odd votes in the last election, that I spoke in the same manner as the hon. member himself tried to speak. I attended different meetings and the police never tried to stop me from speaking in the last campaign, nor do I think they tried to stop the gentleman who represented the communist party when he was discussing questions of policy or the economic theories that he held. Only when he attempted to abuse and slander the police force of Toronto was he stopped, and I think rightly stopped, by the police.
The police commission, I think, also made a very serious error in adopting a policy of intimidating the owners of various halls and public buildings. The fact is-I must admit it even if I do come from Toronto-that there is difficulty in renting a hall for any man who wants to express ideas in Toronto that are not shared by the majority of the

Criminal Code-Unlawful Assembly
people of that city-ideas that may be considered advanced or radical. I know that the answer of the police is that the owners of the halls are free to rent their halls if they like, but the difficulty is that the chief of police sends around his emissaries to warn the owners that if they do not refrain from renting the hall to men who the police think will advance such ideas, the licence for the coming year will not be renewed, and I presume it is only human nature for any owner of a hall not to rent it after a diplomatic and tactful hint of that kind from the police.
I think that the city of Toronto has got an unenviable reputation by reason of the actions of the police in this matter during the last year or eighteen months. I do not think that the amendment offered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will cure the situation at all. As a matter of fact the first part of this amendment, that "nothing in this section shall restrict or interfere with the right of all persons peacefully to assemble for the purpose of discussing or hearing any discussion upon any matter of public interest" is the law now. Anyone in Toronto can discuss any matter of public interest if he keeps within the law. Of course the difficulty that is created by the authorities in Toronto is due to their interpretation of what is within the law; in other words, the police authorities assume that because a person is notorious as a radical or holds advanced ideas, anything he might say will not be within the law; and that is where the trouble comes in. But under the law as it stands now, any matter of public interest can be discussed in this country, including the city of Toronto.
The rest of the section, which leaves it to "firm and reasonable persons" to decide what is likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace is a rather curious piece of proposed legislation, in my humble opinion because, in the first place, a "firm and reasonable person," if there be such, is not defined, and before this firm and reasonable person will be able to define what is likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace the breach will be committed, and then there will be no need for any definition. I really believe that the amendment offered will not cure the situation at all.
I think that the fault lay entirely with our police commission, and that the time is soon commg when the entire functions of the police commission will perhaps have to be changed. The personnel of the police commission is changing or soon will change, and with that change I think that the police force of the city of Toronto, including the chief of police, will assume a reasonable attitude and frame

of mind on this question. I do not think that there is anything wrong with the law as it stands, so far as even the city of Toronto is concerned. I believe that the police force in Toronto misinterpreted the law with the result that a handful of communists received a lot of publicity, and with the further result that a great number of people such as the hon. gentlemen in the group to my left were refused permission to speak in the city. I do not know whether that was harmful to the country or not, considering the number of speeches that I have heard in this house from the group to my left. I do want to say, however, that the gentlemen in the corner to my left certainly have no monopoly on political morality or political integrity or freedom of speech. It is unfortunate that some of these gentlemen came to Toronto and could not get a hall to speak in, but I want to assure them, in conclusion, that so far as the city of Toronto is concerned the majority of our people still believe in freedom of speech and still practise freedom of speech, and the time is soon coming when our police will assume a fair and reasonable attitude on this question.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It appears from the discussion we have had on this bill that it is altogether misnamed. It is not an act to amend the criminal code regarding unlawful assemblies at large, but merely an act to amend the criminal code regarding unlawful assemblies in Toronto, and therefore I think that if the hon. gentlemen in the corner want to achieve their purpose they should amend the proposed subsection 4 by adding words which will make it read thus:
Nothing in this section shall restrict or interfere with the right of all persons peacefully to assemble in Toronto for the purpose of discussing or hearing any discussion.
The latter part of the subsection should be amended to read as follows:
Such persons when so assembled in Toronto shall not become an unlawful assembly unless firm and reasonable persons from outside Toronto decide otherwise.
Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not rise to abuse the good city of Toronto, but rather to say a word in its favour, which is very unusual for a Liberal member, especially one coming from the province of Quebec. I may say, and this will be no news to many hon. members, that communist assemblies or meetings have also been prohibited in Montreal because in the past they have become unruly. Meetings were prevented because the speeches delivered had in such a way excited the audience that a veri-

Criminal Code-Unlawful Assembly
table riot resulted. The speech had to be stopped or harm might have resulted. The trouble I find in the proposed legislation is that it is not so muoh a piece of legislation as a literary opinion on the subject of free speech. The bill is very vague in its terms. For instance, who is to decide when persons are peacefully assembled for the purpose of discussing any matter? Many people who appear to be peaceful at eight o'clock are not so peaceful at ten or half past ten. Such communistic speakers as any hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) will rise and, in the most polished language to which one could listen, -Will make a speech which would lead one to believe that they were advocating peace, but if one listened for an hour or so he would find that the remarks had taken a different trend. I submit therefore, that if the hon. member has it in mind to promote the cause of free speech, he does not help it by the proposed section. Its terms are so vague that it seems to me still to leave to the discretion of the police the determination of the question whether or not an assembly is peaceful.
Then the expression is used: "in the opinion of firm and reasonable persons." In my opinion the wording should be more precise. By "firm and reasonable persons" does the hon. member refer to members of the Progressive party? Or does he refer to members of parties representing other sections of our population? In any case I repeat that discretion is left to that person to decide whether a meeting should or should not take place.
Certainly I stand for free speech, and on occasions when I am ruled against by Mr. Speaker, and more often by Mr. Deputy Speaker, I feel that nobody should interfere with any speech. At the same time I know from experience in the city of Montreal that some of the meetings which have been stopped should never have been started. I speak not necessarily from a communistic standpoint but from the standpoint of peace and the avoiding of trouble. I am afraid if this bill passes it will do nothing to alter present conditions. Because of the vagueness of its terms the question whether or not a meeting is peaceful, in the opinion of "firm and reasonable persons", is still left to the discretion of some person in authority. These are matters which cannot be determined by statute, but will always reside within the discretion of those charged with the maintenance of law and order not, only in the city of Toronto but in every city of the Dominion.
Mr. WOOI >S WO R TII:	Mr. Speaker, I
regret that the whole burden of this legislation should have fallen upon my-


Mr. SPEAKER:: If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre speaks he will close the debate. I suggest that if other hon. members wish to speak they should do so now.


Samuel William Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, I ask your permission to cite the section of the law which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) wishes to include in the criminal code as an amendment to a section which already exists. The addition suggested is as follows:
Nothing in this section shall restrict or interfere with the right of all persons peacefully to assemble for the purpose of discussing or hearing anv discussion upon any matter ot public interest, and such persons when so assembled shall not become an unlawful assembly merely by reason of speeches made to them or discussion carried on by them unless the general nature and character of such speeches or discussions would be likely, in the opinion of firm and reasonable persons, to cause ail immediate breach of the peace.
I understand my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre is not a lawyer. Although undoubtedly he is actuated by the very best motives, I would suggest to him that the insertion of this section as a part of our law, instead of helping the cause which he so earnestly advocates, would set it back. He would be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. The question w'ho would be a firm and reasonable person" is a matter which would have to be decided by a jury. Lawyers do not often meet firm and reasonable persons.


Mr. McMILLAN:: (Huron): Do firm and reasonable persons meet lawyers?


Samuel William Jacobs: Perhaps my good friend
from Winnipeg North Centre in his daily vocation meets firm and reasonable persons. I have no doubt he does. It is possible that this phrase has been suggested to him on the principle that "to the pure everything is pure." I would suggest to him that the bill is not properly drawn; it is not drawn according to the rules usually applied in cases of this kind. If I may judge from the earnest argument of my hon. friend from South Toronto 'Mr. Geary) there is no interference with those who wish to avail themselves of the right of free speech. According to his statement anybody who has anything to say may go to Toronto and while there express his opinion freely. We are told that the
Unemployment-Mr. Maclnnis

police and police commissioners sit or stand by, as the case may be, to gain general information. The newspapers however do not give the same account as that given by my hon. friend from Toronto. In the newspapers we have read for the last six months that people exercising the right of free speech have been molested in their attempt to disseminate their notions. For instance the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), as mild mannered a man as ever scuttled a ship or cut a throat-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Samuel William Jacobs: -has been interfered with. My fair friend, the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) was not allowed to lift her voice in the city of Toronto. To my mind the fact that she was not allowed to speak constituted a very ungallant act on the part of the police. When she is talking in the House of Commons and I am having my tea in my room I rush down to the chamber, regardless of my tea, and avail myself of the opportunity of listening to her. She always has something of interest to say, and she says it in a breezy manner not characteristic of all hon. members of the house. When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre delivers his daily


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hour for the discussion of private and public bills having expired, the house will revert to the motion to go into supply.



SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT STATEMENT OF MR. NEILL ON MOTION OF MR. GUTHRIE FOR THE MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the statement of Mr. Neill on the motion of Mr. Guthrie (for the Minister of Finance) that the house go into committee of supply.
['It stands.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Guthrie the house adjourned at 10.56 p.m.\nWednesday, May 27, 1931']
Angus MacInnis: When the house rose at six o'clock I was quoting from a letter sent by the city of Vancouver to the Minister of Labour for British Columbia. This letter was addressed to the Minister of Labour, Hon. W. A. McKenzie, and shows the very serious situation in regard to unemployment in the city of Vancouver. It says:
To meet these cases there are no funds provided at present from any source, and as explained to your committee, the city's financial situation will not allow Vancouver to carry fMr. Jacobs.l
this burden. In fact, it will be most difficult for the city to carry on its ordinary relief to the indigent sick and aged. These facts constitute a situation most grave and serions. During the past winter the city has carried some thousands of unemployed who have drifted into Vancouver from other parts of Canada and British Columbia.
Then he goes on to say:
The council trust that the governments will realize the most serious nature of the situation which now exists, and of the inability of the of the city to adequately cope with it, even on the present basis. The situation will be greatly aggravated upon the exhaustion of the government direct relief fund, about April 24. It is recognized that the problem is national in extent, and also that industry can be stimulated and encouraged by the Dominion and provincial governments only. It is therefore urged that these bodies establish immediate and effective means to deal with the situation as outlined herein.
This communication asks the provincial and federal governments to call a conference to discuss the unemployment situation throughout Canada, and it is dated March 31 of this year.- I also have here a report from the relief officer to the relief committee under date of May 9, 1931, in which the following appears:
I regret to have to place before you the continued serious condition of unemployment in this city. In place of the usual seasonal improvement during March there appears to have been an actual decrease in the number of workers employed in the city during the month. . . .
These conditions were reflected in the figures and expenditures of the relief department. Since April 1st the married unemployed eases have increased by 269, and now total 1,346, a number larger than any shown during the past winter.
I ask hon. members of the house and of the government to take particular notice of this statement, that on April 1st the number of married unemployed on direct relief was 1,346, a larger number than any shown during the past winter. This was at a time when we were told conditions were improving, and when in the usual course of events we would have expected them to improve. The report continues:
The aged and handicapped have also had greater difficulty in finding light and occasional work, and in obtaining assistance from their relatives. This fact has increased the number of people on general relief.
That is the general tendency during a long period of unemployment with the reduced wages now in effect in almost every industry and with the part time work, with the employees dividing up their work in order that more people may be kept employed, the workers are becoming increasingly impoverished

Unemployment

Mr. Heaps
and it is more difficult to lend assistance to others who may be more unfortunate. I quote further:
The present situation shows that the council's forecast was only too correct. The city's inability to cope with the situation is even more pronounced to-day than on March 28th.
I would therefore recommend that the strongest possible representations be made in order to convince the governments of the need for prompt and effective action.
Last September, immediately after the general election, the government called a special session of parliament to deal with the situation, thus fulfilling a promise given during the election. At that session the 1930 Unemployment Relief Act was passed. There was some criticism of the way the money was expended under that act, but at this time I do not wish to offer any criticism of that kind. I believe the government, considering the short time at their disposal to formulate a policy, did the very best they possibly could under the circumstances, and I think they should receive-as I believe they have received-due credit for what they did. Now, however, we are facing a situation which is even more serious than that we were facing last September, and the government now have had considerable time to formulate a better policy to take care of unemployment. If something is not done in the very near future, then I feel not only that criticism will be in order but that we should be negligent in our duty if we refrained from offering it.
In connection with the 1930 unemployment relief fund, however, and the way it has affected and further complicated the situation, I should like to quote from a telegram I received from the Vancouver civic employees' union. This is a union of the outside workers of Vancouver, who were engaged in the work on which this money was spent. The telegram is addressed to myself, and is as follows:
I am instructed to advise you of the following resolution passed by the largest meeting of civic employees ever held in Vancouver:
Whereas the operation of the Unemployment Relief Act of 1930 has resulted in a large number of permanent civic employees being laid off on account of their work having been done by relief labour under the terms of the aforementioned act, which called upon the municipality to match dollar for dollar: and
Whereas many more will be laid off this summer as a direct result of said act, the money previously provided to keep them employed having been used for relief;
Be it resolved that this union strongly condemn this act and request you to bring the results as they apply to us to the notice of the government and if possible read this wire
in the house, and also to request that relief moneys in the future be provided by the government on the basis of the number of unemployed in each locality and not on the basis of their ability to match dollar for dollar.
The position in which the permanent employees of the city of Vancouver find themselves at the present moment is that the funds usually provided to keep men employed during the year have been used in order to meet the funds granted by this government, and therefore these men are no longer employed. So the city not only has the ordinary unemployed "o look after, but in addition there are six or seven hundred of their permanent staff for whom provision must be made.
I would urge upon the government, therefore, that they give immediate and serious consideration at least to the calling of a conference, if they have not something better with which to meet the situation, in order that we may have a full understanding of the seriousness of the unemployment conditions throughout this Dominion, and make provision for meeting them.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I
had hoped that some member of the government would rise in his place and explain to the house and the country what action the government have in mind to cope with the very serious unemployment situation which prevails at the present time. There is no doubt whatever that even during these summer months there exists in Canada an unemployment situation the like of which I have never known at this time of year. Consequently there is need for immediate action of some kind on the part of the government, first of all to allow the municipalities to do something, to acquaint the provincial governments with any contemplated action, and also to give at least some hope to the thousands of men and women who find themselves out of work.
Already some hon. members who have spoken have dealt with the unemployment situation in their own localities, and perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I might give a picture of conditions as they existed in Winnipeg just a few weeks ago. It was shown according to the table I have under my hand, published by a committee of citizens, that in the greater Winnipeg area there were 18,893 persons out of work. These with their families represented a total of 56,682 people. In other words, probably more than twenty per cent of the total population of the greater Winnipeg area is out of work, and I believe most of them
Unemployment-Mr. Heaps

are also in want. Coming down to what are the prospects, this committee reports as follows:
Other than the jobs which will be undertaken as relief projects, there is no prospect of employment increase in sight. The jobs which will be started as soon as weather permits will employ in suburban municipalities . adjacent to Winnipeg, in the neighbourhood of 225 men.
The report proceeds:
The Winnipeg Citizens Committee on Unemployment, under the chairmanship of Mr. H. B. Shaw', addressed a letter to prominent persons at country points, enquiring as to the possibility of absorbing in agricultural pursuits the surplus labour in Winnipeg. Replies received were very pessimistic, and were generally to the effect that farmers would not be hiring men this season because of the general depression in the agricultural field, that farmers were satisfied that they would be unable to pay the wages of any men employed, and consequently that any crops put in would be put in by the farmer and his family.
Further on in the same report I find the following observation:
The committee has written a letter to every lumber firm that ordinarily operates in this vicinity, enquiring as to the employment prospects for the winter 1931-32, and the replies received would indicate that fewer men will be employed during the coming winter than were [DOT]employed during the past winter. In other words, instead of eight or ten thousand men it may be expected that there will be fewer than eight hundred men taken from Winnipeg's surplus labour market.
The report is signed by H. B. Shaw, chairman, Winnipeg citizens' committee on unemployment; by Ralph Maybank, chairman, joint unemployment committee, city of Winnipeg; and by A. MaeNamara, assistant deputy minister, and administrator of unemployment relief in Manitoba.
Only this morning I received a letter from the mayor of the city of Brandon, imploring me to do what I possibly could to assist him to obtain further relief for his city, and pointing out that there is a very serious unemployment situation in Brandon, and that they are in a position where they have great difficulty in coping with the large number of men out of work. He points out that the little work being carried out was being done by machinery and that very few men were actually employed.
It was pointed out in the report published by the Department of Labour that during the past winter, as a result of the special Unemployment Relief Act of 1930, 228,351 persons were given employment. It was also pointed out that almost 200,000 persons were in receipt of direct relief as a result of the operations of the act. My own computations on the

figures published by the Labour department would indicate that during the past winter approximately 350,000 people were given assistance either through work or directly in the way of food, clothing and shelter. That will give the house some indication of the seriousness of the unemployment situation which prevails throughout the Dominion.
I do not think the government will for a moment say that they have not got a responsibility in this matter. I was rather surprised when yesterday I heard the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gordon) who represents in this house the Minister of Labour, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr Neill) say that if the municipality and then the province could not deal with the situation the federal government would take action I had thought that by this time the federal government fully realized their responsibility and were prepared to take the initiative in coping with the existing situation. I appreciate the great difficulty that the government may have in attempting to find work for all those who are unemployed at the present time. I think it is well nigh impossible for the federal government and the provincial governments to provide anything like permanent employment for the vast numbers of the unemployed. But at the same time I am very anxious that the government let it be known what they intend to do in regard to the question, so that, as I said before, the unemployed, the municipalities and the provinces will at least know what is going to be done in the very near future.
I do not wish to enter into any long discussion as to why we have this unemployment situation. There is no doubt opportunities will present themselves as the session * progresses to discuss it from that particular angle. However, we have been asked by hon. gentlemen opposite on so many occasions: What have we to suggest by way of coping with the existing difficulties? May I say to those hon. gentlemen that first of all the government have to admit one thing, that they have no remedies themselves for the unemployment problem. The moment we have that admission that these so-called remedies of tariff adjustments are no remedies at all, we are prepared to deal with the question and offer our suggestions.
I should like to point out that what we are suffering from to-day is not a lack of production. In fact according to government figures during the period from 1920 to 1928 individual productivity in the Dominion increased by approximately 53 per cent. Therefore if we are to find any remedies we have to go

<S upply-A gric ult ure-Dairy in g
outside the remedies already suggested and find some other means of dealing with the problem. To-day we are living in an age of high production and comparatively low consumption, and in some way we have to relate our purchasing power-in other words our ability to consume-to out productive capacity. Whilst we have learned to produce in superabundance, there has been no opportunity given to the workers to allow them to consume the goods which they themselves have produced.
As I said a few minutes ago, I had hoped that on this occasion the acting Minister of Labour or some other member of the government would have risen in his place and stated to the house and to the country at large what is proposed to cope with the situation. I know it may be said to us that we are a little impatient. If we of the Labour group in this house and others are a little impatient in attempting to find out what the government intend to do to cope with the unemployment situation, our only answer would be to the effect that to-day there are hundreds of thousands of people walking our streets, not knowing where they can obtain work or other relief or where their next meal is coming from. It was pointed out by my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) a few moments ago when discussing another question, that only this morning in Winnipeg 1,500 men went down to try to obtain work where only 100 were wanted. Imagine the natural resentment of those people when they found a piece of modern machinery doing the work that ordinarily takes several hundred people to perform. The disappointment resulted in a little riot. No one wants to see these riots occur, but it is difficult to say what a desperate person will do when in a desperate situation.
In view of these circumstances I do not think we are asking anything unreasonable when we request the acting Minister of Labour or any other -hon. member of the government to rise in his place and state to the unemployed people of this country, men who are good citizens and who have wives and children depending upon them, men who do not know what the morrow is going to bring forth, the intentions of the government.
Many of the municipalities are not in a position to provide work out of their own resources. That is another problem which the federal government will have to consider and consider very seriously. Many municipalities are almost on the verge of bankruptcy; they have very- limited borrowing powers and very limited sources of revenue, and when we ask them to assume one-third of the cost
of relief work in many instances we are putting a burden upon them which it is almost impossible for them to bear. I hope that in any proposal which the government submit to this house they do not ask the municipalities, and particulary those of western Canada, to assume one-third of the cost of relief work, the other two-thirds to be assumed by the provinces and by the federal government. This government should assume from 50 to 66J per cent of the cost, and unless something of that nature is done I have grave doubts as to whether the municipalities will be in a position to undertake any active relief work. I sincerely hope that before this debate is concluded some member of the government will rise in his place and state what is the attitude of the government towards this question, which I believe to be the most important question to be faced by parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Dairying, including grant of $5,000 to National Dairy Council, $295,000.
Mr. BROWN:: Mr. Chairman, before we
enter into a discussion of the details of these estimates I would like to have an opportunity of saying a few words in a general way, particularly as to the point of view from which we are to discuss these estimates. It will be recalled that on a former occasion, speaking to an amendment to the motion that the house go into supply. I quoted from a speech the Prime Minister had made at Woodstock in which he promised to put all the collective power of the government behind agriculture. It is from that point of view that I wish to discuss these estimates, to see just how far they fulfil that promise. In replying to me the Prime Minister referred to these estimates, and if I may be permitted, I will quote his remarks, as follows:
What struck me as passing strange was that the hon. member for Lisgar should complain that someone in England was no longer to be continued in his position, although the estimates for agriculture contain a much larger sum than had been used heretofore for the very purposes he mentioned. Did he look at the estimates himself? Did he see what the provisions are for agriculture? Did he compare them with last year or the year before? Did he see evidences of the very earnest desire of the minister to put into effect the policy he advocates?

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
Not only by implication but by direct statement the Prime Minister gave the house to understand that these estimates represented the implementing of the promises he had made to put the collective powers of the government behind agriculture.
I want to remind the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) that it is from that point of view that we intend to-night to discuss the question whether or not these estimates fulfil the promises made by the Prime Minister. That is what we are interested in. We are not interested in the educational qualifications or the former political affiliations of the minister, although we are somewhat interested in his present political affiliations. W'hen the minister accepted the invitation of the Prime Minister to enter his cabinet he thereby accepted responsibility for the fulfilling of the pledges .made by the Prime Minister during the election. If he has given any attention to the development of constitutional government in British countries he will know that under our doctrine of cabinet solidarity the ministers are individually and collectively responsible for the policies of the government. It is the consideration of that point of view that I want to urge upon the committee.
I should like to glance briefly at the estimates in general before we discuss them in detail. The Prime Minister pointed out that the increase in these estimates amounted to $414,564.64. There are seventeen items, six of which show increases and five of which show decreases. The largest increases are shown in the following items: experimental farms, an increase of $175,000; assistance to fairs and exhibitions, including the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, an increase of $650,000; grant to the executive committee of the World's. Grain Congress, an increase of $100,000. The increase in these three items totals $925,000, and yet the net increase in all the items amounts to only $414,564.64, showing that in some of the other important items there must be a considerable decrease. It will be a matter of interest to the committee if in the discussion of these estimates in detail the Minister of Agriculture can Show us what has been done to implement the promise made by the Prime Minister in his speech at Woodstock that he would put the collective power of the government behind agriculture. That is all I wish to say at the moment. No doubt as the various estimates come before the committee, I shall have further remarks to make.


Edward James Young: I notice in this item No. 107 a $5,000 grant to the National Dairy Council. I am opposed to that grant. The National Dairy Council, I understand, was formed some years ago for the purpose of assisting dairy farmers on the road to prosperity. The original conception may have been all right, but the association was unfortunate in the choice of its officers. The direction of its affairs fell into the hands of men who were so barren of original ideas as to how to help the dairy farmer that they could think of nothing other than to persuade him to ask the government for higher duties on his products. So the National Dairy Council became nothing but an organization to propagate Tory doctrines, to lead the farmer to believe that in some way a higher duty on butter or other dairy products would be of benefit to him. They so far succeeded in their propaganda that they persuaded many farmers last summer to support the present government. They have been successful in getting from the present government the higher duties on dairy products; in fact they have got twice as much as they asked for. Now we know the result; now the farmer realizes that he has been led up a blind alley, that he has been deceived by this association which promised him better things if he would but vote for the Tory party and platform.
I am opposed on principle to the use of money out of the public treasury for the carrying on of political propaganda, I care not what party or policy it supports. The men who have been leaders of the National Dairy Council and, through that council, leaders of the farmers' movement, have proved themselves to be blind leaders of the blind. They are no longer worthy of the confidence of the farmers and we have no right to grant public money to them to carry on their propaganda. Therefore I move that the item be reduced by $5,000, being the amount of a grant to the National Dairy Council.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: I think in going over these estimates hon. members will realize that except in respect to two or three particular lines I have made as few changes as possible from the estimates of other years. I felt that those who had been in office for a number of years would be in a better position, except where I had very definite reasons for making a change, to decide how money should be expended, than I would be with only a few months' experience. For years, I understand, this vote of $5,000 has been given to the

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
National Dairy Council in the belief that from the way it is constituted it was representative of the dairy interests and of the distributors. I can assure the hon, member who has just spoken that ait the expiration of this financial year, if I do not feel that the National Dairy Council contributes something really worth while to the dairy industry, I shall be the first to see that this vote is left out. At the present time, however, in view of the statement I have made and the reasons I have for leaving it in, I feel that ithe vote should remain as it is.


Mr. GOTT:: I would like to say to the
Minister of Agriculture that one recommendation made by the National Dairy Council of Canada has meant thousands upon thousands of dollars to the onion growers of Essex county.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Eccles James Gott: Hon. gentlemen opposite laugh. That shows they have not the slightest conception of the onion industry in Canada. Let me tell them that last year we grew 23.000 acres of onions in Essex and Kent counties. Now let me hear them laugh. Whether I know my onions or not, I want to say this about the industry: two yeaTS ago United States onions came into Canada at a low rate of duty, and our farmers in the spring of the year were forced to dump several carloads of onions. A year ago, through the recommendation of the National Dairy Council of Canada, the Minister of National Revenue took occasion to protect onions, and last winter-


Thomas McMillan: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is not discussing the item under consideration.


Eccles James Gott: I am discussing the item more closely than the hon. member ever discussed an item in his life. Last winter in Essex and Kent counties we sold 320.000 bags of onions, due to the fact that the National Dairy Council of Canada recommended to the government-


Thomas McMillan: I rise to a point of order.


Eccles James Gott: Just sit down for a moment.


The CHAIRMAN:: I would ask the hon.
member to resume his seat. A point of order is raised.


Thomas McMillan: The point of
order is that the hon. member is not discussing the item before us.


Eccles James Gott: No other member gets further away from an item under discussion than the hon. member who has just raised the point of order. I am discussing the item of So.000 appropriated for the National Dairy Council of Canada. Through their recommendation the onion growers of Essex and Kent counties last year moved and sold their onions, a thing which they had been unable to do during the previous year.


Thomas McMillan: Mr. Chairman, there is a point of order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I understand the hon.
member for South Essex is connecting his onions with the National Dairy Council. Otherwise he would not be in order.


Eccles James Gott: Since I have been in the house I have never seen the hon. member for South Huron in order. I realize it is my duty as *the sitting member for Essex county to say to the Minister of Agriculture that the onion growers of Essex and Kent counties appreciate this S5,000 expenditure.


Mr. DUFF:: There seems to be a dispute
as to what this item covers. Will the minister tell us what the item of S295.000 was spent for last year? Then we shall find out whether the hon. member for South Essex or the hon. member for South Huron is in order.


Robert Weir: Some of this vote will be spent in the administration of the branch, and the greater part of it in the payment of inspectors in different parts of the country, both butter inspectors and cheese inspectors.


Mr. YENIOT:: Any onion inspectors?


Robert Weir: Some of it will be spent on research work in the dairy industry, and some will be spent on advertising to encourage people in the use of milk and butter and dairy products in various forms.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: How much money was spent in the province of Quebec for the cheese and butter inspectors, and where are they located?


Robert Weir: In the city of Montreal we have seventeen dairy produce graders, and two in the province of Quebec otheT than Montreal.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What are the salaries of these inspectors?


Robert Weir: In Montreal one
receives $3,240, and there are fifteen at $2,760, and one grade 2 inspector at $2,580. The

199S

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
travelling expenses for the Montreal officials amount to $2,000. For the, province of Quebec other than Montreal we have one dairy produce grader, grade 2, at $2,760, another at S2,520, and travelling expenses SKI.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Have any changes been made in this staff since the month of August last?


Robert Weir: Not that I know of.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The same men are still there?


Robert Weir: So far as I know.


John Vallance: The minister has said that as few changes were made as possible, and he also stated in answer to the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay that the salaries of the dairy produce graders are included in this vote of $295,000. In this connection I should like to invite the attention of the committee to an article that appeared in all the western papers in the form of a despatch from Ottawa dated May 8th last, dealing with the agricultural policy of this government. I think there will be no more propitious time than the present to quote from this article. I shall not read it all, because in the beginning it deals principally with the, speech that was made by the Minister of Agriculture some time ago in this house. It says in part: Ottawa, Ont., May 8.-Mr. Weir is of a nervous temperament and his friends were anxious over his first effort to address parliament. For weeks he had been subjected to sniping and the most cowardly attacks from such members as Donnelly of Willow Bunch. Vallance of North Battleford and Young of Weyburn, culminating in an offensive attack by Hon. W. R. Motherwell.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Vallance: Perhaps hon. gentlemen will say "hear, hear," before I get through. The article continues:
The former Minister of Agriculture never was noted for refinement, but in his references to Mr. Weir he was more coarse than ever before in methods and manners.
The new Minister of Agriculture caught the ear of the house from the start. He showed no mercy for Premier King or Mr. Motherwell or Saskatchewan Liberals. Mr. Weir was not only justified in his' attack through the attitude of previous Liberal speakers, but he has a task as great almost as the Prime Minister's.
Perhaps hon. gentlemen will say, "hear, hear," now:
There never has been a department in Ottawa so incompetent, in such a state of inefficiency and disorganization as agriculture when W. R. Motherwell left it. The department was and still is inefficiently manned, permeated with intrigue, jealousies and incompetence. Mr. Motherwell gave no thought to agriculture. 
I read that for the benefit of the farmers of Canada.
He was a political minister. When exports fell off, he said in excuse the people at home were eating more. There was no attempt to grade beef, butter or similar products for export.
Then why this item of $295,000? I should like the minister to explain that. The. article continues:
It was under these conditions that Mr. W7eir took office. He had scarcely a competent official, and many were disloyal to him. He did not tell the whole story last night, but on his estimates parliament will receive further information on the decrepit department left by Mr. Motherwell.
We want to receive that information tonight. It goes on:
There will also be a further elaboration on Mr. Weir's new departures in agricultural production and marketing.
I have glanced through these estimates and I see no very radical changes from last year. I hope before the Minister of Agriculture gets through, and I do not suppose he will get through to-night, that he will either confirm or refute these statements that have permeated the west regarding the condition of the - Department of Agriculture, because those of us who are deeply interested in agriculture do not believe they are true. I know a great many of the officials of the department and have met them on various committees, and I know that they are very competent and very efficient. I think they need more in the way of commendation than condemnation. I do not think it is fair either to the Minister of Agriculture or to his officials that these statements should be allowed to go out all over Canada unrefuted.


Ernest Lapointe: 
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: The hon. member
for Weyburn has made the same remarks regarding the vote for the National Dairy Council as he did last year, and consequently is quite consistent in his attitude. If I am to be consistent with my attitude of that day I must oppose my hon. friend from Weyburn.
I find myself in the first round favouring the attitude of the minister that this is a good vote, and so long as the National Dairy Council performs as good service as it has done in the past on behalf of dairying it will receive my support.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
I would ask the minister if the total of $9.515,343.44, which appears in the column for 1930-31, includes the supplementaries voted early in the session.


Robert Weir: No.


William Richard Motherwell: As a rule the supplementaries that are passed at the beginning of the session are added to the old vote of last year because the expenditure was incurred last year. I think the minister is wrong; perhaps he may not have understood my question.


Robert Weir: If the hon. gentleman means the supplementaries that were put through at the beginning of this session-


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Robert Weir: I understand that
they are not included.


William Richard Motherwell: They should be included. In that case there would be a less rote this year than last year.


Robert Weir: A greater vote. The supplementary estimates voted at the beginning of this session, I am Informed, are in addition to this.


William Richard Motherwell: But they were spent last year.


Robert Weir: They are in addition to what is here.


William Richard Motherwell: In addition to this
$9,515,343.44?


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: But that money was spent last year and consequently the vote for this year is just about $100,000 less than that of last year. Perhaps the hon. member has not done justice to himself. Undoubtedly his deputy knows what I am getting at. In the supplementary estimates passed at the beginning of each session to take care of expenditures already incurred, as in the case of the health of animals branch, for which there was an appropriation of $300,000, such sums are invariably added to the vote of the year in which the moneys were spent. However we will let the matter stand at present.


Robert Weir: I think the hon.
member is right. The supplementary vote at the beginning of this session is not included in the amount set out in the main estimates, so that as stated by the hon. member it will be considered as an expenditure of last year. The vote for last year will therefore be higher than it appears on the information before us.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, that is what
I am trying to say. My hon. friend has produced an estimate, then, which is smaller than that of last year, rather than greater, as would appear from the main estimates. I think my hon. friend is wrong and has done himself an injustice. In order that he may settle the matter with his deputy I will not press it further at this time.
There is another matter which I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members. During the late election campaign the butter question was discussed everywhere, and to my mind the time has arrived for a review of the situation concerning that particular commodity. I shall not, however, go into the matter very extensively to-night. Hon. members 'opposite led the people to believe that because of the action of the Liberal government the dairy industry was on the toboggan. What is the. proper yardstick by which to measure a dairy industry? Is it the amount of blitter made, or the amount of cheese made? Is it any one of fifteen or twenty other dairy products? No; I suggest we should use the yardstick of the number of pounds of milk produced in a given year. To my mind that is the only proper measurement. It does not matter what the farmer converts the milk into. He may use it to produce any commodity he wishes, or any form which he can derive the greatest amount of money. I wonder if the minister has the data concerning the number of pounds of milk produced. If he has not, I may tell him that I have the figures before me. For the information of hon. members I shall give the committee a general survey of the milk production from 1922 to the present. I shall not attempt to be absolutely accurate, but will merely give the round figures. In 1922 nearly ten billions pounds of milk were produced from the dairy cows of Canada. In 1923, eleven billion pounds were produced; in 1924, twelve billion; in 1925, twelve billion, five hundred million; in 1926, thirteen billion; in 1927, fourteen billion; in 1928. fourteen billion; in 1929, fourteen billion. In the last two years there was a slight falling off in production, amounting to only a few million pounds. These figures show an increase of over four billion pounds or 40 per cent in the production of milk in Canada during the nine years of Liberal administration. That is a different story from the one told by hon. members opposite in the province of British Columbia and throughout the maritimes in the election campaign.


Ernest Lapointe: And in Quebec.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying


William Richard Motherwell: The people would not listen to our story; we could not get it across. My hon. friends opposite were in the field twelve months ahead of us and they 'had been successful in filling the minds of the public with their views in the matter. At this date, after the election everybody seems to be satisfied with the result,-something which to my mind is most extraordinary.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friends on this side of the house are quite satisfied, but I am not sure that my hon. friends opposite are satisfied. It would be quite natural, of course, if they were. The figures I have placed on record represent a 40 per cent increase in the production of milk in Canada. I wonder if the minister's figures agree with mine in this respect, because if they do the talk during the election campaign goes up the flue-there is nothing to it. Even in connection with butter the production became greater.


Mr. TUMMON:: Is it a fact that about the year 1029 the figures concerning the production of milk in Canada were changed?


William Richard Motherwell: I am not under examination, but if my hon. friend wishes to put me in-


William Ernest Tummon: I have asked whether the figures Showing the total production of milk in Canada for the years 1927, 1928 and 1929 were changed just before the last election in order to produce the figures now placed on Hansard by the hon. member.


William Richard Motherwell: The figures I have quoted are official and are those of the dairy branch based upon elaborate and expensive information supplied by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. I think if the deputy minister has his figures before him he will find they tally with those I have given. Of course I expected hon. members to have an alibi, but I had expected a better one than that which has been given by the hon. member for South Hastings.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. McINTOSH:: Let us have the correct figures.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Let the minister answer for himself.


Mr. TOTZKE:: There is some doubt in the minds of hon. members on the other side concerning the figures given by the hon. member for Melville. I suggest that the Minister of Agriculture give us the figures.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: There is an amendment before the committee, does the. committee wish to dispose of it?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We ought to have a statement from the minister so that we may find out whether the figures placed on record by the hon. member for Melville are correct.


Robert Weir: We have now before us a statement of the figures showing the production of milk for the years mentioned. I do not think the effect of legislation by the present government to assist the dairy industry will be questioned, so far as butter is concerned, by any hon. member on either side. Had it not been for the tariff we placed on butter what would have been the effect on receipts of the dairy farmers of Canada?
Mr. TOTZKE; What difference would it have made?


Edward James Young: What effect did it have?


Robert Weir: At the time the present government -came into power the prices of butter in Canada and the United States, London and Australia, were these: In Canada, 28 to 28.25 cents per pound; in the United States, 35.25 to 35.50 cents per pound.


Mr. DONNELLY:: What date is that?


Robert Weir: The beginning of
August.


James J. Donnelly: Is that the wholesale price?


Robert Weir: Yes, obtained from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, and the prices are on the same basis for each country.


James J. Donnelly: At what points in Canada were those prices quoted?


Edward James Young: Is the minister quoting the Montreal price or the New York price?


Robert Weir: The information we have is the average price of butter as recognized by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.


Edward James Young: The average for all the
countries?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying


Robert Weir: When the present government came into power the price in Canada was 28 to 28.25 cents per pound. At the same time the price of butter in the United States was 35.25 to 35.50 cents per pound, and in London, 28.64 to 29.08. On March 17, 1981, the price of butter in Canada was higher than the price in the United States and six cents higher than Australian butter.


Edward James Young: What are the figures?


Robert Weir: On March 17, 1931, the price of butter in Canada was 31 cents a pound, and in the United States, 29'75; Australian butter in London, 25-6 to 25-82. It was estimated, from the number of pounds of butter produced in Canada, having regard to the difference between this price and the price that would have been paid on the same basis, that this has put into the pockets of the farmers of Canada 82,000,000.


William Duff: What is the price in Canada
to-day?
Mr: WEIR (Melfort):	No one regrets
more than I do the rapid drop in the price of butter during a period of ten days, but the price of butter in Canada at the present time, due largely to some butter which is being shipped out-there are over 250,000 pounds on the ocean going to the old country-has risen from the low price on May 12 of 18-5 to 18-75 to a price to-day of 21 to 21-25, and the market is the firmest it has been since before the slide we all regret, which occurred some time ago.


William Richard Motherwell: Will the minister
tell the committee how long ago it was that the price of butter for export was as low as it is now? Was ;t before the war, or before the flood, or when was it?


Robert Weir: The effect on the
price of butter of the action of this government can be fairly arrived at only by a comparison with other countries on a London parity of the price of butter when we came into power and the price at the present time.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Chairman-


William Richard Motherwell: I agree with the
hon. gentleman to some extent-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would
like the floor for a moment; the hon. member for Melville cannot monopolize the discussion. I was on my feet first, and I claim the floor. I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if Canada is not to-day on an export basis for the first time in two years. Is it not also a fact that we did not make enough
butter to satisfy our own domestic requirements before this government came into power, and that under the late Minister of Agriculture we were eating Australian butter right up here in the parliamentary restaurant?


John Vallance: It is because people
cannot buy the butter that we are on the export basis.


James J. Donnelly: At page 1361 of Hansard for this session I find that the Minister of Agriculture said:
I am told by the dairy commissioner and by produce merchants that we have no Canadian butter sufficiently uniform as to grade to permit its being labelled and shipped to the old country as Canadian butter.
I wonder, if we are on an export basis, what has been done in order to get us on that basis. In the past has the butter not been properly graded and labelled? Have our inspectors and commissioners been neglecting their duty? What was wrong that Canada was not previously on this basis? Are we not able to make butter of good enough quality for export, or what?


Robert Weir: One of the reasons why the butter is not uniform is the number of very small creameries, where it is almost impossible to get it absolutely uniform because of the size of the creamery. We have an advantage in the west and also in the east in our larger creameries in getting a uniform brand. My statement was this, that the butter as produced in Canada is not sufficiently uniform for a national trade mark of any kind. The butter which is being shipped, I understand, is being selected in Montreal as uniformly as possible, for shipment to the old land.


James J. Donnelly: What is the minister
doing to see that it is made uniform? That is what I want to know.


Robert Weir: Inspectors are
carrying on the work and trying to encourage the smaller creameries to have their butter conform to the uniform standard we wish to have prevail.


John Livingstone Brown: We are being told now that we are on an export basis, and that is the reason for the low price of butter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


John Livingstone Brown: What is the idea, then, of mentioning the fact?


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I were a Presbyterian minister I would not talk like that.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying


John Livingstone Brown: My understanding of the
Statement of the minister was that we were on an export basis, which accounted for the low price of butter. All I can say is that when it was proposed to raise the duty on butter, many of us who objected to that step took the position that while it might temporarily benefit the farmer, it could not ultimately do so and that as soon as we got on an export basis we would have to take the export price. The only event out of the ordinary is that the result has come about a little sooner than we anticipated.


Mr. COOTE:: The farmer who is producing the cream is interested in the price of butter, but he is more interested in the price of butter fat. I have a letter here which I received to-day from my home town, in which my correspondent says that special cream sells for 20 cents at the creamery, and No. 1 churning cream at 16 cents. Based on these figures, he paid 30 cents a pound for creamery butter right where the butter is made. He says the creamery has an overrun of one-fifth, and based on the price of special cream-and all this is not special cream-that makes four cents. Then they charge the merchant five cents profit, and in turn he charges another five cents. This gives the farmer twenty cents as compensation for capital invested in land, buildings, feed, cattle, labour, bringing the cream to town and so on, while the creamery gets approximately nine cents and the merchant five cents, or a total of fourteen cents. If this pound of butter which my correspondent bought had been made from No. 1 cream instead of special cream on a basis of 16 cents per pound I think it would figure out in this way: Considering that one and one-sixth pounds of butter can be made from one pound of butter fat, this man would pay 35 cents for the one and one-sixth pounds of butter made from one pound of butter fat. Of course that would have to include the salt and water put in at the creamery. The farmer would get 16 cents for the pound of butter fat that went into the butter; the local merchant would get a profit of 5 cents, and that would leave 14 cents to the creamery. In other words, there would be a total of 19 cents to the creamery and the retailer, while 16 cents would go to the producer for the pound of butter fat.
The reason I am bringing these figures before the committee to-night is that I may ask the minister whether this vote of $295,000 for dairying can be used in some way to help the farmer get a larger share of what

the people of Canada are paying for their butter. I think that is the real work before our dairy branch at the present time. It does not do the farmer much good to have the price of butter raised-if that were possible-if that increase is not reflected back to him in the price of cream. I should be very glad to have the minister give us some information in regard to this matter and tell us whether there is anything his department could do to see that the price received for butter fat more nearly approximates the price the people of Canada are paying for creamery butter.


Alfred Speakman: Just in confirmation of what the hon. member has said, I may say that I received a letter from one of the members of the Alberta house, a man with some intelligence and some knowledge of the country, who gave me a list of prices of various commodities. This letter was written on May 21. He says that butter fat had just fallen to a new low of 14 cents a pound for No. 1, which is 2 cents lower than the price mentioned. One of the most essential parts of the work that could be done by this branch of the Department of Agriculture would be to see if it is not possible to diminish the spread that exists between the price of butter fat on the one hand and of butter on the other. As has been said, it is not the price of butter that concerns the farmer, for nearly all the butter consumed to-day is made in the creameries; it is the price he receives from the creameries, and it is obvious that at 14 cents a pound for butter fat, even with the low price of feed, he cannot produce it at a profit.


Robert Weir: The manufacture of butter by creameries is, I take it, a provincial matter. I assume that the figures quoted are for the production of butter from cooperative creameries.


Edward James Young: The minister 'a minute ago gave us the prices quoted for butter on May 12 and to-day. Would he be kind enough to give us the corresponding figures for the United States and'the United Kingdom on the same dates?


Robert Weir: I have not those figures here.


George Gibson Coote: May I point out to the minister that the figures which I quoted refer to prices paid by the Burns Creamery at Nanton, not by a cooperative creamery. It seems to me that the Department of Agriculture might interest itself in such a ques-

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
tion, because after all there is no use increasing the production of butter fat unless the farmer can get a bigger share out of it than he is getting at the present time.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I noticed a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. minister said nobody was more sorry than himself for the drop in butter prices. But he gave the excuse that the price of butter in Canada compares fairly well with the price in other countries, although in reply to a subsequent question from the member for Weyburn he was not able to quote exact figures. May I point out to the minister that his language is hardly consistent with the language of his friends during the last electoral campaign. The fact that he is sorry for the drop in the price of butter does not prevent the price from dropping, and his friends were very definite in their promise that if they were returned to power the price of butter would go up. I am afraid there are people in this country more sorry than the minister for the drop in the price of butter-those who voted for his friends on the strength of their definite promises that the price would go up. My hon. friend says that the butter prices in Canada compare very favourably with those prevailing in other countries. But the Conservative candidates would not admit that contention in July, 1930; they would not admit the least comparison to be made between Canada and other countries as regards practically every question then before the electorate, but particularly on the question of butter prices. I travelled a great deal during the last campaign and was not stopped by a rainstorm like my hon. friend the Minister of Railways. I was able to fulfil all my engagements, and. in the thirty-five or forty counties that I visited I was met by the same question from the Liberal candidates: What are we going to reply to the speeches made by the Conservative candidates, who say most positively that if the Mackenzie King government is defeated and the Hon. Mr. Bennett is put in power butter will sell for 50 or 60 cents a pound in the month of August.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: They said so everywhere.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am not sure that even
my good friend the Postmaster General did not speak very strongly on the matter.


Mr. SAUVE:: I did not say so.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think he promised that butter would go up in price.


Arthur Sauvé: I was unknown by the hon. gentleman. .


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not want to be discourteous to my hon. friend, but I hope that when the electors voted for him they knew him. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will not think we are pressing him too much tonight on tuis item. I may remind him that probably tie main factor that helped the Conservative party in the province of Quebec was the promise so frequently made that if they got into power the price of butter would rise. You will fil'd that the cities of Montreal, St. Hyacinthe, Three Rivers, Hull, Sherbrooke, and Quebec, voted strongly for the Liberal candidates, but the butter argument was very effective in some of the rural ridings. When my hon. friend to-night says that he deeply regrets the drop in the price of butter, I am afraid thar that will not be considered any fulfilment of the promises made by his friends in tie province of Quebec. Certainly if this government has a definite mandate from the electors of the province of Quebec, it is to keep up the price of butter. I know that they cannot do it, but why did they promise what they are not now in a position to carry out?


Mr. PICKEL:: I should like, Mr. Chairman, to add a few words to this discussion. We have figures of the comparative prices of butter in the United States and in Canada, and those figures are very significant. Until 1925 our butter compared very favourably with American butter in regard to price, but in 1925, after the Australian treaty came into force, our butter was sold for much less than the price the commodity brought in the United States. So much was this the case that in the first fifteen days of September, 1926, the American farmer was receiving 26 cents a pound more for his butter than the Canadian farmer was receiving; he was getting 55 cents a pound and the Canadian farmer was getting 29 cents.


An hon. MEMBER:: What was the duty?


Edward James Young: Can you give us the figures for January, 1930?


Follin Horace Pickel: The cost of butter in Canada has been comparatively low since the advent of the Australian treaty. The efforts of the ex-Minister of Agriculture to convince members of this house that our milk production had increased is rather far-fetched. The price of butter on account of the importation of the New Zealand commodity-
Supply-Agriculture-Dairying


Mr YOUNG:: Was higher in Canada than in the United States last winter.


Follin Horace Pickel: It was lower after the advent of the treaty. During the campaign last July we did not go about this country telling the electors that they were going to get 50 or 60 cents a pound for their butter, at least, not in my section of the country. We told them that we were going to prevent external competition. The dairying industry in Canada was absolutely ruined by the Australian treaty, which was the most iniquitous piece of legislation ever enacted.


James J. Donnelly: Is the industry any better off to-day?


Follin Horace Pickel: Our prices to-day compare very favourably with the prices obtaining in other countries.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is not the answer.


Follin Horace Pickel: The cold storage plants in the city of Montreal still contain large quantities of New Zealand butter.


An hon. MEMBER:: How much?


Follin Horace Pickel: A couple of million pounds.


An hon. MEMBER:: How much was in storage last year?


Follin Horace Pickel: Fifty million pounds were brought in last year.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Hon. members may not interrupt the hon. member who has the floor without first asking his permission.


Follin Horace Pickel: It is a crime that 50,000,000 pounds of foreign butter were brought into this dairying country. Butter prices will not improve until we first get rid of that butter in cold storage, at which time there will be a gradual rise in price although I think it will be some time before we will again see a price of fifty cents per pound.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is not that what you promised at the last election?


Follin Horace Pickel: The price received by the farmer for his butter, compared with the price he pays for grain, is better than it was last year.


Edward James Young: The price of wheat has gone down more than the price of butter.


Follin Horace Pickel: With grain at 30 cents and middlings at 40 cents, it costs the farmer 40 cents per pound to produce butter, but when the price of grain is much cheaper his cost of production is lower. I will have to support the appropriation asked for.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am very much surprised to hear the speech made by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi because if there is any hon. member in this house who holds his seat because of butter it is he. I think he is very' ungrateful to the commodity.


Mr. SHAVER:: I was very much surprised at the statement of the hon. member for St. James that the farmers had been promised during last summer that they would receive 50 cents per pound for butter. In the industrial section of Canada which I have the honour to represent it was the members of the liberal party who told the mill workers in the town of Cornwall that if the Conservatives were returned to power they would have to pay 50 cents per pound for butter. I have no doubt that if the argument was used there, it was used in the industrial centres of Quebec which, according to -my hon. friend, returned Liberal members. Anyone who has studied the situation must agree with the evidence produced by the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi. One of the reasons for the present low price of butter is the fact that there still remain in the storage warehouses of Canada large quantities of New Zealand butter. The present day comparison with foreign prices is more favourable than it has been for the last five or six years.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The hon. member for Stormont says that at the last election the price of butter was fixed at 50 cents per pound. I am sorry to report that it has not as yet reached that price.


James J. Donnelly: There seem to be different opinions as to the amount of butter in cold storage, but I have the figures as of March 1, 1930, and March 1, 1931, furnished by the dairy commissioner, Mr. Ruddick. On March 1, 1930, we had in storage 13,087,236 pounds, and on March 1, 1931, 11,272,920 pounds. The statement is made that the amount of New Zealand butter coming in this y'ear has brought the price down but it did not seem to bring it down last year.


An hon. MEMBER:: The duty kept the
price up.


Thomas McMillan: How much
butter has -come in from Australia and New Zealand since August last? When addressing the house some time ago the hon. minister told us that he had made a verbal agreement with Mr. Moloney of Australia that there was

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
to be no Australian butter released for sale in Canada under 32 cents per pound. Would he tell the committee what has been done with the butter imported from Australia since October last?


Robert Weir: In reply to the first allegation, that it was stated at the time of the elections that the price of butter would be increased, I think a fairer interpretation to put on the statement made in that connection would be that we desired the Canadian dairy farmer to be protected against butter which could be produced in other countries at a lower cost. We promised that we would do all in our power to protect him, and we did so. I am informed by a very reliable authority in the butter-making industry that the farmers of Canada would have received during the last winter months at least 10 cents per pound less for their butter had this government not taken the action it did. Another statement made was to the effect that the tariff on butter had increased production, but I think the majority of those in touch with the farming industry in Canada will realize that during the last twelve or eighteen months the main element which tended toward increased production of butter was the cheap coarse grains and the effort which the farmer had to make, to a greater extent than ever before, to increase his income.
In answer to the question asked by the hon. member for South Huron as to the verbal agreement with Australia, I would state that although it was in our power when the treaty with New Zealand was abrogated to put a duty on New Zealand butter, we could not put a higher duty on Australian butter until the treaty with that country had been abrogated, and to do that would have taken some months. Realizing the conditions then existing in Canada, and wishing to give the farmer every protection, we came to the conclusion that the only way that could be done was by a verbal agreement with the Hon. Parker Moloney that pending ratification of the New Zealand treaty no Australian butter would be sold in the Dominion of Canada at less than 32 cents per pound, without a mutual agreement between himself and myself. They lived up to that agreement in a very commendable way, until the price of butter in Montreal, and also in the west, in Vancouver, was cut by something very much in the nature of a butter warfare between various organizations in the west. We thought butter had reached rock bottom, and it was not fair, after Australia had lived up to the agreement as she did, that we shoul not allow her to release her butter on this market.


An hon. MEMBER:: How much butter?


Robert Weir: In the neighbourhood of 10,000 boxes.


William Duff: How can the minister or Mr. Moloney control the price of butter? Is the minister or is Mr. Moloney in the butter business?


Robert Weir: We are, I hope,
and always shall be in the business of looking after the interests of the dairy farmers of Canada. The hon. gentleman is no doubt aware that in Australia they have an export board than can control the export of butter, and it was by making use of that organization that Mr. Moloney was able to control it.


William Duff: I ask the minister how he can control the price of butter in Canada or prevent the Australian people from selling butter at any price they like in this country,


Robert Weir: The price of butter exported from Australia is under the Australian export board. They were the people who controlled it.


William Duff: But the minister in his statement a moment ago admitted that while he and Mr. Moloney made an agreement, that agreement was broken by somebody and the price of butter was reduced.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Duff: Is it not a fact that in Montreal last week, butter sold retail for twenty cents a pound?


Robert Weir: Australian butter
was not released at less than thirty-two cents a pound until we released the Hon. Parker Moloney and the Australian government from their agreement with us. They controlled the butter.


William Duff: Why did the minister do that?


Robert Weir: Because we felt
that they had kept their agreement honourably prior to that time, and butter had reached bottom price.


Mr. VENIOT:: But we were exporting
Canadian butter.


William Duff: The minister has not
answered my question. What I should like to know is this:	If we made an agreement
with Mr. Moloney of Australia to keep butter at thirty-two cents, why did he release Mr. Moloney from his agreement, or why did the price decrease?
Suppl y-A gricult ure-Dairying


Robert Weir: I am afraid I cannot answer the question any better than I have done.


William Duff: Of course the minister cannot; that is the trouble.


Robert Weir: I shall repeat the
answer I gave before. The verbal agreement made with the Hon. Parker Moloney was this: that they would not release Australian butter in Canada at less than thirty-two cents a pound except by mutual agreement, as long as we felt that to do so would injure the butter market in this country. When Canadian organizations commenced cutting the price of butter to a point that we thought was nearly rock bottom, I agreed that the Australians could release their butter at a price less than thirty-two cents a pound.


William Duff: In other words, the minister
admits he has nothing to do with naming the price of butter in Canada.


Robert Weir: Absolutely not.


Jean-François Pouliot: So long as the production
of butter in this country is less than the consumption, is it necessary, in order to supply the trade and the public in general, to import butter?


Robert Weir: Do I understand
the hon. member's question to be this: If the production of butter in Canada is less than the consumption, should we allow the importation of butter?


Jean-François Pouliot: No; is it necessary to
import butter from outside?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have just a word to
say on this subject. During the last campaign the butter question was very much under discussion in every county in Quebec. I held several joint meetings and at some in particular the perpetual Tory candidate in my constituency said that in Australia and New Zealand they had great opportunities that were denied to Canada. I think he said that in New Zealand in one year they had 100,000 cows and the year after they had 1,200,000. I said: Those are not cows; they are rabbits. At that time that gentleman was blaming the previous administration for having permitted the importation of butter from the other dominions. If my memory serves me aright, the Liberal party was blamed some years ago by the hon. member for East Kootenay, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, for not being agreeable enough to Australia and New Zealand. During the campaign, Conservative speakers made 
this statement-and this is important because many people voted Conservative on account of it-that if the present Prime Minister came into power, not a pound of butter from New Zealand or Australia would be admitted into Canada. This was stated on the hustings everywhere in my constituency, and I am surprised to see that some butter is being imported by Canada at this time. The question was fair, and it has been answered very fairly not only by the Minister of Agriculture, with whom I sympathize very much at the present time, but also, I think, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who evidently said yes when I asked the question about the importation of butter being necessary because the production is much less than the consumption at this time.


Mr. QUINN:: No one takes the hon.
member seriously.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member for
Halifax is not in the butter business; he is not elected by farmers. He is in the soft drink business. He knows nothing about the matter except that he may put some butter in his soft drinks. I come from a farming constituency. I am interested in the production of butter and I took the trouble to study the matter in order to see what can be done for our people.


Felix Patrick Quinn: It was people like the hon.
member who defeated their own party.


Jean-François Pouliot: The Liberal party was
defeated by a trick. Last year when the Liberal government was in power, butter was much dearer than it is now. What was said to the electors of this country during the last campaign was this:	If you elect the Conservatives, the price of butter will be forty cents.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Seventy cents.


Jean-François Pouliot: They said: At least forty cents. It was a minimum and it could have gone up to ninety-nine cents, to be less than a dollar. But they told the farmers: if you elect the Conservatives; if you elect the right hon. member, who is now the Prime Minister of this country, the price of butter will rise from thirty-two cents to forty cents, but it has fallen from thirty-two cents to seventeen cents a pound.


An hon. MEMBER:: Fourteen cents.


Jean-François Pouliot: When it is sold at 17 cents, it means that the farmer here is left with only 14 cents a pound, and that is the marvellous result that was to be brought about as soon as the Conservative party got into power.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
This is a thing that will be reported in Hansard to-morrow, and the people will read it. The Conservative party promised in every constituency in this country to bring about this wonderful result. This shows what fakers can say to the people of this country. They go to the limit. My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Quinn) is not smiling now. He reminds me of someone with an enamelled face who is afraid to smile for fear it will crack the enamel and the crack will show.
During the last election the farmers of this country were deceived by the Conservative party, and not only that but every Conservative speaker went on the platform and said that the Liberal party was working against the best interests of the farming class. Yet at that time, Mr. Chairman, butter sold at more than 30 cents a pound, and now it is less than 17 cents. Are my hon. friends opposite satisfied with that progress? What are they going to do about it? They pretended that a tariff was going to help the fanner. They said: Let us put a duty on butter that comes in from abroad, and you will see butter prices go up.
I have something here, Mr. Chairman, that I keep for special occasions, and I shall use it now. It is nothing harmful-the question of ammunition was settled yesterday afternoon. It is the opinion of a man whom my hon. friend (Mr. Quinn) supported and banged bis desk for with great violence every time he rose to address the house. He does not know yet of whom I am speaking. I am speaking of a gentleman, who, though he might be in the shade to-night, will one day come into the limelight as leader of the opposition after the Conservative party is defeated in the next election. I mean the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. In view of the disastrous incompetence that has been shown by this government since it came into power, I know Very well that my hon. friends of the opposition, who can scream now, say in private that they are very sorry that the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen is not now in this house;
I.	would not say now as the leader of the party, but as the right hand of the leader. On April 8, 1926-more than five years ago-how times have changed since then!-


An hon. MEMBER:: You were not here then.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh yes, I was, and I shall be here for a long time. Since that time the Conservative convention took place, and after that convention my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) said that the Conservative party had been too honest in the
past. Here I have just a word to show that honesty is the best policy. The Right Hon. Arthur Meighen on April 8, 1926, was asked this question by Mr. Ross, then member for Moose Jaw:
You contend that if the tariff is taken off, prices immediately rise?
Note this, Mr. Chairman. This is' what a good friend of yours said, and at the time he was speaking from the bottom of his heart, with absolute honesty. I will repeat the question again for those who are willingly blind and deaf. Mr. Ross asked:
You contend that if the tariff is taken off, prices immediately rise?
And the man who has more brains in his head than anyone on the other side of the house replied:
We contend it, and we know it because we see the facts.
It was a forecast of what is happening today. Never was the duty so high on butter and never was the price so low. It seems as if this government was raising the tariff in order to give the manufacturers a chance to deprive the farmers of their legitimate profits.


Eccles James Gott: More solemnity.


Jean-François Pouliot: There is no tariff on birds. When my hon. friend the member for South Essex was bom he was attended by a nurse, and as soon as he came into this world she said. "He eccles," and that name was given to him.
Here we have a most serious arraignment of this government, Mr, Chairman, coming from the lips of the man who was the leader of the Conservative party for a long time, and who since that time has not been eclipsed by anyone on the opposite side. He said: We contend that if the tariff is taken off, the' prices immediately rise, and we know it because we see the facts. A high tariff has been imposed on butter and on potatoes. My hon. friend from Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Smith) and his. colleague from New Brunswick know all about potatoes; they could sing a hymn to potatoes. There was an ancient writer who said: "O virtue, what crimes are committed in thy name!" I would say to my hon. friend from New Brunswick: "0 potato, what crimes are committed in thy name!"


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Mr. POLTLIOT:: To come back to butter,
Mr. Chairman, and speaking at the same time of potatoes, we have on the opposite side of the house some supermen, or semi-gods, who told the electorate: We cure everything; we will make you farmers happy; we will allow
Supply-Agriculture-Dairying

you industrialists to profiteer more than you ever did before in your lives; you labouring men will get better wages than you ever got before, and you will get work; the ^ons of the farmers will get nice positions and everyone will be happy. How was it to be done? I will not say that everyone was to have a soft drink, because that would not be very tempting, but, Mr. Chairman, I do say that the people were badly deceived during the last campaign by that cry of high tariff.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. I would ask
hon. gentlemen not to make so much noise. They have at least the privilege to go out, which I have not, so I would ask them to keep order.


Jean-François Pouliot: The tariff was to be a cure for every disease. It was to make people happy. Everybody was to be as happy as a man who is in heaven as soon as that new tariff was applied. It has been applied, and applied with great vigour; for I will say this for hon. gentlemen opposite, that they have been consistent. They proposed to increase the tariff, and they have done so. What has been the result? The result has been that farm products are to-day selling for nothing. I am sorry for the farmers of this country who are suffering more than ever before because of the unfair prices they are receiving for their products. The small prices received for farm produce represents a great menace for the future, because the farmers may not cultivate their lands with so much care or to such an extent if they do not receive a reasonable profit from their labours.
The situation is worse than ever. I do not wish to criticize the present Minister of Agriculture, who I admit is trying to do his best for the welfare of the farmers of Canada. I wish however to tell him that the policy of high tariff is a fake, it is a mirage, something which will give nothing to the farmer but which will contribute to the enrichment of a few. It will not profit the farmer but it will make wealthy those who control the trusts, the great organizations. It will not make the poor man rich but will make the rich man still richer, and the wealth of the nation will be no better distributed than it is now.
May I ask the Minister of Agriculture seriously to consider the effect of tariff on farm products? I have before me a statement of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen to the effect that "as soon as the tariff is off the prices rise." On the other hand, the tariff
on farm products has been raised and prices have since declined. This statement would show that Right Hon. Arthur Meighen knew more about economics than hon. members now sitting to your right, Mr. Speaker.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is moved by the Hon. Mr. Guthrie, seconded by Hon. Mr. Stevens, that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Edward James Young: How about the amendment?


Peter John Veniot: It stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie the house adjourned at 10.56 p.m.
Wednesday, May 27, 1931