1932-03-31

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. C. MATTHEWS (Toronto East Centre) presented the third report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.
Mr. MATTHEWS moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table of the house parliamentary return, reference 218, in answer to a motion by Mr. Lafleche concerning the Canadian Merchant Marine. May I add that it is possible there may be supplementary information, because upon investigation I find the question is somewhat indefinite.



QUESTIONS

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

Questions

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many cases were argued on behalf
of the government by the Hon. Lucien Cannon while he was Solicitor General and in that capacity:	(a) before the Supreme Court of
Canada; (b) before the Privy Council?
2.	Same question for his successor in office?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	(a) Supreme Court.
1.	Reference re validity of section 17 of the Alberta Act. Hon. Lucien Cannon, K.C., and Mr. Eugene Lafleur, K.C., appeared for the dominion and took part in the argument. The factum and brief were prepared by Mr. Lafleur and approved by the Hon. Lucien Cannon.
2.	The King v. Dominion Building Corporation, Limited, Hon. Lucien Cannon, K.C., and Mr. C. P. Plaxton, K.C., appeared for the crown and took part in the argument. The factum	and	brief	were prepared	by	Mr. Plaxton and approved by Hon. Lucien Cannon.
3.	Reference re persons (Senate). Hon.
Lucien Cannon, K.C., Mr. Eugene Lafleur, K.C., and Mr. C. P. Plaxton, K.C., appeared for the government. Mr. Cannon and Mr. Lafleur	took	part	in the argument.	Thefactum	and	brief	were prepared	by	Mr. Plaxton and approved by Hon. Lucien Cannon and Mr. Lafleur.4.	Reference re	Troops. Hon.	Lucien
Cannon, K.C., and Mr. Varcoe, K.C., appeared for the dominion and took part in the argument. The factum and brief were prepared by Mr. Plaxton and approved by Mr. Cannon.
5.	Sun Life Assurance v. Superintendent of Insurance. Hon. Lucien Cannon, K.C., and Mr. F. P. Varcoe, K.C., appeared for the superintendent of insurance and took part in the argument. The factum was prepared by Mr. Varcoe and approved by Hon. Lucien Cannon.
6.	Reference re Aerial Navigation. Hon. Lucien Cannon, K.C., Mr. Eugene Lafleur, K.C., and Mr. C. P. Plaxton, K.C., appeared for the dominion and took part in the argument. The factum and brief were prepared by Mr. Plaxton and approved by Hon. Lucien Cannon.
1.	(b) Privy Council.
1.	Reference re Hudson's Bay Co. (Precious Metals). Hon. Lucien Cannon, K.C., and Mr. Aime Geoffrion, K.C., appeared for the dominion and took part in the argument.
2.	Reference re Manitoba Sale of Shares Legislation, December 10, 1928. Hon. Lucien Cannon, K.C., and Mr. Aime Geoffrion, K.C.,
appeared for the dominion and took part in the argument.
3.	The King v. Dominion Building Corporation, Limited. Hon. Lucien Cannon, K.C., Mr. Aime Geoffrion, K.C., and Mr. C. P. Plaxton, K.C., appeared for the crown, Mr. Cannon and Mr. Geoffrion taking part in the argument. The factum and brief were prepared by Mr. Plaxton and approved by Hon. Lucien Cannon.
2.	(a) Supreme Court, none; Ob) Privy Council, none.


ST. FRANCOIS D'ASSISES, QUE.-POSTMASTER
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the postmaster of St. Francois d'Assises, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, been dismissed, if so, for what reasons?
2.	Has a temporary postmaster been appointed, if so, what is his name and on whose recommendation was the appointment made?
3.	Has a permanent appointment been made in that office?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes. Commissioners' report found postmaster guilty of active political partisanship.
2.	No.
3. Instructions issued	for permanent appointment.


HOPETOWN, QUE.-POSTMASTER
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the postmaster of Hopetown, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, been dismissed, if so, for what reasons?
2. Has a temporary	postmaster been appointed, if so, what is his name and on whose recommendation was the appointment made?
3.	Has a permanent appointment been made in that office?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes. Commissioners' report found postmaster guilty of active political partisanship.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.


RAUDOT, QUE.-POSTMASTER
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did the Postmaster General, since August, 1930, order an inquiry in connection with charges of political partisanship lodged against the postmaster at Raudot, Quebec?
2.	If so: (a) at whose written request was this inquiry granted; (b) was said written request accompanied by many affidavits; (c) if so, what is the date, and the name of the person whose signature is attached to each affidavit; (d) on what date was each affidavit
Questions

received by the Postmaster General; (e) on what date did the Postmaster General order the inquiry?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Mr. C. E. Duibe; (fo) and (c) written request was accompanied by sworn affidavit, dated July 29, 1931, signed by Alex. Lebel; (d) August 19, 1931; (e) instructions sent to commissioner September 1, 1931.


GIRONDE, QUE.-POSTMASTER
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did the Postmaster General, since August, 1930, order an inquiry in connection with charges of political partisanship lodged against the postmaster at Gironde?
2.	If so: (a) a1 whose written request was this inquiry granted; (b) was said written request accompanied by many affidavits; (c) if so, what is the date, and the name of the person whose signature is attached to each affidavit; (d) on what date was each affidavit received by the Postmaster General; (e) on what date did the Postmaster General order the inquiry?
Mr. SAUVE;
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Mr. C. E. Dube; (fo) and (c) written request was accompanied by sworn affidavit dated February ?5, 1931, signed by Octave Landry; (d) April 4, 1931; (e) instructions sent to commissioner April 28, 1931.


LA RICHARD IERE, QUE.-POSTMASTER
Mr. POULIOT:: .
1.	Did the Postmaster General, since August, 1930, order an inquiry in connection with charges of political partisanship lodged against the postmaster at I .a Rieliardiere ?
2.	If so: (a) at whose written request was this inquiry granted; (b) was said written request accompanied by many affidavits; (c) if so, what is the date, and the name of the person whose signature is attached to each affidavit; (d) on what date was each affidavit received by the Postmaster General; (e) on what date did the Postmaster General order the inquiry?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Mr. C. E. Dube and Joseph Henri Fraser; (b) and (c) request of Joseph Henri Fraser was accompanied by (I) affidavit dated February 9, 1931, signed by Joseph Fraser, (II) affivadit dated February 9, 1931, signed by Telesphore Caron, fils, Joseph Henri Fraser, John Charles Caron, (III) affidavit dated February 9, 1931, signed by Noel

Levesque, Isidore Levesque; (d) affidavits received on February 25, 1931; (e) instructions sent to commissioner April 14, 1931.
provincial-federal accounts


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What was the total amount derived from each province for the last five years to date, by all the departments of the Dominion government ?
2.	What is the total amount paid to each province for the last five years to date, by all the departments of the Dominion government?


Mr. BENNETT:: The question which the
hon. gentleman asks I submit should be dropped. It is impossible to tell what sums have been derived from each province for the last five years, and by what department of the dominion government. It is possible to ascertain, as is known to every hon. member in this house, sums collected at the customs houses and income tax offices in each of the provinces. Obviously, however, imports at cities like Montreal, Quebec, St. John, Halifax, or other cities at the seaboard do not always show their destinations, and questions which have been asked in times past in this connection have not produced results. The Bureau of Statistics have not been able to get the information. It is not a question which the government could accurately answer, and an inaccurate answer would be worse than none at all.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Question 15 dropped.


DESCHAILLONS, QUE., POSTMASTER
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Was the postmaster of Deschaillons, county of Lotbiniere, dismissed, and for what reasons?
2.	Who replaced him, and on whose recommendation?
3.	Was an inquiry held, and by whom?
4.	Did the department receive favourable reports relating to the dismissed postmaster, and from whom?
5.	Did the department receive the application of Mrs. A. B. Dubois?
6.	Was this application taken into consideration?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1 and 3. Representations were received to the effect that the postmaster at Deschaillons was also an employee of the marine department. It was ascertained that he was signal agent and semaphore keeper at Deschaillons at an annual salary of 81,320. As the total remuneration attached to the post office amounted to about $2,000, and both were full time positions, the postmaster was required to abandon one. He expressed his preference for the position under the marine department

Questions
but refused to resign as postmaster. Action was therefore taken toward a change of postmaster.
2. Mrs. D. B. Lauze, appointed by the Civil Service Commission.
4.	A petition was received bearing 375 signatures.
5.	Yes.
6.	Yes.


TECHNICAL TRAINING GRANTS
Mr. REID:: 1.	What provinces made application for a grant from the Dominion government for technical training for the fiscal years 1931-1932,
1930-	1931?
2.	What grants of money -were made to the various provinces by the Dominion government for technical education for the fiscal years
1931-	1932, 1930-1931?
3.	What was the total amount paid out by the Dominion government to the provinces for the purpose of technical education 1930-1931?


Mr. GORDON:: 1. The provinces of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan received grants from the dominion government for technical training for the fiscal years 1931-1932 and 1930-1931, in accordance with the terms of their agreements under the 1919 legislation as amended.
2.
Prince Edward Island. . .$ 24,706 09
Nova Scotia	
37,721	36New Brunswick	
4,791	68Manitoba	
21,424	43Saskatchewan	
145 206 35
Prince Edward Island. ..S 30.790 34
Nova Scotia	
73,669	61New Brunswick	
50.025	71Manitoba	
38,621	44Saskatchewan	
198,289	953.	S391.397.05.



CARLYLE, SASK., INDIAN AGENCY'-FLOUR SUPPLY

Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: 1. Were tenders called, during the past few months, for the supplying of flour for the Indian agency at Carlyle, Saskatchewan?
2.. If so, what are the names of the tenderers, with dates of tenders received, and prices quoted in each case?
3.	Who was the successful tenderer?
4.	Was the lowest tender accepted?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	All tenders due February 20, 1932:
Per Sack
Quaker Oats Co., Saskatoon	S 1 63^
Lake of the Woods Milling Co.
Ltd., Winnipeg	 185.
Western Canada Flour Mills Co.
Ltd., Winnipeg	 1	71
Western Canada Flour Mills Co.,
Ltd., East Calgary	
1	71Ogilvie Flour Mills Co., Ltd., Winnipeg	
1	85Maple Leaf Milling Co., Ltd., Winnipeg	
1	73Robin Hood Mills	Ltd., Montreal.. 1	97i
Areola Flour Mills Ltd., Areola,
Sask	 1	65
3.	Quaker Oats Co., Saskatoon, Sask.
4.	Yes.



UNITED STATES SHIPPING BILL

Mr. REID:: 1.	Has the Dominion government any knowledge of a shipping bill or bills which may be taken up at any time by the United States House of Representatives or which are before the Senate of the United States the effect of which would prevent Canadian ships from engaging in trade between two United States ports, to cover round trips from United States ports to adjacent foreign ports such as to points in British Columbia or Halifax or West Indian ports on the Atlantic?
2.	If so, has the Canadian government made any protest or any recommendations to the United States government regarding the detrimental effect such proposed bill or bills would have on Canadian shipping, if put into effect?


Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	The Canadian government has been kept fully informed of such bills by the Canadian Minister to the United States.
2.	The Canadian government has made representations to the government of the United States with respect to the matter.
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS *



MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION, OFFICE FURNITURE

Mr. SENN:: What office furniture was ordered and paid for by the Montreal Harbour Commission during the period from January, 1922, to June, 1926, and from October, 1926, to August, 1930, and is the said furniture still on hand in the commission's premises?

Questions



PREMIUMS ON GUARANTEED BONDS

Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: 1.	How much has been paid by each department of the government as premiums on guarantee bonds in each of the years 1929, 1930, and 1931?
2.	What losses, if any, have been sustained by each department of the government on account of defalcations during the years 1929, 1930, and 1931?
3.	What amount, if any, of such losses has been paid to the government by the bonding companies?
4.	Does the government propose to put into operation the suggestion of the Auditor General to revise the regulations in regard to the bonding of officials to meet present day conditions and requirements?



ST. HTACINTHE-ROUVILLE, CENSUS

Mr. FONTAINE:: 1.	Who was in charge of the organization and the management of the 1931 census, in the county of St. Hyaeinthe-Rouville, and what amounts were paid to this person for his services ?
2.	Who acted as census enumerator in each municipality of the county of St. Hyaeinthe-Rouville, and what amounts did each person receive for his services?


Mr. STEVENS:: This order for return is
now tabled.



COMOX-ALBERNI, CENSUS

Mr. NEILL:: What are the names and addresses of all parties in the district of Comox-Alberni employed in the organization, management and taking of the 1931 census in that district, showing in the case of each individual: (a) whether a returned man or not; (b) amount received for his personal remuneration; (c) amount paid him for expenses; also showing the basis on which remuneration and expenses were allowed in each ease; and where the use of cars or boats were paid for by the government, the names of the parties to whom payment was made in each ease, the amount paid, and the rate allowed ?



SURVEY OF NATIONAL PORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries when the report of Sir Alexander Gibb will be tabled? I see the newspapers have received information which the house has not yet received.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: The second part of the report
was received a day or two ago, and my officials are making a synopsis of it. It is a very lengthy report, and I hope to be in a position Monday or Tuesday next to table [Mr. Senn.l
it. As to the reports appearing in the newspapers I can say only that the house will have to judge whether or not they are accurate.


Ernest Lapointe: Are they?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think they
are entirely accurate.



FORECLOSURE OF FARM MORTGAGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce as to the correctness of an article appearing in the Winnipeg Free Press of March 29, 1932. It is stated here that Mr. D. A. MacGibbon, who is a member of the Board of Grain Commissioners has been refused permission by the Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce in Ottawa to appear before a committee of the Manitoba legislature which is making an inquiry regarding possible methods of debt adjustment for farmers who are threatened with foreclosures. If that statement is true, is it done with the authority of the minister, and why?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The statement is not strictly correct. It is broached in terms that are calculated to be misleading and to create controversy. The facts are these: Doctor MacGibbon was asked to appear before that committee and discuss a certain resolution which was presented to this house. Doctor MacGibbon wired and asked if it was thought desirable for him to appear and discuss the matter. The answer given to Doctor MacGibbon, which I think coincided entirely with his own view in the matter, was that it was undesirable for him, a public servant holding a quasi-judicial position to be involved in a matter which was of a controversial, or might be of a controversial, character, and which certainly was purely provincial. It was my judgment, the judgment of the deputy minister and I think that of Doctor MacGibbon himself, that it would be better for him not to participate in a matter of that character.



IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of

Imperial Economic Conference
the day are called I wish to direct the attention of the house to a newspaper report which appeared in the Toronto Daily Star of March 29, 1932, under the heading:
Will Bar Free State At Empire Conference If Oath Is Abandoned
Consensus Of Opinion Among Government Officials At Ottawa Signal For Boycott
The article is as follows:
If the De Valera government persists in refusing the oath of allegiance to the King of England, officials of this dominion will refuse to permit the Irish Free State to sit at the council table of empire in Ottawa next July.
This was the informal consensus of opinion among high officials of the Canadian government here to-day. No official statement was issued by the government, but everywhere the De Valera attitude is a subject of discussion.
Canada's refusal to grant the Irish Free State a position at the imperial conference on inter-empire trade would, in effect, be the signal for a boycott of Ireland by all other parties to the conference.
As the Irish Free State's economic existence at present depends almost entirely on its relationship with the units of the empire, the sentiment of officials expressed here to-day is of great importance to the De Valera government.
It is admitted that an oath given without sincerity carries little or no weight, as an earnest of fulfilment, but repudiation of a solemn agreement arouses no enthusiasm in Canada, which could have saved millions within the last six months by repudiating Canadian gold obligations payable in New York.
That purports to have been sent from Ottawa and to indicate the opinion of high officials of the Canadian government. In fairness to the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs, and as a duty to the Dominion of Canada, I can say only this, that the correspondent of the Toronto Daily Star made some inquiries from Doctor Skelton who informed him, definitely and positively, that there was no warrant for any such statement being made. I can do no more than say that the appearance of reports such as the one I have just read emanating from Ottawa in the terms in which the alleged news is stated is calculated to do a very great injury to this country, and to prejudice interimperial relations.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian government fixed July 18 as an appropriate date upon which the Imperial economic conference might open. Communications were received from various dominions of the British Empire, including the United Kingdom, agreeing to that date. It was subsequently learned however that steamship connections were not all that might be desired for the opening on July 18, and accordingly on March 17 cables 41761-98J
were despatched inquiring whether or not July 21 would be a satisfactory date, inquiring as to the numbers comprising the delegations and indicating that Canada would be the host to those members who comprised the delegations. On March 18 Australia replied indicating the date would be entirely satisfactory. On March 23 the United Kingdom, South Africa, and New Zealand replied in the same sense. On March 30 Southern Rhodesia replied in the same sense, their representatives having a special position at the proposed conference. This morning a message was received, dated to-day, from Dublin reading as follows:
No. 3. Reference to your telegram economic conference. Many thanks for your very kind offer of hospitality which we accept with much pleasure. The change of dates suits our convenience. The number of our delegates and staff will be approximately twelve.
Minister for External Affairs,
Irish Free State.
I need hardly remind the house that Mr, De Valera is the Minister for External Affairs of the Irish Free State. That completes the answers from the dominions of the empire including the United Kingdom. From Newfoundland a letter was received.
I make this statement in order to undo as quickly as possible any injury that may be done to the position of this country by reason of the despatch to which I have just referred.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 30, consideration in committee of Bill No. 24, respecting unemployment and farm relief-The Prime Minister

Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Mr. RALSTON:: Mr. Chairman, last night I mentioned that I had another matter to bring to the attention of the committee. It has to do with work in one particular locality. I may say there are other works which are probably equally important, but I have received special representations with regard to this particular work, and I conveyed them both to my friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) and my friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart). Those representations had to do with the construction of a breakwater at Lower East Pubnico in Yarmouth county. It is represented that about forty families would be benefited by this work being undertaken. It was also represented that the work was very much needed on behalf of the fishermen. I need hardly remind

Unemployment Continuance Act
the committee that wharves and breakwaters are essential to the carrying on of the fishing industry; they are not only a convenience, they are a necessity from the point of view both of commerce and safety. I would urge my friend the Minister of Labour and my friend the Minister of Public Works once more to look into the matter of the construction of a work at that point, primarily to furnish employment, buit also-and this is very important-to furnish needed facilities for the carrying on of fishing operations.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, (Mr. Stevens) with respect to the grading of Garnet wheat. I notice he is not in his seat. I should like to direct the attention of the government particularly to this question. To-day is the last day of March, to-morrow will be the first day of April-spring is close at hand. When putting my question yesterday I read part of a letter -one of many I had received-regarding changing some of the grades of wheat. As the government is aware, large numbers of farmers are expecting seed from the Saskatchewan relief commission. I should like to suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) -because I think he himself made the observation some time before the house met- that it would not ibe advisable this year to change the grades of wheat. For instance, in the answer I got from the Minister of Trade and Commerce he said:
I understand that the committee will be called on Tuesday next, and that Mr. Ramsay, the chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners, and others who have been making a study will attend before the agricultural committee so that the whole matter may be given careful consideration.
What the minister is talking of there is the possibility of creating a special grade for Garnet wheat. As I pointed out yesterday, many farmers in various parts of the western provinces are growing this wheat, and the creation of a new grade for it would penalize those farmers. Therefore in view of the close proximity of seeding time I would urge upon the government that no steps be taken this year to create a special grade for Garnet wheat, but that the investigation be continued for another year, when the agricultural committee will be in a better position to suggest to the government what should be done in this regard.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. Minister of Labour, first, what is the number of white collar unemployed in this

country; second, what he intends to do for their relief? He does not answer. Is he asleep? The previous Minister of Labour (Senator Robertson) had powerful brains in a fragile body, but his successor (Mr. Gordon) is his antithesis. On one occasion Paul Bourget received one of his colleagues of the French Academy and put him up for the night. The next morning he knocked at his guest's door at nine o'clock and was answered sharply: "Don't disturb me, I am working." At eleven thirty he knocked again, and receiving no answer opened the door, when he found his guest snoring gently. He said, "Ah, my friend, you are over-working yourself." Another gentleman, a former provincial minister afterwards a member of the federal government, was attending a dinner with a person having the serious looks of the Minister of Labour, a guest was asked by a friend, "I wonder what that most serious man is thinking about?" The reply came, "Don't worry. He is thinking about nothing!"
I am weary of hearing the Prime Minister repeatedly saying he and his colleagues are working twenty hours a day. Of course, it may be all right so far as the Prime Minister is concerned, for it may be taken as a form of punishment for his having centred upon himself public opinion during the last election when from every platform throughout the country he declared, "I will do this, I will do that for you." It was reoeated everywhere. But I do not think the Prime Minister should complain. There are ten million people in this country. Suppose two million of these are electors. Well, if each one of those electors wrote to the Prime Minister for information about something, asking, for instance, who was the Minister of Labour, he would receive two million letters a year-a large number. The Prime Minister is the most decent of men. But the working hours of the ministers cannot differ greatly from what they were when the Liberals were in power. I never heard my leader when he was Prime Minister saying anything about working [DOT]twenty hours a day. He was simply following the example of his great predecessor, Laurier. Sir Wilfrid was astir early in the morning, from eight thirty to nine thirty he dictated correspondence to his private secretary, then he proceeded to the east block to receive callers, at eleven o'clock attended council, at three o'clock he was in the house, and at night he also attended here.
I am getting tired of this humbug about ministers overworking. They are working so much that no one knows what they are really doing-they are always at work. There are

Unemployment Continuance Act
many persons who might come to the help of my hon. friend the Prime Minister. It is a very good thing to keep their minds busy because then they have no time for wicked thoughts albout putting people out of work.
Let us take the ministers one by one, and first we will consider my genial friend the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryck-man). He knows we like him and he does very well as a minister. I congratulate him, but he has less work than his predecessors had, because Canadian imports have decreased. If he has more work it is because he increases the tariff either over his own signature or by orders in council, and he is wrong in doing that. I should like to spare him that sort of work. If he did pot do that he would have enough time in which to come to the assistance of the dumb Minister of Labour.
Now let us take my genial friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy). He knows we like him also, but he has not as much work as my hon. friend from West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) had when he was Minister of the Interior, because then the federal government had control of the natural resources of the west. Now these have been handed over to the provinces, and my hon. friend has more time at his disposal. If he has not more time it is because he is bothered by callers who wish to be appointed Indian agents or something of that kind.
Now let us take my good friend the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). I congratulate him upon the fact that the Prime Minister has selected him as his adviser in financial matters. That is a great compliment to my hon. friend, and I am sure he will do very well. But with the revenue of the country falling he has much less to look after. I know he has a good deal of work in looking after conversion loans and that sort of thing, but that is because of the condition of the country. He has less to do than Mr. Robb had, for instance, or than Mr. Dunning had. He might have some time in which to come to the assistance of our silent friend the Minister of Labour.
Then there is my genial friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve). He is doing very well ; he increased the stamp tax so that now we pay three cents instead of two for a letter. But he is doing very well, except when he is dismissing postmasters. He wastes too much time listening to the complaints of sour-mouthed defeated candidates who want postmasters all over the country dismissed for this and that reason. If he looked after the general administration of his department, without wasting time in dismissing so
many good people, he would not be obliged to work twenty hours a day. He might do his work in eight hours, and in the twelve hours saved he might come to the assistance of the Minister of Labour.
Then there is my good friend the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau). I think he does very well as a minister, and that is the best answer to the argument raised by himself and his colleague the Postmaster General when they were in the Quebec assembly. Then they complained of the fact that the Minister of Labour was a lawyer and not a working man, but here we have them sitting in council next to a lawyer who is Minister of Labour. I must not forget my friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart), who is doing very well also. I have said that to him very often, and I am in earnest.


An hon. MEMBER:: He did not build the station.


Jean-François Pouliot: The station is all right
now. I am dealing with a stationary minister, whose tongue is stationed in his mouth so that it does not work. I mean the Minister of Labour; I am not referring to the Minister of Public Works, for whom I have great admiration. Hon. gentlemen opposite should be very quiet; the next time I hear any interruption they will get it quick.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hanson, York-Sunbury):: I would ask the hon. gentleman,
who knows the rules, to observe them. We are discussing section one of this bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: I think my discussion is
in point, because I am dealing with the members of the cabinet and pointing out that they have much more spare time than the ministers in the last government had, and I am suggesting that they might use that spare time in assisting the Minister of Labour. In any case, I have nearly completed my argument.
I come now to my friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). He cannot complain of overwork, because he does not have charge of the administration of the railways; he just supervises it as his predecessors did. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) also is doing very well, but he is doing no more than was done by my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) when he was Minister of Justice; 'he is doing no more than was done by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, Hon Edward Blake or any other minister who held that position. They did not work twenty hours a day.


Mr. COTNAM:: How is Mr. Taschereau?
1558	_	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Taschereau has set a
very good example to the federal government by not reducing the'salaries of the civil servants of Quebec, and he would not waste a lot of money in order to bring a man like Mr. Ferguson from England to give evidence at the expense of this country.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: If you suffer from constipation of the brain so that you can only interrupt instead of making your own speeches I commend you to the Minister of Health, who may be able to recommend a laxative.
Hon. gentlemen occupying the treasury benches say they are working twenty hours a day. Why do they not work only eight hours a day and bring in some of the unemployed to assist them in the direction of the affairs of state?
As a matter of fact, however, the ministers are not working twenty hours a day; only one hon. gentleman says he works twenty hours a day, and I believe him. But, Mr. Chairman, he has to work twenty hours a day simply because he is unfair to the other ministers: he does not allow them to share his work. I am sure they would be ready to shoulder some of the hon. gentleman's responsibilities. The Postmaster General, for example, would no doubt be pleased to help the Minister of Labour and to relieve him of some of his burdens; so would the Minister of Public Works; so would the Minister of Marine; and so would the Minister of Finance, who has to hand over to him the money which is spent in the provinces. The Minister of Labour-I refer, of course, to the present minister's predecessor-was clever enough to manage matters in such a way as to have some freedom to do as he liked. May I read what he said to me in answer to a letter which I addressed to him on September 3, 1931:
It has accidentally come to my attention that this department has received from you personally eleven letters and one telegram, all within the last two days, With reference to unemployment works proposed in your riding.
It was extraordinary to that famous, excellent and efficient Minister of Labour, the present hon. gentleman's predecessor, that within the space of two days his department should receive eleven letters and one telegram from me, thus disturbing his peace of mind. He could not conceive that any man could write eleven letters and one telegram in two days. As I say, it was to him something extraordinary.
And I was forgetting my dear friend and old classmate, the hon. member for Dorchester 
(Mr. Gagnon), who sits just as quiet as any minister-as quiet as that other image the Minister of Labour. Is he the minister's adviser? Let the Minister of Labour speak. If he would speak, I am sure he would repeat the nice things my friend from Dorchester has said. And in the meantime may I express the hope that some day the Prime Minister will acknowledge the service given by my good friend from Dorchester by saying to him, "Here, Dorchester, I will have you sworn by His Excellency as one of my advisers." If he has not yet received word to that effect he is about to receive it, and I am sure he will do well in the cabinet, at any rate until he is stricken by that disease of dismissing poor people who have done him no harm. Meanwhile I wish him good luck.
I suggest to the Minister of Labour that, instead of writing hieroglyphics while we are speaking, he should listen to the advice that is given him, at least the advice of the hon. member for Dorchester. It would be beneficial to him. He has been writing on the same piece of paper for ten minutes; I should not be surprised if he found it extraordinary that anyone could write eleven letters and one telegram in two days. Business efficiency and practical methods-that is something he cannot understand. But that is not all; the Solicitor General's advice has not been taken; it has been regarded as so essential to the government that it has been entirely dispensed with ever since the beginning of the session.
Let me point out something else, Mr. Chairman. I have received a very bold and impolite letter from a man in the civil service named Harry Hereford, Dominion director of unemployment. I must confess that I was surprised to get such a letter from a civil servant. I do not know whether he is Canadian-born or a naturalized citizen-in the latter case it may be, perhaps, that it is so much the better for him. But let me give this advice to all civil servants, whatever their salary may be or however great their self-importance. It is that they should be polite to members of parliament, regardless of politics or anything else. When I recommend someone to the Department of Labour I do so not on political grounds but because I am sure that the person whom I recommend is in need. That is the only consideration that actuates me. When, therefore, I consider it my duty to recommend anyone to the civil servant in charge, I expect him to be civil. When I submitted to this man, Hereford, certain requests that I had received from the municipalities in my constituency,
I was merely discharging my duty as a memmarc:
ber of parliament and he had no right whatever to write such impudent words as these: Aucun bon but ne semble avoir ete atteint par cette action de votre part-No good purpose seems to have been served by this action on your part.
May I suggest that if this gentleman wishes to avoid trouble so far as this side of the house is concerned, he had better discharge his duties in accordance with the traditions of the civil service. He should be guided by that very excellent principle that is being observed by the civil service, namely, to serve the people. A civil servant should be, above all, civil.	_
The Minister of Labour showed considerable intelligence-and when I say the Minister of Labour I am referring, of course, to the present minister's predecessor-in having his work done by others. During the last campaign the present Prime Minister used to declare, "I will do this, I will do that" ; it was the same old refrain that was heard in every city, town, parish, borough and municipality in the country, and at every street corner: "1 will do this, and I will do that." And when he came into power, to his great surprise, the people said to him:	"We expect you to do
this, and we expect you to do that." But what did he do? He sheltered himself behind the provinces and the municipalities. He asked them to come to his assistance, and he called to the council chamber my good friend, Senator Robertson, and said to him, "Senator, I rely on you: you must arrange this for me" The Senator said, "That's all right; we will arrange it with the provinces. The provinces will bear the burden of the administration of this whole unemployment scheme. We will subscribe our share and the municipalities will do as much as the provinces and the federal government together." Now the hon. gentleman who is at the head of the Department of Labour has only to ask the Minister of Finance for one fourth of the money that is to be spent for unemployment purposes, the relief fund being administered by the provinces who contribute their share to it. He need ask for only one quarter of that and then he will not have to worry about the administration of the fund because the whole thing will be done by the provinces. I thank the Minister of Labour for listening to my remarks instead of writing hieroglyphics on a piece of paper. I defy him to say that this is not the case.
I have something else to say about Mr. Hereford. That gentleman blamed me for forwarding some of the requests which I had received from the municipalities before the
31, 1932
Unemployment Continuance Act
order in council defining the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial governments had been passed. When I asked him to return these files to me he replied under date of September 7, 1931, that he was keeping copies in order to show them to the minister. If the trouble I had taken was superflous, if Mr. Hereford did not need copies of the documents I had sent to him, why did he make copies to be submitted to the Minister of Labour?
I am sorry it was necessary for me to be a little rough with the minister at the beginning of my remarks, but I had to do that in order to gain his attention. Is the minister in a position to tell the committee how many white-collar unemployed there are in this country? I will define what I mean by that term. I mean the clerks who were working in stores, in brokers' offices or anywhere-


An hon. MEMBER:: Nowhere.


Jean-François Pouliot: These men are unemployed and the hon. member should not make fun of them.
How many are now unemployed who were previously employed by grocery stores, by drygoods stores and wholesale establishments? How many commercial travellers have lost their jobs because of the decrease in trade? How many railroad employees have been put out of work while profiteers were selling ties to the Canadian National Railways which was supposed to be in such bad condition? These are matters of great importance, and for the third time I repeat that they are of great importance to the government if it is sincere.
If this government intends to relieve unemployment it should get to the root of the evil. It should know the cause of all this trouble; it should know why these people have lost their jobs. The minister should be able to advise the committee how many of this class are out of work. There are thousands, in fact tens of thousands unemployed at the present time. This information is not new to the minister, and I am trying to impress upon him that the only way to cure unemployment is to get to the root of the evil and then try to remove the causes. As I have said before in this house, during the war some soldiers were wounded by bullets while others were gassed, shell-shocked or received other injuries, but the same remedy was not applied to all. Every case was studied by expert physicians and surgeons and every man received the treatment which was best suited to his case. That is why many of the men wounded during the
Unemployment Continuance Act

war are to-day in better condition-they received the proper remedy.
If the minister can tell me how many white-collar men are out of work, I will sit down. How does he intend to take care of these men? Does he intend to employ them as Volga boatmen on the St. Lawrence scheme?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is below the intelligence of the hon. member to make the answer he has.
Does the minister think that these men will be able to do pick and shovel work on the St. Lawrence? They could not do it because they have not had the necessary training. If this government desires order to be restored, there is only one way in which it can bring about that result. The work of the government should be divided among the members of the cabinet instead of being done by a single man, however able. This government should adopt the practice carried out by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) when his government was in power, and by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Robert Borden. It is only fair that members of the cabinet should share in the work of government. The matter is vital to the country and this method should be adopted.
I do not make these suggestions to annoy the committee and the minister, I am simply trying to make the minister understand. Even though he were the greaest physician in the country, he could not cure a disease without first knowing what it was. Each angle of this unemployment question should be considered separately and the minister should take the trouble to obtain as soon as possible the information which I desire. As a matter of fact, this information should have been obtained immediately the government came into power.
A special committee made a study of the unemployment question for a short time after this government took office. One of its recommendations was that immigration should be stopped. I am glad to see the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bourgeois) in his place because this is the first opportunity I have had to welcome him to this house. He is a perfect gentleman and my only regret is that his political principles are wrong. During his last election campaign he paid a compliment to this government by stating that it had stopped immigration. What did the Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Gordon) say to that? He said that this government would never close the

door to Englishmen who wanted to come to this country. The minister is bringing young boys out here. It is true that they have the money to pay their passage but he cannot guarantee that they will not in the future be a charge upon this country. Perhaps he should take a position as purser on one of the boats which carry these young Englishmen to this country. I think the salary would be high enough.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not high enough.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend says it would not be high enough. The statement was made in Three Rivers that the government had stopped immigration. The government lets young men from the British Isles come in and I have no objection to them provided that they come here in times of prosperity and do not take the place of our own people.
One minister who has the greatest task ahead of him is the Minister of Trade and Commerce, provided he receives some cooperation from his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, in order that Canadian trade may increase. When that is brought about, unemployment will disappear and the troubles from which the Canadian National Railways are at present suffering will be removed. Those are plain facts.
Although I have been in Ottawa for several years, this is the first winter that I have met on the streets so many men asking for direct help. We do not see that to such an extent in other cities. They come to Ottawa for assistance as to the Mecca of unemployment relief. They expect by coming here, to the seat of government, to get a job. It is very sad to see those men who seem to be in good health, humiliated to have to ask for charitv from a stranger. Patience can exist for a certain time but no one can tell how long that will be. We have in each province law-abiding people, people who respect our institutions, and who look to the star of hope expecting that some day or another their miseries will come to an end. In every home there is a woman who has more worry than any of us can have, trying to make both ends of the family budget meet. With small pay, sometimes with one or two dollars obtained from relief sources, they try to carry on so that their children may be fed and clothed. How long will this last? The other day I saw a young woman who had threatened to commit suicide. She was taken in by a woman whose husband was out of work and who was doing sewing. People in these circumstances realize the links that unite

Unemployment Continuance Act
those coming from the same country and they endeavour to protect each other the best they can.
The Prime Minister and his colleagues know that I shall ever be a champion of the social order; I do not want to see it destroyed. But now we have in Canada the seeds of revolution such as exist in other countries. At one time there was a similar situation in France. Those who have studied the history of the world know that prior to the French revolution persons who said that the people were dissatisfied with the regime and that it must be overthrown, were considered insane. The nobility surrounding the king and queen said that this was idle talk; that such a thing as revolution would never happen; that they were safe and would retain their power as long as they wished. But one day the king and queen were arrested and some months later they were guillotined. This is what happened in France. The aftermath of this was that the fortunes of the nobility were confiscated and new fortunes were built up in their stead; a new order was created. It will be remembered that one of the most famous speeches ever delivered was that of Mirabeau when he advocated the contribution of one-fourth; he said to the French Assembly, to the rich, the well-off, the bourgeois who were there:	You must contribute
one-fourth of your fortunes to the state, otherwise the state will crumble. That was the prophecy, and because the French people did not listen to him when he urged them to return to the state one-fourth of their belongings-


Olof Hanson: The hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Following the questions
that were asked yesterday by the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Yallance) in regard to Garnet wheat, I wish, under this bill, to discuss the matter. I am sorry the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) is not in his place, but probably the Prime Minister will answer this question. Seeding time is at hand; the farmers are ready with their seed. In my district, on account of rust, the only kind of hard wheat we can sow is Garnet. We cannot sow Marquis; Reward is not a success and the farmers who intend to sow Garnet wheat wish to know how it is going to be graded. Yesterday the minister said that the committee on agriculture would inquire into this matter, but I ask the Prime Minister, the Minister
of Agriculture or the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to make a statement as soon as possible in order that the farmers in those districts where they are sowing Garnet wheat and where they cannot sow any other type may be advised that Garnet wheat will remain at least for one year at the present grades, because I do not think it is good business to change the grade without giving them proper notice. I have received several requests to this effect and I would ask the Prime Minister if it is possible for him to make a statement now in that regard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question of grading Garnet wheat has for a considerable time engaged the attention of those, responsible for the discharge of their duties under the Grain Act. At the present time Garnet, with other varieties of wheat, is graded under the standard grades. There are those who advocate that it should carry a separate grading; there are others who contend that such a separate grading would be improper, having regard to the very considerations to which the hon. gentleman has just referred. I suppose he has read last year's report of the grain commissioners in this regard. The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a statement in the expectation that members from those western agricultural constituencies most directly affected would present their position before the committee on agriculture so that such legislation, if any, as might be required would be enacted without delay by parliament. The hon. gentleman knows the government is without power in the matter; that power parliament has conferred upon a body which it has created. The Board of Grain Commissioners and the Board of Grain Standards which are created by the Grain Act have authority to deal with the matter with which the hon. member suggests the government should deal. In order that the government might be advised and therefore be in a position to enact such legislation, if any, as might be required to meet the wishes of those who are best able to speak with authority on the subject, it was referred to the committee on agriculture. May I say I agree wholly with what the hon. member has said as to the desirability of having the matter promptly dealt with, and I would add that the agriculture committee meets tomorrow. The representations of the agricultural members being made to the committee, a resolution could be passed at once, and recommendation made to this house which, I assure my hon. friend, would be acted upon by the administration as quickly as possible, having regard to the rules of the house. I
Unemployment Continuance Act

would hope, however, if there is any discussion on the matter, that it might be somewhat more relevant to the bill than the discussion to which we have listened for the past forty minutes. I do not say this in an offensive manner, but I do say that I hope when the matter is dealt with it will be considered with more promptitude, a manner which would be in striking contrast to that which has characterized the measure now before the house.
If my friends, those concerned from both east and west, will attend the agriculture committee at its meeting in the morning, will see that representations are made, a resolution passed and a recommendation made that it be brought before this chamber, all facilities of this government will be available for the purpose of seeing that consideration is given to it.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I wish to thank the
Prime Minister for his bind words. It is a pleasure to see him in such good humour, and I appreciate it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am always in good
humour.


Ernest Lapointe: You do not show it all the time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is other hon. members who become somewhat heated.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: If the right hon. gentleman will stay in that good humour for the rest of the session I hope I shall have the pleasure of many more conversations with him such as I have had to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have been long
distance conversations.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I am glad the Prime
Minister has made the statement he did make. I hope whatever recommendations the committee makes will be made definitely, whether or not we are going to amend the grading this year, because seeding is about to commence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The sooner the better;
that is the reason the minister asked consent the other day.


James Layton Ralston: I wish to refer the Prime Minister and the committee to the provision in the bill which provides for the payment of undischarged obligations after the expiry of the act. May I say that with money voted under the estimates the practice has obtained, and has been approved by the Auditor General, whereby if commitments are made under any particular vote, and the vote expires because the end of the fiscal year has been reached, cheques may be issued for
tMr. Bennett.]
a period of perhaps fifteen days after the expiry of the vote, in order to pay those undischarged obligations. As I understand it that is the most that has ever been allowed. The committee will bear in mind that such an allowance is made in connection with undischarged obligations incurred under a vote which is absolutely limited.
I understand the right hon. gentleman has said that some ruling was obtained to the effect that under the act which we are now asked to extend sixty days' time can be given, according to the Auditor General's statement, for the payment of obligations which had been incurred before the expiry of the act. My right hon. friend said however that there was some doubt about the legality or validity of that practice, and that in order to save any doubt the government had given instructions that no payments should be made after the date of the expiry of the act, according to the letter of the statute. I think he and all members of the government were wise in that respect.
Now, however, my right hon. friend, under this statute proposes that the government may incur any obligations it likes, or deems wise, under the provisions of the old act, an act which as we know very well, after the discussions we have had, provides for unlimited power, and which contains no limit as to amount. He suggests that obligations may be incurred at any time before the actual expiry of the act on May 1, 1932, and that those obligations may be paid at any time thereafter, no matter how long it is after the act has expired. I say there is no precedent for such practice.
To illustrate what I mean I should like to give an extreme case, because after all that is the best way to show it. For instance, this government might agree to pay a subsidy of $10,000,000 per year to a railway company for a period of twenty years. So long as they created that obligation before May 1, 1932, the provisions of the last part of this section permits them to pay their obligations out of the consolidated fund during the whole twenty years. My right hon. friend will probably question that, but I say that is the effect of the section now before us. I will read it, because I think it ought to be on Hansard:
Notwithstanding the expiration of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, chapter fifty-eight of the statutes of 1931, by lapse of time, the provisions of the said act, and all orders in council and regulations made thereunder, shall not be deemed to have expired on and to have ceased to be in force on and after the first day of March, 1932, but to have continued and to be in full force for all purposes thereof whatsoever until the first day of May, 1932, and all undischarged obligations

Unemployment Continuance Act
created under the authority of the said act, may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund as therein provided notwithstanding the expiration of the said act on the first day of May, 1932.
In order to make it clear that that is under the act as amended, we find section 3 as follows:
The Unemployment and Farm Relief Act,
1931,	and this act, shall be read and construed as one act, and this act may be cited as The Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932.
I think it is proper to call the attention of the committee to this fact. Not only is there unlimited power under the old act, not only is there provision for an expenditure of an unlimited amount under that act, but now as a result of this new bill there is provision for unlimited time. That would mean that this government could commit the country to any amount the treasury of the country might contain, or might by any conceivable possibility contain after borrowing, for any time the government may see fit. I submit under this section the limitation to May 1,
1932,	means nothing at all, except that commitments must be made before that date, but, once having been made, payments may be made for as long a time as the government may desire.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is always amazing to
listen to hon. members who put cases which they know will never arise, in order that they may support a position which is wholly untenable. The bill asks to confer upon the cabinet or a committee of the house authority to deal with relief and unemployment measures during a period of only one month more. During the month of March they have been unable to do anything, and nothing but accounts which cannot be paid have accummulated. The inability to pay has seriously inconvenienced every province west of the lakes, and also many of the municipalities. This has been brought about by the attitude taken by the opposition. One might have expected that they would have stated their case, clearly recorded their vote and allowed this parliament to proceed with the business of the country. It is not my business to complain of what they have done; they are answerable to the electorate and to themselves. But they seem to forget that after all there is an extraordinary condition in the country. Now and then one of the faithful in a moment

shall I say?-of mental aberration from his standpoint declares there is a condition that i3 very serious, but at once he is frowned upon by those who would have you believe that everything is just as it has been. Now, everything is not just as it has been in any country in the world.
I will not dwell again upon the reasons that induced the government to ask this parliament to extend the statute for a period of sixty days. This is the last day of March; therefore the extension if granted to-day will continue for a month. In the meantime, as I say, there are large numbers of orders in council that must be passed in order to enable payments to be made. My own personal view is that when a statute authorizes an obligation to be created, and the obligation is validly created under it, and there has been no fraud, nothing to throw distrust upon the accounts as rendered, the obligation of the country should be paid. The hon. gentleman is of opinion that when midnight of the first day of March was reached the obligation to pay ceased with the authority to create.


James Layton Ralston: The authority to pay
ceased.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: Not the obligation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, together with the
authority to create new obligations. Parliament, if it enacts this bill, will have conferred upon the executive power to create new obligations during the period of thirty days. It will also make clear that the obligations that have been created and not paid may be paid after the first day of May. There is nothing new about that, nothing at all. It is the law of this country. If the obligation is validly created, an obligation to pay has arisen, and with the loss of further power to create obligations there is no lessening of the necessity to pay. It does not seem to me to require very much argument to make that
clear.	.
Now, what the hon. gentleman suggests is that there may be an abuse of that power. I am bound to say that I anticipated some such objection would be made, and hence it is that any orders in council and regulations must be forthwith laid upon this table. The preamble of the bill is the guide for its interpretation. These works are to be created for one purpose, namely, relief of unemployment, to afford opportunity for those who so much require it to get employment for the purpose of meeting the demands of sustenance, of life itself. The preamble is the interpretative section. The steps taken by the executive will be made known from day to day as they are made effective under the provisions of the statute. Does anyone suggest that if any government undertook so to
Unemployment Continuance Act

abuse its power as to pass an order in council of the character indicated by the hon. member for Shellburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), and it was laid upon the table of this house the next day, that the government would continue to exist? Is it thought for a single minute that it would?


James Layton Ralston: What has that to do with it?	[DOT]


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has everything to do with it, because this legislation is predicated upon one principle-that parliament has conferred upon the executive the power to create obligations for the purposes mentioned in the statute, namely, to relieve unemployment.


James Layton Ralston: Why limit it at all? Why have any words at all?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am so glad to hear the hon. gentleman say that, because I thought I would limit those things. Now I know he would have gone much further; he asks, " Why limit it at all?"


James Layton Ralston: If your argument is sound.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Why limit it at all?" he asks. I assume that when the appropriate time comes he will by his vote give effect to the principle he has just enunciated.


James Layton Ralston: If your argument is sound, why limit it at all?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why trouble with "if's" and "and's"? Once more the hon. gentleman is just endeavouring to set his will against the will of the majority of parliament. All I can say is we have put this provision in the statute deliberately.


James Layton Ralston: We are going to see it through?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, we are going to endeavour to see it through, because that is what we were sent here for, and I am sorry the hon. gentleman has not yet discovered that he is sitting to the left of the Speaker.


James Layton Ralston: I have been forced to realize it many times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is unfortunate. When I hear one of his capacity and training talking of piffling five cent pieces, of whether Grits or Tories are employed in a municipality in his constituency, I realize he cannot be very much engaged in thought for the country or he would not be wasting his time talking of such matters. But that is the size of it, and the size of the observations too. They are not creditable either to the hon. gentleman or to parliament itself. I was pointing 
out that this government has obligations which unfortunately will not be known for a long period of time. If he had observed what was said the other day, that under the act of 1930 only four million dollars had been expended at the end of the fiscal year, and the other fifteen or sixteen million dollars, although it had been expended was not paid until this year, he would have realized the necessity for this measure.


James Layton Ralston: That was a limited act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But I am only pointing
out the principle, that the obligation being created it must be discharged.


James Layton Ralston: Certainly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And it cannot be discharged just as promptly as the hon. gentleman suggests it may be, for the reason that this government has not control over the works carried on by the municipalities or the provinces. We have in the Department of Labour accounts certified, amounting to millions of dollars, from every province I think, but one, in this confederation. Their payment awaits orders in council. Those orders in council we propose to pass just the day this legislation is enacted in order that the municipalities may be paid for the work they have undertaken. For instance, the municipality of Burnaby may be able to get some of its money from the province of British Columbia when this legislation is enacted, but all the time the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) has interposed his will, he has prevented the municipality of Burnaby from getting payment. And that applies to every other municipality in every province in this dominion, because under the construction placed upon this statute-I think improperly-we have not been able to make payment of a single sum since the first of March to the various communities requiring money. We have placed in this statute a provision that obligations created prior to the first of May may be paid thereafter out of the consolidated revenue fund, so there may be an assurance that every obligation created by order in council will be paid. There are balances due for work provided in the agreements as given in detail in the return tabled by the Minister of Labour, and which are explained under the headings of municipal, provincial and federal obligations. Federal works, it will be observed, are practically all paid now. If hon. members have taken the trouble to look at the report they will observe that the federal obligations have been practically all dis-

Unemployment Continuance Act
charged, except where the work is still being carried on. For instance, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) stated that at Shippigan the money had not been spent and he rather insinuated it was a deliberate political oversight; but sitting opposite to him is the member for Northumberland, N.B., (Mr. McDade), who supports the administration, and who finds that in his constituency there is $10,000 unexpended with respect to a wharf at Chatham, for the same reason given by the Minister of Public Works-that the work involved a very large expenditure carrying into the future. With the sense of the responsibility that this executive must have with respect to matters of this kind, w'e did not care to project ourselves into a period of time which was indefinite. When the engineers making their final report indicated this fact the works were not proceeded with.
Then you came to the next realm, which was the work for the approval of which the province itself was responsible. The contact of the federal government is with the provinces, not with the municipalities.


Mr. VENIOT:: Do you say these amounts were all paid?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am just making the point that they are not paid; that is what I am saying. Unfortunately, they could not be paid because the work has gone on intermittently. Take the work in Quebec city, for example. This is a standard illustration, because the mayor of that city came to Ottawa together with a delegation of which the hon. member for Quebec East was a member. He knew, as I knew-though I knew it better after they had explained it to me-that the severity of the winter there had made it impossible to carry forward these unemployment works. They had been able to go on only to a certain point, and then they had to stop. They said they wanted an extension of time, and we considered that the obligation being created under this order in council, we should meet it until May 1.
Now I will make this closing observation in that regard. There are very few statutes enacted by this parliament conferring any power of an administrative character on the executive that are not capable of abuse. Every effort that men can make to prevent abuse is being made, and as I explained the other evening no action by this government would impose a new or fresh obligation upon the people of this country, other than the continuance or discharge of those provided for in the report made by the Minister of Labour.
except under most exceptional conditions. One of the new obligations we will have to meet is with respect to seed grain in western Canada. We took the ordinary, elementary precautions in connection with it, not ourselves but through the commission and through others who are directing enterprises in connection with the movement of grain, to see that seed might be preempted, or made available. It has not been paid for, but it must be paid for. We knew from each of the provinces what would be its probable needs.
I need hardly say to this committee that nothing so concerns this government as the whole financial outlook of this country. Is there any man who is carefully studying conditions who does not realize just what are the burdens and responsibilities at the present moment in connection with financial conditions? Even the richest country in the world, our neighbour to the south, has a deficit larger than has ever been recorded in any country of the world, amounting to almost two and a half billion dollars, an almost unthinkable sum. With our financial obligations we realize the need for every possible effort to avoid the creation of obligations that are not absolutely essential for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this measure. If the hon. gentleman suggests the possibility of abuse I can only say to him that abuse is possible under any statute where power of an administrative character is vested in the executive. Criticism is always conducive to soundness of administration, and the very criticism that has been made by the hon. gentleman as to the possibility of abuse will be always a factor in deterring those responsible for creating the opportunities for criticism by such abuse. That is known to everyone.
I can only say to this house that to the extent of our ability we propose during the next thirty days to limit our commitments to the minimum consistent with the obligations that already rest upon us and which must be carried out by fresh orders in council, in connection with seed grain, for example, and in connection with the moneys that must continue to be paid to the relief commission of Saskatchewan. We are still caring for many thousands of families out there. It may be of interest, and I think the committee should know that in furtherance of the views which I expressed a few days ago I have despatched a message to the governments of all the provinces for the purpose of enabling us to look at this financial position clearly and ascertain to what extent it may be necessary for the
Unemployment Continuance Act

dominion to secure funds to enable the provinces to discharge, within the realm of their responsibilities, the obligations which rest upon them. This we hope to do within the next ten days, in order that the legislation which we will submit to this house to care for the future, beyond May 1, may be based upon as intelligent an understanding as we can have as to what are the obligations involved.
I can only repeat-and I say this with some degree of confidence-that I believe that there is no member of this house, of the legal or any other profession, reading those contracts that have been entered into between the provinces and the dominion, and knowing the terms in which the obligations must arise and the payments be made, who will not admit that it is essential that there should be some provision enabling the payments to be made in the future for the obligations created up to May 1. The right hon. leader of the opposition asked the other evening as to whether or not we contemplated the creation of new financial obligations. I answered that at the moment I had no knowledge of any beyond those connected with seed grain and the work of the relief commission. There may be a few others of which I have no knowledge at the moment, but it is not our intention to create other fresh obligations. But we must frankly meet the situation to which I have alluded, and I trust the committee will pardon me for repeating these matters as I have, because the responsibility for the moment rests with us, and I am anxious that the committee should have as full an understanding of the situation as possible. So I say that we ask this power, not for the purpose of abusing it but for the purpose of enabling us to meet obligations that have been honestly incurred, upon which the contracting provinces and municipalities rely, to enable them to make payment in cash or kind to those who have discharged unemployment work in the several parts of this dominion.


James Layton Ralston: As to delay, we have
bandied words across this floor for some time with regard to responsibility, and when the time comes I and those who are on this side of the house will be quite willing to submit our record to the electors and have them decide who is responsible for the delay and indifference in dealing with this question.
I am not going to be led away from what I was discussing, when the right hon. gentleman rose to speak, by a resume of the whole debate which has been going on for the last two weeks. The reference which my right

hon. friend made to the instances which were given as to the way in which money was being expended was, it seemed to me, unworthy of the leader of a government who himself says they have endeavoured to see that the money reached the needy, and whose government went so far as to pass an order in council declaring that to be the purpose of the expenditure. It seems to me that anyone who could bring instances or point to cases in which it appeared likely that the policy of the government had not been carried out, should be welcomed by my right hon. friend, and that immediately a promise of investigation should be made. 7. do not think it lies in the mouth of my right hon. friend, or that it puts him or his government in a proper light before the country, to be so intolerant of criticism or of statements which would rather indicate that the assurances they have been given with regard to the administration of this money may not have been lived up to. It seems to me that the Prime Minister should do what my friend the Minister of Public Works did last night, that is, promise an investigation and desist from criticism of those who, notwithstanding the intolerance with which they seem to be met, feel that they should point out to this government instances in which the administration of this act has gone wrong.
Now let us get back to the point. My right hon. friend has a habit of traversing a good deal of territory when replying to a question which he feels may perhaps contain some modicum of intelligence, some grain of soundness. My suggestion to my right hon. friend was that if money was voted in the estimates no more than fifteen days would be given in which to make payment. My right hon. friend suggested that the most he could hope for under the ruling which he had was that within a reasonable time he might be able to make payments after the date for incurring obligations had expired. I pointed out again that this statute is unlimited as to time, and I submit that the Prime Minister has no precedent anywhere for any such statute. I expected that possibly he might justify this section in this way:	I thought
the provision might have been introduced for the purpose of allowing him to make payment now of obligations which had been incurred under the statute before the first of March. But did anyone ever imagine that my right hon. friend would embody in this statute power to make future payments for obligations incurred between now and the first of May when parliament, according to all

Unemployment Continuance Act
expectations, will actually be sitting here on the first of May and would be able to vote money if it had been properly obligated for? But the Prime Minister suggests that regardless of parliament he wants authority now not only to incur obligations but to make unlimited payments for unlimited purposes for an unlimited time. My right hon. friend has not answered the objection in this regard; he has given no reasons for wanting this authority. The suggestion he makes with respect to the fact that the provincial authorities may have made commitments and that their projects will not be completed is not good ground. He saw to it when he made the form of agreement contained in the report of the director of unemployment relief that a definite time limit was put in for the completion of projects, and I should expect that he would do the same thing now; and if he wishes to implement the obligation which he is going to undertake in connection with these projects he may fairly, taking a reasonable time, fix some time limit in the act, providing that within a certain time or before a certain date payments may be made. Let him take his fifteen days or thirty days or sixty days if he wishes, although I say that that is absolutely unnecessary in view of the fact that parliament will be sitting and will be able to vote the money. But let us assume that this is the sort of thing which we are to expect in this country at the present time and that my right hon. friend's demands have to be acceded to. Let us assume that, and let us assume further that the unheard of position which the right hon. gentleman takes with regard to the opposition is correct, namely, that we have been summoned by His Excellency and have come here merely to look on, being nothing but a minority. Assuming all that, I still maintain that my right hon. friend, for his own protection, if he cares nothing for the criticism of those on this side of the house, ought at least to put in some definite time within which all payments must be made in connection with obligations incurred before the first of May. I think that is a reasonable suggestion and I offer it to the Prime Minister. He will probably reject it; but I ask him, in the interests of what I submit is a proper form of legislation, and having some regard for the credit of the country as well as for his own protection and the protection of the government, to insert at least some limitation in the act. If he does not do this he has simply added to the bill the third and perhaps the
worst of the indicia of absolutism when he provides now that it shall be absolutely unlimited as to time, as to amount and as to power.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend must
realize that the law as it now stands provides that any judgment recovered against the crown is paid out of the consolidated fund without ever being in the estimates. This is merely that principle. Assuming that in every case the person entitled should recover judgment, the claim would be payable out of the consolidated fund.


James Layton Ralston: Why put it in the statute?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I asked myself that very question, and I am glad my hon. friend has raised it. Unless the principle were extended to a case such as this, it would be necessary for the claimant to recover judgment in each instance, and no one would suggest that every province and municipality having a claim should have to reduce it to judgment. I know of a case where the crown had grave doubts whether or not it was liable. Fiat was issued, action was brought, judgment was recovered and we 'had to find the money, willy, nilly, without estimates or anything else. The hon. gentleman knows that in his time as a member of the government orders in council had frequently to be passed to discharge judgments out of the consolidated fund, over which parliament had no control, it being taken that the reduction of claim to judgment comprised Such an assertion of the judicial branch of government as to compel the executive to find, out of the consolidated fund, the necessary money. And in the statutes themselves-I forget what statute -it is provided that where a claim is reduced to judgment it shall be paid out of the fund. In this instance we have merely asserted the same principle.


James Layton Ralston: No, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly.


James Layton Ralston: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, I put this to the hon. gentleman. If a claim arises under the agreements to which reference has been made -and they are all referable to the agreements between the provinces and the dominion- and we do not pay, would not any province be able, under a petition of right, to obtain speedy judgment and strike out any defence that might be made?


James Layton Ralston: My suggestion is that the time for payment should be limited so that my right hon. friend will not incur under any
156S
Unemployment Continuance Act

agreement any obligation which might ripen into judgment. There should be a limitation of the power which is sought. That is my point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the point the hon. gentleman made a moment ago.


James Layton Ralston: That is the point I am making now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have limited it in this way, that no obligation shall be made that binds the consolidated fund unless created before the first of May.


James Layton Ralston: I am trying to get the Prime Minister to limit the time for payment so that he should have to limit the obligations he incurs to a date before the expiry of the time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have already provided that the obligations must be created before the first of May.


James Layton Ralston: But you have not provided how long they may exist.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly not,-


James Layton Ralston: That is the point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -for the simple and obvious reason that I cannot anticipate the time in which a contract would ripen into a claim.


James Layton Ralston: You did before.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


James Layton Ralston: You provided for May 1, 1932, in the agreement with the provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The obligations were not in any sense unenforceable because the statute under which they were created had no validity.


James Layton Ralston: My right hon. friend does not suggest that the provinces could enforce judgment for work which was done in contravention of that agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not for a moment. Beale s Cardinal Rules for the Interpretation of Statutes lays down this principle: that if under a statute which no longer has validity an obligation has been created, the responsibility to meet the obligation has not vanished because the statute has expired.


James Layton Ralston: If you get judgment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does not lay it down as judgment; perhaps my hon. friend desires to put it that way. What I say is this: The principle upon which we proceed is the same as that which obtains in the statutes of 
Canada-that when a claim is reduced to judgment, however small or however large, it. is payable out of the consolidated fund regardless of estimates or parliament or anything else. And the general principle thus asserted from time immemorial in this country in our statute law is finding expression here. I do not care to undertake to limit the time within which payment for obligations created prior to the first of May shall be made, but in order that the house may be informed what the obligations are, we provide that the orders in council shall forthwith be laid upon the table of the house.


James Layton Ralston: The principle upon which I ask my right hon. friend to proceed is this: that the time within which payment must be made shall be limited and therefore, in order to carry out that obligation to limit the time he would 'have to limit his obligations made before the first of May, so that he would undertake no obligations which would be payable after the time to be prescribed by the statute. That is what I want my right hon. friend to do, and I am suggesting it for his own protection as well as for the protection of parliament and of the country. The Prime Minister is saying that the obligations must be made before the first of May, but they may be payable five, ten, fifteen or twenty years from now, under the statute. That is what I am endeavouring to get him to limit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does anyone think that unemployment relief payable twenty years hence will be of value?


James Layton Ralston: The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that everything under the sun has been done in the name of unemployment relief. Do not let him take us down that alley, because we have explored it and we have found that this statute is as broad as the Dominion of Canada and as wide as the legislative powers of parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was intended to be.


Mr. BRADETTE:: The fact that a member of parliament is sent here to represent a constituency implies certain obligations on his part, and I wish to make some remarks with regard to the subject now before the committee, which involves the expenditure of millions of dollars on unemployment relief. I mean the trans-Canada highway. This matter is of national importance and although there have been controversies in certain sections of the province with reference to the routing, I intend to discuss it entirely outside of the realm of politics. Last year I had a resolution dealing with this question and I

Unemployment Continuance Act
believe the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) stated that I had dealt with the matter in an absolutely non-partisan manner. It is my intention to proceed in the same way this afternoon, but I shall try to obtain a definite answer to my question from the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), or at least from this committee. My resolution last year read as follows:
Whereas the need for the construction of a trans-Canada highway has been accepted by the Canadian people;
And whereas, during last winter, that principle was being actually implemented by the construction of some of its links in northern Ontario out of the funds voted during the emergency session to relieve unemployment;
And whereas the necessity of the construction of two alternate routes is now well established;
Therefore be it resolved that in the opinion of this house that all moneys voted for that purpose will be spent on a fifty-fifty basis on the LaReine, Cochrane, Hearst, Nakina and Sioux Lookout section on the one hand and the Sault Ste. Marie, Fort William, Port Arthur and Kenora on the other.
I have in my hand the report of the dominion director of unemployment relief, which shows on page 39 that the sum of $5,250,000 was spent on the trans-Canada highway. The wording of this report would lead one to believe that the route of this highway has been decided upon, at least through northern Ontario. This highway is of national importance because the nine provinces of Canada are all interested in its routing, and they are directly interested in the raising of the money to carry on the construction. One of the largest and most expensive sections to be constructed is in northern Ontario, which, in fact, is the geographical centre of Canada. However, there exists a problem in connection with this section of the country which as yet has not been solved.
During the emergency session of 1930, I made the statement that the provincial government tried to wash its hands of the routing of this road. At that time the then Premier of Ontario, the present High Commissioner for Canada, the Hon. Mr. Ferguson, stated that the routing of the trans-Canada highway rested wholly with the federal authorities. I will not quote the exact words of Mr. Ferguson, but I know they were well received throughout the length and breadth of this country. Although I asked the Prime Minister if these words were true, I did not receive a definite answer until after the session of last year, when a statement was made in Calgary by the Prime Minister.
I read a very interesting article in Saturday Night, as well as in MacLean's Magazine, 41761-99
where it was stated that the country as a *whole necessarily must take a hand in this matter so that a logical route could be chosen, less money spent and a smaller mileage constructed. Speaking in Calgary last year the Prime Minister said that the trans^Canada highway should go over the Ferguson highway. That was a definite statement and it was well received by every section of northern Ontario. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) issued a statement to the effect that it was the only logical route. In the light of these statements I am at a loss to understand why it is that millions of dollars have been spent on other sections of the highway apart from the Ferguson highway. I ask the government to give this committee this information which the people should receive before any further money is. voted.
The provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have their own highway systems from the east to the west and the same applies to some extent to Quebec, although that province has no real direct communication with Ontario. In Ontario vast stretches of highway will have to be constructed in the northern sections in order to give direct communication between the east and the west. If my information is correct, the province of Manitoba has a highway system from the east to the west, and the same applies to the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
Will the government advise if a definite route through northern Ontario has been decided upon? One section- of this country is represented by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), but the people of northern Ontario want to know if our section is not to be taken into consideration. May I repeat the statement made in Calgary by the Prime Minister, I believe on August 18, to the effect that the trans-Canada highway would be routed over the Ferguson highway, via North Bay, Cochrane and Hearst. My resolution was very reasonable in its demands. I asked the federal authorities to make its expenditures on this highway on a fifty-fifty basis; that is, if money was spent on the Sault Ste. Marie, Fort William, Port Arthur and Kenora route a similar amount would be spent on the northern section. I received many letters stating that this was the only logical solution of the problem, and I believe it is the duty of the Minister of Labour to see that the same consideration is given to our section of the province as has been given to the southern section.
The construction of a trans-Canada highway is considered to be absolutely necessary. This

Unemployment Continuance Act



COMMON'

[Stage Direction]
work has been carried on not only to relieve unemployment but to create a link between the east and the west. During the last general election, whether Liberal or Conservative, we were as one on this question, we felt that this highway should follow the course of the Ferguson highway via North Bay, Haileybury, Cochrane and Hearst to the Manitoba border. Immediately this government came into power some dilly-dallying took place, and an attempt was made to unload the responsibilities upon the shoulders of the provincial government. I have referred already to the statement of the former Premier of Ontario to the effect that the whole responsibility rested upon this administration. The following year the provincial government stated it was sending out surveying parties and aeroplanes to study the ground in order to decide upon a suitable route but so far no definite reply has -been given by this government to the provincial government.
It must be admitted that the Prime Minister has many difficulties with which to contend, but he always faces them very squarely and I do not understand why he has not taken a hand in this matter. We nave the spectacle of two sections of northern Ontario being opposed to the construction of this highway along certain routes. More money has been spent on this highway for unemployment relief in the southern part of northern Ontario than has been spent in the northern part. It is true that as far as the Ferguson highway is concerned many fine bridges have been built and many stretches of road have been straightened, but nothing has been done west or south of the town of Hearst. Apparently we are fighting a losing battle as far as the trans-Canada highway is concerned. I mean literally what I say, but I have sufficient confidence and faith in the ability and capacity of the present Minister of Labour who represents northern Ontario, to believe he will see that the people in our section are given a fair show. I do not want to believe anything will be done on account of political expediency, or that the provincial government will favour the southern section of northern Ontario because it has a larger population than we have. Within the last ten years the agricultural population in my constituency has increased over 800 per cent, and within the short period of fifteen or twenty years we shall have a larger population in the northern than they have in the southern portion of northern Ontario. Therefore I do not want to believe that any action will be taken on account of political expediency. I hope and trust that the present 	. )- i
administration, because they are defraying fifty per cenit of the cost of the trans^Canada highway construction, will, if possible, decide now, before any more money is voted for such construction, where the road should run. We want to be logical; we do not want to hog the whole thing, but we know what the people are thinking in other sections and we know on account of their larger population they are better organized than we are. The basis of a larger population should not signify anything to the present government; they should be willing to give us what is coming to us. We do not want any special favours; we want just what is our due. I have already done a lot of work for the solution of that important problem.
Further, accompanied by a very strong delegation from the constituency of Labelle, including the hon. member representing it, I had an interview with the Premier of Quebec asking for direct communication between the city of Montreal and the Cochrane district on towards Hearst, thereby saving at least 200 miles. There were with me at the time several members of the Quebec legislature, and I had also the support of an influential gentleman from Montreal who thought this was the most practical and feasible route.
One thing that surprised me in the discussion on the routing of the transcontinental highway is that the only section that seems to be directly interested is the northern section of northern Ontario. Saturday Night and other influential papers in Toronto have said that the whole of Canada should take a hand in the routing of the trans-Canada highway in Nippissing and northern Ontario. I am sorry that so far no influential bodies of men in Canada outside of those in northern Ontario have taken an interest in the question. I hope from now on everybody will be interested and realize that on account of the enormous sums taken out of the public treasury for this work, he has a direct interest in such a construction.
I have stated that at present the province of Quebec has no direct communication with the trans-Canada highway in order to reach Manitoba or the Pacific coast; in order to do so people from Quebec will have to travel by the Montreal-Ottawa road to Ottawa, then on to North Bay and thence northwards towards Cochrane, or go around the north shore of lake Superior. On the other hand, the natural route, the one which should be taken so far as Quebec and the maritimes are concerned, is one that will give access by Mont Laurier to Senneterre.
In the Cochrane district to the Quebec border, there are only fifty miles of a link to.

construct. In Quebec there are hundreds of miles of good provincial highways built by that province, and there is only a link of not more than 150 miles north of Maniwaki to give direct communication to the northern section of northern Ontario. So I repeat that all the provinces should be interested. Once the thing is an accomplished fact-and the undertaking will cost more than it should if the routing is not logical-it will be too late to criticize. This is the time to consider the situation not in a parochial or regional but in a national way. That is why I should like to see a general discussion of the whole matter by all the representatives of all the provinces, because I repeat that we are all directly interested in such an undertaking.
I have no quarrel with the southern section of northern Ontario. Their battle is their own. If they can show they have a better case than we have; if they can show the provincial or federal government that the road should be constructed through their section, all well and good. But then it becomes a local matter whereas the construction of such a road is not a local but a national question. As regards the routing of the trans-Canada highway even in northern Ontario, the provincial assemblies should be consulted; every province in this confederation should have an interest in such a matter. Perhaps some will say that it is'now too late in the game for this. It is not too late, because it will take five, six or ten years more before the trans-Canada highway in northern Ontario is finally completed. There are questions of cost, of the country it will traverse, of mileage, of where it should go, of what would be the best routing so far as tourists are concerned. One argument advanced by the good people of the southern section of northern Ontario was that the highway should be constructed closer to the United States border so that more tourists from there might be attracted. That argument, however, will not stand the light of day, because we are building a road, not for the people of the United States, but for those of Canada. In this regard we should apply the Canada first policy. I repeat: The most logical, the most economical and the proper routing of that road is in the northern section of northern Ontario.
Last summer in Calgary the Prime Minister put the situation very well. I have not before me the newspaper reports of his observations, but I believe he said that the road should go via North Bay over the Ferguson highway-he omitted the name of Cochrane -but mentioned Hearst; but at the same time the Ferguson highway takes in the towns 41761-99J
31, 1932
Unemployment Continuance Act
of Cochrane and Haileybury. I was delighted at the words of the Prime Minister, because he gave the impression, at least in our section of the country, that he was fully aware of the geographical and physical situation. I was also highly pleased at the comment made a day or two afterwards by the present Minister of Labour when he gave an interview which appeared in the Ottawa Journal, saying that he was delighted at the words of the Prime Minister; that the Ferguson highway was the logical routing for the trans-Canada highway. But a few days afterwards we had very strong protests from Fort William, Port Arthur and, more particularly, Sault Ste. Marie. We then had the Premier of Ontario saying that no decision had been reached; his statement was almost to the effect that the Prime Minister of Canada had no right to make such an assertion; that the routing had not yet been decided. As a representative of the northern section of northern Ontario I began to believe that the people of the southern section of northern Ontario being greater in number than we are in the northern section, regardless of what the cost or mileage will be, the routing would be through the southern section and apparently, by the estimate that I have in my hand, millions of dollars have already been spent in the southern section. I am mentioning these facts not for political advancement nor for any other political purpose, but that the Canadian people may be fully aware of the situation, and that the problem, which is not local but national in importance, may be dealt with in a national way. If I had the time I would read to the house some comments made in regard to the matter by some independent newspapers. They give statistics and prove by facts that the most economical and the shortest route would be in my section.
Some people have said that we have no population yet. I stated a few minutes ago that our population had within recent years increased 800 per cent, and I think I am not going too far in prophesying that within twenty years the Porcupine, the James bay and Hudson bay district on the Ontario side will have an increase of 10,000 or more prosperous homes. The same thing will apply to the Kapuskasing district. There is bound to be an improvement in the mining and agricultural districts in the north country. In north and south Timiskaming we have what is known as the clay belt, and in my view it would maintain at least a million more population. We have other areas which hold potential resources.
Unemployment Continuance Act
[Stage Direction]

To show what people think of our section of the country may I say that during last summer, while at a point beyond Kapuskasing, I met a party of four cars from the city of Toronto. May I add that we have very few tourist parties from Toronto, and very few business men from the southern section of the province. I asked them what they thought of the north country. They had visited Hearst, Kapuskasing and Haileybury, Cochrane, Timmins, and Iroquois Falls. All the members in the party told me that they were astonished at what they had seen, and at the potential wealth and possible future of the country, which was a revelation to them. They promised to become missionaries among their friends, and to recommend vacationing in the north section of the country.
While in North Bay I was approached and told that I should not go into the north section of the country because the roads were not good. My answer is that the Ferguson highway is as good a gravel road as there is in Canada. If any tourist will visit the north section of the province of Ontario they will be well satisfied with the road. No doubt a road along the shore of lake Superior would have wonderful scenic attractions but not more so than in the northern section. We know that its cost would be prohibitive. Ten to fifteen years would be required for construction. On that score alone the people in my district should be given the consideration they deserve. It may be that the premier of the province of Ontario has decided on a certain route which he thinks would give satisfaction to the majority of the people of northern Ontario. Unfortunately I have very little accurate information before me about the actual routing of the road. I do know however that millions of dollars have been spent on the trans-Canada highway in all sections but the one from which I come, and I believe it is my duty at this time to ask the present administration to let me know the exact situation in the matter.
It is not my intention to take up further the time of the committee. I could carry on for a long time, and give reasons why the highway should be constructed along the northern section of the province. I must say that I believe the newspapers have been fair, and have given both sides of the question. I take this opportunity of appealing to the Prime Minister, and to the Minister of Labour, who has boasted, and rightly so, of his love for the north country, to take the part of our section of the country, and see that we receive from the federal and provincial authorities that to which we are en-

titled. We have no quarrel with any section or area in northern Ontario; we want all sections to profit. We are of the opinion, however, that any government, whether it be provincial or federal, should not forget a section of the country which in the future will support ten times its present population. The truth is that at the present time we have not the representation enjoyed by other sections of the dominion, but with the increased population we are sure to have we must necessarily be heard.
During the last session of parliament a statement appeared in the Northern Tribune to the effect that Hon. Mr. Finlayson, speaking at the town of Kapuskasing, had said that in conjunction with federal authorities three parties of surveyors were looking after the routing of the highway. I was voted down when I tried to get information from this government in that connection. I believe our case should be heard before either provincial or federal authorities. I know the present Minister of Labour made the building of the trans-Canada highway one of his political platforms, and I did the same. We are all one, so far as the building of the highway through northern Ontario is concerned. Our section of the country must not be forgotten; it cannot be left out. It is a new section, and the northern route offers the shortest way of crossing the northern part of Ontario. Moreover, a road through that north country would be a revelation to the people who would have the good fortune of travelling over it. Is it too much to ask for a definite answer on this matter from the government.
Mr. REID:: Mr. Chairman, I had not
intended at this time to enter into a discussion regarding the affairs of Burnaby. However, the Prime Minister has made statements which I cannot allow to remain unchallenged. Either those statements must have been made because of the ignorance of the Prime Minister, or on the other hand, previous statements made by the Minister of Labour are grossly untrue. On February 10 the matter to which I am about to refer was brought before the house, and for the benefit of hon. members and the special benefit of the Prime Minister I shall read the statement made by the Minister of Labour on that occasion as to why municipalities could not receive their money.
I think before I have finished I will prove to the committee that I had nothing whatever to do with the stopping of payments. The

Unemployment Continuance Act
Minister of Labour is reported in Hansard of February 10, 1932, at page 88, as follows:
That, shortly, is the position in so far as the Dominion government is concerned.
He is speaking of the fact that they had sent out 83,371,664.69 to assist the province of British Columbia to take care of New York maturities, and had advanced the sum of
82.300.000	against works for unemployment relief purposes in that province. In addition to that, during the course of the week in which the minister addressed the house a further $225,000 had been advanced to the provincial authorities in order that they might carry on their work in connection with their camps. Then, continuing his final statement, he said:
I am not in possession of the particular facts with respect to the district of Burnaby to which the hon. member has referred, but the federal government has not only carried out its agreement to the full with British Columbia, but made these payments to that province far in advance of the receipt of the necessary vouchers to equate them. I think I can assure the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) that in spite of his anxiety with respect to the locality to which he has made reference, matters are proceeding out there, particularly in the last month or six weeks, in such a way that I anticipate no great difficulty.
According to the report of Mr. Hereford, those statements are borne out, because we find that loans were made first of all to cover the dominion's share of moneys on approved public works. That was to an amount of
8500.000	in one instance, and $800,000 in another. The Minister of Labour has stated to me that there was an understanding when the money was sent that it was to take care of all accounts rendered by the province of British Columbia. As he himself has said, however, British Columbia has seen fit to take the exact wording of the order in council, and has hidden behind the excuse that no money was sent to pay the dominion's share. That is the controversy which has been going on from time to time since the beginning of January, and it remains unsettled. Only a short time ago, in an interview with the Minister of Labour, an understanding was reached that money would be sent out on the authority of an order in council passed on March 2 to take care of the dominion's proportion of municipal relief expenditures. It would seem that on February 10, $2,300,000 had been sent to British Columbia against relief works. I ask the Prime Minister, when he knew there was controversy, and that the banks were refusing the credit of municipalities, and that merchants
would not accept relief cheques, why he did not see fit to send further money? It was on. the tenth of February that I brought this to the notice of the house. Why was not the money sent? Only last week I received a copy of a telegram sent to the Minister of Finance by the provincial government informing him that they had some two or three hundred thousand dollars left over from the money so sent, and stating that if they received authority from the government they would pay the dominion proportion of the municipality's account. The Minister of Finance informs me that such a telegram was sent by him, and that he could not see any reason why the provincial government should not pay the account. But in spite of all that we have the Prime Minister getting up and pointing his finger at the opposition and saying I was stopping payment of the money due to the municipality of Burnaby. Why did not the Dominion government send that money, or see that it was sent, when the serious condition of affairs at Burnaby was brought to their attention? I would also ask the Prime Minister now: Will he now send a telegram to the British Columbia government to use that surplus money for the dominion's proportion of the municipality's expenditure? I am glad in a way that this question has been brought up by the Prime Minister, because the municipalities may yet get the moneys owing. I am not particularly interested in who is to blame, but I am disgusted that the buck has been passed to and fro so long. Again I ask this quesetion: Will the Prime Minister send a telegram to the British Columbia government authorizing them to pay the accounts out of the $200,000?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Prime Minister will not send a telegram to the government of British Columbia telling them how to do their business.


Thomas Reid: They have asked for it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He will, as soon as the
house passes the legislation now before it, pass an order in council to forward to the government of British Columbia the moneys they may be entitled to receive. A cheque for $500,000 has been outstanding since the second of March. It has been so frequently referred to in this house that I want again to mention it. That cheque will also be sent.


Thomas Reid: In view of the explanation, why did not the Prime Minister intervene on February 10-not March 2-to see that the money was sent? On that occasion I directed

Unemployment Continuance Act
the attention of the house to the fact that the municipality of Burnaby could not get any money from the provincial government, atlhough over $1,800,000 had been sent to them by the federal government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose the hon. gentleman realizes that we have no contract with the municipalities. We have stated that so frequently that I thought it was well understood. Neither the municipality of Burnaby nor any other municipality had any relations with a federal government. Our contract was with the province. As between the province and the municipality, we were neither a court of justice nor an arbitrator.


Thomas Reid: I can assure the Prime Minister that I think I have done a little service to the municipalities of British Columbia by bringing the matter to his attention. I hope the bill will pass. But the Minister of Finance was sent a telegram the other day by the government of British Columbia, as I have stated, and he said that there was no reason on earth why the province could not have paid the municipality's account. That is why I object to the Prime Minister saying I have stopped payment. Here is a telegram that I received to-day:
Deputy Minister of Finance, Victoria, says the dominion's share of the money spent is not in his hands.
That is what the Burnaby Board of Trade was told only the other day. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if that is not correct, that on his own word to me he sent a telegram to the government of British Columbia saying there was no reason on earth why the money could not be paid. Yet we are being told we are stopping these payments, and still the province will not pay the municipalities.
I am glad to see the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) in his seat. I was disappointed that information was not given me regarding the Canadian National contract for railway tie3. When the government passed the order in council for two million ties at a price not to exceed sixty-five cents each, it made some of us wonder, because certain of our contractors in British Columbia were told last fall that the Canadian National had ties on hand for two and a half or three years ahead. I should like the Minister of Railways to pay some attention to this.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I give my hon. friend
the information? One of the contractors is a strong Conservative.


Thomas Reid: I received this letter the other day and I think some attention should be

paid to it, because it would be interesting to know just what price was paid by the Canadian National Railways for the ties. This letter is not from one of my constituents, but from a man in Edmonton whom I do not know. I give that information in oase it may be thought I prompted the writer. This is the letter:
March 16, 1932.
Dear Sir,-
Apropos the question raised by yourself in the house reference the purchasing of railway ties by the Canadian National Railways, I offer the following information concerning the workmen on the job.
I am not vouching for the authenticity of this information, but I think the statement is worth looking into. The writer continues:
Sixteen farmers, originally, cut ties for Canadian National Railways in the bush near Edson, Alberta. Each was to receive 8 cents per regulation tie. Each man paid one dollar daily for board. Towards the close most men broke even; two quit as they were getting in debt. One fellow cut 400 ties, an average of eighteen plus, daily. He ended no, after paying for axe handles, with $2.95 to his credit. From the men's viewpoint they would be better off in a city taking the dole. There must be many Canadian taxpayers like myself in British Columbia and Alberta who would feel that an answer to a straight question would be in the public interest. No wonder that there are 6,140 single unemployed on the relief list in Edmonton alone.
That is signed by A. C. Russell, who gives his address as 10555-93 street, Edmonton, Alberta. I hope the Minister of Railways will look into this, because if it is a fact that only eight cents was paid I think the writer is about correct when he says men would be better off taking the dole, for such remuneration is equivalent to slavery-and this government should be no party to slavery. I hope the Minister of Railways will obtain information from the Canadian National management as to who got the contract and what price was paid.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I am glad my hon. friend has brought up the question of ties, because some rather wild statements have been made with respect to it, one of the wildest by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King).


Thomas Reid: Not by me.


Robert James Manion: I am not speaking of the hon. gentleman. One of the wildest of those statements was made by the leader of the opposition. I was not in the house at the time, but I was startled to read this heading in the Montreal Gazette of March 18:
Grave charge made by head of opposition.
Mackenzie King refers to railway tie deal.
No tenders called.

Unemployment Continuance Act
Ths Montreal Gazette's Ottawa correspondent in his despatch, dated March 17, then deals with the statement. I am glad to explain the position. When the question was asked in the house by-


Thomas Reid: It was asked by myself.


Robert James Manion: No, I think the question was asked by an hon. member before my hon. friend drew attention to it. I took the stand then that the railway management considered that the giving out of prices, names and so forth, in regard to tie contracts, as well as to other contracts, was not in the public interest. That was the attitude I took, and I must confess that I expected it to be accepted by the opposition, as it had been accepted on every occasion, so far as I know, when it was taken by the opposition when they were in power. So I was not prepared for the question at the moment.


Ernest Lapointe: It is not the same thing at all.


Robert James Manion: It is the same thing.


Ernest Lapointe: When the money is given the Canadian National surely them is no reason why the names should not be given.


Robert James Manion: Before I am done I will give all the information my hon. friend wants, and perhaps if the matter is pushed very far I could give a lot of information as to the way tie contracts were handled in the past. However, I made my explanation to the house and the opposition leader rather heatedly objected to that information not being given. I do not question his right to do so, but I made a statement at that time explaining that as far as ties were concerned the railway management had taken the attitude that they had sufficient ties, as is stated in that letter read by my hon. friend. But demands came from all over the country, from every province except Prince Edward Island, where they do not produce ties, pointing out that very little lumber was being cut throughout the country and asking that if possible we should influence the Canadian National management to purchase ties this year in order to give work to the different sections of the country where ties were cut normally.
I discussed the matter with the government and with the railway management. They adhered to the position that they had bought so many ties in previous years that they were overstocked, and due to their decreased earnings they did not require so many ties for replacement. For example, in 1929-rather a significant year-the management bought fourteen million ties. At all events, that was
the attitude they took, and they adhered to the statement that they required no ties and that, if they bought any, we would have to pay for them. Different conferences were held, and in brief that was the position. I discussed the matter with the government; applications and representations were coming from every province of Canada except Prince Edward Island, and in view of these widespread demands, which I think were just because of the decreased cutting of timber throughout the country, the government finally decided to assist the railways in the purchase of a few ties. We discussed the matter with the railway management, and 65 cents was fixed as a maximum because that was about the average price paid last year.
Mr. MeINTOSH: Is that for a No. 1 tie?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: Was that a loan or a grant to the railway?


Robert James Manion: If my hon. friend will permit me to do so I will explain that later. Therefore we passed an order in council, a copy of which I think has been laid on the table and a further copy of which I have before me, providing for an advance to the company of sufficient money to buy two million ties at a maximum figure of 65 cents per tie. We did not want the management to go above that average price of last year, but as a matter of fact they went considerably below it. Instead of spending the amount mentioned in the order in council, the $1,300,000 which represented two million ties at 65 cents, I do not expect that we will have to pay them more than from $900,000 to $1,000,000. They were able to cut the price very materially because of the decreased cost of everything. This is the point: They made their own price. We merely passed an order in council permitting them to buy two million ties in their own way, of which we were to pay the actual cost, and I am informed now that the actual cost will be at least $300,000 less than the amount provided by the order in council, which means a very marked decrease in price.


Jean-François Pouliot: The ties must have
shrunk.


Robert James Manion: Someone sitting near me
has suggested that it would be a good idea if my hon. friend would shrink. However, the railway management then let the contracts for the ties, spreading them from coast to coast. My understanding is that the average nun-

Unemployment Continuance Act
ber of ties secured from any individual is about five thousand, in round figures. I am just giving rough averages, but I am told that between three hundred and four hundred contracts were entered into, scattered from Nova Scotia to British Columbia.


Peter John Veniot: Did they advertise and call for tenders?


Robert James Manion: No, they did not, but
advertising for tenders for ties is very much misunderstood. It is true that in past years they advertised for tenders, but they never paid any attention to the prices set out in those tenders. In other words, after receiving tenders the two railway companies usually got together and fixed the price of ties, and they did exactly the same thing this time. They did not call for tenders, the reason being that last year they bought four million ties and when they called for tenders they got tenders for sixty million ties. So they thought that when they were buying so few ties this year they would simply spread them out, largely using the lists they used in the past, with the help of people writing in from various sections of the country. In brief that is what was done.


Mr. POWER:: May I ask if they secured
two million ties?


Robert James Manion: They have not secured the ties but the contracts have been let.


Charles Gavan Power: For two million ties?


Robert James Manion: Yes, roughly; a little less, I believe, but in round figures the contracts are for two million ties. The contracts were let just as they have been let in the past; they were let by the railway and prices were fixed by the railway without consultation with myself or any other member of the government. I did not know what the price would be until it was fixed. Frankly I do not mind admitting that, according to reports I have received from some sections of the country, some of those prices are so low that the people making the ties claim they will not make anything out of it. I am told that quite a number of the contractors have taken these small contracts for the purpose of keeping their plants in operation and a certain number of men employed. I have been given that information by a number of contractors who have written in to say that the prices are so low they cannot make anything on them.


Charles Gavan Power: Has the minister any idea
of the average price in any given locality?


Robert James Manion: I think I have it here,
and perhaps later I will be able to find it. I

cannot give the exact figure, but I think it is very much lower than the price of last year. If my hon. friend will take the figure of two million ties and divide it into the amount of something under 81,000,000, he will get a rough average figure himself. It works out to something less than 50 cents a tie on the average.
In brief that is the story. The reason I could not give any further information than I did give was because all .that I had in regard to the ties was the order in council, which already had been tabled, which stated that ultimately the Canadian National Railways would be paid up to 81,300,000 for the purchase of these ties. -Probably there will be some other questions asked during the discussion and I will look through my papers and gladly give any further information my hon. friends desire. I might add that when we came into power in 1930 the railways told me they had on hand something over twelve million ties. They use something like six million a year, so they had a supply more than sufficient for two years.


Charles Gavan Power: Is six million ties the normal yearly consumption?


Robert James Manion: That is what they tell me, although they are using fewer now because the ties last about three times as long now that many are creosoted.


Thomas Reid: If this statement is correct I
think the spread between the eight cents mentioned and the fifty two cent figure should be looked into. I know there is the cost of taking them to the siding, loading them and so on, but the price of eight cents is very low.


Robert James Manion: I cannot imagine that any such figure tvas given, unless it happened in this way: Some contractor may have secured a contract for ties and sublet it. He has probably financed the man getting out the ties, and perhaps when the man has finished he will get eight cents out of each tie. But the idea of eight cents being given for ties is so ridiculous that any man who would take a contract at that figure would be fit for a lunatic asylum.


Charles Gavan Power: That is only for making them.


Robert James Manion: Eight cents is ridiculously low. The average is fifty cents, and no one would take a contract at eight cents.


Thomas Reid: Twenty cents has been the price paid to men hewing them in the woods.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Peter John Veniot: A fair average price under present conditions would foe twelve or thirteen cents per tie.


Robert James Manion: That is, clear.


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Robert James Manion: I should like to justify further the attitude we have taken in this matter. After I had made the statement refusing to give the information, on the advice of the railways that it was not fair to them nor in the public interest to give that information, I had this question looked into and I found that the Hon. Mr. Robb had done exactly the same when in my position, as had also the Hon. Mr. Dunning.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: But not under the unemployment relief act.


Robert James Manion: The conditions are exactly the same; the purchases were made by the railways, contracted for by them. So far as the railways are concerned, the conditions are exactly the same. We were giving the Canadian National Railways up to $1,300,000, and I am informed that the amount will probably be under $1,000,000. But so far as the refusal to give information is concerned, that refusal is based upon exactly the same grounds as in the past. I have here a memorandum with respect to the matter, which I shall put on the record:
On March 15, 1926, the late Hon. Mr. Robb, on behalf of the Minister of Railways, replied to a question by Mr. Donnelly, as to whether certain contracts for ties had been entered into with certain parties in New Brunswick, the number of ties, and also the price. Mr. Robb gave the information as to the contracts, and the number of ties contracted for, but as to price stated: "Not in the public interest to give information of this character."
That was the attitude I took. I believe that there were two questions, one by my hon. friend from New Westminster and one by the hon. member for Quebec South.


Charles Gavan Power: For some unaccountable
reason the question was dropped from the order paper.


Robert James Manion: I had nothing to do with its being dropped from the order paper, but I presume the reason was that it was exactly the same as the question asked by the hon. member for New Westminster and which was voted down. I saw it myself and there was practically no difference between the two:
Similarly, on April 19,	1926, Hon. Mr. Dunning, as minister, replied to a question by Mr. Fraser as to tie purchases by Canadian National Railways in British Columbia. Mr. Dunning gave the number purchased, and the names of the parties supplying, but, in the matter of price, stated:
"It is not considered to be in the public interest to furnish this information."
On March 15, 1926, Hon. Mr. Robb, Acting Minister of Railways, dealt -with the following question by Mr. Macdonald of Richmond- Hansard. 1530, 1926:
"1. What quantities and descriptions of material were bought for the use of the Canadian National Railways during the year 1925?
2.	What portion of said goods were iron, steel or metal products and what textiles?
3.	From whom were said goods purchased and at what prices?
4.	What quantities of fuel and lubricating oils were purchased by the Canadian National Railways, where these purchased, what prices were paid, where wras delivery made to the railways?
Hon. Mr. Robb:	The Canadian National
Railway board and management hold strongly that it is not in the public interest, and would be injurious to Canadian National Railways, to bring down information such as that sought by Mr. Macdonald, and having to do with the purchase of materials and supplies. Even were it a proper principle to adopt, it w-ould be a matter of great difficulty and expense to compile such a statement. In addition, it is information which conceivably might result in increased prices of material and supplies, and consequent increased operating cost of the railway. It has been found that commercial houses and industrial organizations tendering on railway requirements hesitate to submit their best prices when there is likelihood of the same being divulged."
On the same page of Hansard, Mr. Johnstone asked for similar information as to coal purchases. Hon. Mr. Robb gave the names of the supplying companies, but as to the amount contracted for with each company, the price, and the tonnage actually taken, gave the followung answer:	.,	,
"2, 3 and 4. The management consider that it would not be in the public interest, would be injurious to National Railways, and an embarrassment in future negotiations to publish contracts, prices and deliveries, as called for by these questions."	.
Possibly these citations are sufficient to indicate the general attitude of the late government in regard to these matters.


Peter John Veniot: There is a difference between the situation at that time and the situation to-day. At that time both railways were in competition in the purchase of ties, but in 1930 and 1931, owing to the depression, the railways got together and decided upon the same average price.


Robert James Manion: They have done so' every year.


Peter John Veniot: Not in 1925, 1926 and 1927.


Robert James Manion: I am informed that they did.
Unemployment Continuance Act


Peter John Veniot: Then if they did, why did one railway more than another refuse to give the prices? It was not until 1930 that the two railways got together owing to depressed conditions.


Robert James Manion: I am informed differently. The management of the Canadian National Railways informed me that they have always done this, at least for some years, and certainly long before 1930.


Ernest Lapointe: There is a great difference between the two situations. With the position taken by the government and by its predecessor, that it would not be in the public interest that the Canadian National Railways should be compelled to divulge the prices paid for articles purchased by the railways in the ordinary course of administration, I entirely agree. It is a sound principle and I think it would be unfair to the Canadian National Railways if they were forced to divulge 6uch prices. But surely that is not the situation to-day; the Canadian National Railways do not purchase these ties in the ordinary course of their operations. My hon. friend says that they were declining to buy any ties; they did not need any. They were given authority by this government to purchase these ties subject to the understanding that the government would pay for them out of the relief money provided for by this act. This is money which is voted by parliament, not by way of estimates but by special statute authorizing the government to spend certain sums for the purpose of relieving unemployment, and this committee has the right to have all the details precisely as if the money had been voted by an estimate. It cannot do any harm to the railways, nor can it give any advantage to their competitors. This is money given by the people of Canada to relieve unemployment, and surely we have the right to know how that money has been spent, who supplied the ties, and what prices were paid for them. Under the understanding given last session, the pledge given to parliament, we certainly have the right to request that all these particulars should be given the committee.


Robert James Manion: I do not see where the difference comes in. We have given information as regards what we have done or what we shall do with the money voted by parliament. We are giving certain money to the Canadian National Railways with which to buy ties, and they make their contracts exactly as they have done in the past. They make 
arrangements with dealers precisely as they have done heretofore and I know no reason why we should insist on their giving this year such details as they have refused to give in past years. So long as parliament knows that the money has been handed over to the Canadian National Railways, as it will know, unless there is a desire to attack the Canadian National Railways for the way in which they have spent it, there is no more reason for giving details this year than there was in the past. The hon. member for Quebec South asked a question in regard to the prices of ties. I am going to give the average prices paid in the past years, from 1923 on:
Cents
1923		 74
1924		 79
1925		 80
1926		 76
1927		 72
1928		 78
1929		 76
1930		 75
1931		 64
1932		 52
The highest price paid was 80 cents, which was paid in 1925, and the lowest price paid between 1923 and 1932, a period of ten years, was the price paid this year. Surely it does not look as though there was anything to find fault with unless it is that the price is too low; certainly it has not been too high. May I add that private companies like the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are not asked to give the details as to the people with whom they make their contracts or as to the different companies with whom they deal, and I do not think the Canadian National Railways should be put in a different position.


Charles Gavan Power: As I understand the precedents cited a few moments ago by the minister, they were to the effect that the government had power to give the names of the persons who had dealt w'ith the Canadian National Railways but had not the power to give the prices paid for the goods. Did I understand the minister correctly?


Robert James Manion: That is apparently what was done in the past; the names were given.


Charles Gavan Power: Will the hon. minister give
the committee the names?


Robert James Manion: I have not the names
before me; I will make inquiries and if I can obtain them I have no objection to giving this information to the committee.


Peter John Veniot: The minister should have
them.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Robert James Manion: That is not what was
asked; we were asked to give the names and the prices and to furnish copies of the contracts.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
very glad to see the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) present for once in his seat. The Minister of Railways is confusing two entirely different issues.


Mr. HACKETT:: The Minister of Labour is in his seat every day all the time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: One of
these issues deals with the normal expenditure of certain moneys voted with regard to the Canadian National Railways. When certain criticism was made from this side of the house in connection with chapter 58, we were told that there were two different types of expenditure; there were expenditures directly under the control of the federal government, and there were expenditures under the joint control of the federal government and the various provincial governments. We asked specifically, not only last year but in 1930, that there should be control by the Auditor General of Canada over- all funds, including those which are a direct national responsibility and those jointly controlled by the provinces and the dominion. The position was taken a't that time by the Prime Minister, and possibly he was partly correct, that we had no authority to investigate the expenditures made by the provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Beyond being satisfied
that the money was actually expended. That is, if we had cause to suspect that it was not being spent, then we could investigate. I elaborated upon the matter at the time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
quite satisfactory for the sake of my argument. Apart from the discussion in connection with railway ties, I contend that the Auditor General should satisfy himself, through the officers of the Department of Labour, who administer this fund, that this money has been properly expended by the province of British Columbia or any other province for the purpose for which it was voted by parliament.
The vote of $1,300,000 made for the Canadian National Railways had nothing whatever to do with the previous customs of this parliament in regard to votes of money for the national railway. I recall the words of the Prime Minister uttered when this special act was passed in 1930. He said that this government accepted the responsibility for all expenditures. The other day the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) asked
the Minister of Railways for certain information in regard to the order in council which had been passed. Where did the authority for that order in council come from? It came from the clause in chapter 58 of the statutes of 1931 which deals with peace, order and good government. In other words, the minister derived a special authority from a special statute; under that special authority he passed a special order in council and under that special order in council a special expenditure was made. He now comes and tells this committee of the parliament of Canada that we are not entitled to the fullest information in regard to every single detail of that expenditure.
We have before us a very commendable document in the form of the report of the director of unemployment relief. This document gives a comprehensive analysis of all the expenditures made under the act of last year. Certain details are submitted for the information of hon. members who voted last year for chapter 58-some of us, of course, under compulsion-but I submit that we are entitled to receive the fullest information on all items. This report covers expenditures which were entirely national in character as well as those which were partly national and partly provincial. Details are given of special expenditures which were entirely national in character and with which the provinces were not concerned. The minister has stated that this item totalled less than a million dollars, but the order in council calls for two million ties at a cost not exceeding 65 cents each. I suggest that this committee is entitled to the fullest and most definite information in connection with this item. We are entitled to know the names of every single contractor for the supplying of ties to the Canadian National Railways. We are entitled to this information because this was a special act, passed under special conditions to deal with what the Prime Minister this afternoon has called a special emergency. We are entitled to know the names of the various station men who went out into the woods in the various provinces of Canada and-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Canadian National Railways would not know that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They
should know it.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How?


Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: If the right hon. gentleman was a business man, would he not know? Is there an hon. member in this committee who, if he were a business man looking after his business, would not know?

Unemployment Continuance Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: After the Scottish interruption, the hon. member may proceed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
Prime Minister has stated that the Canadian National Railways would not have this information. I suggest that when the Minister of Railways recommended to the executive council, under the special authority which he had received, the passage of an order in council calling for the expenditure of SI,300,000, it was his duty to instruct the Canadian National Railways that the government of Canada would be responsible to parliament for a complete determination of every single item in the expenditure. He should have instructed the Canadian National Railways that in regard to this special vote, made under special conditions to meet a special emergency, they would be held accountable to the Canadian government and the Canadian people for every single cent expended.


Robert James Manion: All expenditures for the
Canadian National Railways are dealt with in exactly the same way. At present there is before the house a bill asking for $61,500,000, and in that connection we ask for no more details than we do in this.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
is different.


Robert James Manion: I do not see the difference. In connection with unemployment relief there has been passed to the Board of Railway Commissioners the sum of $500,000 for assistance in the construction of subways, and we have not the privilege of auditing that expenditure, unless for some special cause, so I understand. The same thing applies to various works in my hon. friend's province. This government has handed an immense amount of money to the province of British Columbia, which money is being dealt with by the province and by the municipalities, and we have no way quickly of auditing the expenditures. We get certified accounts. We handed over the money on the recommendation of the province, and we are in the same position in this regard.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
on record in Hansard as having stated in 1930 that this government could have insisted upon having complete control. I am certain that not a single province in the face of a national emergency would have resented in the slightest degree the most complete and paramount control over all expenditures made by the federal government. In the second place, my hon. friend has entirely evaded-I do not suggest deliberately-the point of my argu-iMr. T. McMillan.]
ment. The expenditures made under the special statute of last year to meet a special emergency must be completely dissociated from the practices and customs of former years.


Robert James Manion: The expenditures to which T have just referred are under this act. As regards the subways, it is impossible to get all the details.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Then
my argument applies in regard to subways as well as in regard to any other undertaking of the government under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act. My argument is this: before we vote under this special statute to meet a special emergency any moneys for any enterprise-subways, Canadian National railways or any other body, including the provinces-we who are responsible here for federal expenditure demand a full, complete and rigid accounting of them. I still appeal to my hon. friend under this special condition to demand from the Canadian National Railways a full and complete report. They can easily, without violating any confidence or doing damage to the railways, disclose who the main contractors were. The main contractors can be corresponded with and they can supply the Canadian National Railways with complete information with regard to the various subcontractors. The subcontractors can be communicated with by the main contractors and the former can supply the information as to who the station men were. We can then find out the prices, spread, entire cost to the nation, and what the poor fellows for whose relief this act was designed, received for doing this work in connection with meeting a national emergency of unemployment.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Reid: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock we were discussing the question of railway ties, and now that the Minister of Railways is in his sealt I should like to ask one question. Would he have any objection if I were to ask the Canadian National Railways for information concerning ties, with special reference to prices and bo on?


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend has as much right as I have to communicate with the Canadian National Railways, and so far as I am concerned he may go ahead and get all the information he can.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Thomas Reid: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance which arises out of the controversy which has taken place between the province of British Columbia and the Dominion government in connection with moneys which have been sent. Moneys were sent by the Dominon government presumably to take care of not only provincial works, or of dominion commitments in connection with provincial works, but also of municipal works. Orders in council were not very explicit regarding the dominion's share of the municipal expenditures. The provincial government has consistently taken the stand that the order in council did not specifically state that these moneys were for the dominion proportion of municipal expenditures. Up to date there has been a total of 81,800,000 sent to the province of British Columbia. That province has taken and maintained the stand that the money sent was sent as the dominion's proportion of provincial expenditures only, and that none of the 81,800,000 sent by the dominion is to pay for any of the dominion's proportion of municipal expenditures. The sum of 81,800,000 is more than the commitment or agreement entered into by the dominion government with the province of British Columbia to be expended on provincial public works projects. The total schedules of work submitted by the government of British Columbia in conjunction with the dominion government was 83,250,000, fifty per cent of which was payable by the Dominion government. The total figure for the municipal program was 82,749,963, fifty per cent of which was payable by the dominion, 25 per cent by the province and 25 per cent by the municipalities. Some of the moneys sent to the province were to help the financing of both municipal and provincial programs. However, the 81,800,000 sent by the dominion is to pay, so the province maintains, for provincial works only, although it was understood when the orders in council were passed-and I have this on the word of the Minister of Labour- that it was to take care of all expenditures and commitments, both provincial and municipal. The question I had intended to ask the Prime Minister, w'hich I shall ask the Minister of Finance is: In view of the fact that more money has been paid to the province than the sum for which the Dominion government is obligated, what will the attitude of the government be now? The sum of 81,625,000 is the exact amount for which this government is committed, and they have thus sent $200,000 in which the municipalities are not allowed to participate.


Mr. RHODES:: Speaking from memory and without the figures before me, I would say that up to the point where they were precluded from sending further money, after the first of March, the dominion had discharged its complete obligation to the province of British Columbia. There was a matter of 8500,000 in question, because a question arose with respect to an order in council which could not be approved prior to March 1. I can only repeat what the Prime Minister said earlier to-day, namely that in all cases we have dealt with the province only. We have made advances to it apart from our own obligations arising out of our share of unemployment relief works. Those advances made by the province against the security of treasury bills were to be dealt with by the province as between themselves and the municipalities, without our direction or control in any respect whatsoever.


Thomas Reid: Due to the fact that the Prime Minister said I was delaying payment, I wish to make this statement. To date the province of British Columbia has received over 8200,000 more than the dominion's commitment for provincial expenditures, and yet the municipalities are being denied any portion of this.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The money which was
loaned by the dominion to the provinces against the security of their treasury notes was intended to be advanced against the province's obligation-and that would apply also to the province's advances to the municipalities. We dealt only with the province. The question is one which rests between the municipalities and the province.


Thomas Reid: I am afraid the minister has
not grasped my point. The Dominion government has sent $200,000 more than the total commitment. If the federal government were sending the whole amount owing the province it would send the sum of S1,625,000, because the provincial program totalled 83,250,000. Now there has been sent $1,800,000 for provincial accounts, a sum which is $200,000 beyond the amount sufficient to settle the whole account.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is twisted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, he is all wrong.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You are about three
thousand miles out.


Thomas Reid: Well, the minister will have a chance to tell us after I sit down.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have been listening to
my hon. friend's chatter for some time.
15S2

Unemployment Continuance Act


Thomas Reid: There is another matter I
should like to have cleared up. The figures I have given were supplied to me by the Minister of Labour, and if any hon. member doubts them I have a spare copy. They are also contained in the report of the dominion director of unemployment relief, and I state emphatically that the amount is $1,800,000. If my hon. friends turn to page 11 they will find that the dominion contribution to the province of British Columbia is $1,374,985.50. That is the total money the dominion will pay for all municipal works. Then in the next column we find the dominion expenditure for provincial works is $24,129.50, for provincial highways, $1,098,870.50, for trans-Canada highways, $502,000. If hon. members care to add these figures they will find that my statement is correct, and that the total program in the province of British Columbia is roughly $3,000,000, half of which is payable by the dominion, or the sum of about $1,600,000. Why, therefore, should $1,800,000 have been sent for provincial undertakings only?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The whole $3,000,000
had to be provided by the dominion.


Thomas Reid: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So that the sum which
British Columbia has received, $1,800,000, is still $1,200,000 short of what is required to enable British Columbia to discharge its obligations to the municipalities and provide for its own work. It is because they are unable to get the money that we were to loan them that they are in their present predicament. That is what I meant when I spoke to the hon. gentleman before.


Thomas Reid: I still maintain the province
have $200,000 more than is coming to them for their program of unemployment relief work.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Thomas Reid: Yes. They could easily have paid the municipalities because they have received plenty of money with which to pay. The reason the moneys have not been paid is known to nearly everybody in British Columbia. However, I shall leave that phase of the matter and address a few questions to the Minister of Public Works, in spite of the fact that the Prime Minister has said that we are delaying the progress of this bill. I am going to ask the Minister of Public Works regarding some expenditures under the direct relief program. I ask the minister for particulars concerning a building which was erected at Salmon Arm at a cost of $22,000.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: At what page
does my hon. friend find that item?


Thomas Reid: At page 67 of the report of
the dominion director of unemployment relief.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The building
has not yet been, constructed.


Thomas Reid: Has it not been constructed?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


Thomas Reid: But there is an appropriation
made?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That public
building was in the schedule of authorized works, bub after investigation there was a decision not to undertake the work.


Thomas Reid: Is there any intention to undertake it?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Not under the
unemployment relief program; it will have to come in the regular estimates.


Thomas Reid: I see there are many items for public buildings erected in Ontario. Have any of those buildings been constructed? I have a reason for asking these questions.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: With the exception of a building in the city of Windsor upon which construction has begun, I do not think any public buildings have been constructed under the provisions of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act. Other work consisted of repairs, alterations and improvements, which were undertaken because representations were made that carpenters, plumbers and other tradesmen needed work. To afford them some relief we made repairs to public buildings on a pretty generous scale. As my hon. friend will see, these repairs were made to public buildings throughout Ontario and the other provinces wherever we could do the work within the time.


Thomas Reid: I am fairly well satisfied by the minister's answer, because when I wrote the department with respect to a post office at New Westminster I was informed that no new buildings would be undertaken under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act. It is interesting to know we are all being treated in the same way. Yesterday afternoon the minister gave the house a letter, dated November 25, that was sent to all district engineers telling them that no applicants for employment should be discriminated against on political or religious grounds. Among the many projects which I submitted to the dominion director was one for work at White Rock amounting to $6,300. On hearing that

Unemployment Continuance Act
the work was under way I paid a visit to the district and found six men on the job-men who I knew were not actually destitute or in need of relief. The foreman told me he had received his position from the district engineer at New Westminster, Mr. Worsfold. I proceeded to New Westminster and asked Mr. Worsfold who had given him the names o' those men on the ground that they required relief. After a little hesitation he told me the local Conservative committee had done so. When I pressed him he admitted that he had got the names from the defeated Conservative candidate who had secured them from the Conservative organization. I claim that is a direct breach of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act. I know that in past times there have been such instances of party patronage on both sides, I am frank to admit that, but under this statute a man's religious or political convictions were not to be held against him in the granting of relief. Some men appealed to me for relief and I referred them to the local Conservative committee. When they went there they were told they were out of luck. The minister may ask why I did not write him at the time with regard to this irregularity. Directly I knew of it I appealed to Mr. McGeough, of Vancouver. He found my statements were correct and he objected to those men being put on the job. and towards the end the irregularity was rectified to some extent. Then the local branch of the Legion was given power to list men. I have absolute proof of what I say;
I am not speaking from hearsay. I would ask that the minister investigate this matter, and if he finds what I have stated is not correct I shall be glad to make a retraction in this house.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In some way, directly or indirectly, it came to the attention of the department that there was some complaint in connection with this work. If I misunderstand my hon. friend I shall bs very glad to be corrected, but I do not understand him to say that any of the men should not have been so employed. The report I have received is that the investigating officer went to my hon. friend and asked him to give the names of men to be put on this work, but he declined to do so.


Thomas Reid: I certainly did. That is not my function, Mr. Chairman. I submit that it is not the duty of a member of parliament to furnish the names of men who should be given employment. Had I done so I would have been challenged in this house for giving the names of Liberals. I told the engineer, "It
is your duty to go to the municipal authorities or to the municipal hall and find out what men are destitute and in need of employment."
I take pride in saying that I did not suggest one name to him. I am glad to see that the minister has had some report, because the facts are exactly as I have stated them.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The facts are exactly as I have stated them, too. My hon. friend is now seeking to leave the impression that there was some political intrigue in connection with this work.


Thomas Reid: I am not blaming the minister,
I am blaming the district engineer.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The officer who employed the men engaged on this work acted perfectly fairly when he asked my hon. friend to nominate men. Surely there can be no complaint as to that?


Thomas Reid: When I objected to the district engineer going to the local Conservative patronage committee to name men for the job I said to him, "You will hear more of this," and left his room. He ran out to me at the elevator and pleaded with me not to take any action.


Olof Hanson: Shall the section carry?


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, before this bill passes I wish to refer to certain remarks made by the right hon. Prime Minister. If I caught his words correctly, he said that accounts on finished work in conjunction with the provinces and the municipalities had not been paid up to date by reason of the fact that this bill had not yet gone through this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is so with respect to a large number of them.


Peter John Veniot: It is not true of the county of Gloucester, nor is it true entirely of the province of New Brunswick, because the auditor of the provincial accounts has shown that at the end1 of the fiscal year of the province, October 31, there was somewhere around
8170,000	of accounts submitted for payment with respect to work completed. The federal contribution of $7,500 for work done in the town of Bathurst had not been paid up to Easter, although the accounts were submitted some time ago. The information given the secretary treasurer of the town of Bathurst was to the effect that as soon as the order in council could be passed the Dominion government would forward the $7,500 to the provincial government, who in turn would forward it to the town of Bathurst. When I was home at

Unemployment Continuance Act
Easter I looked into this matter further and found that so far as they were aware in Bathurst no order in council had been passed authorizing payment of the $7,500, but the letter remains there stating that as soon as an order in council can be passed the account will be paid. That work was completed in the first week of December; the account was sent to the provincial authorities at Fredericton, who forwarded it to Ottawa, and the acknowledgment of its receipt is on file. But no payment has been made, so in connection with the county of Gloucester the statement made by the Prime Minister is not exactly correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say it was
true in every instance.


Peter John Veniot: You said it was true in
most instances.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what I said, either.


Peter John Veniot: The same thing applies
to the entire province of New Brunswick. A question was asked in the house as to how much was still due the province of New Brunswick on work accomplished in connection with projects which had been approved, and I think the answer was $171,000. That amount was due long before March 1. Those accounts were not paid, though they could have been paid before the bill lapsed.
Then the Prime Minister referred to the statement I made in reference to the $58,000 unexpended by the Department of Public Works in connection with the Shippigan island wharf, and he said that I wished to make political capital of it. I should like to direct his attention to the words I actually used:
I do not wish to imply that the approval of this work was made public for any effect it might have had in the by-election, but the fact is that this knowledge that it had been approved came up at the time.
I distinctly stated that I did not wish to leave the impression that politics was involved, and I said that because the matter came under the direction of the federal Department of Public Works and I felt, in view of the splendid treatment accorded me by the Minister of Public Works, that he would not allow Conservatives in the county of Gloucester to play politics in this regard.
Leaving aside the political point, the reason given as to why the work was not proceeded with was that the estimate was $30,000, the amount approved for the project was $15,000, and the work could not be completed before March 1, when chapter 58 lapsed. Let me ask the Prime Minister, as well as the Minister

of Public Works, if that is so, why the work at Negro Point was proceeded with, in the province of New Brunswick. The estimate was $22,000; only $12,772 was spent, and the work is noit completed. I direct attention to Burnt Church in Northumberland county; $20,000 was the estimate, $11,013 was spent to February 29, and the work has not been completed. Then there is North Sydney, where the estimate was $22,000, where $16,109 was spent, and where the work has not been completed. There is the immigration hospital in Quebec; the estimate was $12,000, the work has not been completed and $7,174 was expended. There is Hailevbury, in Ontario, where the estimate was $67,000, where only $17,809 was spent to February 29, and where the work is not one-fourth completed. There is the dredging at Port Hope; $35,000 was the estimate, the work is not completed and only $23,968 has been spent. Take the national research building in Ottawa; the estimate was $40,000, of which only $12,262 has been spent, and I have reason to believe that the work is not one-half or one-quarter finished. Take Point Tupper wharf; $24,000 was the estimate, $16,787 was expended and the work is not completed. If the government say that these works are completed, what must we say about the estimates of the cost? If, on the other hand, matters can be carried on in that way in Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia, why could not the work to which I referred be begun last fall? After referring to these other items the excuse that the estimate was $30,000 and the work could not be completed before March 1 does not hold water, and I think an injustice has been done the county of Gloucester. When I heard the right hon. the Prime Minister give that reason I thought to myself that it was different from or perhaps in addition to, the reason given by the Minister of Public Works.
The Prime Minister must have thought that the reason given by the Minister of Public Works was not sufficient, but when I examined the report of the dominion director of unemployment relief I found that my section of New Brunswick certainly had not been treated in a just and proper way. I am almost driven to believe that this work was stopped for other reasons which have not been given us.


Ernest Lapointe: Shady reasons.


Peter John Veniot: No, I would not use that
expression; I would be told I was using unparliamentary language. There is enough shadiness in the atmosphere outside without bringing any into the house. I was surprised to hear the Minister of Labour heatedly make

Unemployment Continuance Act
the statement that not one concrete case of dissatisfaction with regard to the expenditure of relief money had been submitted to him.
I do not know whether or not any case has been submitted to him directly, but I do know that in one instance twenty-one concrete cases of complaints were submitted to the Department of Labour and I know those complaints were received by the department.
I hold in my hand five pages of closely typewritten foolscap containing complaints and charges. From my seat in this house, I say that I put my seat at stake to prove these charges.


Mr. PRICE:: Will the hon. gentleman say by what authority he makes that statement?


Peter John Veniot: I do not need to satisfy the hon. gentleman.


Otto Baird Price: You will need to before you get through.


Mr. YENIOT:: I make this statement with regard to the charges I have made in this house, that I am prepared to stand by them, at least to the extent of ninety per cent, and to put my seat at stake.


Otto Baird Price: The statements are absolutely incorrect and I have the proof.


Peter John Veniot: Oh, you don't know what
you are talking about; sit down.


Otto Baird Price: I have the proof that they
are absolutely incorrect. Is that good enough for you?


Peter John Veniot: Now, sir-


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: What are the
dates?


Otto Baird Price: The statements are absolute
bunk and I have the proof right here. I have the proof from the Premier of the province of New Brunswick that your statements are absolutely incorrect. How do you like that?


Peter John Veniot: I like the voice better than I like the man. I think nothing of the man; the voice is rather sweeter than the hon. gentleman. Now, sir, these statements were laid before the Department of Labour. But let me go back of the statement and remind the house that last session I read seven affidavits which set forth the padding of pay sheets.


Otto Baird Price: You have pulled this stuff
long enough.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Olof Hanson: Order.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member for Westmorland has not the courage to deliver a speech. He has not done so since I have been occupying a seat in this house, at least not this session.


Otto Baird Price: Just speak the truth.


Peter John Veniot: If he can make himself
known to his constituents only by means of interruptions, I think it is your duty, Mr. Chairman, to call him down and make him keep his place. As I was saying, last session I read in this house seven affidavits with reference to the cutting out of work on unemployment relief through federal aid under the authority given in the month of September.


Otto Baird Price: And it has been well done.


Peter John Veniot: Will. the hon. gentleman
keep quiet?


Otto Baird Price: It has been well done. You have more than is coming to you in Gloucester county.


Peter John Veniot: I wonder whether my hon. friend from South Essex (Mr. Gott) has any more onions. He might send some over to the hon. gentleman.


Mr. GOTT:: Hon. members opposite must
all be hungry. The hon. member for Temis-couata has just cried out for steak, while the ex-Postmaster General seeks more onions- an excellent combination used extensively throughout the Dominion of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


An hon. MEMBER:: Onions and beefsteak go well together.


Peter John Veniot: As I was saying, the affidavits in question were personally presented by me to the then acting Minister of Labour, now Minister of Labour, after I had read them in the house, and he refused to take them. He said he would have nothing whatever to do with them; he told me to keep them. He said, in effect, "You keep them and give me the devil to eat to-mowow on the floor of the house". I said I would keep the affidavits since he would not take them. What has resulted since that time? At that time I also stated that two of the men accused in these affidavits of padding pay sheets in connection with federal aid were then under investigation by the provincial government, accused of padding pay sheets for provincial work. The investigation has been completed and the royal commissioner has submitted his report to the local legislature. It appeared in the papers yesterday that the individuals against



Unemployment Continuance Act
whom the affidavits I read were made have been found guilty. One of them has been found guilty of stealing 84,000. That same individual had the expenditure of federal aid money and in the month of December, 1930, he returned a pay sheet to the provincial government for federal aid to the extent of $350, not one bit of work having been done for that amount of money. I read affidavits from men whose names were on that ipay sheet for December, wherein they swear that they never did work and never saw cheques for the amounts opposite their names. Yet the minister stands up here and says that no concrete cases have been laid before him. The gentleman he sent down to the county of Gloucester to investigate did investigate some cases and he came back here and intimated that he would make no report on the cases he had investigated because they did not come under the federal aid but involved provincial money. The other night I proved from documentary evidence submitted to the legislature of New Brunswick that on every one of those roads I had mentioned in my complaint federal money had -been expended; yet that gentleman reports to his minister that these works do not come under federal aid. I do not know where he got his information, but whoever gave it -to him led him astray.
I am going to read some of the concrete cases I laid before the department. Here are the details of one in particular. The Blue Cove road is on the federal list which I read the other night. The Blue Cove- road was reported by Mr. Carter not to have received any federal expenditures. The Minister of Public Works of New Brunswick, at the request of one of the members of the legislature, submitted the list I have here, giving the names of the -roads on which federal money was expended, and this road is among them. Now what are the facts? The supervisor was one O-mer Blanchard, a -man living five miles away from the road, in another district; yet under the act it is stipulated that the work shall be carried on wherever possible by residents of the -district. This man was taken from another district and brought in to do the work. This -man refused work to Liberals -now this is political, this end of it-the day after the election; he said, "Not a damned Liberal will get work". He also refused certain men the right to sign their work slips. Incensed by the treatment given them by this supervisor, a number of men- went to work in spite of him; but when told that they would not be paid they stopped working. In discussing the situation wit-h the supervisor, some of the men to whom he had refused work be-
|Mr. Veniot.]
cause of -their politics asked him why no such discrimination was made by him in the St. Leolin district, which is six miles further west. He replied that that district had given a majority to -the Conservative candidate while Blue Cove had given a majority against him. Now Mr. Carter, -the gentleman sent by the department to investigate upon my complaint, has in his possession the evidence of thirty men to prove that every word stated here i3 true. After seeing these men he called upon the supervisor. The supervisor, as he was alon-e with Mr. Carter, attempted to deny the statements of some thirty men. Now there is a -concrete -case for -the department. They have the evidence obtained by Mr. Carter. Oh, it may be said, you have this merely from hearsay. I had that from the lips of Mr. Carter when he returned from Blue Cove after I had given him the names of the witnesses. Mr. Carter had in his note books the names of the ge-n-tlemen who had given him this information, and yet he refrains from submitting his report to this house.
There are other cases just as bad as this. There is a case in a certain district where the supervisor went to a man working on the roads two or three days before October 26, the by-election day, and said to him, " If you will vote for the Conservative candidate in the provincial by-election I will guarantee you $20 worth of work after the election." The man refused and said, "I cannot; I am a Liberal and I cannot support a Conservative candidate." This man got off the day of the election in order to vote and when he came back to work the next day he was discharged. There is no hearsay about these statements; this man has made an affidavit and is prepared to swear to it in any court of justice.
There is another case down at Shippigan island. An individual wanted to get work but was turned down because he was a Liberal. He went to work in spite of this refusal but at midday of the second day the foreman came to him and showed him a letter signed by the defeated Conservative candidate in the provincial elections of 1930 stating that if he continued to work he would receive no pay.
I want to be fair with these things. I am not blaming the Department of Labour for what has taken place, but I do say that when these things were discovered, when they were reported by me as being true on my word of honour as a member of this house, they should have been investigated to the full. But this was not done and that is why I blame the department. Whose word was taken for the statement that this was not federal aid, I do not know. I repeat, and

Unemployment Continuance Act
I cannot repeat it too often, that the men in Gloucester county who were under the control of the provincial Department of Public Works used the federal aid money as a campaign fund and political machine. I will ask the Minister of Labour-


Ernest Lapointe: He is not here.


Peter John Veniot: It will reach him-let him read Hansard to-morrow. I will ask the Minister of Labour, now that he has the evidence that federal aid was expended on these roads, that he obtain from Mr. Carter his reports on the old Miramichi road, on the Blue Cove road, on the Bennie Petre road, the south Bathurst and other roads. I was going to refer also to the roads north and south of the Tracadie river, but Mr. Carter reports that he saw only one individual and he was not able to obtain any information. In these cases where he was not able to obtain sufficient evidence the minister should have him return and make a further attempt, but the evidence already obtained should be reported to this house. If that is done it will be seen that it bears out what I have said to-day.
Take the cases of the old Miramichi road or the east Bathurst road, so-called,, which Mr. Carter said was not under federal aid. This project is under fedeial aid, because the provincial Minister of Public Works has stated that practically $14,000 of federal aid was expended as compared to only $5,000 of provincial aid. This was the reply made in the legislature of New Brunswick. Mr. Carter had my report in which I stated that the men who were on the pay-roll on October 26 had not worked. I suggested to him that he look into this matter, and he did so. He found out that there were men on the pay-roll on October 26 who had not worked. He went to the chief timekeeper who told him he could not understand how it was. The chief timekeeper's name is also on that pay-roll, and he stood all day at the polls corralling the men off the road and keeping them there all day in order to vote. Yet he does not understand how it was they were not working. He sent Mr. Carter to a young school boy of seventeen years of age who was acting as assistant timekeeper. This boy told Mr. Carter that he had put the names of these men who had not worked upon the pay-roll under the instructions of his father and William Gallagher. Is it true that these pay-rolls are padded? Replying on March 22, as reported in the St. John Telegraph-Journal, to a statement made by me in this house on February 8, the provincial Minister of Public Works stated that 41761-100J
while it was true a number of men had been on the pay-roll on October 26, when it was discovered that they had not worked their names were erased. This goes to prove the statements I made to the Department of Labour, at least in that respect. It goes to prove also that those who had charge of the work-I do not know whether they received instructions from the provincial department or from anybody else-did not hesitate for a moment to use federal money as a campaign fund. Is it any wonder I take such a strong stand against allowing the provincial department to handle this money any longer when the Minister of Public Works has had three or four of the supervisors in his own county of Restigouche reported upon by a royal commission as having stolen some $7,960 of the public moneys expended on the roads in that county?	[DOT]
I take this matter up to-night in order to justify the position I took on March 8. At that time I referred to the expenditure of money in the county of St. John and stated that much of the money had been expended before the projects had been approved. I stated further that the projects approved between November, 1930, and March, 1931, and those approved on November 25, 1931,-I was then referring to the first project-had been held over until the by-election took place. If I am not mistaken, the projects in the county of St. John were approved of in February, 1931, and some of the money was expended. Everybody in New Brunswick admits that at that time unemployment was very acute in the county of St. John, and especially in the parishes of Simonds and Lancaster, yet $7,300 of that money was withheld and not expended until June, the month of the St. John county by-election, which took place on June 29, 1931. I have, from the pay sheets of the New Brunswick Department of Public Works, direct evidence of that expenditure of $7,300 being upheld until June.
I further stated that large amounts of money were expended before the projects were submitted to the Denartment of Labour, and I have the proof of that from the pay sheets of the New Brunswick Department of Public Works. In September, 1931, they spent $13,168; in October, $17,093; in November, $7,863, and yet the projects were not approved until November 26. Therefore in that respect I have substantiated the statement I made on the floor of the house.
I wish to go back to the expenditures made in the county of Gloucester. There has been submitted by the New Brunswick Department of Public Works to the provincial legislature,

Unemployment Continuance Act
expenditures under federal aid amounting to some 826,000 or $27,000 more than the amount involved in the projects approved by the Department of Labour. How in the face of this can the provincial government continue spending still further beyond the amount involved in the projects so approved? Under those conditions, with the knowledge I have of the loose way in which this money has been expended in my province, might I be permitted to say to the Minister of Labour that, if the government will not change its methods of expending that money in the provinces, he have an official of his department examine very carefully the projects submitted before one dollar is spent, and that, if the accounts submitted to the New Brunswick legislature show that there was expended under federal aid by them $26,000 more than is involved in the projects approved, the provincial government be called upon to reimburse that amount to the federal exchequer.
There are other matters to which I should like to refer, but I do not wish to delay at any greater length the passing of this measure through committee. We have been accused of obstruction. May I say to the Prime Minister and his followers that as regards my opposition to this measure, obstruction has been furthest from my mind; but if my hon. friends opposite wish to issue the challenge to us and go to the country on it, we are prepared to meet them and to take our chances then. We have endeavoured to enlighten the people of Canada as to the manner in which the federal government is attempting to usurp the powers that belong to parliament and to parliament alone.
If I may judge from what I have heard said by those whom I have met during the Easter holidays, Conservatives as well as Liberals, they contend that the government has gone too far in usurping those powers; that apparently it mistrusts parliament; that it wishes to have in its own hands the carrying out of matters under this act. Some years ago we heard of a ''whisper of death;" now we hear a whisper going among the people, asking: What have the government in mind? Why are they adopting such drastic measures? Why do they wish to become absolute as a cabinet in carrying on relief work? Many of our Conservative friends are beginning to be anxious, suspicious.


Mr. JONES:: We are not worried.


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend says: "We are not worried." I think he will have a greater worry than I when the time comes for us to explain our conduct to our electors.
IMr. Veniot.]
I suppose the hon. gentleman need not worry very much. He is one of those who has benefited by the reduced stumpage given by the government of New Brunswick.


George Burpee Jones: That statement is absolutely incorrect and my hon. friend knows it.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman says that is absolutely incorrect. Did he not cut on crown lands?


George Burpee Jones: Not one stick, nor did I receive any benefit from anything I operated on my own private land.	' -


Peter John Veniot: I shall take the hon. gentleman's word for that, but let me say this, that the firm of Jones Brothers apparently is doing some business with the Department of Indian Affairs. My hon. friend will not deny that, and he will not deny that in 1926, before a court of disclosure, he swore that Jones Brothers was himself and himself alone.


George Burpee Jones: I never made any such statement.


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend did.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take it back.


Peter John Veniot: I cannot take back what I said, because I have the record of the court.


George Burpee Jones: The hon. member cannot produce any record that will verify his statement.


Olof Hanson: The hon. member must accept the word of the hon. member for Royal.


Peter John Veniot: The Chairman says that under the practice of the house I must accept the statement of the hon. member for Royal.
I obey the practice, but I stand by the sworn statement given before the court by the hon. gentleman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the hon. gentleman should not be allowed to do this sort' of thing.


Peter John Veniot: I shall take back the statement I made, but I say that I have in my possession such a record, and I do not have to take that back.


Mr. QUINN:: What about the pronouncement from Athabaska?


Peter John Veniot: That is the first crowing I have heard since Athabaska spoke. I am sure other Conservative back benchers will not brag very much when they look at the record of the vote. .It takes my hon. friend from down east-

Unemployment. Continuance Act


Felix Patrick Quinn: Yes, from Halifax.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, it takes my hon. friend from Halifax to do the crowing for the Tories in Ontario and the west, because I am sure they were not encouraged to crow when they heard the results of that election.


Felix Patrick Quinn: By the way, what was my hon. friend's majority down in Gloucester? Was it not only thirty-five?
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver)):	It was
enough to bring him here.


Peter John Veniot: Two hundred and fifty-one.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Oh, no.


Mr. CANTLEY:: No.


Peter John Veniot: I hear the hon. member for Pictou crowing, my old friend from Pictou. I admire his constituency because I was brought up down there. Perhaps it is because of my relations with the Scotch people in Pictou that I am so chary about giving advice.


An hon. MEMBER:: Tell us all about the post office.


Felix Patrick Quinn: It is a long way from
Gloucester to Pictou.


Peter John Veniot: The people sent for me; that is more than they would do for you. Since the interruptions are growing I think I shall continue a little longer. I am giving an opportunity to some hon. gentlemen opposite to blow off some of the steam which formed at the time of the Athabaska election.


An hon. MEMBER:: Better steam than hot air.


Peter John Veniot: I do not hear any bragging, with the exception of the hon. member for Halifax. Of course he lives away down by the sea, and when he comes to Ottawa and is free from the foggy atmosphere-


Felix Patrick Quinn: Very good.


Peter John Veniot: When he finds himself in the clear atmosphere of the Gatineau he wants to toot his horn. Without being discourteous to the people of Halifax may I say that owing to the fog so prevalent in that district, and which condition applies also to St. John, they have become used to the blowing of the fog whistle. Then, when they find themselves in a clear atmosphere they are lonesome, and in order to remind themselves of home they blow their own horns.


Felix Patrick Quinn: You are a pretty good fog horn.


Peter John Veniot: That is all I have to say just now.


Otto Baird Price: Mr. Chairman, I should like to have the floor for a few moments. I am very much concerned with my hon. friends opposite who have been doing so much talking, and I feel inclined to say a few words to them. First may I tell them that through their debate on the relief measures they are holding up both the house and the country. The present administration has done everything possible to better the unemployment situation in Canada. The legislation passed by this government has tended to improve that unfortunate condition, and there has been an honest endeavour to alleviate suffering.
Hon. members opposite have criticized the administration; that is their duty. Help yourselves; this administration will survive, and when	the	next opportunity	arrives itwill carry	the	country.	People	in Canada
have too much common sense to listen to the objections of hon. members opposite. The opposition have nothing to offer; they have been obstructing in every possible way, shape and form.
At this point I should like to take my old friend from Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) to task. He has made some comments concerning remarks by	the	Premier	of New	Brunswick.Turning to page 944 of Hansard for the current session I find that the hon. member for Gloucester told in flowery language what the Premier of New Brunswick had said. When the hon. member made the statement on March 8 of this year I took objection, and stated I did not believe the hon. member's statement	was	correct.	I feel there is no
occasion to hurry, because hon. members will agree I have taken very little time in the debates of this house. I quote from the remarks of the hon. member for Gloucester, in which he sets forth statements by the Premier of New Brunswick:
He said. "Not a single Liberal will have any part of this unemployment work. It is Doctor Coffyn"-
Spelled C-o-f-f-y-n.
-who was the provincial government candidate -"that will look after it and not P. J. Veniot."
That partisanship was carried on throughout the length and breadth of the county of Gloucester. There was a by-election in that county; the premier of New Brunswick addressed a public meeting in the town of Bathurst on the Friday night before the election and said:
And at this point I wish to explain that what I am about to read are remarks attributed to the Premier of New Brunswick by the hon. member for Gloucester.

Unemployment Continuance Act
We do not want Doctor Coffyn elected in Gloucester because we need his vote to maintain the government in power. We want him elected so that he will have reason to do something big for Gloucester county along the lines of the unemployment relief aid to be given by the federal government and the province of New Brunswick.
There was a bribe held out to the electors of that county; they were told that unless Doctor Coffyn was elected, unless they returned a man who was favourable to the government, the government would measure the relief to be doled out in Gloucester county by the actions of the electors on polling day.
Now, to go a little further;
Mr. Price: I don't believe the premier ever made such a statement.
Now the hon. member for Gloucester:
Mr. Veniot: And I know you would say, if he did make it, that he had no right to make it, wouldn't you?
Mr. Price: I would simply say just now that he didn't make it.
Mr. Veniot: He did make it. The hon. gentleman has no right under the rules of the house to question my veracity.
Now, then, Mr. Chairman, we will just get after his veracity. It has been the privilege in days gone by for the hon. member for Gloucester to make statements in the provincial house, and as he waved papers to declare "I hold the records right here in my hand." But the records did not amount to anything. And he did not have anything of record when he made that statement on the floor of this house. I wish to tell the hon. member for Gloucester that I have communicated with the hon. Premier of New Brunswick. I want it to be clearly and distinctly understood by this house that for future reference-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Otto Baird Price: All right. I want it to be
clearly and distinctly understood that for future reference this is going on Hansard right now. At page 944 of Hansard the member for Gloucester is reported as follows:
There was a by-election in that county; the Premier of New Brunswick addressed a public meeting in the town of Bathurst on the Friday night before the election, and said:-


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the
letter?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What did he say?


Otto Baird Price: I do not wish to discuss what was done in the county of Gloucester, but if at any time a man ever had occasion to keep quiet it was the member for Gloucester in consideration of what had been done for his county by the present administration; the expenditures not only by this government

but by the previous administration have been enormous. We on this side of the house supporting the present government have never criticized those expenditures because of the fact that the little province of New Brunswick was being benefited. I wish also to say to him at this time that so far as the expenditures at Aboujagan and Barachois are concerned, we are willing that they should be investigated, when we shall be able to show that Liberals as well as Conservatives have been given every consideration with respect to unemployment, and that the relief was distributed in a fair and well-measured way.


Peter John Veniot: What are you kicking
about, then?


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the
letter?


Otto Baird Price: Here is what the hon.
Premier of New Brunswick, Mr. Richards, was supposed to have said. I am so delighted to see the hon. minister for Gloucester county in his seat-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Otto Baird Price: -for this is really funny. This is what was purported to have been said by the Premier of New Brunswick:
We do not want Doctor Coffyn elected in Gloucester because we need his vote to maintain the government in power.
Quite true; there is no doubt he made that statement, for he did not require Doctor Coffyn, having already a real working majority. But, according to the hon. member for Gloucester, this is what the premier said:
We want him elected so that we will have reason to do something big for Gloucester county along the lines of the unemployment relief aid to be given by the federal government and the province of New Brunswick.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Otto Baird Price: That is what the hon. member for Gloucester quoted, but let me tell him, he laughs best who laughs last. After quoting that statement the hon. member added:
There was a bribe held out to the electors of that county;-
And so forth. The Premier of New Brunswick has the confidence of the province from one end to the other, and I presume he will continue to have that confidence for some years to come. He is a very capable administrator and is conducting the affairs of the province in a business-like way. He writes to me:
The first sentence of the remarks which Mr. Veniot imputes to me is substantially correct;

Unemployment Continuance Act
What is the first sentence?
We do not want Doctor Coffyn elected in Gloucester because we need his vote to maintain the government in power.
Now, what did Premier Richards say? In his letter to me he continues:
The rest is altogether incorrect. I made no reference whatever to Dr. Coffyn in connection with unemployment relief work. I did say that Mr. Veniot was endeavouring to claim credit for the carrying on of relief work because he had been asked, in common with all members of the federal house, to make suggestions to the Minister of Labour; that I understood he was exhibiting this letter for the purpose of indicating to the electors that he was responsible for the obtaining and carrying on of the relief work. I pointed out that, on the other hand, the letter which he had was only the letter which had been sent to every member of the House of Commons and that, as a matter of fact, the administration of relief work in the provinces was within the jurisdiction of the provincial government; mentioning, at the same time, of course, that the Dominion government was contributing a certain proportion of the cost of such work,-twenty-five per cent in the cities and towns where the municipalities themselves were contributing, and forty or fifty per cent where the work was a provincial undertaking.
I may add that three other members of the provincial government were present at this meeting, seated on the platform during the time I was speaking; namely, Messrs. Stewart, Leger and Harrison. They confirm the statement which I make.
Now, I would advise the hon. member for Gloucester to be careful of his statements on the floor of this house. Let him be very careful of his facts before he goes ahead and makes remarks which are absolutely unreliable, remarks which I believe he knows are absolutely irresponsible, and which evidently are fnade only in an endeavour to injure this administration.
In conclusion I want to tell the hon. member for Gloucester and the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) that when they again come into the county of Westmorland they had better be careful of the statements they make, because I have as much support from the French-Canadians as has the hon. member for Gloucester, and I want him to understand that nothing will be tolerated in my county unless based on facts; he cannot palm off that hearsay stuff in Westmorland. Right now the hon. member for Gloucester knows he dare not go to Aboujagan and Barachois, he dare not go to Cape Tormen-tine and Cape Bald, and repeat the statements he has made in this house, because the administration to-day is spending money to help the fishermen in the county of Westmorland -something which the previous administration never did. We are spending money judiciously
and in the best interests of the people. I want to tell the hon. member that if he takes his friends and goes to the people of Westmorland county and does what he is doing at the present time hoping to help the Liberal party, his efforts will be absolutely futile. The hon. member has endeavoured to belittle the people of Westmorland county, the poor people in the fishing districts who are trying to get a few dollars to help them through the winter; he has endeavoured to show that improper expenditures have been made.


Peter John Veniot: Never said a word about it.


Otto Baird Price: That will be the result if
you do the same thing in the county of Westmorland.


Peter John Veniot: I am not going to bother
answering the tirade of the hon. member, but he purported to read a letter from the Premier of New Brunswick. As far as I could understand it, in that letter the premier denied having made a statement which I attributed to him. I wish to say here and now, Mr. Chairman, that I was present when the Premier of New Brunswick made that statement, and I can support what I am saying now by the testimony of two reporters who took verbatim accounts of his speech. Therefore I stand by what I said, in spite of the hon. member for Westmorland.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I want to ask the
Minister of Public Works just one or two questions in regard to some of the undertakings in Ontario. I think he mentioned a little earlier in the evening that no public buildings were constructed under the unemployment relief proposals. Is that correct?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think that is
correct.


Frederick George Sanderson: In ten or twelve places throughout the province repairs are being made or have been made to public buildings. Were tenders called for in each case?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Frederick George Sanderson: Public tenders were
called for in each instance?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Not public
tenders. Those who were in the line of work required were invited to tender, not by public tender but according to the regularly established practice that has prevailed in the department for many years. Following that practice, the architect looks after the tenders secured in this way, in exactly the same way that was adapted by my predecessor.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Frederick George Sanderson: Then I take it that
tenders were not advertised; is thait right?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think they
were in some cases; I could not say offhand.


Frederick George Sanderson: When tenders were
not advertised how did the department arrive at a decision as to who should carry on the work?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have told my hon. friend that the course which has been followed for years was adopted in these cases. The architect in charge of maintenance would communicate with the. different tradesmen in the particular town who were interested in that kind of work, and they would be asked to tender for the work. There might be some small expenditure where that course was not adopted, but we are carrying on with the same staff and following the same methods-and they are good methods-for getting this work done reasonably, efficiently, promptly and in the public interest.


Frederick George Sanderson: I quite understand
what the minister says as to what was done formerly, but this work is being done under rather different circumstances. This is unemployment relief, and while the minister did not say so I presume he meant that the sitting member for the constituency, if he were a government supporter, recommended a certain firm or firms to do the work, and that where a Liberal member sat for the constituency the defeated candidate made the recommendation. Is that correct?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, you are not absolutely right in that.


Frederick George Sanderson: Am I partly right?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know
whether you are or not because the architect is quite-free to get tenders wherever he thinks proper and wherever he thinks he can get the best results.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is he an architect
employed by the department or is he an outside architect?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He is an architect in the department in charge of maintenance work.


Frederick George Sanderson: I will put the question directly to the minister, and I will accept his word because I have a good deal of faith in him. He absolutely took precaution and care to keep politics out of the expenditure of unemployment relief money. Is that correct?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would say
that political considerations were not the dominating considerations in the administration of public relief.


Frederick George Sanderson: Wras politics a factor
to some extent?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I will say to my hon. friend that under equal considerations and with equal advantage to the public interest, if I can find a supporter of this government who will do the work for the price at which an opponent of the government will do it, the supporter of the government will get the work.


Frederick George Sanderson: Then I should like to direct another question to the minister. What does he mean by "equal considerations"?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know
that I should be subjected to cross-examination by my hon. friend, but I meant at equal cost to the public and with equally good results.


Frederick George Sanderson: The minister need not get sensitive. I want to tell him that if I desire to examine him or cross-examine him I am going to do so, and there is no reason why I should not. The minister has drawn . that remark from me by his own attitude. I want to be courteous to the minister and I expect him to be courteous to me as a member of this house. If I desire to put certain questions to the minister I propose to do so, unless the chairman rules me out of order and says my questions are not proper.
Now I want to ask something further. I see in the report of the director of relief an amount of $67,000 authorized for the Hailey-bury breakwater and harbour for seaplanes. The amount expended to February 29, 1932, was $1/,809.84, and I want to ask the minister if he called for tenders for that work.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


Frederick George Sanderson: In what way is the work being done?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The work is being done under the supervision of the district engineers and under the immediate supervision of foremen appointed to carry it out.


Frederick George Sanderson: I directed a question to the Minister of Public Works with reference to this item when the estimates were up two or three weeks ago, and I believe I asked him then who had recommended that this work be done. Was it by petition? Was it

Unemployment Continuance Act


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I don't know; 1 have not the information.
from the town of Haileybury, or in what way was the work brought about? Was there a request for it, and if so, from whom?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The request came from more than one source. If I remember correctly, the member for that constituency received a letter similar to the one which my hon. friend must have received, asking for suggestions as to works that could be carried on with advantage to the constituency, and which at the same time would afford relief for unemployment. In that way the suggestion came in. I believe that the board of trade also, or the corporation of Haileybury itself, made similar representations.


Frederick George Sanderson: Then the minister did get a request from the board of trade of Haileybury.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Frederick George Sanderson: Won't the minister be frank with me? IVas it not at the request of his colleague, the Minister of Labour, that the work was gone on with in his own constituency?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As I have said, every member was invited to make suggestions and I have no doubt that the member for that constituency, who happens to be the Minister of Labour, my colleague, whom I appreciate very much, having the interests of his constituency at heart and understanding the conditions up there, was asked whether the suggestion that came in from the board of trade was a good one or not.


Frederick George Sanderson: I want to pursue this a little further. I see a reference to breakwater and harbour for seaplanes. Does the Minister of Public Works think that this was a general work for the advantage of Canada, and can he tell me whether his engineers or any official of his department can say how many seaplanes land at Haileybury in a given length of time?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The breakwater was necessary as such. It not only afforded protection to the wharf and harbour, but ;t also serves as a landing base for seaplanes. I am informed that several planes are operating there at the present time.


Frederick George Sanderson: How many are employed on the works now?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am sorry, I haven't that information.


Frederick George Sanderson: What is the weekly or monthly pay sheet there?


Frederick George Sanderson: Will the minister be good enough to get that information and give it to me?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If my hon. friend desires that information, I shall be very glad to endeavour to secure it for him and send it, but I haven't got it here.


Frederick George Sanderson: There is one more
item in Ontario that I want to inquire about Further down the list there is this item: "Port Arthur-Rubble Mound breakwater, $100,000." The amount expended in connection with this item was $99,999.25; apparently there is a balance of 75 cents. W ere tenders asked for?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes. It was a
continuation of a contract which I believe was awarded by the former government. It was a long breakwater to which another section was added. There was the same thing last year, for the relief of unemployment also


Ernest Lapointe: Apparently the constituencies represented by ministers were in special need of relief.


Robert James Manion: When did Port Arthur
get a minister to represent it?


Ernest Lapointe: I am referring to Haileybury, and I am going to refer to some other constituencies in my own province. In common with other members, I received a letter after the session last year, asking for suggestions with regard to public works in the city of Quebec which might afford unemployment relief. I sent in quite a list, but I am afraid none of my suggestions were accepted. I have here the report of the director-and I am pleased to see my good friend the Minister of Marine in the house. At pages 64 and 65 appear the details of the works which were carried out in the province of Quebec-public buildings, harbours and rivers, in connection with which work was done out of the unemployment relief money. I see that up to February 29, 1932, a total of $415,606.78 was expended. Now in the county of Chambly, which is represented by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine, there is, first of all for Chambly, a protection wall, the amount being $19,954.79. At Longueuil, another place in my hon. friend's constituency, there was also provision for a protection wall. Obviously they are in need of protection there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Practising it.


Ernest Lapointe: And practising it as well. The amount expended at Longueuil was $19,-

Unemployment Continuance Act
966.25 up to February 29, 1932. At St. Lambert, which is another good town, in my hon. friend's constituency, there is another protection wall, the amount being $69,200 up to February, 1932. Then in Vercheres there is a new breakwater, the amount being 810,354.44. These sums added together make a total of $121,475.48 out of a total expenditure for the whole province of Quebec of $415,000. Apparently more than twenty-five per cent of the unemployed in that province are in my hon. friend's constituency, because after all this money has been voted to relieve unemployment. My hon. friend is certainly generous to his constituents. I cannot blame him for that, but if our own suggestions had met with a better reception, perhaps I should not be so keen about complaining. Surely my hon. friend the minister should give a chance to the other sixty-four members from the province of Quebec. More than twenty-five per cent of the whole expenditure in the province being made in the county of one minister is a little too much; and if you add to that what has been done for Haileybury, I think you will agree that the unemployed in other parts of the country are not getting their share of the money.


John Thomas Hackett: Is the hon. gentleman
aware that half the population of Quebec is in Montreal, and that this is one of the faubourgs of Montreal?


Ernest Lapointe: Apparently the faubourgs are well treated, as well as the city itself. If I am not mistaken the works were stopped and not proceeded with in the city of Montreal, while the Minister of Marine saw that the works were proceeded with in his riding.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend has referred to these works in the vicinity of Montreal. Unemployment was acute in that city and these works were carried on adjacent to and in what I understand to be the suburbs of Montreal. The works were of a character which could be readily performed at that time of year and which would afford relief to the largest possible number of men.


Mr. HEAPS:: Were people from Montreal employed there?


John Thomas Hackett: Certainly.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They lived there.


Ernest Lapointe: Is the minister sure of that?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I understand there were some employed from Montreal. The instructions were that the men to be employed

upon this work were to be engaged after consultation with the mayor, the reeve or whoever the head of the municipality might be; they were to be taken on in rotation and in a manner best calculated to relieve unemployment in that particular area. I am sure that this was done and that the desired result was obtained. I am sure that if my hon. friend will review all the works undertaken in the province of Quebec and in the city of Quebec he will find that that city has been fairly and generously dealt with, taking into consideration not only the dominion works but those carried on in cooperation with the province. This picture must be considered as a whole. Where very substantial works are being carried on by the province or by the municipality and the province together toward Which the dominion makes a substantial contribution, then it may be expected that unemployment will be fairly well taken care of in that particular area and that it will not be as necessary for the dominion to undertake public works on its own account. It must be borne in mind always, as I have said before, that the object of these works was the relief of unemployment. If unemployment was being relieved by works undertaken in the manner I have indicated, then it became unnecessary for the dominion to prosecute work on its own account. The character of the works which we can undertake and carry on is rather limited, as my hon. friend well knows Buildings cannot be constructed by day labour to any advantage, especially in the 'winter time, while sewer work, roads and other projects of that character executed by the city and province in cooperation afford a greater measure of relief. I know nothing about the works which are stated to have been held up in the city of Montreal; that would come under the city administration and the provincial authorities.


Alfred Duranleau: I desire to make a
short explanation in connection with the remarks of the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). It is quite true that works were performed in my constituency to the amount of $120,000, but it must be remembered that the .south shore is composed of many villages and towns and cities which are suburbs of the city of Montreal. These municipalities are inhabited by men who used to work in the city of Montreal. When the unemployment problem became acute in Montreal, outsiders were stopped from coming on to the island in order to obtain work. A great number of unemployed were created in my constituency because of this fact. We had to relieve unemployment the same as other places in the

Unemployment Continuance Act
province, and I ana glad to tell hon. fiiends opposite that we have really done so. A committee was formed composed of the mayors of these different municipalities, both Liberal and Conservative, and this committee attended to the distribution of the work. Everyone in need of work, whether Catholic or Protestant, or whatever race he might be, was protected and given his share. I do not consider that my constituency was treated any better than other parts of the province. It is a strip of land between the rivers St. Lawrence and Richelieu and protection walls are needed on both sides. This was considered to be the best time to carry out these works, as it would relieve unemployment.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend
contend that twenty-five per cent of the employed are in Chambly?
Mr. DllRANLEAU:	I do not know.


Ernest Lapointe: Twenty-five per cent of
the money was spent there.


Alfred Duranleau: I know that the work carried on did not give employment to everyone. As a matter of fact the work was carried on in shifts, some men working three days in the week while others came on for the remaining period. Even with this system many men were unable to obtain employment.
I think if my hon. friend knew the real situation which existed in that part of the province he would not make the criticism he has.


Mr. GRAY:: Mr. Chairman, I should like
to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) a question with respect to an item to be found at the bottom of page 66 of the report of the dominion director of unemployment relief. This item is for $14,000 to cover the construction of a wharf on Walpole island in my constituency, and I should like to know upon whose recommendation this work was authorized.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have not that
information before me, and therefore I cannot answer my hon. friend. However, I think this work has been under consideration for some time, and in looking over what might be done, the engineers included works of this character as being suitable to be undertaken at this time.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I notice that this work has
not been proceeded with. In common with other hon. members of this house, I was asked to submit certain proposals for the relief of unemployment in my constituency. I submitted certain proposals with which the minister is familiar, one being the construction
of a public wharf in the city of Sarnia. The minister has shown a great deal of sympathy towards this proposal, but it has not been proceeded with. I did not recommend any works to be constructed on Walpole island. This is an Indian reservation inhabited wholly by Indians who are wards of the government, with the exception of a customs officer and perhaps an Indian agent. How any government could think of spending $14,000 on a small Indian island when there are other places with large numbers of unemployed, is hard to conceive. Perhaps the fact that the work was not proceeded with shows that the government found out its mistake in time. I press upon the minister that he brings forward all correspondence or anything he may have showing who recommended the expenditure of $14,000 on a wharf on a small Indian island where the inhabitants are at present receiving the moneys due them from the Indian Department. If this work was authorized, then surely the wharf at Sarnia should have been proceeded with. I object most strenuously to money being authorized or even considered in the manner in which this apparently was.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend need have no anxiety as regards this money being expended. The work will not be proceeded with under this measure. While the circumstances did warrant the carrying on of the w'ork, it would have to appear in the regular estimates and my hon. friend will have an opportunity to oppose it.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Will the minister undertake to give me the information I desire?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I shall endeavour to find out where the recommendation came from and give it to my hon. friend. I understand he is opposed to the work.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Everything comes
to him who waits. I do not like to introduce a new subject until the old one is exhausted, otherwise the continuity of the record is broken. There are two or three questions I should like to discuss very briefly, but I do not see any of the ministers in their seats-


Mr. SPENCE:: There are several of them present.


William Richard Motherwell: I had not completed my sentence. I do not see present either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture, the ones to whom I should like to address my remarks through you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps they will be in presently. I should like to refer to one question with respect to the petition regarding the proposed dollar-an-acre

Unemployment Continuance Act
bonus on seeded acreage in southern Saskatchewan. That was discussed recently in the house under a resolution introduced by the hon. member for Assiniboia. The speech made on that occasion by the Minister of Agriculture concluded as follows:
This is the greatest problem that agriculture has ever faced, and it must be met directly. As I see it, a final adjustment will be made towards the end of the present fiscal year. At that time the provinces will be in a position to give this government their true financial positions and state the commitments which they can undertake in the carrying on of this work. Serious consideration will be given to this problem.
That is the problem of the proposed dollar an acre on a seeded acreage basis.
This government will do everything possible to give the most generous treatment.. The farmers of western Canada have assurance in the treatment they have received up to the present time. *
That is the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture on February 18, and as we are now within a couple of hours of the end of the fiscal year, the time has come when we expect a more definite statement from him with regard to that important question, As he is not present, I do not see how I am going to get an answer. The Prime Minister is not here; the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not here. To whom am I to address my remarks?


Mr. BOWMAN:: From what page of Hansard was the hon. member quoting?


William Richard Motherwell: Page 345 of Hansard of February 18. There is not much use in my proceeding. I do not want to repeat my remarks after the hon. gentleman come in, and I do not want to remain standing here. Will the Minister of Railways or the Minister of Justice come to my assistance? Is the Minister of Justice in a position to answer this question?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: The only observation I would make in regard to the matter is that the subject is rather out of order, and the quotation from Hansard is likewise out of order. It is not according to the rules of the house to refer to what has taken place in a previous debate during the same session. This matter was discussed in a previous debate and it is not a subject at present before the committee. Personally I am not familiar with the matter.


William Richard Motherwell: It is strange how this rule will always be invoked when the government has no answer. I have the misfortune in always having it invoked against

myself, although Hansard has been quoted from interminably this session.


Hugh Guthrie: Anything said in this debate may be quoted.


William Richard Motherwell: This is the same question.


Hugh Guthrie: It was debated before and the debate was concluded.


William Richard Motherwell: The Minister of Agriculture indicated that a final adjustment would be made towards the end of the present fiscal year. Therefore this is the opportune time, and I do not see how my hon. friend can declare my question out of order. We are now within two hours of the expiry of the fiscal year.


Hugh Guthrie: Then my hon. friend has
allowed the opportunity to pass. We are now on another question and another bill. The point I raise, not to embarrass or inconvenience my hon. friend, is that this was the subject of a previous and concluded debate in the house.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
feels more embarrassed at the ministers being absent than I am at his objections; I can wait until another time.
Let me introduce another question, and I shall not read from Hansard; I know it fairly well. On July 1 of last year the Prime Minister made a very impressive speech with regard to the national calamity that had befallen certain parts of the prairie west. At that time nobody ever dreamed that the proposed relief measure which we have been discussing here intermittently during the last month, would be transformed or converted into a loaning -measure to be operated by the Saskatchewan government and relief commission with moneys supplied by this government. I should like to know what individuals are to-day responsible for the relief that was anticipated in the west being converted into a loaning policy administered by a commission on behalf of the Saskatchewan government with funds practically all supplied by the federal government.
It is now a straight loaning policy under ghastly exacting conditions; I have never before seen such oppressive conditions as are those outlined in a bill recently introduced and, I think, passed in the Saskatchewan legislature. I believe I have a -right, as one representing a portion of that dried-out area, to protect my -constituents from the extortionate conditions that are laid down in that bill with respect to the return of those

loans, and also to protest against the departure from the plain understanding that it was a relief and not a loaning policy that was being'introduced by the federal government.
Let us look at the designation of the bill. If it were to be a loan, would the bill not be called a loaning and unemployment bill? I venture the assertion there is not one bon. gentleman, including the ministers present or absent, who ever anticipated that this would develop into a loaning policy under the conditions to which I refer. Will the Minister of Justice say that he permitted that?
Mr, MANION:	What is the differenceand I am asking this because I do not know what it is-between loans along this line and the loans for seed wheat? As my hon. friend knows, loans for seed wheat were made for many years under both the late government and the government preceding it. What is the difference between lending money under the present conditions and lending money for seed wheat, which money was charged against the land? By the way I may tell my hon. friend-and he knows this-that ever since we came into power we have been cancelling these loans, and I am sure his government when they were in power did the same thing. They were loans which we knew we could not collect and which we cancelled rather than register them against the land. Will I-he hon. member explain the difference for the benefit of the committee?


William Richard Motherwell: That is a reasonable request. Back in 1908 is the first time and later in 1915 I can recall a relief measure was administered and in the case of Jan-ds patented mortgages taken on the land; in the case of lands not patented, mortgages were filed against the homestead until 'the lands were patented. That was mot preceded however by any intimation by the federal government, such as was made by the Prime Minister on July 1 last. The inference and statement had gone out that this was relief, and not a loaning policy.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend would not
deny that a supply of seed wheat was in the nature of relief?


William Richard Motherwell: I could read the
exact words of the Minister of Agriculture, but I do not think I need to. When the minister began to investigate conditions in the west after prorogation of this house had taken place last summer he was waited upon by a deputation of probably a dozen or half a dozen farmers. They took the ground that inasmuch as their lands were free of mort-
Unemployment Continuance Act
gage; that they had no indebtedness and yet could not borrow sufficient money to supply themselves with seed, feed or anything else and they did not wish to accept charity from the government. They did not like that idea, and I am not surprised. The Minister of Agriculture said that that was the first time this question had come up of being permitted to pay back relief advances. Up until that time it was anticipated that the aid to the farmers was to be a relief measure, the same as the five cents per bushel was. Those farmers who had crops received in the aggregate money to the extent of $10,000,000. The deputation which waited upon the minister, however, wanted the opportunity to pay back any help they received, because they did not wish to accept charity. We have to respect the stand taken by those people. The Minister of Agriculture asked the house-I do not remember his exact words, but I think I can state his version

if hon. members would not have done exactly as he did, and if they would not have given an opportunity to pay back the loans or relief contributions. As a result we have the introduction of the policy of promissory notes. That was the beginning of the provision for repayment. We have the spectacle of well-to-do farmers with crops of 10,000, 15,000 or 20,000 bushels receiving large federal contributions, running up to one thousand dollars each, while the poor fellows who had not enough grain to feed a chickadee or enough straw to make a hen's nest could not get enough flour to fill a thimble or enough clothing to go around their little fingers without giving some kind of guarantee, mortgage, caveat, seed lien or promissory note. I am sure the government does not wish to finish this session with that ghastly disparity between the treatment accorded those who had and those who had not crops. I have heard the statement made in this house dozens of times that relief should go to the most needy. According to the statement of the government expenditures have been made to the extent of about $10,000,000 to those who had a crop, while those in need of relief are treated in the manner I have described. If the government really knew the tremendous amount of dissatisfaction which has been caused throughout the west by this outrageous discrimination in favour of the farmers who least needed relief, they would not sleep restfully until they had taken steps to redress that disparity.
I am trying to present the facts as accurately as possible. The few ministers present gabble like a lot of magpies and blackbirds, and those hon. members in the house who

Unemployment Continuance Act
know anything about the subject refuse to rise and defend this condition of things. So much for that. If hon. gentlemen opposite think they are going to freeze us out by silence they are making a bad guess. Apparently the ground is taken by the government that they have no responsibility in the matter. Many times last year, however, the statement was made by the Prime Minister that the government would take the responsibility. At that time questions were being asked about audits and guarantees of proper expenditures by the provinces. I cannot give exact words at this time, and if I could I probably would not be allowed to, but I know that was the stand taken by hon. ministers opposite. My understanding now is, however, that they wish to free themselves from all responsibility as to how the Saskatchewan government and relief commission are administering these vast sums of money.
The day before yesterday I received an answer from the Prime Minister, and I understood him to say that the expenditure of the money was a matter entirely within the control of the Saskatchewan government. Apparently that is all we can get out of them. I venture to say the Saskatchewan government takes the same position in regard to the federal house. No doubt they will be saying, "Well, we have no responsibility; this is the responsibility of Ottawa." There you are.
The primary purpose of the Saskatchewan bill I have in my hand is to incorporate the Saskatchewan relief commission, and that is provided for in the preamble. There is an indication according to the terms of the bill that the commission will be in existence for two more years, and the sections are made retroactive and binding in every possible way. As there has been doubt on the part of some hon. members as to whether there were any seed grain liens being taken on farmers' crops I should like to read section 8 with respect thereto:
AVhen the commission furnishes seed grain to any person under the authority conferred by section 7, the commission shall take from such person a written agreement for a lien (Form A) in favour of the commission upon all crops to be grown, during the year in which the lien agreement is made and the succeeding year, upon the land described therein.
(2) An agreement may be executed in blank as to the quantities of seed grain to be advanced by the commission, but it shall nevertheless be valid and binding upon the lienor as to the quantities subsequently inserted therein by the commission unless the quantities found to have been actually received by the lienor are less than the quantities inserted in the agreement, in which case it shall be valid and binding as to the quantities actually received. fMr. Motherwell.]
So you see, Mr. Chairman, they have a habit in the Saskatchewan Relief Commission of having farmers sign documents in blank. The promissory note produced by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) and handed to the Prime Minister was the first intimation the Prime Minister had that such kind of promissory notes were being taken. I now have before me a blank seed grain lien, and I do not know whether the government knows about it. If I have time before eleven o'clock I 'will read the form of that lien. It is in blank, but there is spaee to fill in interest at the rate of seven per cent. The farmers are tied up by these liens as tightly- as they would be with a logging chain so that they cannot either wink an eyelash or wiggle a toe.
There are quite a number of lawyers present. The Minister of National Revenue is a well qualified lawyer, and in addition there are some private members on both sides of the house well versed in law. It may be that I am not familiar with such methods of tying up the farmers-hog-tying them, as I call it. Let me read this document.
(5) Upon the execution of a lien note pursuant to the provisions of this act, such lien note shall be deemed to include without express mention the following covenants by the party executing the same, and his executors, administrators and assigns, that is to say:
The title, ownership, and right to possession of the said grain, and of all crops grown upon the land described in this agreement in the year in which the seed grain is supplied to me by the Saskatchewan relief commission and in the following year, and of all crops grown upon any other land occupied by me in such following year, shall remain at my own risk in the said commission until the selling price of the grain supplied is fully paid with interest, and if I make default in payment, or should I sell, dispose of, or mortgage my landed property, or if the said commission should consider itself insecure, it shall have power to declare the said advance due and payable forthwith, and the said commission may forthwith take action against me therefor, and it may at its option take possession of the said seed, as well as of all crops grown upon the said land during the year in which the said seed grain was supplied to me and the following year, and all crops grown upon any other land occupied by me in such following year, and may hold the same until the said sum is paid with interest, or sell the same at public auction or private sale, the proceeds thereof to be applied, after deducting all expenses in connection with such taking possession and sale, in reducing the amount unpaid thereon; all of which shall be without prejudice to the rights of the said commission to pursue any other remedy or remedies it may have now or hereafter against me in respect of the said seed grain or my indebtedness therefor; and without prejudice to the rights of the said commission to collect the balance remaining unpaid at any time after it has exhausted any special remedy or remedies against me, and for

Unemployment Continuance Act
any such balance remaining unpaid at any time action may be taken against me, and judgment may be entered by the said commission at any time.
Then there is one further paragraph:
For the purpose of taking possession and recovering such grain the said commission, its agent or agents, may freely enter into and upon my buildings, enclosures and lands, using such force as may be necessary for the purpose.-
I do not know whether that is the purpose for which the extra mounted police were engaged.
-The destruction or damage of the said grain by fire or any other means or in any other manner whatsoever, shall not release me from my liability for payment.
Now, this is a seed grain lien, Mr. Chairman. Anybody who is familiar with realizing on seed grain liens knows that the creditor must keep guard over such grain crop before it is threshed and marketed, otherwise his security is gone. Therefore as a rule the creditor puts someone on the farm to see that the threshing and the marketing are done with his knowledge and advantage. Consequently if after the threshing the farmer refuses to market the grain the lien holder can put On a team and. draw it to market, charging the cost to the debtor. Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, that any government is going to put teams on all these farms, haul the grain to market and charge the cost to the respective farmers.in order to realize on the loans made? No government would dare do any such thing. But even if the government did take that step, would not that be the signal for those creditors who had prior claims on the grain-storekeepers, coal merchants, lumber dealers and others in the vicinity-to do the same thing, with the result that the poor farmer would be stripped by them as bare as the day he was born? Does anybody believe that that will be done? But that is the only way in which the government can recover on such liens if the farmer declines to market such grain when desired. There is this provision in the law, that if for any reason it is not expedient to take such action the first year it may be postponed until the second year, and so the horror of that will be hanging over thousands of farmers from now until the second fifteenth of August-a year and a half hence. Nobody in his senses believes that the government will realize on those liens. I don't think any hon. gentlemen believe the government will dare take that course under present conditions. The whole country would be outraged. Take the people down here, those prominent in churches and other organizations who sent out to the west a large number
of carloads of fruit and vegetables free -they did not ask for a lien from those to whom they sent those goods- if they heard that the government of Canada with its great taxing powers and financial resources had started to realize on their liens they would be scandalized. I am not exaggerating the situation at all. Unfortunately it is all too true. And we all innocently thought we were engaged in passing a relief bill to deal with what the Prime Minister described on the first of July as a "national calamity." Supposing he had said at the end of his dramatic and very impressive speech, "I am going to provide shelter, food and clothing for the unfortunate prairie farmer, but I shall expect him to pay back the last farthing for this assistance, I shall expect from him a promissory note on demand,
I shall expect from him a lien payable next August; I shall expect all these things in return for keeping him alive in the meantime;" if he had said that what would have been thought of him and of his government? Would he have got that wonderful speech blazoned across the entire country-and quite properly so, for it was a great statement. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, it never entered into the thought of any man either inside or outside this house that any such thing as taking liens would be done until the Minister of Agriculture in his perambulations throughout Saskatchewan was interviewed by a small deputation-it is not stated how many; we will say two dozen-and they intimated that they did not want to take charity. I am not permitted to quote what was said in another debate; the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has his eagle eye on me and will not allow me to do it. But the Minister of Agriculture said he knew at that time the aggregate relief expenditures that would be outstanding before the next crop was harvested would amount to about twenty million dollars; that is, twenty million dollars would be expended for seed, feed, clothing, food, gasoline, lubricating oil, harness mending, and so on in that vast territory, including of course the adjoining provinces. Apparently he went out there knowing that that was the case., yet it never occurred to him whether that money would come back to the government or not, whether it was to be treated as a loan or a, gift, until this deputation said: "We do not want charity." Then he concluded he would recommend to his colleagues that promissory notes be taken from all applicants for relief before being delivered. Thereupon the promissory note policy was started. That is the story as partly recited by the Minister of Agriculture himself,
Unemployment Continuance Act

who is the only one to plead guilty or not guilty, and he is not here, although I saw him a few minutes ago behind the curtains. I wonder if I cannot bluff the absentee ministers into coming back and explaining and defending themselves. They demy responsibility, but I hold the whole outfit responsible, not only this government but the government of Saskatchewan also. Imagine us being handed over, body, boots and bones, into the hands of the Saskatchewan government, that government that was sired by the Ku Klux Klan and damned by nearly everybody else. We are in the hands of that government and its relief commission, and I hold this government responsible for (putting us in that position,.
The Minister of Agriculture took credit for what he called the compensating adjustment or five cent bonus policy. He took nearly a whole column of Hansard to show the evolution of that policy, and took credit for it. If he is going to take credit for that he must also accept responsibility for the rest of it, the economic crucifixion of cropless farmers introduced by this government in collusion with the Saskatchewan government with respect to these seed grain liens and promissory notes.
Well, what is going to be done? Must we send for the sergeant at arms in order to get the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture here? I do not want to go all over this again; I am sure you do not want to hear me. I will just continue with this rotten Saskatchewan bill. Here is the blank seed grain lien, which is form A. Someone has asked if this bill has gone through. I am not sure whether or not it has gone through the house, but it was introduced before Easter. It may be standing for third reading now, but in Saskatchewan, as in Ottawa, the government has been successful thus far in getting through anything it desired. This is the form of the lien taken by this permanent relief commission which is incorporated by this bill, this loveljq entirely non-partisan organization about which we read so much:
I .	>
of	in the
province of Saskatchewan, farmer, in consideration of the Saskatchewan relief commission advancing to me the following quantities of grain the agreed on selling price whereof is dollars ($	) and which
gram I intend to use for the purpose of sowing the land I am cultivating or sowing on the: of section	township	rangewest of	meridian; and	ofsection	township	range west of
meridian; that is to say-
Bushels of wheat, grade .. at $.. per bushel. Bushels of oats, grade .. at $. . per bushel.
Bushels of	 grade .. at $. . per bushel.
Bushels of	 grade .. at $.. per bushel,
fMr. Motherwell.]
do hereby agree to pay to the Saskatchewan relief commission on the loth day of August, 19...., the said sum of	dollars ($	)
with interest thereon from the date hereof at the rate of seven (7) per centum per annum and further do hereby make and constitute the said sum of $	together with all interest
accruing thereon at the rate aforesaid from the date hereof, a first lien and charge in favour of the said commission upon all crops to be grown in the years 19 and 19 upon the land hereinbefore mentioned, the said commission to have all the rights and remedies for the collection of the said sum as set forth in the act respecting the Saskatchewan relief commission 1932.
I agree to return to the said commission any seed supplied to me hereunder and not used by me for the purpose herein mentioned.
You will notice all the blanks which can be filled in by the commission at their convenience. I am sure any of you or your churches who helped supply the people of the prairies with free vegetables and fruit must be shocked by the exactions contained in this seed grain lien. Is that relief, or is it crucifying afresh those men who are already burdened now with mortgages, caveats, liens and what not? On top of all they have to bear now is to be placed this additional obligation, and does anyone ever expect farmers so situated to stagger to their feet between now and eternity? It cannot be done. Why are they putting on these liens and taking these promissory notes? I think I know; members of the government are not here to answer that question. I wonder if I could get the attention of my friend the Minister of Finance, with whom I always have a friendly chat when opportunity permits. I cannot get any responsible minister, Mr. Chairman, to tell me anything at all about these atrocities.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have handed us over to the ravages of the Saskatchewan government and the relief commission set up by this bill. I use the word "ravages" advisedly, with no reservations and without hesitation.
I challenge members of the government now to call me to order with regard to any of the terms I have used in connection with this matter. My only hope is the Minister of Finance, and now I am going to try him. I do not know whether or not in the maritimes they have such things as seed grain liens, but we have or will now have plenty of them out west. I see the hon. member for Saskatoon back there grinning like a basket of chips; I suppose he knows plenty about it but he won't rise and defend this government.


Mr. MacMILLAN (Saskatoon):: It is pretty hard to keeip from laughing at the actions of a baboon.

Unemployment Continuance Act


William Richard Motherwell: A man has to be pretty badly off when he gives a seed grain lien on his growing crop. Next August 15 the government, through the Saskatchewan government, which works through the relief commission, can start realizing on the crops of these unfortunate Saskatchewan farmers as soon as they are ready to be drawn to the elevator.
Through you, Mr. Chairman, I am directing that point to the Minister of Finance. Can he imagine himself, as Minister of Finance, collecting on these liens from those downtrodden farmers who are already mortgaged to the hilt? We must remember also that these liens are a first charge, and come before anything else. Imagine, I repeat, what would happen if an emissary of the government should go out and start hauling grain to market, charging the cost of haulage against the growers, in order to realize on liens held by the Saskatchewan commission. If that were to happen either he would be mobbed or every other creditor would pile in while the piling was good.
That is the situation. I do not know whether the Finance minister's blood is circulating any faster with indignation or whether he thinks I am just talking. But do not make any mistake about if; until to-night I had not said a word for two days, and now I am not talking for fun. The government had to go to a very great deal of expense to get this money which has been loaned by millions to the Saskatchewan government. Now, so far as I can understand, the government is washing its hands of any further responsibility, and we are being handed over to this so-called nonnpartisan relief commission. It is a lovely commission, and we have a lovely government to deal with here also. Will the Minister of Finance, who is now present, say whether he would like the job of collecting these vast sums of money under these conditions? There is another question too. Something like 35,000,000 of this is agreed to be paid by this government alone because of the national character of the crop disaster. Are they going to leave it to the Saskatchewan government through the relief commission to collect that also? And if they are not going to collect it, how will they know what is this amount and what is the other? [DOT] Mr. Chairman, this is an impossible way of collecting money. No government can collect money this way, and no government in Canada will dare to attempt it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why worry, then?


William Richard Motherwell: I will tell you why, and that is the point. There may be an election up there at any time and then nine-tenths of the farmers in certain areas will be financially obligated to the government that will be appealing to the country. I do not need to tell practical members of this house what will probably happen. Away back in 1908 I ran an election in North Qu'Appelle. One quarter of my constituents in certain polls were under mortgage to the brother of my opponent. A good many of their mortgages were overdue, and foreclosure was impending. Suddenly, like a flash of lightning and with a crash as of thunder, they had to quit campaigning for anyone. Against such odds I therefore know what happens when an electorate is so indebted and when it is indebted to the government of the day the situation is a hundred times worse. I say without fear of contradiction that every one of those hon. gentlemen sitting opposite knows in his heart that what I am saying in this respect is true. This is hoped to be effective on behalf of government candidates, but I am doubtful if it will, as it may work both ways by a backfire. I will now await with pleasure any remarks which the Minister of Finance or any other hon. gentleman on that side sees fit to offer.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I do not think the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) has been up to his standard in his address to the house to-night. He is an old parliamentarian. He sits to the left of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), and there is not an hon. member on the other side who has had a greater political experience than he. But though I listened patiently to what he had to say to-night, to see whether he had one constructive idea to offer the house, I oould detect nothing of the sort. He spoke about the Ku Klux Klan leading the province of Saskatchewan, and as he discussed this and kindred matters his heart bled for Canada. Let me remind him and other hon. members of this house that the Dominion of Canada to-day is passing through one of the most crucial periods in its history. Judging by what we have been told, the people of the west are starving to death at the present time, and I may inform the hon. gentleman that there are a great many who are walking the streets of Montreal to-day looking for unemployment relief. What is this house doing? The Liberal opposition talked and talked for weeks about the constitutional question; we have heard quotations with respect to the mother country and constitutional rights; and we on this side have been described by such eminent gentlemen on



Unemployment Continuance Act
the other side as the hon. member for Labelle as failing in courage and being in the hands of a few men who are ruling the house. Well, I ask, what is the house doing to-day? Only one question faces this house, and that is the urgent necessity for granting relief to the people of Canada. And when hon. gentlemen apposite talk about the constitutional question, I ask what is the constitutional question? It is the peace, order and good government of Canada, and on these six or seven words hon. gentlemen are holding up the progress of this measure. Yet the mother country, without a written constitution, would have voted this money long ago to relieve suffering at home or ini any other part of the empire.
I want to pay tribute to the premier of Quebec for the statement which he has made with regard to this unemployment relief question. There is in the Liberal ranks no greater partisan opposed to this government than the Hon. Mr. Taschereau, and we respect him for the honesty of his views. Premier Taschereau, however, before being a Liberal, is a Canadian. I think the members of this house should likewise be Canadians before they are partisans. We should get down to business and have some sympathy for the people who are suffering to-day in Canada. We should grant them the relief they need. There come to my office every day men with families of six or seven, who are in need of relief. You westerners think that you have all the trouble, but you cannot blame this government for not having done what God has not done; you cannot blame the government for not having given you rain. You cannot blame the dictator of this government, if you wish to use that expression, so far as that is concerned. You will have to go a little bit higher up.


An hon. MEMBER:: A little bit.


Leslie Gordon Bell: The Canadian people are sadly in need of relief, and if hon. gentlemen could vote unanimously a year ago, granting millions of dollars for twelve months, surely that principle can be extended for another few months. My hon. friends opposite have used very far-fetched arguments. They have preached, they have held up the house, and they have spent hours using up pages upon pages of Hansard. On the other hand, Premier Taschereau decided the question for them as a Canadian and not as a partisan when he spoke the following words which I quote from the Ottawa Morning Journal of March 31, 1932, a despatch from Quebec by the Canadian Press:
Quebec, March 30.-To a delegation of mayors of cities and towns in the province of Quebec,

who requested in an interview to-day that the time limit for the completion of unemployment relief works be extended, Premier L. A. Taschereau said: "Take your request to Ottawa and we will endorse your action. In the matter of unemployment I wish to pay this tribute to the Bennett government: they have done all in their power to relieve unemployment. I might add, the provincial governments have been equally active."
That is all I have to say on unemployment. I come from a city that pays its full share of taxation and is happy to pay it, and I come here representing people who are prepared to assist their fellow Canadians. I look upon parliament not as the playground of partisanship, or a place for gibes and personal animosities, I look to old parliamentarians such as the hon. gentleman who preceded me, to do something to meet the present grave situation instead of getting up and talking about the Klu Klux Klan and things of that kind. I look to the hon. gentleman to pass this unemployment relief in order to help his distressed fellow Canadians. I look to the opposition, who acceded to the request of the government in the past, to use the same good judgment on this occasion even if it does imperil their political fortunes, and let this relief measure go through, instead of giving to the people of Canada a bare bone known as unemployment. Eor heaven's sake let us give them something whereby the distressing conditions that now prevail in the country will be relieved forthwith.


Charles Gavan Power: I was gliad to hear the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Bell) quote the Hon. Mr. Taschereau to the effect that the Bennett government had done all in its power to relieve unemployment. That is just what we complain of, it has done all in its power to relieve unemployment with the machinery which it has, but it has not succeeded. We want the government to use some other machinery, to appeal to parliament and to use constitutional means of going about the relieving of unemployment. If that were done, perhaps it would succeed. A moment or two ago my hon. friend said that even to-day people were walking the streets of Montreal unable to find employment. If they are unable to find employment it shows that the government which has done everything in its power has not- been able to relieve the situation. We have no complaint to make in connection with what Mr. Taschereau has said, but we do say that the government should go further and consult parliament. My right hon. leader has said that a conference should be called, and I understand from those who were present this afternoon that the

Unemployment Continuance Act
leader of the government has agreed to call a conference. So far as we are concerned, we will endorse that procedure. Let the Prime Minister call a conference, but let him get away from the use of the system which has been in operation for the past six months.
I did not rise to discuss this point particularly, but rather to discuss a matter concerning the banks of this country. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) is in his place perhaps he will be kind enough to answer a question with respect to an order in council passed on October 27, 1931, dealing with the valuation of securities by the banks. I do not like to take up the time of the committee in reading all of this order in council, but it is an important piece of legislation and I think perhaps it should be on Hansard. Before I read it may I ask the minister if it is proposed to pass a new order in council in the same terms as that passed on October 27 in order to continue to the banks the authority which they have of valuing their securities at other than their true value?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, that will not be necessary.


Charles Gavan Power: Do I understand the minister to say that it will not be necessary because the act we are now dealing with covers the point and permits the extension of the right given to the banks until May 1, 1932? Or is there some other reason?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not know that I can
enlarge upon what I have said. The act now before the house will expire on May 1 and there will be no necessity for exercising any such powers as are contained in the order in council.


Charles Gavan Power: Will it be necessary to give to the banks such an extension of the rights conferred by this order in council as will permit them to make a report for the month of March other than the ordinary report?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No.


Charles Gavan Power: The order in council expired on March 1, 1932; are we to assume that the returns made by the banks under the Bank Act after that date will show a true valuation of securities?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend must not put words into my mouth: He put a question to me which I answered categorically; he asked me if there was any intention to pass an order in council similar to the one which was passed, and I said, no.
41761-101 i


Ernest Lapointe: Will the provisions of the Bank Act apply then?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Certainly.


Charles Gavan Power: So that from March 1 the provisions of the Bank Act will apply?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Certainly.


Charles Gavan Power: So that the order in council passed in October will no longer be in effect, and I take it from the minister that it is not intended to renew it?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have stated twice that there is no intention to renew it.


Thomas McMillan: Mr. Chairman, this is too serious a question to be scoffed and laughed at, as hon. friends opposite seem disposed to do. Apparently the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Bell) did not understand the matter discussed this evening by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell), otherwise he would not have expressed himself as he did. I do not need to remind hon. members of the committee of the agony and distress which has been spoken of not only by members of the opposition but by members of the government. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) told us just recently that the situation was such that this was not the time to talk cheap politics. I agree with every syllable he has uttered in that respect. According to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) there are
250,000	people, or 50,000 farmers, in western Canada who are faced with disaster because their crops have been burned out for three years in succession. The situation was such that carload after carload of produce of one kind or another was shipped out gratuitously from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec From the neighbourhood of St. Hyacinthe in Quebec no less than seven or eight carloads of clothing and provisions were shipped out to these people. All this material was sent gratuitously bacouse we were only too pleased to lend a helping hand. I mentioned this a day or two ago when I addressed this house, and I referred also to the fact that $5,250,000 had been expended in these burnt-out districts. To my surprise I found out that while we in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec had been sending carload after carload of clothing and supplies absolutely gratuitously, when the people of Canada made a contribution through the medium of the government, it was not made as a gift but, as the Minister of Agriculture has said, the people were compelled to sign notes agreeing to pay back what they had received with seven per cent interest thereon. This is a most unheard of thing.

Unemployment Continuance Act
During the Easter holidays I told the people in my constituency what had been done. I think the first carload of produce sent from Ontario was shipped from my constituency, and when the people were told what had been done, they were dismayed to think that the government would act in this way with the funds of the treasury of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No notes were taken for contributions.


Thomas McMillan: The government is sending out the people's money and notes are being taken. Upon my return I was surprised to find that a statute had been passed by the legislature of Saskatchewan legally incorporating the commission in Saskatchewan appointed by the Minister of Agriculture or lay the federal government to carry out the provisions of the agreement which had been entered into for the relief of those people. I appeal to every hon. member, and I am surprised to see my good friend the Minister of Finance, the man who has the disposition of the money, sitting there smiling as he is doing after he and all the .other ministers that have been present have not had a word to say during the discussion of what the ex-Minister of Agriculture has said. If the Minister of Finance wishes to say a word I shall give him an opportunity.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I was smiling just because my hon. friend was asserting with such vehemence that the Saskatchewan commission was appointed by the federal government; he ought to know that it was appointed by the Saskatchewan legislature. I was smiling because of his absolute assurance that he was right when he happens to be quite wrong.


Thomas McMillan: Did the Minister of Agriculture not have to appoint the commission?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.	,


Thomas McMillan: I have not the privilege of referring to the words of the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister, I see, is as ready as anybody dlse to take advantage of an evasion if he can; but if the Minister of Agriculture did not appoint the commission, according to his own words on the floor of this house, he certainly made the recommendations. The government know that promissory notes are being taken from these farmers who have been burned out for three successive years. This is too serious a matter for anyone to regard it with levity. In my section of the country there is not one individual to whom I have spoken who does not think this is an unheard-of act. If the federal

government a.re taking no responsibility in the matter thejr are washing their hands of a responsibility which is theirs, because the money is coming from the federal treasury and according to the Prime Minister's own words, promissory notes are being taken for it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Thomas McMillan: Do not think for a moment it is carried. The Prime Minister told us in the house yesterday that this money had been loaned to the province of Saskatchewan. Therefore we ought to know whether this money is going to be returned to the federal treasury or whether, when these promissory notes are paid, the proceeds will remain in the hands of the Saskatchewan government. Is it to be a free gift from the treasury of the Dominion of Canada to the treasury of Saskatchewan and are these people not to receive the money handed out as it were, in a free manner? We have been told that we should try to help the needy in this country. If there be one thing more than another which the members of the House of Commons ought to do, and do unanimously, it is to see that those unfortunate people of Saskatchewan who have had absolute crop failures for three successive years, are put on their feet.


Robert James Manion: Why not sit down and give them a chance to get some help?


Mr. PORTEOUS:: Just sit down and give them a chance.


Thomas McMillan: I am surprised at my good friend the hon. member for North Grey, because just the other day when I was talking to him on this same matter, what was his reply? He said: I had no idea thjs was being done with those poor people. Yet when this matter is being discussed on the floor of parliament, I am surprised he displays such partisanship.


Victor Clarence Porteous: Who is to pay these notes if the people of Saskatchewan do not?


Thomas McMillan: Who is to pay ' them? We as members of the opposition say that these people should receive this as a free gift just as was the case when the people of Ontario and Quebec sent carload after carload of relief to western Canada. We do not look for anything in return for that; it was a free gift to the people of Saskatchewan. As I say, when that is the case in regard to relief handed out by the people of Ontario and Quebec to the western provinces, when it comes to a question of the government of Canada paying out money from the public

Closure-Privilege-Mr. Bourassa
exchequer on behalf of the whole Canadian people, it is a surprising stand for any member of the government to take that they should not let us know what they are going to do.


Eccles James Gott: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Thomas McMillan: Not at all. I think if ever there was a time when we ought to have a statement from the members of the government, it is now. They have sat silent during the last half hour or so. This is a cabinet responsibility; every member of the cabinet is responsible for the actions of any member of it; the cabinet as a whole is responsible for the action of every individual member thereof.


Eccles James Gott: If the hon. member will not allow me to ask a question, I shall draw the attention of the Speaker to the fact that it is now eleven o'clock.



NOTICE OF CLOSURE

Richard Bedford Bennett: I beg leave to give notice that, at the next sitting of the committee of the whole house, I shall move that the further consideration of the title and clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932, shall be the first business of the committee and shall not be further postponed.
I may say that yesterday I had some reason to believe that the statement made in connection with this evening would be implemented; otherwise we should have taken a very different line of action. I am very sorry it was not.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: What is the
statement to which the Prime Minister refers?


Richard Bedford Bennett: A statement made by the ex-Minister of Justice to me.


Ernest Lapointe: Never. I said: if this bill can be put out of committee to-night, would the third reading be to-morrow? The Prime Minister said yes. I said I would try to see it passed through committee, but I never gave any undertaking.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We all believed he did. That is all.


William Richard Motherwell: If the Prime Minister had made a statement in the house we would have got through.
Progress reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suppose the second application of the closure will be the first order of business to-morrow?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That will be if the hon.
gentleman's representations are as I now understand them, that this bill is not to go through except by closure. I have already given notice of that. If this business is concluded some time after two o'clock, we shall then proceed with government orders and supplementary estimates.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, April 1, 1932