1932-03-11

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) presented the report of the special committee appointed to consider and report upon Bill No. 4, to amend the Patent Act, as follows:
Your committee have duly considered Bill No. 4, intituled: "An Act to amend the Patent Act" and have agreed to report said bill with amendments.
For the convenience of parliament, the committee ordered that the bill in its amended form be reprinted.	_
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. CAHAN:: I move that the report be concurred in.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Will the motion not require notice?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Perhaps the house will give its unanimous consent to the adoption of the motion now. The sole recommendation is the reprinting of the amendment.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: As a matter of fact, a motion is not necessary for that purpose. The report requires the reprinting of the bill and instructions will be given that it be done.
Motion withdrawn.



BEAUHARNOIS POWER PROJECT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Some days ago I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) whether he could give to the house any information with regard to guarantees which may have been given by the government to the banks for financing the Beau-harnois enterprise, and at that time he intimated that he would make a statement a little later. Can he give us any information now?


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: There are certain matters under consideration and discussion with respect to the subject. When they are concluded I shall make a statement to the house. I am not in a position to do so at the moment.



REPORT OF EVIDENCE IN HEARING BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with I desire to answer an inquiry

Unemployment Continuance Act
made yesterday by the hon. member for St. Henri (Mr. Mercier). I find upon inquiry that on receipt of the printed evidence given before the Senate Beauharnois inquiry each morning, 250 copies are immediately forwarded to the distribution office for distribution to the members of the Commons. The chairman of the committee is informed by the superintendent of distribution that these copies are available to any members who ask for them, and have been since the inquiry began.


Mr. DUFF:: They were in our boxes to-day.



WHEAT BONUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. F. DONNELLY (Willow Bunch):: In view of the fact that the farmers of the west are making preparations for the new crop, is it the intention of the government to have the five cent bonus on wheat apply to the present year's crop?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no statement to make, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 10, consideration of the motion of the Prime Minister that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, striking out the word "March" in section 8, and substituting the word "May" therefor.
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, while listening to this
debate, I have observed that hon. members on the government side are continually reiterating that no constructive suggestions have been offered by this side of the house with respect to providing for unemployment relief. Let me remind the house, and particularly hon. members opposite, that several constructive suggestions have been put forward on this side. I can recall at the moment that my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) on different occasions has suggested to the government the advisability of bringing in a supply bill providing for whatever amount they might deem necessary for the immediate continuance of unemployment relief, stating that he would guarantee, so far as the opposition was concerned, to put it through in the 
shortest possible time. On this occasion I want to repeat that offer. I would ask the government in all sincerity to bring down a supply bill this afternoon for any amount they might consider necessary to provide for the relief of unemployment, and this side will guarantee to put it through within an hour. While they are considering that suggestion, and in the hope that they will accept it, we might discuss another constructive suggestion-and again I offer this to the government in all sincerity. I suggest that at this session they might bring down a bill to provide for unemployment insurance. There is no question that an unemployment insurance system for Canada can be instituted and worked out to the best interests of the country.
Canada has been described by some people as an eight-months' country; that is to say, a great proportion of the workers of the country are employed only eight months of the year. Any of us who have observed the affairs of this dominion as they relate to labour know that there are many men who are out of work in Canada four months in every year by reason of seasonal occupations. We could, therefore, establish an unemployment insurance scheme at the outset on the basis of sixteen weeks.
As is well known, Great Britain embarked on an unemployment insurance scheme in 1911, and since that time Italy, Australia, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Poland and Germany have established compulsory insurance systems, while many other European countries have provided relief through other measures. One measure is to provide such relief by subsidizing trade union benefits. Within the British Empire itself the Irish Free State, New Zealand, and one state in Australia, namely, Queensland, have state unemployment insurance. There is little doubt about it that public opinion is now ripe for such a scheme in Canada. This House of Commons has endorsed the principle of a system of contributory unemployment insurance. The provinces were canvassed by the late Liberal government and many of them put themselves on record as in favour of the establishment of an unemployment insurance scheme. They now realize that unemployment insurance is one means of meeting the problem for those who are willing and able to work but who are unable to find employment.
Personally I have given considerable thought and study to the question of unemployment insurance as it is carried out in other countries and as it would operate in Canada. There are also several good articles on the subject, one in particular which I have

Unemployment Continuance Act
in mind having been written by Professor Harry Cassidy, director of research on the unemployment research committee of Ontario.
I refer to Professor Cassidy of Toronto university. The Prime Minister has said that he is waiting for some information. Well, we have the information that can be secured through the Dominion Bureau index, which gives the number of unemployed persons in Canada; and we have the figures collected by the Labour department showing the number of those employed in industry through trade unions, as well as the figures which we have secured through the recent census. We can therefore fairly estimate that there are about two million wage earners and low-salaried men in Canada, the percentage of unemployed being about eight per cent. If we adopted regulations precluding those who would not be entitled to benefits it would reduce the percentage to about seven. So that if we take the bulk of two millions and estimate that seven per cent are usually unemployed for at least four months in every year, there would be entitled to benefits from the fund about
140,000	persons. Assuming that the benefit range would be from $30 per month for single men and $65 for married persons, that would be $80,000,000 a year. Allowing $10,000,000 for administration expenses the total amount required to provide benefits and for administration would be $90,000,000. Assuming there would be three groups making contributions to this fund, the workers, the employers and the state. In order to raise the contribution to be made by the workers, each man would be required to contribute $15 per year or 30 cents per week; one or two per cent of the payroll of the average employer would raise the $30,000,000 required from that group and the remaining $30,000,000, would be contributed by the federal government or, if it desires to cooperate with the provinces, it could contribute $15,000,000 and the provinces the remaining $15,000,000. Such a scheme could be inaugurated and put into effect in Canada without any further delay.
There will be times when the benefits will be drawn from the fund for a longer period than four months, but this could be guarded against by a well thought out plan of public works. We must admit that cycles of unemployment and periods of depression will occur again. There has not been one ten-year period during the last sixty or eighty years which has not included a period of depression. With the intensive competition which this country is facing, with the progress wc are making in replacing man-power with machinery, with the restriction which is going
on in our world markets, we must face the situation that each recurring period of depression will be greater in extent.
In order to protect this fund from overwithdrawals during a period of depression we should change our method of conducting our public works program. I know it would be very hard for the government to restrain the members of parliament who ask for public buildings, new docks and wharves, additional dredging and other kinds of public works, but if we are to face this problem in a manful way and realize what is before us we should refrain from carrying on public works when times are good so that in times of depression we will be prepared to launch an extensive program.
The scheme must be national in scope. If only a few provinces put it into effect, there would be a run on them by the unemployed workers. Even though all the provinces put the scheme into effect at once, it would not work successfully because of the fact that so many workers in Canada travel from one province to another. There should be some central authority to direct the workers to where they are most needed. There should be no further worry with regard to our jurisdiction in the matter. Some of the provinces already have signified their willingness to cooperate in such a scheme. We have invaded the provincial field in other matters such as highway construction, technical education, employment offices and old age pensions. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has said that this government can vote money for anything which in its judgment is desirable. I do not overlook the fact that the Conservative party, now the government, received from the electors at the last elections a mandate to deal with unemployment on a national scale, and it has asked from parliament the right to do anything under any circumstances that it wishes. There is no excuse to delay any longer. Any question of waiting for further information, of gathering additional statistics or of hearing the opinions of actuaries is, to my way of thinking, only stalling off the proposition. This scheme has been tried in other countries and we have had an opportunity of observing the failures and successes of these countries and, benefiting by that knowledge, we should be able to enact a measure to provide an unemployment insurance scheme for this country. This is one more constructive suggestion which I offer to the government of the day.
I assure the government that if it will enter sincerely into this project and bring down a measure, so far as I am concerned-I know

Unemployment Continuance Act
many other hon. members on this side will do likewise-I will cooperate with the government in an effort to see that the necessary legislation is enacted during this session.
Speaking in connection with the measure before us, if it can be called a measure, I must say that it is to be regretted that the government has not presented to this house some concrete proposal to deal with the unemployment situation in Canada. With all the experience it has had and with all the criticism that has been levelled against it, one would have thought that the government would have had something better to offer than this haphazard and hit-and-miss method of dealing with unemployment. I shall not deal at this time with the many promises made to the electors during the recent elections any more than to say that the government has failed signally either to end unemployment or to provide proper methods of relief. When the supporters of the government go through the country and tell of the millions of dollars they have spent and of the work given to thousands of people, they do not deceive anyone but themselves.
The methods adopted by this government to relieve unemployment have proved utterly inadequate. We have been advised by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) that since the commencement of this undertaking, under the Unemployment Relief Act, and up to January 31 of the present year, 327,590 persons were given 7,228,744 days' work, or an average of about twenty-two days' work each in that period, and in the latter period, to take the minister's own figures, 334,301 persons were given 7,415,973 days' work or an average of twenty-two days' work each. I do not need to point out to the minister that we now have before us the report of the director of unemployment relief and the minister's figures do not exactly jibe with those contained in the report. There is, however, a difference of only about half a million days' work and 5,000 persons, but that does not alter the argument to any great extent. Therefore we have given these men an average of three days' work each per month, if you figure it from the time they first began, to the 31st January, 1932. In all sincerity I ask whether the members of the government consider that is taking care of the unemployed of Canada.
What has this cost the country? To meet this, the federal, provincial and municipal authorities have been committed to an expenditure of $146,899,219, the federal government's share being, in round figures, about $50,000,000, and that of the provincial governments and municipalities about $100,000,000.

This scheme was supposed to be launched for the purpose of giving work and wages to our unemployed. Let us see what amount out of this $146,000,000 has been paid to the workers. We find that since the beginning of the unemployment relief, if we take both periods combined, 14,644,717 days' work was supplied. At eight hours a day and at thirty cents an hour, that would amount to $2.40 a day, so that the total amount paid would be $35,147,320.80. Therefore, those who received employment did not receive even one-quarter of the total amount expended, approximately $112,000,000 having gone for some other purpose. The government has not as yet given the house any information with respect to that, but I am satisfied that at least $112,000,000 has not gone into wages for those men.
If we divide the amount paid in wages by the number of men who have been paid, we find that for sixteen months these men have received an average of $53 each. I ask members of the government or any of their supporters how they think those men can live for sixteen months on $53, and in that I am giving the government the advantage in the figures. It is not sufficient for the workers of the country, nor is it good business for the country itself. Yet we find members of the government and many of its supporters taking great credit throughout Canada for the magnificent manner in which they have contributed to the assistance of the provinces. I think in all fairness they ought to point out that while the government are pretending to contribute with the one hand to assist the provinces, they are with the other withholding from the provinces large federal expenditures and obligations.
If we take the Public Works estimates of last year and this, we shall find that last year's estimates show a reduction of $17,000,000 as compared with the previous year. That $17,000,000 would have provided a considerable amount of work from the federal government at fair rates of wages. This year's Public Works estimates show a further reduction of
810,000,000, so that in the two seasons combined, the federal government has withheld work to the extent of $27,000,000. That is not all. It will be recalled that during the recent election the Conservative party obligated themselves to take over the full cost of old age pensions. It was estimated by a committee of this house that an old age pension scheme for Canada would cost in the neighbourhood of $24,000,000. This year the government will pay not over $7,000,000, so that they are withholding $17,000,000 that

Unemployment Continuance Act
they obligated themselves to take over and pay to the provinces in connection with old age pensions. A number of the provinces have been depending upon the federal government assuming the entire cost, and several of them, relying upon the promises of the Prime Minister, have spent money in other ways.
I need not dwell upon the fact that last session there was put through the house a technical education bill, whereby the government promised the provinces a considerable amount of money which they have not received, but which, according to law, is due to them. I need not point out that the government during the last election promised to construct a national highway, the work to be carried on as a federal scheme. What is the situation? The fact is that the government has contributed 50 per cent of the expense in connection with the trans-Canada highway, requiring the provinces to pay the other half, and I think, up to the present time, according to the report, it owes the provinces somewhere in the neighbourhood of $5,000,000 which it should have paid in connection with that highway. What I want to point out is this: hon. members opposite are telling the people that the government is spending $140,000,000, when the fact is that two-thirds of that amount has been spent by the provinces instead of by the federal government. My hon. friends ought also to tell the people of the millions of dollars being withheld from the provinces because the government is not carrying out its obligations. I want to tell hon. gentlemen opposite that from now on we do not intend to allow that kind of bluff or make-believe to go in this country.
Complaints have been made from the government side of the house that no constructive suggestion has emanated from this side. I would remind hon. members that when the right hon. the Prime Minister was leader of the opposition he declared over and over again that the government must be responsible for any measures that were brought down, and particularly he emphasized that he did not intend to prescribe until he was called in. Well, he has been called in and he has been working at his job, but up to the present time his policy has been an utter failure so far as providing work for the unemployed in this country is concerned. Further, I would say with regard to constructive suggestions, that both last session and again this session I listened to the right hon. leader of the Liberal party state in this house that if his government had been returned to power he would have dealt with the unemployment situation in a more scientific way. He would
have called in representatives of all those interested in the unemployment situation in Canada, the representatives of the provinces, of industry, commerce, labour and other interests, and surely out of such a conference there would have come, and could come yet if the government would only accept the suggestion, a far better and more equitable and more adequate policy than we have at the present time. So I hope, Mr. Speaker, that even yet the government will take that suggestion into consideration and call a conference of all those interested so that we may tackle this unemployment insurance question in a more scientific and more equitable way, and provide a more adequate system for taking care of the unemployed citizens of Canada.


Mr. L. E. PARENT (Terrebonne) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate on the government's resolution which endeavours to secure discretionary powers in order to draw funds from the treasury to relieve the unemployed, farmers and those who are suffering in this crisis which is worldwide and in which Canada has not been spared. I shall refer to the causes of the present situation in order to justify my opposition to this resolution. Experience has taught us that this act has had ruinous and inefficient results, and furthermore, this bill is ultra vires at its very face.
In July, 1930, the people of Canada were called to the polls to elect a government. The Liberal party retiring after four years of administration, four years of prosperity, but at the outset of the present world-wide crisis, was seeking from the people a renewal of their mandate. Realizing the difficult situation and the problems which the incoming government would have to face, the Liberal party moved for a commission to study the question of unemployment, in order to solve this crisis, find work for the unemployed and relieve those who were in distress.
The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), then leader of the opposition, and his followers, travelled throughout the country advocating a different policy and being very lavish with their pledges, charging the outgoing government of being responsible for the depression existing then. Thereby they undertook to find a remedy to the crisis and bring back prosperity to this country. They stated that the Liberal government was responsible for this unemployment because of its majority in parliament by which it enacted all measures necessary for the welfare of the country. The leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister made very definite pledges as well as did hon. members on your right,
10: >2

Unemployment Continuance Act
sir, who now form the government, and on the faith of these specific pledges or promises, the people confided in the Conservative party so as to afford them an opportunity to fulfil these pledges.
What has the government done since then? What has happened since that date? Hardly more than a month after the election a special session is called so as to fulfil part of these promises and find work for the unemployed, for all who wished to work to make a living and for the farmers who were to leave their fields to seek elsewhere food for their family. Refusing to listen to the suggestion of the opposition to appoint a commission on unemployment, composed of experts in finance, industry, trade, agriculture and representatives of labour, in order to study the problem and take the necessary measures to meet the crisis which had spread over the country, the government purely and simply had $20,000,000 voted.


Mr. DUGUAY (Translation):: That is an
old story.


Louis-Étienne Parent: It cannot too often be told.
The government had $20,000,000 voted though not assuming alone the responsibility of the distribution of this fund, but they made the provinces and municipalities partly bear this responsibility and forced them to contribute and share the burden which the Conservative party had assumed at election time.
In September, 1930, when a special session was called to deal with unemployment, there were but 117,000 people without work in this country,-according to the Labour Gazette and the Dominion government statistics. Stress, must be, sir, laid on these figures. It was to relieve these 117,000 unemployed that $20,000,000 were voted, to which amount must be added $50,000,000 contributed jointly by the provinces and municipalities in a ratio which had been fixed according to circumstances which might develop, this meant an outlay of $70,000,000 to relieve the situation. Thus, $70,000,000 were expended in 1930-1931. With what result? With the disastrous result that on January 1, 1931, 62,500 people were added to the list of unemployed. The situation far from being relieved in the autumn of 1931, the number had increased to 350,000;
233,000	having been added to the September 1930 list, while millions of dollars were voted to relieve the unemployed. I trust that these gentlemen will take good note of these telling figures. The Prime Minister, in the course of the electoral campaign proclaimed through-

out the country, on every public husting and by means of radio broadcasts, that should he be raised to power, he would take the necessary measures to find work for every one who desired to work, thus putting an end to unemployment. What faith can we repose today in his new pledges?
As a proof of my contention that this policy to relieve the unemployed was a failure, I shall quote a short news item which appeared in La Patrie on September 5, 1931, dated Ottawa, and published by the Canadian Press:
The number of unemployed in Canada has increased to over 530,000, according to Mr. G. Robertson, Minister of Labour.
I think I have sufficiently established that the government's policy to relieve unemployment was a complete failure. Furthermore, to this failure must be added this exaggerated high tariff on over 200 items in connection with imports which inevitably resulted in reducing our foreign trade and the number of workmen in our factories. Owing to overproduction the manufacturers were unable to find markets for their products, while in previous years under a moderate tariff the Canadian manufacturers were able to sell abroad a great quantity of their goods, which necessarily gave work to a great number of people and provided a living for all. I shall refer later to this tariff question.
At the last session, in 1931, just before prorogation, after five months of deliberation, the government, by its majority, notwithstanding the protests of the opposition, forced through the house Bill No. 58, granting a blank cheque on the treasury, without furnishing details as provided by the statutes, and this, still with the intention of helping the unemployed, those in distress, the farmers in the west, and, to also maintain peace and good order.
What policy was followed by the government in 1931, in the expenditure of these millions of dollars in pursuance of its authority to sign a blank cheque? The government spent enormous sums, obliging the provincial governments and municipalities to contribute to these funds, hence affecting their credit, encumbering the budgets of the latter, forcing the country into debts by contracting heavy obligations, so that, to-day, the government finds it necessary to increase the ratepayers' taxes. What was the outcome of this policy? Statistics published in 1932, show us that since September, 1930, according to the figures quoted just now by the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan), 334,000 unemployed were given work; representing 7,400,000 days

Unemployment Continuance Act
of work, this amounts approximately to 22 days of work for each person, at a cost of $70,500,000, or about $10 per working day, during a period of six months. Is this satisfactory? No, if we consider that the unemployment problem has not been solved and that the purpose aimed at has not been achieved, since statistics prove that the number of unemployed is larger to-day than it was in September, 1930. The Labour Gazette in its issue of January, 1932, at page 69, states that the labour market has been quieter in factories, during 1931, than in other years since 1926. The following figures are quoted: 4,400 factories, in 1930, employed 525,000 workmen; in 1931, 4,670 factories employed only 467.711 people. This is the result of the failure of the exaggerated tariff policy of this government.
Let us now examine the assistance given to farmers in the west, for whose relief millions of dollars were voted. I do not intend to criticize this measure since the government has thought fit to have such enormous sums voted; it is quite evident that the government overlooked the poor farmers of the other provinces who are in distress. I think that the other provinces should have been consulted previous to the government pledging its credit for so many millions of dollars in order to assist part of the country only. It was a matter which affected the people's money as a whole, hence this procedure cannot be approved.
The resolution begs leave to introduce a bill to extend for two months the powers by which the government was given the famous blank cheque, thus allowing it to make the same outlays as in the past. This measure is contrary to the principle of our constitution and deprives parliament of its prerogative. It is our duty, as members, to oppose this unconstitutional measure which has no precedent in our parliamentary history. When this bill asking for a blank cheque was introduced, the government first stipulated that it would end with the fiscal year; it was, however, decided later to extend it to March 1, 1932, seeing that the session was to really begin this year one or two months before March 1. This afforded an opportunity to the government to introduce this bill at an earlier date than it did. Parliament has now been sitting since February 4. Has the right hon. Prime Minister not had sufficient time to introduce heretofore this measure to solve the unemployment problem and evolve means to meet the present crisis, instead of asking parliament to extend an act which has expired and by which no solution to the unemployment question was found?


Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):: Will the
hon. member allow me to put a question? Did your constituency request you to oppose this measure?


Mr. POULIOT (Translation):: Everybody
is discontented.


Louis-Étienne Parent: My answer
to the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette) is that I was given a mandate as the hon. member was, and when I express such a view, I am certain of receiving the approval of my constituents. Anyhow, I take the whole responsibility.
The Prime Minister stated in Victoria B. C. during the election in July:
I shall call a session to give work and not dole.
I think, sir, that the Prime Minister must regret, to-day, his last words "and not dole" because he would probably have recourse to dole instead of work, especially after the experience of the outlay made in 1930 and 1931. To corroborate my statement, I shall quote figures which speak for themselves and over which, I hope, hon. members on the government side will ponder. According to the statistics relating to the work carried out in 1930-1931, to relieve unemployment, as agreed with the provinces, municipalities and railway companies, work was given to 334,000 persons, that is 7,400,000 days of work in round figures, this meant an expenditure of $70,570,000, of which $14,342,962 was provided by the Dominion government. During the same period 438,777 persons, either single or family supporters, received, I shall not say as dole, but as direct aid an amount of $7,000,000. We must bear this in mind.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Not too
much.


Louis-Étienne Parent: It is not
any too much; as we shall see. These amounts included the contributions of the provinces and municipalities. Every unemployed to whom work was given therefore cost the country $210, while in the other case, direct assistance, the cost to the country for every person relieved was $16.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Was
Taschereau opposed to this?


Louis-Étienne Parent: I am not
called upon to discuss here provincial politics. When the opportunity comes, I shall invite the hon. member to discuss them.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: We shall
be there.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Louis-Étienne Parent: Any one,
sir, who wishes to give himself the trouble can easily compare these figures and prove to his satisfaction that the assistance given through work cost the treasury fourteen times more than direct aid, for each person relieved.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Be
serious.


Louis-Étienne Parent: I am absolutely so and I challenge the hon. member to deny these figures. Then, why not have brought down a measure substituting direct assistance instead of assistance through work, since we have to deal with an expenditure of millions of dollars, of enormous sums drawn from the treasury.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: What do
you suggest?


Louis-Étienne Parent: I have just
mentioned it. If the hon. member did not catch my words, I would beg of him to listen more closely to my remarks. He will have an opportunity to read Hansard and he will then understand what I said.


Jean-François Pouliot: Cross over,
you will hear better.


Louis-Étienne Parent: May I request the hon. member to have the courage to rise and deliver a speech in his turn.
The country, sir, would be $55,000,000 less in debt, if the government had adopted the system of direct assistance to the unemployed. Are you aware how much the government would have economized? $5,000,000, per year, in interest on the amounts expended on unemployment. These figures are worthy of consideration and constitute a sufficient motive to oppose the present resolution.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Where do these figures come from?


Louis-Étienne Parent: From statistics. I think I have sufficiently shown the grounds on which I base my views on this question. I shall close my remarks by asking that we all cooperate and have confidence, while we are passing through this difficult period. It is most encouraging to note that notwithstanding the critical stages through which all nations passed during this crisis, nothing happened to affect Canada's resources and dampen its faith in the future. Her lands, forests, mines, water powers and farms constitute an asset which is an assurance for the future and a stimulus to further effort. The skill shown by Canadians to utilize their resources has in no way diminished. In times of depression and distress, when the economic

equilibrium is upset, it is a national duty to introduce measures to meet the existing conditions. A true appreciation of our national resources and the wealth which industry and labour can produce give rise to real confidence in the future, and this confidence must be the foundation of all improvement in our economic conditions. However, it behooves Parliament to pass laws which have no connection with radical measures, pull down tariff walls, substitute a moderate tariff and foreign trade treaties which will re-establish throughout the world the trade relations which were so advantageous to Canada during the last period, and which I think, is the only solution possible to the unemployment problem in Canada as well as abroad.


Mr. J. A. DENIS (St. Denis) (Translation):: I had not intended to take part in this debate as I wished to allow members of the legal profession the task of pondering over the constitutional aspect of the resolution under discussion. I had hoped that the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) would give us the benefit of his professional training but I fear that it will be denied to us. We should, however, rejoice in having been enlightened by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion) who perhaps does not shine as brightly as the hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Duranleau). At the risk of appearing discourteous towards the former, I shall state that his legal attainments seem rather dull compared with those of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). I shall ask him to follow the advice which he ventured to give to the hon. member for Quebec East and further suggest that he send a copy of his speech to the Prime Minister of Quebec, who will not need a great effort of mind to perceive the difference between the two speeches.
The hon. member for Quebee-Montmorency was entirely outside of the subject discussed and alluded to a certain measure adopted by the Quebec legislature and which, I think, did not please our Conservative friends of that province: the famous Dillon Act.


Mr. QOBEIL (Translation):: It is certainly famous.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: I shall say to the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency that this legislation was enacted to redeem the honour of the province of Quebec, attacked and outraged by a mountebank using the election funds, the source of which is as well known by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency as that of Beauharnois. The hon. member has no right to insinuate that the

Unemployment Continuance Act
Liberals of Quebec stole the election in the last provincial campaign. His charge is absolutely false and untrue. He has neither the right to insult the people of Quebec by insinuating that they were bought.
Mr. DORIOiN (Translation): They were robbed, it is quite a different story.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: The hon. member has no right to insult his fellow citizens of Quebec.	.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency contends that the hon. member for St. Denis is reading his speech.
Mr. DENIS '(Translation): No, I have simply some notes.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): You are not consistent.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: It is preferable to what you do, as you never read.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): It is better not to open one's mouth than to say stupidities.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: It is redeeming the honour of Quebec to pass an act in protest against such an outrage to the respectability of the citizens of that province.
I shall be brief, sir, in my remarks to the house in connection with the resolution under discussion. This resolution aims at amending the act passed at the last session, granting the government the right to expend millions of dollars to relieve the unemployed without having to submit the amount to parliament for its approval.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Do your constituents protest?


Joseph-Arthur Denis: They are opposed to the means which the government has recourse to obtain these funds.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Members have no right to interject remarks while an honourable member is speaking.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: My constituents are proud-


Mr. DORION (Translation):: Of their representative.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Yes, my constituents are proud of their representative, they rejoice in a constitutional and representative government-


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Such as
ours.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Unemployment Continuance Act

we find in the estimates of that year a reduction of $25,000,000 in the votes for public works; if this amount is deducted from that drawn by virtue of the blank cheque given to the government there only remains a sum of $7,500,000 to relieve unemployment.
The city of Montreal, which I have the honour to represent was granted a sum $4,-
800,000,	of which the Dominion government's quota was $1,200,000. Are you aware, sir, when the work intended to relieve unemployment started? It was only started at the beginning of February. At the present time half of the work has not been started and our poor unemployed had to endure great hardships throughout the winter, while expecting the relief intended for them, pursuant to the legislation enacted in the course of last session. Considering how this money was distributed, I wonder whether we have not the right to exact from the government instead of asking the house an extension of the extraordinary and unconstitutional powers that the majority in the house granted them, that they introduce a bill specifying the necessary amounts they need to relieve unemployment.
The government should also oblige municipalities to carry out the work intended to aid the unemployed within a reasonable delay so as to be a real help to the latter. I do not wish to criticize the government more than it is necessary, but it is their duty to see that those in charge of the work in Montreal expend the money allotted to them during the winter season, instead of in summer, when the unemployed can better look after themselves.
Notwithstanding the formal pledge given to the house by the government that these funds would be distributed without favouritism, I charge the civic authorities of Montreal with having distributed the money to benefit their political friends, and I repeat the charges which were made before the municipal council of Montreal by the official representative of this government.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Please,
confine your remarks to federal politics.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Mr. Speaker,
I shall close my remarks


Joseph Arthur Barrette: It is
time.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Considering the actual state of affairs in this country and the further spread of this economic crisis, I repeat to the government that they have lost the 
Canadian people's confidence and neglected their duty; out of the funds that we thought were spent to help the unemployed, one third only has reached them while two thirds were pocketed by a few profiteers, friends of the government. As profiteers, these people have not their equal.
Mr, DUGUAY (Translation): Name them.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: They always
took advantage of crises to amass wealth. We still recall those who profited by the war, and we shall not forget those who, during this economic crisis, after pledging themeslves in order to win the election, did not, as promised, relieve the distress in three days, improve the lot of our farmers, develop, through treaties, our foreign trade and bring back prosperity by utilizing the national and great resources which Canada possesses. This government through its high protective policy, has considerably restricted our foreign trade, and because of this policy the surplus of our factories remains in storage and is destined to remain there as long as this government is not ousted.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: In forty
years from now.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Owing to this
government being so unpopular, I think, for their own sake, they should appeal to the people and request the latter to renew their mandate which they juggled out of them by their false pledges. The government should not persist in following this policy which, instead of solving the serious problem which faces us, complicates it the more. Instead of persisting in this policy which ruins and bankrupts the country, the government's duty is to appeal to the Canadian people, and I feel sure that, the latter having found out the error they made in 1030, will again repose their confidence in the Liberal government, their old servants, who will lead, as they did between 1921 and 1930, the country in the path of prosperity.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: Mr. Speaker, in taking part
in this debate, 1 have no intention of destroying the hopes of the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis), however, I received this morning from the municipal council of St. Joseph d'Alma, where I reside, a resolution which reads as follows:
That this council deem it their duty to earnestly request, on behalf of the public interest, that a new agreement or arrangement be made between the government at Ottawa and the Quebec government in order that an additional sum be allotted to continue the work

Unemployment Continuance Act
begun anil carried on this winter on the Quebec-Lake-St.-John road, in the Laurentian Park, from now on to July 1, 1932, with a gang of 500 men.
I also received a telegram which reads as follows:
Further grant not forthcoming previous to extension of the Unemployment Relief Act. Situation critical for Jonquiere. Insist to have bill passed as soon as possible. Acknowledge telegram immediately.
I have read to the house these two documents not with the idea of championing the Conservative policy, or attempting to show that political interest alone actuates the members of the opposition, but simply to find out the reason of the attitude of those members who rise at all times to speak not in the public interest, but simply to foster their own political purposes. These gentlemen in the opposition contend that they are the champions of self-government and the constitution; after having endeavoured to destroy it in 1926, we hear them, to-day, exclaim on behalf of the constitution: You cannot enact this measure to relieve the unemployed.
I am made to realize, sir, the importance of the people's representatives in this house, by the interest which the unemployed, in my county and district, take in our proceedings. We should not consider the question under discussion from the viewpoint of politics and we should not debate the question with the idea of gaining some political advantage. Yet, the opposition, to-day, impugn the constitution and smile benevolently to all that flavours of communism in our province and throughout Canada, because they hope by these to attain power. They endeavour to prove to the people that they are in good faith! If hon. members in the opposition were in earnest in their contentions, if they were sincere in the statement of their wrongs-especially the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) who seeks to be looked upon in Quebec as the champion of his country-if they were in earnest in their aspirations, they would not have thought fit to so strongly oppose the measure which is before the house, they would not discuss endlessly this problem. I am convinced that to-day the electorate of Quebec take these gentlemen at their worth and will do so in the future.
In the interest of the unemployed, in the interest of those who seek bread for their families, this bill must be immediately adopted; and the longer the opposition delays its enactment, the longer the people of Quebec will remain in need, and they will not forget it at the next election.
41761-05$


Joseph Arthur Barrette: The
longer the Liberals will remain in the opposition.


Mr. ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: I do not intend to take more than a few minutes discussing this question, but I believe that the people whom I represent in this house will expect me, on a resolution of such importance, affecting as it does the very foundations of our governmental institutions, to express my views. In a recent debate in this house some of us, including myself, were accused of not giving full credit to the government for what they have done in the way of meeting the unemployment situation during the past year. We are prepared to give the government full credit for all they have done, and we realize that they have had a gigantic task on their hands. That, however, does not prevent us from voicing criticism when we realize that mistakes have been made.
I am fully aware of the conditions that exist in the province of Saskatchewan. Last summer I had an opportunity of driving through about 150 miles of territory where not a spear of anything was to be seen growing, except Russian thistles, and in all that territory the only machines I saw employed were two machines which were cutting Russian thistle. The conditions were terrible and it was necessary for the government to do a good deal towards relieving the situation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), told us a few days ago that 300,000 people had been given relief in Saskatchewan. That, I believe, is true and we give the government credit for what they have done in this regard. The thing we object to is this, that in the session of 1930, there was enacted such legislation as rendered this relief necessary to the extent to which it was given. Let me explain what I mean. Had we a market in Saskatchewan for our beef, pork, mutton, wool, butter, eggs, poultry and such other produce as we have on our farms, this unemployment relief would have been in large measure unnecessary. Our British preference in 1930 was wiped out. We have practically no market for anything we have to sell, and outside of a few municipalities, where there was absolutely nothing, around the borders of that area in the proving of Saskatchewan there was plenty of feed available, so that if the farmers had a propel market they would not have found it necessary, at least to the extent they did, to look for assistance.
Probably the Prime Minister is not as conversant as some of the rest of us with the conditions that existed in Saskatchewan during former depressions. I remember two or
102S
Unemployment Continuance Act

three other periods in which we had crop failures with consequent depression in that province. The Prime Minister mentioned the fact that no noise was made on this occasion. In 1914 there was a failure throughout the greater part of western Saskatchewan and relief was given, but no noise was made about it. Nor were the provinces and the municipalities bankrupt through the relief they extended. In 1919-20 it was necessary, in the part of the country from which I come, to give a good deal of relief, and again it was given without much noise. It was handed out through the municipality and handled very effectively. No noise was made about it.
We do feel that although the government have done a great deal in the way of affording relief, criticism is due for the very reason that the Prime Minister gave in his address on March 8, when he told us of the money that had been spent and the number of days' work that had been provided. But as my hon. friend from Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor) pointed out last night, it represented something over $10 for every day's work. The people are wondering why when such large sums of money were expended they received such meagre wages for the work they performed. Had the government adopted a reasonable policy we believe this situation could have been handled much easier. The high tariff legislation passed at the special session of 1930 has kept us out of the markets of the world and it has also kept up the prices of the products which the farmer is compelled to buy. During that session the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) gave the number of unemployed by provinces, and I quote from page 63 of Hansard as follows:
I find that at present in the province of Alberta there are 5,155 unemployed; during the winter it is contemplated that that number will reach 6,650. In British Columbia at the present time the unemployed number 7,692 and it is expected that during the winter that number will increase to 14,700. In the province of Saskatchewan the present number given is 5,276 and it is expected to rise during the winter to 8,201. In Manitoba the figure is now 6,950, with a possible 9,600 in the winter. In Ontario the figure is given as 49,367, rising to 82,214. In Quebec the present number is 41,190, as against an anticipated number of 49,290. In New Brunswick the present number is 500 and it is expected it may reach 2,850. In Nova Scotia the present number is 1,800 and it may rise to 2,350.
At that time there was a total of 117,930 unemployed and it was anticipated that by winter that number would increase to 175,855. As is recorded on page 64 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said:
If the measures which we submit to this house are productive of the good which we

anticipate, we hope that that number will steadily decrease, rather than increase.
As everyone knows, that number has not decreased. From the best information obtainable I believe that the number of unemployed to-day is three times the number given for September, 1930, and double the anticipated number for the following winter. This proves that the measures submitted at that time by the government have not been productive of the good anticipated and that the hopes of the Prime Minister have not been fulfilled with regard to what his legislation was going to do.
Why does not the government come to this house and say:	Our legislation has been a
failure. It should adopt the suggestion made the other day by my right hon. leader and try some other way of handling the unemployment question. It is quite evident to everyone that the measures adopted have been a failure and the very words of the Prime Minister admit that it has been a failure. We tried to make it clear, even as far back as September, 1930, that these measures in connection with the increase in tariff and abolishing the British preference could not be effective in relieving unemployment. The whole trouble with the government seems to be that it has a leader who is too autocratic in his manner. Why does he not admit that sometimes he may be mistaken? That is one of his defects; he will never admit that it is possible for him to make a mistake and he seems to have a following ready to believe likewise.
This government should face the facts with regard to trade conditions. It should realize what the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) is reported in the newspapers as having said in Sarnia, to the effect that Canada's productive capacity is so far in excess of our needs as consumers that we must find a market abroad. Such a market can be obtained only by the exchange of goods with other countries. There is one fact which the government so far has not realized, and that is that the wheat crop of western Canada is the greatest single source of purchasing power there is in this country. That was the reason why we supported the Dunning budget of 1930; we realized that if Canada was going to continue to be fairly prosperous, as she had been for a number of years, it was necessary that something be done to assist the wheat growers of western Canada. Mr. Dunning stated something to that effect when making his budget speech. We believe to-day that had the Dunning budget been adopted we would have had a market in the old country for our

Unemployment Continuance Act
surplus products. We have not much wheat but we have many other products to sell. We believe that had that budget been adopted it would have gone a long way toward relieving unemployment and it would not have been necessary to spend the immense amounts of money which have been expended during the last year or two.
Hon. friends opposite are fond of referring to the fact that during the Liberal administration some 700,000 immigrants entered this country, and they give that as one of the causes of unemployment. I never was a strong advocate of immigration, but I say to the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) that he would find it interesting to compare the speeches he made three or four years ago with what he said only a few nights ago. We remember that a few years ago he said that Canada should be the Mecca for all the over-populated countries of the world, and I think he repeated that thought on more than one occasion. Now he is trying to condemn the former government for bringing in some 700,000 people in the last five years. He also referred to the fact that General McRae, who was then a member of the house, made on two occasions in 1928 and 1929, interesting addresses in this chamber regarding a great colonization scheme, and he said that that gentleman was then expressing only his own opinion, being a private member. I took the trouble to look up Hansard of 1928, and on page 21 I find that the present leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Bennett) in no uncertain language expressed his views on the question of immigration. This is what he said:
It is true that immigration is by all odds the most important question that can engage the attention of this house or of this parliament.
Further on he said:
It is high time that something be done to put the power of parliament unitedly behind an effort to bring people over and settle them in this country. We cannot continue as we are and maintain our present position very long. It is essentially important that we should induce more settlers to come to this country. I have pointed out this before, and I repeat it now.
Then as reported on page 22 of Hansard of the same year, the right hon. gentleman said:
Now, sir, this question transcends party; it is larger than the lives of parties because it strikes at the very life of this dominion. We must have settlers. We have in Canada facilities to take care of an additional population of from 15,000,000 to 17,000,000 people; we have
10,000,000 acres of untouched land within twenty miles of the railways; we have the
Peace River area and other portions of the country which are lying idle while the government is expressing pious hopes as to what will happen. I say the time has come when action must be taken.	_
It cannot be done in any small way; it cannot be accomplished in any niggardly way, but it must be done in a large way.
That is the leader of the Conservative party, the present Prime Minister speaking in 1928 as recorded in Hansard. What would have happened, I wonder, had the wishes of the right hon. gentleman been given effect at that time, and we had brought in not
15.000. 000, but even the tenth part of
15.000.	000? What would have happened if we had brought in 1,500,000 people when we have so many unemployed to-day? I am rather inclined very often to discount the words of the Prime Minister, and that is why I suggest taking just the tenth part of wihat he said and trying to realize what it would have meant.
As I have said, the policies that are adopted by the government have proved a failure in dealing with the question of unemployment. In conclusion, let me say this: that the so-called success of the government in dealing with the unemployment problem reminds me very forcibly of the man who said that for the last year he had eaten corn flakes every morning for breakfast and had taken corn syrup on his pancakes, but still his corns were no better than they were a year ago.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution that we are now discussing proposes to put into the hands of the government, that is of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), the power, without any reference to parliament, not only to spend all moneys necessary in the relief of unemployment and of farm distress, but also to take what steps he may deem requisite in respect of matters affecting the peace, order and good government of Canada, and that at a time when we, the elected representatives of the people, are here willing to perform the duty which properly devolves upon us. As we on this side of the house understand the matter, the granting of such power would mean the surrender of all our rights and privileges, of all the duties and obligations which rest upon us as members of parliament. Indeed, it must be evident to hon. members opposite that such would be the case, and I believe the Prime Minister must also realize this.
If legislation is passed, based upon this resolution, we might just as well, as has been pointed out already, prorogue parliament. We shall have handed over to the Prime Minister complete power to deal with anything in any manner he sees fit, without any limitation,

Unemployment Continuance Act
whatever. My disposition in dealing with all matters involving constitution and procedure is to take a somewhat liberal attitude. I say that in the ordinary application of the term. While I am not unwilling to learn from the wisdom and experience of our forefathers, precedents are valuable to me only as they indicate a course that experience has shown to be sound. They ought not to be as chains to bind us, nor should they impose upon us obligations to follow a course that common sense would reject. Because judges have given certain decisions in the past and have based them upon certain principles, is no reason to my mind why judges down through all time should give similar judgments. The men who are willing to abolish old precedents and to establish new ones are, after all, the men upon whom we have to depend for everything in the way of progress in human affairs.
Having said that, having indicated my general attitude in regard to matters of constitution and precedent, I wish to say that when the Prime Minister a year ago brought down his bill, that it is now proposed to revive, I did not feel as strongly opposed to it as did the majority of the members on this side. I was prepared to recognize that the situation was somewhat unusual; that new conditions had arisen. I was ready to recognize that as regards the money feature of the bill, it would be difficult to give even an approximate estimate of the amount that would be required. Therefore, while entertaining very serious doubts as to the wisdom of granting such power, I felt that something might be said for the procedure advocated. I was not completely convinced by the arguments advanced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) when he dealt with the section of the bill relating to questions of peace, order and good government; yet I was willing to admit that perhaps there was some force to them. In that I may have been all wrong; perhaps I was, and I am willing to confess that in that respect I might have been. But -and I want to say that "but" with all the emphasis the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) attaches to it when he is arguing his case-the circumstances that confront us to-day are very different from those of a year ago, very different from what they were last session. Then we were just at the close of a. session of parliament; parliament was just about to prorogue, in all probability not to meet for six months. It might have been pleaded on behalf of the government at that time that they were facing new conditions; that an unusual situation had arisen; that they had no precedents to guide them and that we would simply have to 
trust them under the circumstances to do the best they could.
But that is not the situation to-day; parliament is in session. We have been in session only a short time, only five weeks, and there is every probability that we shall still be in session when the first of May arrives, the limit that is set for the continuance of this law that it is proposed to revive. A very different situation prevails to-day. We have had no opportunity to study thoroughly the report in regard to the operation of the act which has been tabled by the government. Under all these circumstances are we not justified in asking, why this legislation? It has already been pointed out that the Prime Minister has given no reason why he is asking for a continuance of these powers. The Prime Minister has asserted again and again that only by being granted these powers could he effectually deal with the many complex questions with which he was confronted. Indeed, he has admitted that there are very good reasons why these powers should not be granted. He says that he sympathizes with those on this side of the house in the arguments which they have advanced. He has admitted that their reasons have weight. Indeed his own words are:
I am reluctant in a constitutional sense to ask for a continuance of these powers.
No one realizes better than the Prime Minister himself that in asking for these powers he is doing violence to the constitution and departing from all established precedents, but he does not cast the constitutional question aside in the same free and easy manner as some of his supporters do. He knows that a serious question is here involved. He knows that he is making a serious demand upon this parliament when he asks for these powers. Under those circumstances is it not all the more incumbent on the Prime Minister that he should tell us why he is asking for these powers?
I have said, Mr. Speaker, that I am not a stickler when it comes to matters of precedent and the constitution. I do not like to be bound by the dead hand of the past, and I am willing to cast precedents aside if they interfere with our doing what we think is the right thing to be done. But when we are asked to do violence to the constitution of this country and to depart from the precedents which have been handed down to us and which the experience of the past has shown to be sound, surely we are not unreasonable when we ask the Prime Minister to tell us why we should make such a departure.

Unemployment Continuance Act
The confidence which the Prime Minister has in himself is amazing. Undoubtedly selfconfidence is a good quality in men, and it is a good thing for a man to have a high opinion of himself. Unless a man has some respect for himself and some self-confidence he is not going to get very far in this world, but after all, most of the vices which afflict men are simply their virtues carried to an extreme, and that would seem to be the case with the Prime Minister. As he is fond of scriptural allusions I might remind him of the saying that we should not think of ourselves more highly than we ought to think. Surely, Mr. Speaker, we may be forgiven if we have not that complete and perfect confidence in the Prime Minister which he has in himself and which evidently many of his followers share. Surely it is not consonant with the dignity of parliament that we should be asked to submit to the treatment that is now being meted out to us. Yet I suppose that the majority of the supporters of the government will fold their hands and quite tamely submit, and say:
Ours not to make reply,
Ours not to reason why,
Ours but to echo "aye,"-
when the Prime Minister speaks.
The Prime Minister further says, on page 993 of Hansard:
-and I will welcome any suggestion that others may offer towards the solution of the problem -I know of no way, except by this method, whereby we can assist the provinces and supplement the work they have to undertake.
I will welcome any suggestions, says the Prime Minister. What do those words mean? In the mouth of the Prime Minister they mean absolutely nothing. When he says that he will welcome any suggestions he is probably honest with himself, but he is so constituted that while he may think that he is welcoming the suggestions of others he is actually putting them completely aside, and acting according to his own free will. What about the suggestion which has been made by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), a suggestion which I think I may safely say is concurred in by every member on this side of the house, and, if hon. gentlemen opposite would only speak their minds, is recognized, I believe, by them too as a reasonable suggestion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


John Livingstone Brown: Well, let us see what is
the suggestion. It is that the government should bring down a supply bill appropriating the necessary amount to meet the exigencies
of the case, and that out of the money thus granted by parliament the government shall spend whatever is necessary to meet the needs as they arise between now and the first of May. * Coupled with that suggestion was the assurance by the leader of the opposition that such a supply bill would pass without any opposition from this side of the house. That was a reasonable suggestion surely. Why was it not accepted? That is the question I want to ask of the Prime Minister. Why is not that suggestion accepted? The Prime Minister has not told us. He has simply brushed the suggestion aside. What does he say? At page 991 of Hansard he says:
Now, so far as a supply bill is concerned,
I think it is fairly obvious to those who have followe'd me that to ask for any particular sum of money at this time in the form of a supply bill, with the usual limitations that are imposed upon such measures, would not meet the situation. In, our judgment at any rate, having regard to our experience, it would not.
He says it is perfectly obvious that a bill of this kind would not meet the situation. Well, I must confess that it is not perfectly obvious to me. That may be my fault. It may be because I am a little dull in the uptake, but I would ask the Prime Minister to have patience with those of us who are not trained in the legal profession, who perhaps have just ordinary minds that cannot grasp in a moment all the nice points involved in a discussion nor appreciate as quickly as does the Prime Minister the subtleties of an argument. I would ask him to have a little patience with us and try to explain to us why what is so perfectly obvious to him should not seem reasonable to us. He speaks of a supply bill with its usual limitations. Really it is amusing to hear the Prime Minister talk of limitations. When have we known the Prime Minister to recognize any limitations when he wanted to do anything? Yet, when it suits him, he pleads that the granting of money through a supply bill, because of limitations which attach to it-whatever they are-would prevent him affording relief to the distressed unemployed and the farmers he desires to help. In September, 1930, we passed a bill granting the Prime Minister $20,000,000. Under the terms of that act he was permitted to use the money in any way he saw fit up until the month of March, 1931. Well, why can he not do that now? If we could pass that bill at that time why cannot we pass a bill now to give him whatever money he needs until the first of May? The Prime Minister may say that there is a perfectly obvious difference between the two cases, but if there is any difference certainly it is all iu

Unemployment Continuance Act
favour of the suggestion made by the right hon. leader of the opposition.
It must be evident to hon. members that it is not the way in which the money is to be obtained which constitutes the reason the Prime Minister rejects this suggestion. There must be some other reason, and we can only conclude that it is because he desires to retain the power to amend Jaws, modify laws, abrogate old laws and institute new laws at his own sweet wilL A few evenings ago we listened to a very interesting and entertaining address from the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion). When that rapid-firing gun gets into action we are always interested, whether or not he brings down any game.


An hon. MEMBER:: I think he did.*


John Livingstone Brown: We always like to hear the Minister of Railways and Canals, although at times he makes us laugh-at least, we would laugh if the matter were not so serious. It was rather interesting to hear the Minister of Railways and Canals plead with hon. members on this side of the house to cooperate with the government. Hon. gentlemen opposite do not seem to understand the meaning of the word "cooperation."


Mr. COTNAM:: The hon. member understood it, all right.


John Livingstone Brown: Yes, and I am glad I did.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: That was a long time ago.
. Mr. BROWN: I certainly did understand it, and it is because I understand the meaning of the term "cooperation" that I am trying to explain it to hon. gentlemen opposite. I am glad I am recognized by them as an authority on the subject, and for that reason I proceed with greater confidence. The Prime Minister does not want cooperation, as we understand it. He wants obedience, he wants submission, he want us to say "aye" when he says "aye" and to say "nay" when he says "nay." If all that happens the Prime Minister will be quite satisfied with the cooperation we give him, but he will be satisfied with nothing else.
What does cooperation mean? It simply means working together. How can we work together, how can any two persons work together unless each is ready at least to some
extent to compromise, to defer to the opinions of the other.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: That is what we want you to do.


John Livingstone Brown: No, that is not what you want us to do, at all. You want us to do all the deferring, and you want to do none. You

want us to do all the compromising and sacrificing, yet you do not want to compromise or sacrifice. That is the kind of cooperation hon. gentlemen opposite want. There can be no cooperation on a basis of that kind. As I have said, cooperation means working together, and if we are to work together there must be a willingness to compromise and to defer to other opinions.
I want to ask if any hon. member has noticed any spirit of cooperation in the attitude of the Prime Minister. If he wishes to cooperate he must at least to some extent take us into his confidence, he must tell us about those emergent situations which he expects will arise, and to meet which he will need to exercise the arbitrary powers he asks. Perhaps he will say, "But I cannot do that in public." Well, he might at least do what Sir Robert Borden did at a critical period during the war when parliament was called to meet behind closed doors. If the situation is as bad as the Prime Minister indicates, that course might be taken.


Mr. PRICE:: You are away out.


John Livingstone Brown: People of Canada are beginning to ask whether we are being governed by a parliamentary system of government, or whether parliamentary government has become a fiction and we are now under an autocracy. Perhaps I am wrong when I say people are beginning to ask the question;
I think they have already satisfied themselves that this government has become an autocracy. History affords us examples of puppet kings. Evidently it is the desire of the Prime Minister to make this a puppet parliament-and,
I am sorry to say, at least in some measure he has accomplished his purpose.
During the remainder of the time at my disposal I purpose further to consider some matters I wished to bring before the house a few days ago when I requested the privilege of moving the adjournment of the house.
I wish to give an illustration of the manner in which some of these very urgent questions are dealt with by the present government. Of course, we do not expect the government to act with the speed indicated by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) who said, in the city of Winnipeg, that within three days the Conservative party could set in motion machinery whereby unemployment would be cured. Although I am not using his exact words, I believe I am interpreting them correctly.
I shall have time to deal with only one case. Last August I, along with other hon. members, received a communication from the

Unemployment Continuance Act
director of unemployment relief at Ottawa asking us to give suggestions as to what work might be done. I made a tour of my constituency, coming into contact with the mayors, reeves or councillors of practically all the municipalities. In the course of that tour a certain situation was brought to my notice. It so happens that in a section of my constituency adjacent to the international boundary line there had been, in addition to drought, a very destructive hail storm. Consequently in that vicinity there was very little feed. Immediately across the border line from that point there are some hay marshes. Some of our own people had gone across the line to put up hay, of which a quantity was available at moderate prices. Those Canadians however were unable to bring in the hay because in response to demands of some of our friends from southern Alberta the duty on hay had been raised to $5 per ton. That was an impassable barrier between the hay and the starving live stock. So immediately I wrote to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) and on August 31 I got this reply:
Dear Sir,


Your letter of the 27th instant requesting free entry of hay for the use of farmers in your constituency has been received in Mr. Ryckman's absence in Europe.
As the minister will not return to Ottawa for some weeks, I have referred your request to the commissioner of customs for such action as the department may be able to take in the matter.
On September 2nd I received this letter from the private secretary to the minister: Dear Mr. Brown,

On my return from vacation and in the continued absence of the minister, who is in Europe, I find your letter of August 27th awaiting answer.
I note what you say as to the shortage of hay for feeding purposes in your district and the information which you supply with regard to the possibility- of securing some just across the international border.
In these matters, we act on the advice of the Department of Agriculture and I am, therefore, communicating to-day with the Hon. Robert Weir in this regard.
I thought at the time, perhaps foolishly, that the matter would be taken, in hand immediately by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) and that in due course a satisfactory solution would be reached. However, as the months went by and nothing was done, on December 15 I wrote directly to the Minister of Agriculture. On December 31 I got this letter from him in reply:
I regret very much my delay in answering your letter of 15th December.
I put the subject matter of your letter before the Minister of National Revenue.
Passing the buck from one to the other.
Thanking you for bringing this to my attention.
But before I received this answer from the minister I got further word from the district affected that conditions were very serious, and consequently I wrote the following letter to the Prime Minister:
Dear Sir,-
I wish to call your attention to the very serious condition in regard to feed for live stock that prevails in one section of my constituency.
This district in question lies close to the international boundary and suffered very severely, both from hail and drought. The consequence is that there is not sufficient feed to see the stock through the winter. Indeed,
I am informed that in some cases the supply is already exhausted.
Now, it happens that just across the line in the state of Dakota there are some large hay marshes. Some of our people went over there and put up hay for themselves and there is besides a considerable quantity available at a reasonable price. The $5 a ton duty, however, interposes an impassable barrier between the hay and the starving live stock.
I wrote the Minister of National Revenue some months ago recommending that this hay be admitted free of duty. The reply I got was that in such matters they were governed by the advice of the Minister of Agriculture. I thought that the matter would be turned over at once to the Minister of Agriculture but, finding that that had not been done,-
I made a mistake there, because evidently it was turned over to the Minister of Agriculture.
[DOT]-I wrote the minister himself. Since writing him I have had further word that the situation is very serious and I am, therefore, giving you the information that I have already given two of your ministers.
There is no other feed available except what might be shipped in by railway and that would of necessity carry a high price.
Some of our people have wood that they would gladly exchange with their American neighbours for hay but they have no money to pay the duty.
I hope that this matter will receive your immediate attention and that you can see your way clear to have the customs officers at Snowflake and Windygates instructed to allow this hay in free of duty.
The Prime Minister very promptly replied to that by the following telegram just as he was leaving Ottawa for Calgary:
Your letter 23. Please write me Calgary names and quantity hay to be imported so that I may instruct action to be taken which can only be done by specific reference to transactions by individual importers. Seasons greetings and best wishes.
When I got that telegram I doubted whether it was necessary to give the detailed information for which he asked. However, I did not want to argue this, so in my reply to

Unemployment Continuance Act
him I never mentioned that 1 had reason to doubt the necessity for such details because I knew action such as I had suggested had been taken two years ago. I informed him that the district affected was forty miles from my home and I was not in a position to give him the required information, but I would make a point of visiting the territory as soon as possible and would write him giving the particulars. About a week later I met there a large number of farmers from three townships, 1-7W, 1-8W and 1-9W. As the meeting was held in township 1-7W the majority of those in attendance were from the locality. Twenty-eight farmers of township 1-7W required 100 tons of hay and 48 tons of straw; fourteen farmers of township 1-8W required 44 tons of hay and 46 tons of straw; township 1-9W was some distance away from the meeting place and only three farmers from that township were in attendance. They required 8 tons of hay. The farmers of township 1-7W and 1-8W also required 2,750 bushels of seed wheat, 2,850 bushels of seed oats and 2,300 bushels of seed barley, as well as 6,000 bushels of feed oats. They indicated there was wheat enough in the district to meet their requirements, but all the oats and barley would have to be brought in. That information I forwarded to the Prime Minister in Ottawa early in January. Before leaving home for the session I made inquiries and found nothing had been done to bring relief to these people. When I reached Ottawa I immediately called on the department interested and found that on the 4th of February an order in council had been passed-a general order not requiring the details the Prime Minister had asked from me. I will quote only a couple of paragraphs:
The undersigned, therefore, in order to mitigate the loss and damage above referred to, deems it right and conducive to the public good to recommend that authority be granted for the refund or remission of customs duty and taxes paid or ordinarily payable upon hay imported for feeding purposes into districts where the feed shortage referred to above exists and entered at customs between the 16th November. 1931, and the 30th April, 1932, both dates inclusive.
Here is the point to which I wish to direct the attention of the house:
A similar situation was dealt with by council in 1930, and order in council P.C. 55/253 of the 5th February of that year, authorized the refund or remission of customs duty payable upon straw imported for feeding purposes into districts where a shortage existed between 1st November, 1929, and the 30th April, 1930.

When I wrote the Prime Minister I had reason to know the facts of the case, because it was I who was responsible for having that original order passed. It was in connection with the same district as a matter of fact. I found such conditions prevailing there that I brought the matter immediately to the notice of the executive of the United Farmers of Manitoba, and they promptly got in touch with the Hon. Mr. Crerar, who. was then in Winnipeg. He was back in Ottawa in a few days, and a day or two later the order in council referred to was passed. It was all done inside two or three weeks. It took this government almost six months to accomplish the same results.


An hon. MEMBER:: Was it done?


John Livingstone Brown: Yes, I must say I understand the result was satisfactory, but when cattle are starving time is the most important factor. I have had communication with the department, also with the officials in Winnipeg, but up to date I have had no satisfactory information as to exactly what took place in the correspondence between the two governments. I have called for the correspondence but it has not yet been brought down. I see it has been brought down in the Manitoba legislature, but so far we have had only newspaper reports and I have not had time to examine it. At present, therefore, we are in the dark. I do say that whatever the government does in the future it has been woefully negligent in the past in taking action at the opportune moment when, as I have said, time is one of the most important factors.
I shall not have time to go further into this question to-day. I may be able to do so on some future occasion, but reverting to the subject I was discussing in the first place, I would direct attention to the remarks made last night by the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor), who pointed out, in opposing this resolution, that we have been given no indication of the government's purpose. They ask us to grant them certain powers up to the first of May. But what after the first of May? Surely it is treating us without that consideration which is due to members of parliament who have been chosen by their constituents to represent them here. Our constituents may have been wrong in sending us here, but they have sent us and we wish to do the best we can to protect their interests. We wish to be treated with the dignity with which men who have been placed in this position should be treated. And it is not treating us with dignity when the Prime

Unemployment Continuance Act
Minister, representing the government, comes before us and says, "We wish to have these powers extended up to the first of May," giving us no indication of what is in his mind, of what he proposes to do after that date, but simply asking us to take a leap in the dark. His attitude reminds us of that rhyme we heard when we were children: "Open your mouth and shut your eyes and I'll give you something to make you wise."


Mr. J. L. BARIBEAU (Champlain) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, there is so much
obstruction, on the part of the opposition, to this measure aiming at amending chapter 58 of the Statutes of Canada, 1931, by striking out the word "March" in clause 8, to replace it by "May", a bill aiming at extending to May the operation of the Unemployment Relief Act, that I deem it my duty to rise and speak in favour of this resolution. I think that those opposing the bill would not feel so much at ease in discussing this measure in their respective constituencies, because the voting of this resolution introduced by the right hon. Prime Minister is anxiously sought 'by all citizens of Canada.
I am speaking on behalf of the great majority of my constituents, which I have the honour to represent, when I request the government to extend the period in which relief will be given to the unemployed. I received within the last days, a telephone message from the mayor of Grand'Mere, asking me to take the necessary steps to get the Act extended. The mayor of Grand'Mere who is highly thought of by his fellow citizens, does not share my political views. I am certain that he does not approve of the numerous speeches delivered by the representatives of his party, on this question.
I also had the occasion, in the course of last week of meeting the mayor of the town of Cap-de-la-Madeleine, and on behalf of his fellow citizens he asked me to do my very best to have the government continue the relief of the unemployed in his town.
May I, sir, point out that the towns of Grand'Mere and Cap-de-la-Madeleine are the most important centres in my county.
I also deem it my duty to state in the house that the Unemployment Relief Act has had 'beneficial results in the county of Champlain, a county particularly affected by the depression existing in the pulp and paper industries-a crisis for which no one holds the government responsible.
I shall close my remarks, sir, believing that I have done my duty in supporting a measure which is asked for by all my constituents, without party distinction. They are thankful for what the government has done to relieve the unemployed, who, for the most part, are strangers attracted to this country by the intensive immigration policy of the former regime; and if we find Canadians among these unemployed, it is because foreigners have taken from them the means of earning their living.


Mr. B. M. STITT (Nelson):: After sitting
in this house listening to the debate of the last week, if it can be called a debate, I have come to the conclusion that the chief objection on the part of hon. members opposite seems to lie in the thought that the resolution now before the house is too stringently Conservative. Well, I am quite sure that those who are in need, even though they may think that this legislation is ultraConservative, feel that it is a happy and wholesome fault.
A few days ago the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), in his speech said, as reported at page 705 of Hansard:
The women and children who are suffering in this country to-day have asked the Prime Minister for bread, they have asked him for work, but he has given them not even a stone. . . .
The same women and children are now asking for bread and the leader of the opposition has not given them even a speech. It seems to me that if all that this government has done for suffering humanity in this country can be called a stone, the people who have been given relief will very much prefer that stone to some of the idle chatter we have been forced to listen to in the last week. The people of Canada at this moment are wondering whether or not we are big enough Canadians to cast off this political leprosy that is threatening to destroy us in these times of danger and anxiety, and I suggest that if we are not big enough to do this we are not worthy to be called Canadians.
Some hon. gentlemen have said that what the government is looking for is suggestions. I would make one now, and it is constructive. I would suggest to hon. members opposite, who for the past week have been rehashing the speech made by the leader of the opposition last July, that they have it recorded on a series of gramophone records
1C36

Unemployment Continuance Act
and place the gramophone in the lobby and play it to their hearts' content. I can assure those hon. gentlemen that if they have any trouble financing this little deal we on this side will contribute quite generously to it in order that we may get about the business of the country. Surely there is no room for sectionalism in Canada, and by the same token there is no room for sectionalism here. Give and take is the essence of our federation. We are Canadians before we are provincials and should not forget that in promoting the general welfare of Canada as a whole we are promoting the best interests of our own particular sections. Canada is not merely made up of the sum of its provinces, it is even greater than that.


Mr. HARRY BUTCHER (Last Mountain) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few
words in regard to the resolution before the house but before doing so I desire to speak, as a Saskatchewan member, in connection with the relief afforded to the distressed inhabitants of my province. I should like to say a few words in regard to the nature and extent of that relief, with regard to its administration and then with the permission of the house I am going to have the temerity to accept the invitation of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) and offer some suggestions as to future relief.
Primarily, I desire to register my objection to the renewal for two months of the powers conferred on the government by the statute which it is now sought to revive. I have been examining the report of the dominion director of unemployment relief and have studied the methods employed in granting relief in the province of Saskatchewan. I join with the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie) in saying that in my opinion the government has done its best to meet the difficulties which existed in that province. It has made mistakes-I think that has been admitted by hon. members opposite-but at the same time it has made a sincere effort to meet the difficulties. I note that the relief has taken some five or six forms. First, there was direct relief, and I notice that $4,275,991 was distributed before February 20, 1932, to give relief to approximately 53,727 families. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has stated that this amount has been considerably increased up to the present time and something like $5,250,000 has been distributed, which amount will suffice to aid the distressed people of southern Saskatchewan and other parts of the province at present in need.
Contributions have been made to the public works programs of cities, towns and villages. [Mr. B. M. Stitt.)
These works took the form of street improvements, the providing of water supply, the extension of existing water and sewage systems and other similar undertakings, which involved a large percentage of labour. Under this heading the dominion has expended something like $1,600,000.
An effort has been made to place men on farms, and in this connection the dominion expended $125,000. Single men experienced in farming were placed on the land over the winter. They received $5 per month and of course free board and lodging and the government granted a bonus to the employer farmer. This provided employment and at the same time it was a wise move to keep these men separated rather than to have them gather together in large numbers.
Contributions were made towards the cost of highways, and then there was the five-cent bonus on wheat. The people of Saskatchewan who were in distress are thankful to the people of Canada for the relief provided. They realize that this parliament voted practically an unlimited sum for the purpose of providing relief and I do not think they are unmindful of the fact that it was this government that conceived the legislation brought down in September last. However, having said that, I say now that with the knowledge gained during the past seven months no hon. member in this house should want to continue that type of relief. We have come to the conclusion that there are better ways of meeting the difficulty. I do not think we can blame the government for having taken the course it has, because it seemed the wisest thing to do, but I imagine that were it to set out to-day on a new course of relief it would find direct relief would be the cheapest, and that the payment to the farmers on an acreage basis would be more equitable.
I do not suppose the administration of relief is a federal matter and as far as I am concerned I can see no great reason to complain thereof. Many complaints have been made of the actions of some of the minor officials; there were some highly indefensible appointments made by over-zealous partisans, but taking into consideration the magnitude of the task and the enormous problem which confronted the government, the mistakes made were not more numerous than one might expect.
Having said so much, I come now to the resolution and here I find something to which I object. On its face this resolution is quite innocent; in effect the government says that in the year 1930 we gave it certain extraordinary powers, which it wants extended for an addi-

Unemployment Continuance Act
tional two months. This resolution does not sound very serious until it is examined. Many of the elected representatives of the people object to a renewal of these powers. Having once made a mistake, they do not wish to make it again. It has been frequently pointed out that section 2 contains the authority to pay out of the consolidated revenue fund such sums as the governor in council may in his discretion deem expedient to expend for three purposes, the relief of distress, the providing of employment and the maintaining within the competence of parliament of peace, order and good government throughout Canada. It is to this last provision that we object and must continue to object. As stated more than once by my right hon. leader, with the acquiescence and support of every member of his following, the opposition is ready to grant in a few minutes all the supply necessary for the support of those who are in distress. I do not believe there would be a single speech from this side of the house if a bill were introduced to provide for the relief of distress and the supply of food and seed to the farmers. There would be no delay; we would cheerfully support such a bill but we fail to see either the wisdom or the necessity of renewing the powers to which I have referred; that of maintaining within the competence of parliament, peace, order and good government throughout Canada. Why should it be necessary for the governor in council to take these powers to itself? Why should the government want to have these powers conferred upon it? Are not the general powers conferred by sections 87 to 98 of the criminal code sufficient for all purposes, sufficient to cover every possibility? Is it necessary to give relief with one hand and at the same time to exhibit the other, heavily mailed, to the person to whom the relief is being given? I do not think it is. If we examine the provisions of the criminal code, we shall find that all the power necessary for parliament to maintain peace, order and good government, is already conferred by some sections of the code.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Harry Butcher: When the house rose I had just referred to the fact that the criminal code in my opinion contains within the borders of sections 87 to 98 inclusive sufficient safeguards against any unlawful behaviour that might be anticipated and which it was probably intended to anticipate in the words to which I have taken exception in the bill before the house. I wish now to point out that the sections to which I have referred give us the law concerning unlawful actions of individuals, unlawful assemblies and unlawful associations. I do not desire to weary the house, but I want to read one or two of the sections to which I have just referred. Section 87 reads as follows:
An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of such assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that the persons so assembled will disturb the peace tumultuously or will by such assembly needlessly and without any reasonable occasion provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.
The following sections of the code up to and including section 97 contain within their four corners all kinds of penalties to discourage men from unlawful behaviour, the unlawful behaviour of the kind which is specified in the section which I have just read. I ,do not propose to read all these sections, but I should like to outline the provisions of each one.
Subsection two of section 87 which I have just read provides that an assembly lawfully assembled may become an unlawful assembly. That can be easily understood no doubt by every hon. member of this house. We can readily conceive of occasions when men might meet together with a lawful purpose in mind; perhaps one or two individuals among them might have an unlawful purpose in mind, and, by using inciting words, be the means of causing a hitherto lawful assembly to become inspired with unlawful motives and to do unlawful acts.
Section 88 defines a riot:
A riot is an unlawful assembly which has begun to disturb the peace tumultuously.
Section 89 prescribes the penalty for taking part in an unlawful assembly, the penalty being one year's imprisonment.
The next section prescribes the penalty for taking part in a riot-two years' imprisonment with hard labour.
Then in section 91, in order that the assembly unlawfully assembled and which may have developed into a riot may be dispersed, certain officials are charged with that duty- the sheriff, the deputy sheriff, the mayor or other head officer, and justice of the county, city or town affected, and later on I think that the word magistrate is used. They are

Unemployment Continuance Act
charged with the duty of reading a proclamation in the following terms:
Our sovereign lord the king charges and commands all persons being assembled immediately to disperse and peaceably to depart to their habitations or to their lawful business, upon the pain of being guilty of an offence on conviction of which they may be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
That is a severe penalty, one that should deter even the most hardened, unless their minds are absolutely set upon breaking the peace.
The next section, 92, provides imprisonment for life for persons who:
(a) with force and arms wilfully oppose, hinder or hurt any person who begins or is about to make the said proclamation, whereby such proclamation is not made; or,
fb) continue together to the number of twelve for thirty minutes after such proclamation has been made, or if they know that its making was hindered as aforesaid, within thirty minutes after such hindrance.
Section 93 provides for the arrest of persons who fail to obey the command to disperse within thirty minutes, and provides also that bystanders may be called to assist the officers that I have just enumerated. It goes further. It indemnifies those officers against any harm that may be occasioned those who resist them, even should the resistance lead to the death of the resister.	,
The next section provides one year's imprisonment for the bystander or other person who refuses to assist without reasonable cause and after reasonable notice the officer or officers who have proceeded to try to disperse the assembly.
The next section provides imprisonment for life for riotous destruction of property, and the next section, seven years' imprisonment for riotous damage to property.
Then we come to the much talked of section 98, which defines an unlawful association, and I shall read that subsection one of that section in full:
Any association, organization or corporation, whose professed purpose or one of whose professed purposes is to bring about any governmental, industrial or economic change within Canada by use of force, violence or physical injury to person or property, or by threats of such injury, or which teaches, advocates, advises or defends the use of force, violence, terrorism or physical injury to person or property, or threats of such injury, in order to accomplish such change, or for any other purpose, or which shall by any means prosecute or pursue such purpose or professed purpose, or shall so teach, advocate, advise or defend, shall be an unlawful association.
I ask, could anything be more comprehensive?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but nothing concerning the criminal code is dealt with by the motion before the house.


Harry Butcher: What I was trying to
prove, Mr. Speaker, was that it was really unnecessary to include in the bill the words "for the peace, order and good government of Canada." I have been trying to demonstrate that the criminal code contains all the protection for the public and the crown that is necessary, and I hope that you will rule, sir, that I am in order and that it is permissible for me to proceed to prove that the provisions of the criminal code render unnecessary the provisions in this bill for a similar purpose. Am I in order?
Finally, as to the punishment:
Its officers-[DOT]
That is, the officers of an unlawful association :
[DOT]-may be arrested if they sell, speak, write or publish anything as the representatives or professed representatives of such association, or if they wear or carry about on the person any badge, insignia, emblem, banner, motto, pennant, card, button or other device whatsoever indicating membership or indirect connection with such association.
A sentence of twenty years is provided for that offence. Again I would ask, are not these provisions of the criminal code all comprehensive? Are not the penalties sufficient to meet any occasion that could possibly arise of the kind that it is sought to avoid? If not I think it is reasonable to ask what is it that the government anticipates that these provisions do not cover? It may be said that it was never in the mind of the government that this section was to deal with seditious utterances or unlawful assemblies. In that connection I might refer to the words of the right hon. the Prime Minister who, at page 4279 of Hansard of July 29, 1931, said:
In that regard the measure provides for the maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada. It is not for a moment to be thought that an insignificant number of strongly vocal persons shall be able so to affect the populace of this country as to make it impossible for us, in cooperation together as Canadians, to work out our destiny. I say that class happily, is few in number. But in this present situation they now see an opportunity propitious to the presecution of their pernicious political doctrines.
I find myself very much in accord with the Prime Minister in the sentiments he expressed therein. I contend however it is not necessary to revive an act containing the words:
. . . maintaining within the competence of parliament, peace, order and good government throughout Canada.

Unemployment Continuance Act
I wish to say a few words concerning the speech delivered the other evening by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Man-ion) in which he complained rather bitterly about the lack of commendation of government policies by hon. members opposite, and in which he made the somewhat unreasonable comment that the opposition had offered no constructive criticism. For many years I have been a reader of Hansard, and I have derived great pleasure from reading the speeches of the present Minister of Railways and Canals.
I have regarded him as an able and determined critic; sometimes I may have thought his language vitriolic. Now that I know him personally, however, I do not think that. I do say however that I have found no occasion upon which, when in opposition, he devoted any part whatsoever of his forty minutes to commendation of the government of the day.


Mr. MANION:: My hon. friend's memory
is very short.


Harry Butcher: Possibly it is.


Mr. STEVENS:: It is faulty.


Harry Butcher: However, I do not now
think he is so bad. Hansard is very expert in recording words, but it does not portray tones of voice or gestures, nor can it reproduce the pleasant smiles which often accompany my hon. friend's harsh words.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is very fortunate.


Harry Butcher: Having said so much I
am sure the Minister of Railways and Canals will know I do not bear him any ill will because of his speeches made when in opposition. I have sometimes thought he must have been a close student of Todd's Parliamentary Government in England, because at page 415 of volume 2 I find the following:
The opposition exercise a wholesome influence upon parliamentary debate, and upon the conduct of the business of the crown in parliament, for they are the constitutional critics of all public affairs: and whatever course the government may pursue, they naturally endeavour to find some ground for attack. It is the function of an opposition to state the case against the administration: to say everything which may plausibly be said against every measure, act, or word of every member of the ministry:	in short to constitute a standing
censorship of the government, subjecting all its acts and measures to a close and jealous scrutiny.
I do not think the Minister of Railways and Canals is quite correct when he says there has been on the part of the opposition no commendation of government policies. On more
than one occasion during this session I have heard such commendations. Perhaps the commendations were guarded, the praise was faint, but even my hon. friend will agree that faint praise is better than utter condemnation.
I hope I am not doing the Prime Minister an injustice by assuming that when he inserted this particular clause in the bill he had it in mind that there might be some land of disorder in the country, disorders which I believe are covered by the provisions of the criminal code, to which I referred.
I notice, however, that the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) held other views. Referring to the same passage in the bill, he is quoted at page 4439 of Hansard, July 31, 1931, as follows:
First and foremost, starting -with my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor), my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) and one or two others, have uttered the same criticism in regard to the appearance in this bill of the words, "peace, order and good government." There seems to be an idea that these words have been placed in this enactment for a sinster purpose. If the house wall reflect for a moment I think that it will realize that these words are the foundation of the authority of this parliament to pass such a measure. If the bill is not founded upon the theory that it is necessary to maintain peace, order and good government in Canada, then parliament would have no authority to pass it. Without these words the bill in tile form in which it is enacted into law might be set aside or challenged in the courts. The judgments of the privy council during recent years have established most clearly that unless there is something in the nature of a national disaster, of plague, famine, or some national emergency, then parliament has no authority to legislate upon the subjects set out in this bill.
I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the two significant points in this comment of the Minister of Justice. First, he doubts whether parliament would have authority to pass such a measure as the one contemplated at that time, unless the words in question were inserted. Then he points out that if the bill were not founded upon the theory that it is necessary to maintain peace, order and good government in Canada, parliament would have no authority to pass it. I would not presume to question the validity of that argument. I do not know anything about the law, but I have an idea that even if the words to which we are referring were not inserted the parliament of Canada could pass a law granting assistance to the distressed and relief to the hungry and ill clad, and also could provide assistance for farmers.


Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like in the beginning to direct the attention of the house to a remark made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) the other day in introducing this resolution. He referred to the fact that in the dried-out districts of Saskatchewan some 300,000 people are wholly dependent on relief for food, clothing and fuel for themselves and their families and feed for their stock during the present winter. He boasted, with some pardonable pride, that the Saskatchewan Relief Commission had looked after the needs of these people at a cost to the treasury iof five and a quarter million dollars. This sum divided among 300,000 people amounts to $17.50 apiece. That does not mean that a man in Saskatchewan can live all winter and feed his stock on $17.50. What it does mean is that in spite of the fact that those people have lost three successive crops, they have been able to come within $17.50 per capita of supporting themselves throughout the winter. I doubt if there is another class of people in Canada who if afflicted in the same way would have been able to show so good a record.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The 300,000 of course,
would cover families of farmers as well-men, women and children, which makes quite a difference.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Edward James Young: Yes. But what family in the city of Ottawa could live all winter on $17.50 per capita?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I may add there are a
number of unpaid accounts. I instanced only those that were paid.


Edward James Young: Yes. My right hon. friend has so many sins to answer for that common humanity demands whenever he does anything well and deserving of credit we should give him that credit in full and generous measure.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My friend is pretty
grudging.


Edward James Young: He boasted the other night of the achievements of the Saskatchewan Relief Commission; he told us how efficient they were, how honourable and trustworthy, how impartially they had done their work. I agree with him. There is credit coming to that commission. From what I have seen they have functioned efficiently and impartially from the time they first began to function. No doubt if my hon. friend had so desired he could have set up a commission that would have played politics and would have tried to make political capital for himself and for his party out of the situation; but he did not do so, and we give him credit for it. I also want to commend his business sagacity for paying the money directly into the hands of the commission and not allowing it to pass through the hands of any intermediary. There again I think he is deserving of the commendation of the house.
But I want to ask him this question: If this Saskatchewan Relief Commission is so competent, so impartial, so trustworthy that it could be entrusted with the expenditure of millions of public money, why is not the commission sufficiently trustworthy to be permitted to set up its own organization; why was it not permitted to choose its own relief officers? Before that commission was set up a very efficient relief organization was in existence and was functioning in every rural municipality in Saskatchewan. It consisted of the reeve and councillors of the different municipalities. My right hon. friend on more than one occasion has stated in this house that relief is first the duty of the municipality, then of the provincial government, and then of the federal government. Now I say we had in each municipality an organization already functioning. Let me explain to those who do not know the situation in Saskatchewan that a municipality there is a block of country eighteen miles square divided into six equal parts called divisions. In each of 41761-66
those divisions resides a councillor elected by the people of the division and knowing every one of them and all their circumstances. The council is presided over by the reeve, also a resident of the municipality, and served by the municipal clerk, who knows everybody in the municipality and is fairly conversant with their affairs. That organization, I say, was functioning under the direction of the provincial government before the Saskatchewan Relief Commission was set up. It was an organization that would fit perfectly into the scheme^f the commission. All that was necessary when the commission was set up was to say to the municipal councils: In future you shall take your instructions from the commission and not from the provincial government. But the federal government did not see fit to do that. They decided to scrap that organization.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh no.


Edward James Young: So far as administering relief is concerned, they did.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Would the hon. member say how he would propose to handle the administration of relief in the unorganized districts?


Edward James Young: I am speaking of the
seventy-six municipalities referred to by my right hon. friend where the commission was handling one hundred per cent of the relief.


Mr. McINTOSH:: There are only two
small unorganized districts in the province.


Milton Neil Campbell: There are large unorganized districts in the north, where many settlers from the dry districts have moved in and where a good deal of relief is being administered to-day.


An hon. MEMBER:: There are some unorganized districts in the south, too.


Edward James Young: In the month of August I received a long distance call asking me to attend a meeting in a remote corner of the Weyburn constituency. I went down on the appointed day and there met the reeve and councillors of the municipality and perhaps fifty ratepayers. They were very much concerned over the fact that nothing seemed to be doing in the way of getting relief in to them. It was nearly the end of the month of August, and I wondered what induced their fears. One man explained the situation, and as his case was typical of a good many others I will state it for the benefit of the house. He said: "I live thirteen miles from town. Before winter sets in it will be necessary for me to get out to my farm sufficient fuel and



Unemployment Continuance Act
supplies for the household and feed for the stock to carry me through the winter. In order to do that I shall have to travel with my team a total of 650 miles. If I can get at the work right away I can probably do it before the snow falls; if I cannot, if winter should set in before I get finished, perhaps I will not be able to get my supplies in at all." That was the situation which confronted those people, and caused their alarm. I had to do the best I could for my right hon. friend. I told them he was a man of wonderful energy, great driving force and marvellous capacity for getting things done, that we had given him all the money of Canada and all the power of parliament, and I had no doubt whatever if they had a little patience he would soon have relief sent into them in abundance. But that did not quite satisfy them, and I consented to go into Regina next day and find out when they could expect action. I went to the offices of the Saskatchewan Relief Commission. The first question I asked was when they expected to get under way, and the reply was, as soon as they got their organization completed. My next question was: What kind of organization are you setting up? They said, "We are going to have in each rural municipality a relief officer who will draw a salary of $75 per month plus an allowance for the use of his car"-not an excessive salary considering the work he has to do.


Mr. TURNBULL:: Would you mind telling us whom you saw?


Edward James Young: One of the commissioners.


Franklin White Turnbull: Which one?


Edward James Young: The chairman.


An hon. MEMBER:: Mr. Black?


Edward James Young: Yes. He said the relief officer would be assisted by a committee of five local persons, four men and one woman, who would work without salary. The first duty of the relief officer, I was told, would be to visit every home in the municipality with forms which he would fill out in the presence of the applicants. It is quite an extensive form, on one page of which there is a statement of the man's assets and liabilities, and there are numerous questions as to his needs and how far he can supply them himself for the winter. The relief officer was to go in person to every house and fill out the form. That done, he would call the committee together and go over the applications with them and they would decide how much relief each person was entitled to.
I tried to explain to the commission that if the relief officers got out the very next week,

which would be the first of September, it would be the latter end of October before they could get the information, and that if winter should set in before that a good many people would be caught in a very sorry plight. I asked, "When will your relief officers start out?" The reply was, "They are not appointed yet." I made inquiries from other sources then to find out how the relief officers were to be appointed, and this is what I discovered: that a Conservative organizer from another part of the province had been sent by the Saskatchewan government-


Franklin White Turnbull: What was the source of that information?


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: Give us the facts.


Franklin White Turnbull: Tell us the source of
the information.


Edward James Young: If what I state is not in accordance with the facts, hon. gentlemen will have a chance to deny it. A Conservative organizer from another part of the province walked into the office of the Saskatchewan Relief Commission and said, "I will select your relief officers for you."


Franklin White Turnbull: If the hon. gentleman will permit me, I do not know where he got his information, but I do say that the statement is not true.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edward James Young: This gentleman went out
through these seventy-six rural municipalities and selected seventy-six relief officers.


Walter Davy Cowan: He didn't.


An hon. MEMBER:: Another statement
that's not correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hope the hon. gentleman is not making that as a statement of fact. He may have been so informed-


Henry Herbert Stevens: He dreamed it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -but it is not so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The wish was father to
the thought.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was there after.


Edward James Young: I was there too. I will tell
you something else. Two weeks later I was back in the office of the commission again because no action was visible. I asked what the delay was and this was the answer I received: "We are going to appoint relief officers at the next meeting of the commission; we have the list before us now," and the

Unemployment Continuance Act
gentleman who submitted the list was there that day. Now, these relief officers appointed by this gentleman, so far as I have seen them, have been good and efficient men. I have no fault to find with them.


An hon. MEMBER:: What are you talking about then?


Edward James Young: This is what I am pointing out. While this new organization was being set up, the old organization having been discarded, nothing was being done. Weeks and weeks of valuable time were lost. The people in those districts were out of coal; they had no feed for their stock, and they could not get it because the commission was not yet functioning. All this delay-why?


Richard Bedford Bennett: What time was that?


Edward James Young: The second time I was there in the office.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But what day of the
month, do you remember?


Edward James Young: The second time I was in
the office was September 8. On that date they told me they would appoint their officers the following Saturday, and after these appointments were made all the work I have outlined as having to be done by the relief officers had to be carried out. The result was that it was months and months before some people got their first relief order. I know people in my neighbourhood who did not get their first relief orders until December.


Franklin White Turnbull: I know some that
didn't apply until February.


Edward James Young: Well, I know some that applied as soon as their applications were taken and they did not get their first order until December. I do not criticize the commission nor the relief officers; what I am complaining of is the fact that the old organization was scrapped before the new one was ready to function. Now, if winter had set in early, if we had had a normal winter season, setting in in October-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why not September?


Edward James Young: Well, the year before winter set in the middle of October. I say, if winter had set in about the middle of October and we had had a normal amount of snow it would have been impossible for many people to get in their supplies. The commission has functioned and functioned well; but, I repeat, if we had had a normal amount of snow last winter the organization would have broken down completely.
41701-66i


Henry Herbert Stevens: Aren't you sorry there
wasn't a lot of snow?


Edward James Young: No, I am not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is all the mourning about?


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Give the man a chance; he has kept quiet all day.


Edward James Young: The relief officer in the municipality in which I live has to unload feed at no fewer than eleven railway points and he must be present at every point. His assistants can give out the feed but he has to be there.


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question. Does the relief officer have to be present for every icar of feed unloaded, or has he made arrangements whereby the .elevator man or some other person may unload in his absence?


Walter Davy Cowan: He doesn't know.


Edward James Young: Some other man can unload provided the relief officer has made arrangements for the release of the car; but he has to go to the station and arrange with the agent to release the car. The point I am emphasizing is that if we had had even a normal amount of snow this winter it would have been impossible for the relief officer to get from one station to another to attend to that work, and the organization would have broken down; whereas under the old organization, with the councillor in each division, there was always someone on the ground to look after these matters. We were saved from a calamity last winter, not by the foresight of hon. gentlemen opposite but by reason of the fact that we had summer weather practically up to Christmas. We were saved by the "grace of God" as the Prime Minister would say.


Ernest Lapointe: And not by chapter 58.


Edward James Young: Exactly. Again, I ask, if the Saskatchewan Relief Commission is so trustworthy that they can be entrusted with the task of looking after all these affairs, why were they not allowed to buy the hay sold to the settlers? They bought grain and it came in at a reasonable price; and they arranged for food, clothing and other commodities. But the hay was purchased by the Saskatchewan government and sold by the commission.


Franklin White Turnbull: They were buying hay all through the fall. That was why it was purchased by the government.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Edward James Young: A good many contracts were let for hay before the commission was set up. The municipalities had made an estimate of what hay was required in all municipalities, and this they submitted to the government. When the commission was set up the government notified the municipalities not to send in more orders for hay and the municipalities stopped. Hay was not coming in and I went to inquire why. The commission said they were not handling it. Then I went to the government. They said they supposed they would be handling it. I said: "The muni. cipalities do not know that you are going to handle it; you say you will handle it if they send you their orders, but they have been advised by the Minister of Municipal Affairs not to send any more orders. Will you advise them right away to send in their orders?" He said, "I will." A week later I went to a municipal clerk and said, "What about it; have you received any such instruc-. tions?" He said: "The instructions we have received are that we are not to order any more hay." It was delay and uncertainty from one end to the other, and it was months before many -people got any feed. The farmers in my own neighbourhood were dividing with each other their last bales of hay. They were forced to do this because none was coming in. Why was the relief commission not permitted to buy hay when they were selling it? We know that hay was the dearest thing that was sent in to the district, the one thing that was not bought by the commission.
Reference was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to the notes being taken from the farmers. I do not question for a moment the -truth of his statement that some of them insisted that they would not accept relief unless they were permitted to pay for it, but it does not follow that they had to be compelled to sign notes. The man who insists on paying an account is not generally required to sign a note. Any farmers I have met are really concerned about these notes. They tell me that they have never signed notes before without having to pay them, and they believe that pay day will come. When this matter was under discussion the Prime Minister stated that since he came into power hundreds -of notes taken from farmers many years ago for relief had come before the council for review and adjustments had been made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The adjustments were
made imder a statute passed a few sessions ago, and the council merely confirmed those adjustments.


Edward James Young: Whatever the arrangement
may be, I suppose the inference is that later there may be some adjustment of these notes. I doubt whether that is a wise plan. I wonder w-ha-t effect it will have, say, on the political morals of the people. Suppose a government -it might be this government, it might be another-has in its possession past due notes signed by ninety per cent of the people in a given territory. When election time comes round the candidate of one party will say: An adjustment is to be made; if you vote for me probably I can get you a better adjustment than the -other fellow. The candidate of the other party will say: He cannot get you an adjustment; his party is going to be defeated; you had better vote for me. The issue in -that particular constituency would be: Who is going to give the best adjustment? I do not say that that is the intention of the Prime Minister, but that will be the result if these notes are held over the heads of the farmers with the promise of an adjustment later. I think it would be fairer and more in the interests of everyone if the Prime Minister would accept the suggestion made some time ago that the farmers in these districts be given a credit on their notes equal to one dollar per acre on the acreage seeded last year. This would act as a sort of equalizer between them and the farmers in the northern part of the province who received five cents per bushel bonus on their wheat.
I wonder if the Prime Minister ever stops to consider just how his conduct in regard to unemployment relief looks to hon. members on this side or to the people in the country generally. Let me review the attitude he has taken towards this house ever since he has been in power. He called parliament together in September, 1930, for the express purpose of relieving unemployment. He introduced a bill authorizing him to spend $20,000,000 to relieve unemployment, and side by side with that -bill he brought in a tariff bill which could have no other possible effect than to increase unemployment. Then he told us that unless we put these measures through quickly he would not go to the Imperial conference. We held our peace and let him go to the conference. The next year when parliament assembled, as was to be expected and as we predicted, unemployment was worse than ever. Parliament assembled in March and I do not think there was a single week in that session when someone on this side did not get up and ask the government what it intended to do in the matter of unemployment and farm relief. No answer was given

Unemployment Continuance Act
until well on in the summer, when one day the Prime Minister told us he would bring in a bill as soon as the order paper was cleared. In other words, there would be no relief granted until we stopped talking. He brought in his bill at the very end of the session when the order paper was cleared. Again we passed the bill under protest, and when the session was over he went out into the country to reply to the criticisms which had been levelled at him for the delay. He said it was our fault because we had talked so much, and that was why he could not bring in the bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That sounds reasonable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: History repeats itself.


Edward James Young: The present session was
called early in February because my right hon. friend had agreed with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) to call parliament before the relief act expired in order that we might consider what further action should be taken. Parliament assembled on February 4, but not a word was said about unemployment relief. On February 16 I rose in my place and asked the Prime Minister if it was the intention of the government to bring in another measure before the old act expired, and he replied that they were considering the matter. They continued to consider it until the other measure was as dead as a doornail.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Why doesn't the
hon. gentleman be accurate?


Edward James Young: No effort was made to bring this matter before the house until after the act was dead.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Again you talked
too much.


Edward James Young: We refrained purposely
from debating the address because we wanted to give the right hon. gentleman a chance to introduce his legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was not the reason.


Edward James Young: Now the right hon. gentleman asks for an extension! to May 1 of the powers granted under the old act. What will happen on May 1? I have not the slightest doubt that when that date comes around the Prime Minister will come before this house with another measure equally obnoxious and he will say: There is unemployment and distress in the country, but the people will have to wait for jobs and for relief until you pass this measure and give us authority to do the thing we want to do.


Ernest Lapointe: And there will be another imperial conference.


Edward James Young: I have no doubt that he will once more put the gun to our heads and say:	Unless you submit to this again, the
people will have to wait for relief. I wonder how long the unemployed of this country are going to submit to being used as hostages by the government to force the opposition into submission? What does the Prime Minister want anyway? He is asking us to clothe him with the absolute powers of a dictator. There are times when men will submit to a dictator, but the first essential of a dictator is that he be able to carry to a successful conclusion the thing he undertakes to do. What has the Prime Minister undertaken to do since he came into office? He undertook to build up Canadian industry by means of his protective tariff, and early in the session he told us that during the past year one hundred new factories had been established in Canada because of his tariff policy. He did not tell us that during the same period 464 factories had closed their doors.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No one else could tell
the hon. gentleman that.


Edward James Young: The Bureau of Statistics can.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Edward James Young: Yes. He undertook to relieve unemployment. According to his own figures there were 200,000 unemployed when he came into office; to-day there are approximately
500,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is absurd.


Edward James Young: Absurd?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Edward James Young: Let us look at manufacturing, the industry which my right hon. friend has taken under his own special care. Let us see what has happened in this branch of industry. In September, 1930, 7,334 factories reporting to the Bureau of Statistics showed a pay-roll of 1,023,633 persons. In February of this year, after eighteen months of imy right hon. friend's policy, the reports from 7,766 factories-more than for the previous period -showed a pay-roll of only 819,174 persons. There was a decline of 204,458 in the number of those employed in the industry which my right hon. friend undertook to build up. When he says that there were not 500,000 unemployed in Canada, I say that in manufactur-

Unemployment Continuance Act
ing alone 204,000 persons have been thrown out of employment, and everybody knows there are large numbers in other lines of industry also out of employment. So that the figure of 500,000 cannot be far wrong.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I presume my hon. friend wants to be fair. That is the season of greatest unemployment. If my hon. friend will follow the index figures, he will find that the diminution of employment in February of this year was less than it has been heretofore, and this is amazing, having regard to the situation in other parts of the world.


Edward James Young: February is not the season of activity in outside occupations, but it is the month when most of our factories are giving employment, when they are getting ready for spring work, so that the falling off of 204,000 in the number employed in our factories is condemnatory evidence.
My right hon. friend undertook to open new markets; in fact I think he said he would blast his way into new markets for us. The first market he was to open was that of New Zealand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that was open before we took office.


Edward James Young: Then my hon. friend used the wrong word. He meant to say: I shall close markets.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The notice terminating the treaty was given before we came into office.


Edward James Young: We know what action was taken at the short session when the Prime Minister of New Zealand was here, in this very chamber. We know what its effect was on the parliament of that country when he returned home, and we know the effect produced on trade between the two countries. We know what the right hon. gentleman did when he went to the Imperial conference, and we know what the effect was on imperial trade.
The Prime Minister aJlso undertook to Shut out butter, eggs, fruits, beef, mutton and innumerable articles that were coming into this country, and he is now boasting that he shut them out. The reason they are not coming into Canada is that the present price is so low that people in other countries cannot afford to sell them in Canada. If he wants to take credit for shutting those goods out of this country, he must also assume full responsibility for the decrease in their prices.


Samuel Gobeil: Is it not true that at the present time the price of butter in Canada is between four and five cents a pound higher than it is in the United States?


Edward James Young: My right hon. friend was going to shut out butter so that we could have in Canada a market of our own higher than the world market.


Samuel Gobeil: That is not an answer to my question.


Edward James Young: He was going to give the farmer a better price for his butter. All I have to do when speaking to the farmers is to ask them: Are you getting a better price for your butter?


Samuel Gobeil: Answer the question: yes or no.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member was elected on butter.


Edward James Young: My right hon. friend also undertook to reduce the imports of manufactured goods. He boasts that he has done that also, but in doing that he has reduced the exports and the only thing he has to boast about now is that we are doing less business than we were before.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is my hon. friend aware that Canada has risen from sixth to fifth place amongst the exporting countries of the world?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: We were that long ago.


Edward James Young: My right hon. friend may find some consolation in the fact that other countries are hard up too, but that does not help to feed our hungry people or to put money into the packets of the farmers. He promised us prosperity in Canada, and it is no argument now to say that conditions are no worse than in other countries. Therefore I must say, from whatever point of view we contemplate the right hon. gentleman's policy, it has been a failure. He has faded to carry his undertakings to a successful conclusion no matter what he has undertaken. Why, then, should we make him a dictator? The first essential of a dictator is that he should be able to do successfully the thing he sets out to do. He is not therefore, the stamp of man for a dictator. The only reason he can assign why we should make him a dictator is that he has the will to dictate.
We cannot support -this measure, because the right hon. gentleman is asking for arbitrary powers. He is asking for powers which will make him practically a czar, or, as the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) would say, a sultan. We made him an offer to pass any supply bill he would bring in, to vote him any amount of money he deemed necessary for the

Unemployment Continuance Act
purpose. He saw fit to reject this offer simply because he wants us to vote him dictatorial powers and unlimited control over the lives and property of our citizens. We refuse to give our consent to any such course.


Mr. J. R. HURTUBISE (Nipissing):: Mi.
Speaker, let me add a word to what has already been said on this resolution which is supposed to resurrect the defunct act for the relief of unemployment and distress. I shall not try to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of this measure, because this has already been dealt with very ably by my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King), the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) and others who have spoken.
I cannot support this resolution. Even had it been presented before the expiry of the original act, I should have questioned the advisability of continuing that measure, because I sincerely believe it has failed to relieve unemployment. Later on I shall give the reasons why I cannot support it.
Let me say first that during the election of 1930 the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and all his supporters made of the unemployment situation a national question. In a speech which the Prime Minister made in Montreal on June 26, 1930, and which is reported in the Montreal Gazette of June 27, he said:
Unemployment has become a national problem in Canada. It is the direct result of nine years of unsound economic policies applied by the Liberals.
My hon. friends opposite came into power with the motto that the crisis was due to Liberal administration. They said that the machine for the relief of unemployment would be at work three days after the election and that the people of Canada by the thousands would enjoy employment. At the first session we expected a great deal of practical work along that line, but the first thing the government did at the short session was what? Was it not for the relief of unemployment? The first thing they did was to abolish the tariff commission. Then there was a wholesale increase in tariffs. That was supposed to be the great panacea to cure all ills, not only for the present but for the years to come. They started to apply those tariffs in a wholesale way, and the direct result, as soon as they were applied, was that protests arose from ocean to ocean, and the next day they had to undo a great part of what they had done. It was a case of taking one step forward and two steps backward. They applied prohibitory tariffs all around, and soon their effects became apparent. Industry became stagnant, farming moribund, merchants bankrupt, the professional men financially embarrassed, and the labouring men were in misery and distress. Conditions have gone from bad to worse. AfteT applying this great panacea, in the last moments of the short session parliament voted an appropriation of twenty million dollars to the government for the relief of unemployment. The sum of twenty million dollars looks very nice to the public eye, but when we stop and consider what it really means to a country with ten millions of people, and when we consider what this twenty million dollars actually did in the way of public works and undertakings, it was very little indeed. I believe that if the money had been spent in a conscientious way, some benefit would have resulted from its expenditure, but very little benefit has been felt.
What was done with that twenty million dollars? Examples have already been given to the house in the last few days by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Yeniot), the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr.Heenan) and the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette). In answer to them we have heard from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), who replied particularly to the exMinister of Labour (Mr. Heenan). I have been told that the Minister of Labour is a good politician. He is certainly pretty good when it comes to playing with figures, but I shall have to listen to him for a while yet before he will have proved to my satisfaction that he is a great statesman. He gave a whole lot of figures, and then to show that the work which had been done had met with approval he secured a lot of letters from mayors of different municipalities denying that political influence had been used in the distribution of the money. These letters came from municipalities where he is well known, and naturally these municipalities and mayors did not dare say anything to the contrary. They are eating out of the government's hand, and if they dared say anything different they would not get anything. The minister concluded his speech in a pompous manner, lauding himself and the government a la Ferguson.
I want to show you now, Mr. Speaker, how the money was unjustly distributed. Let me give an example of what happened in one part of my district on the road construction from Mattawa to North Bay. At first the people around there were told during the short session that inside of a month or two everyone who wanted work would have plenty of work. Then later they were told that the work would be started in two or three months,

Unemployment Continuance Act
and then they were told that it would not be started until the spring of 1931. But no work had started in the spring of 1931, and the months continued to elapse until September or October before the work was actually started. Here is what happened. The engineers worked for over a year laying out the survey of the road from Mattawa to North Bay, a distance of fifty miles. After the work was started, it was soon curtailed in many places and in other places stopped. No wonder the work was soon stopped. At the head of the work was a road commissioner who was paid $2,400 a year. There was an engineer paid full time, with two assistant engineers also paid full time; a chief of police and two assistants paid full time. Then there was a game warden, although I might tell you gentlemen that the territory between Mattawa and North Bay has been open to civilization for fifty years, and if all the people at work were to hunt the whole day long they could not find a chipmunk. In addition there was a publicity man on full time, sending articles to the newspapers of the country which the Nugget of North Bay and the Sudbury Star would have been glad to do for nothing. Then there was a photographer obtaining pictures of the men at work. All that ran away with a whole lot of money. There was also a doctor engaged on full time, when all along that line there are doctors working day in and day out for nothing for the poor people who cannot pay. Why were they not given a chance to make a few dollars on this work? But no, the government employed an outsider, a friend of the government, I suppose. After all this overhead expense and the employment of all these full-time officials, it is no wonder that the works were curtailed in many places almost as soon as they had started, and in other places were stopped entirely.
The Minister of Labour stated in the house the other day that $70,000,000 had been spent, of which $17,000,000 had been paid by the federal treasury, and that 334,300 people had been employed for a total of 7,415,000 days' work That means $70,000,000 for seven million days' work. That means that the government spent ten dollars a day. I would ask hon. members to remember that figure. Let us be generous and suppose that the labourers on this work got three dollars a day. Where did the other seven dollars a day go? In overhead expenses. It is no wonder that the work was curtailed and in many places stoppe'd soon after it was started.
Instead of relieving unemployment, unemployment has been on the increase ever since

this government came into power, and I have proofs of that statement right in my own district. The unemployment situation is so acute and the people have become so discouraged that some time ago I received a letter from a man asking me if it was true that there was some organization that would buy the corpses of cripples for dissection for experiments. He wanted to mortgage his body before death. That shows to what circumstances he must have been reduced. Although the government professes to see signs of improvement all over the country, the municipalities which cooperated with the government have gone the limit. They went to the very verge of bankruptcy, and some actually went into bankruptcy. Other municipalities were wise enough to stop before they actually went into bankruptcy. In my own city they have thought it wiser to give direct relief rather than unemployment relief work. I quote, from the Sudbury Star of February 24, 1932, the report of the relief inspector:
At the end of last week there were 4,100 persons receiving relief.
I ask hon. members to bear in mind however that the population of Sudbury is only about 20,000, and that the number receiving relief constitutes about one-fifth of the total population. The article continues:
According to the record of the relief inspector, Frank Rothery, of these 898 were heads of families, 2,187 are dependents and 15 are singles, such as widows and aged people. This does not include the men who are getting free meals at the soup kitchen.
This article would indicate that there was so much overhead expense in connection with relief work measures that very little actual relief was given, and unemployment has been continually on the increase.
What did hon. members and the country expect at this session? Everybody expected a.n extensive program for the relief of unemployment. About that however we did not see one word in the speech from the throne, and the Canadian people are still waiting for a constructive program. In the judgment of the public the ministers of the government are playing politics. They are busier finding fault with others than taking care of the country's business. The people are not in the mood to listen to political speeches such as those made by some of the ministers. Unemployment is on the increase. In many cases properties are being confiscated both in the country and in the cities.
Now we find that the small salaried men in the civil service are being cut ten per cent.

Unemployment Continuance Act
The ministers however rest easy because last year they were given an allowance of $2,000 a year, and as one hon. member has calculated, the decrease of ten per cent still leaves them $400 ahead. The friends of the government, the millionaires, are given a chance to hide their money in government loans drawing five, five and a half or six per cent interest. They rest easy, too, because the difference in the interest rates will help them pay their income tax.
What is the cause of unemployment? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the cause of the present crisis is the greed of capitalists and their speculative schemes, their monopolization of industry with the consequent death of small industries.
What is the remedy? High tariffs will never cure our present ills. Money contributed in large sums directly or indirectly will not cure the present situation; neither will the construction of the trans-Canada highway. It was stated in Toronto by Sir Alexander Gibb that "highway construction in this country has been overdone." Municipal and provincial undertakings under this scheme bring bankruptcy. I say the means applied up until now cannot meet with the approval of the members on this side of the house. They are placing a burden upon our people, are not relieving unemployment and for generations to come will tax us to the limit.
To cure our economic ills we must have good will, not only among the people of Canada but among the nations of the world. There must be less selfishness and egotism on the part of the rich, and there must be fewer trade restrictions.
But to my mind a real remedy for the unemployment crisis, although not immediate in its effects, would be encouragement to agriculture,-in other words, a return to the land. Instead of building provincial, federal or state roads I would suggest that the farmers already on the land be given better roads for the transportation of their produce. They should be able to secure loans at lower rates, and banking and financial institutions should cooperate to make that possible. Further, agricultural instruments of production should be available at lower cost. The price of farmers produce has been on the decrease, but the articles of production he has had to buy have not decreased in price.
At this time the farming communities are handicapped, and it is for that reason I advocate lower cost of production. If there was as much money spent installing settlers on farms as there has been spent for the direct or indirect relief of unemployment the results
would be more satisfactory. Help given to those entering agriculural pursuits would not have to be repeated often, because with the least possible encouragement the farmer will take care of himself. Why should not the federal government, with the cooperation of provincial governments, encourage colonization? Probably the present Minister of Labour who is also Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) will tell me that they have already put on the farms 44,000 settlers. I should like to know whether that number includes any or many of the 27,000 immigrants which entered Canada in 1931. Also I read in the press that there is a movement on foot to bring in 5,000 English boys who are to be educated in the art of farming, and placed on farms. I should like to know from the minister, if he intends to cooperate in this movement, or if he will pay more attention to those already in this country who are in distress.
Canada, considering its population has been over-industrialized. Our exports per capita are more than those of any other country in the world. Many of our farms have been deserted, the people having been attracted to the cities by the supposedly easy life there. This drift to the urban centres has intensified the present unemployment crisis, and many of those people who deserted their rural homes would, I sincerely believe, gladly go back to the farms if they had a chance. Their return to the land would change them from liabilities to assets, there would be less occasion for relief, and this country would be in a much better condition to meet any future economic crisis. But it should be done on the same basis and with the same encouragement as is given in the province of Quebec.
These, Mr. Speaker, are the reasons why I cannot support this resolution, but I am ready to cooperate in the relief for unemployment, either by the introduction of a supply bill or by the introduction of a new unemployment bill.


Walter Davy Cowan: Mr. Speaker, if I lived in the province of Saskatchewan and knew as little about the farmers there and of the measures of relief which have been carried through by the present government as does the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young), judging from his speech to-night, I would not try to enlighten this house.


Edward James Young: You had better take your
seat then.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Walter Davy Cowan: He complains bitterly because the old municipal organizations have been scrapped. Evidently he wanted them during these trying times to continue to do as they had been doing in the past. What did they do? Why, prior to the time of the appointment of this commission the country was in a turmoil over what was being done by these municipal organizations. In some municipalities the officers had been generous and had borrowed to the limit of the municipal credit to help the people; other municipalities where the majority of the councillors were Liberals absolutely refused to do anything by way of relief, and the residents told us plainly that the reason for this stand-pat attitude was that the Liberal councillors wanted to hamper the provincial government just as much as they possibly could. In other words, there was no harmony of action anywhere; one part of the country was being properly taken care of and the other was not, and in the latter places the people were just as hungry as in the municipalities where proper measures had been taken to meet the distress. This government knew what was happening out there. The whole province had been Liberal for twenty-six years. We have turned out the Liberal government but the municipalities are still Liberal.


An hon. MEMBER:: Name one.


Walter Davy Cowan: Take the Duffeiin municipality in the Long Lake constituency; it has been Grit ever since I knew it. They carried on relief with a purely political organizer. The reeve of the municipality had been a Liberal member of the legislature. Thie councillors there actually tried to carry on after the relief commission was appointed. They would not keep their noses out of affairs, they were determined to hang on. But at the last municipal elections I said, "These conditions are not going to continue, we have got to get that bunch of Grits out." And we got them out. From that day to this we have had perfect harmony in there.


Edward James Young: The same as you have over ;here.


Walter Davy Cowan: This is the - basis on which relief has been handed out. I myself have stated time after time on the public platform, following my leader, the Hon. Doctor Anderson, out there, that relief would be given to Liberals, to Conservatives, to Progressives or to any other people, that politics would make no difference, that a Liberal could die of starvation as easily as a

Conservative, and we were not going to let anybody die of starvation. I defy any hon. gentleman to say that anywhere in any part of Saskatchewan there has been one particle of politics in the functioning of the Saskatchewan relief commission. I defy any one to name one particle of graft in that province in connection with relief. We have appointed men on that commission, determined that it should be absolutely free from politics, that its hands should be clean, so that we should be able to come back to the Dominion government and say to them: "You have been generous to us, you have given us the money necessary to relieve us, and we have come back to you with clean hands." And you have to admit it.


Edward James Young: Whom do you mean?


Walter Davy Cowan: I mean you. I can go back to the time when the reeve of the municipality under the old system handed out the relief just as it suited him. There are three stores in the town that I have in mind, one run by a Tory, one by a man indifferent to politics, the other by a Grit. Not one dollar went to the Tory storekeeper, less than $300 to the storekeeper of indifferent politics, but $4,000 went to the Grit storekeeper. That was the way they did things out there. We stopped that. We didn't want that kind of relief administration in Saskatchewan. and we are not getting it now. The hon. gentleman complained very bitterly that the Conservative organizer appointed the relief officers in seventy-six municipalities. He must be some organizer who can cover seventy-six municipalities and appoint the relief officers. If he got into the highest powered motor car in the city of Ottawa owned by the late Liberal ministers here he could not cover one quarter of the ground. But if that is your idea of Conservative organizers, where are you Liberals going to be at the next election?
The Saskatchewan Relief Commission was appointed, and was instructed to be absolutely non-partisan. You will admit that we Conservatives always find it much more profitable to secure a non-partisan organization by being in control of it ourselves, because we could never trust those Liberals out of our sight.
There has been some trouble about fodder, but you must understand the situation to appreciate the difficulty. My hon. friend knows well that in the early spring there was no fodder at all. The government of Saskatchewan being alert, always anticipating probable conditions, had ordered fodder to cover the expected requirements. What happened? Late rains came on and induced a

Unemployment Continuance Act
growth of grass that was not expected, and in many districts we had a late growth which saved the government thousands and thousands of dollars. They had hay which was not now required except in certain places, but it took time to look after everybody. You cannot stop the rain falling. Thank God it came, we were glad it came. Apart from the delay which was caused by that very condition we have had no trouble at all out there.
I am going to give the house some quotations from my correspondence. This is from one of the best business men we have in these rural districts; it came from Long Lake. This is the report that came to me a few days ago:
With regard to the personal end, clothing, food and coal, I would say that ninety per cent of the distribution is going where needed, and is a regular godsend.
Does that suit you? This is from one of the best -men in the municipality. He knows everyone in the district and I have known him for years and years. He is thoroughly acquainted with conditions throughout that district and -therefore he is in a position to speak with authority. In the same letter he makes this statement-
-Mr. YOUNG: Read the whole letter.


Mr. COWAN (Loa-g Lake):: You can have the whole letter if you want it, -bu-t this is what I am going -to quote you:
I note some discussions at Ottawa re the farmers signing promissory notes for repayment for this relief. I may say I have had no applicant as yet who has made any objection to signing that form. In fact, I may safely say that the great majority would rather look on this relief as a repayable loan than a dole.
That is the attitude -of the -people there, and I am glad to have -that on Hansard. To give my good friend an idea of how things are viewed -by the farmers' wives, -let me quote the following statement that comes from Penzance :
Conditions as to food, clothing and fuel seem to be quite satisfactory. In fact, the people have been very well cared for in those respects. Fodder has been slow coming in.
That is not too bad for a farmer's wife, and she knows what she is talking about. Here is another opinion from a m&n in Craik:
Everything seems to be going fairly well; all there is to do is hand out relief and they seem to be fairly well satisfied at this point.
I -could -quote a carload of such opinions if it were necessary. My hon. friend has referred to fodder and he says that nothing has been done for the people at all. The Prime Minister and all the rest of us have this idea, that the people there and elsewhere in this dominion should carry their own burden as
far as they possibly can. We -believe in personal -effort; we -believe it is advisable that everyone should shoulder his -own responsibilities to the best of his ability. It is a good thing to develop the spirit of self-reliance. In this -difficult situation the government say, "We will supplement your personal effort bu-t we expect you to do everything you possibly -can to help yourself, and in so doing to help the country"; and so far as I know, the constituency of Long Lake takes that attitude. I do not know wh-at -attitude the -people of Weyburn take; I do not know what kind of people are there now. You can only judge by what you see here.


Edward James Young: I would not be so cruel as to judge the people of Long Lake that way.


Walter Davy Cowan: I used to know the hon. gentleman's constituency very well.
I knew it long years ago when he was speaking on soap boxes in old Ontario-because, you know', he does not belong to us at all. People talk about Saskatchewan being responsible for all -these agitations, but the fact is that not a blessed one of the agitators was born in Saskatchewan. A lot of them have come from Ontario, where they used to mount their soap boxes, and the only trouble is that they have brought their soap boxes with them. We, in Saskatchewan, do not hold ourselves responsible for them. Anyhow, as I was saying, long before the hon. gentleman was there at all I ran a federal election in his constituency, and I addressed a meeting right in the village in which he lives-and a splendid meeting it was too.


Edward James Young: I voted against you.


Walter Davy Cowan: You ought to be ashamed of yourself. I am going to give my hon. friend something to take home with him. This will give him food for thought, and it will show him something of the spirit of our people. In the constituency of Long Lake we have been badly hit, for we are in the centre of the affected area. Near Chamberlain we have a farmerette, a lady who ca-me to Saskatchewan many years ago from a place within the sound of Bow Bells, and I may say that if my hon. friend had one half the pluck that she has he would not be here lamenting, as he does day after day. This lady took a large farm years ago and three years in succession, while I was a federal member, she came to me and tried to induce me to prevail on the government to furnish her with seed. I may say that I was handling the patronage there, because that was the time when patronage was patronage and there

Unemployment Continuance Act
was no talk of a Civil Service Commission. As a matter of fact, that is something I do not like at all-it takes too long to get nowhere. At any rate, I intervened for her and at the end of the third year-I happened to be mayor of Regina at the time-she came into the mayor's office one day and said, "Doctor Cowan, I have come to tell you that I have paid my bill." I said. "Whait bill? I didn't send you any account." She said that she had paid the government for the advance they had made to her. She had had a good crop, she said, and had paid every dollar. More than that, she had bought a threshing machine and she was doing all her own threshing. She said that the farmers around wanted to hire the machine but she did not agree to this. A few months ago we were building a highway with some of the money which the government has voted, and she said she thought she could work on that highway as well as any man. I told her to send in her application to the man locally in charge. That man came and asked me what I thought of this woman, and I said, "She is the best man in the country." And she was appointed and is on that highway. She has a good farm, has twenty-six cattle and a large number of horses, and has hired men working for her.
If the hon. member for Weybum represents any people who want to depend upon the government for everything-I say, if there are any people in his constituency who feel that way-I want him to take back these things to them and show them what the attitude of the people is in the constituency of Long Lake. If people have nothing at all, well and good; let them send in their application and they will be treated accordingly. Personally, I do not know of any complaints that have been made. Of course, we have not tried to make either farmers or working men rich. But listen to what this lady has to say-the lady about whom I have been speaking:
Mr. Lilly-
The local member of parliament.
-told me the engineer would be here to see me. He will find me in the field, raking feed.
I have over forty loads up. Russian thistle, wild oats, wheat and pig weed, but I am putting lots of salt in the stacks and when it is thirty below it will look good to me and taste better to my cows than sitting down and waiting for the council to give me hay.
How does that strike the house for pluck? Does the hon. member for Weyburn know anyone in his constituency that can better that? If he does, let him trot him out.


John Livingstone Brown: They are all doing that.


Walter Davy Cowan: What are all these complaints about? I have never met a better class of people than ouir farmers. This government, through the relief commission, is doing everything possible to carry them through. We have never promised them anything more than that we would carry them through this winter and see what we coulld do to get them on their feet for the coming season. The letter continues:
The Russian thistle makes the very best feed for cow's (not horses) if cut green and before the spears get on it and-
Will the hon. member for Weyburn listen to this-he comes from the south.
-there are thousands of tons in that south country but the people there have dried up with the country and lost all the British pep they ever had.


Thomas F. Donnelly: They do not know what they are talking about.


Walter Davy Cowan: This woman, of Long Lake constituency is as good as any woman anywhere else, or as good as any man in Ontario. I will gamble on that any time.
A commission of five was appointed, and I admit quite frankly that the Conservatives controlled the commission. We would be crazy if we did not, and we are not crazy. Do hon. members think that we would appoint a commission with a majority of Liberals to cut our throats? Not on our life, we are not doing political! business in that way and we do not handle the business of the country like that. We depend entirely upon results, and the results are clear. Big salaries are not being paid to the employees of this commission. There are probably two hundred employed and they receive from $60 to $75 per month, many of them being married men with families. Nearly 5,000 people applied for positions but they did not get them; they were disappointed The -commission are running things themselves without any interference. They have obtained all the information possible and have made mighty good use of what they obtained. The result is -that Saskatchewan is standing before Canada as having proved- herself equal to handling her own business, but she will always require a little assistance when a -calamity such as this falls upon her.
I would advise my hon. friends that we have yet to provide seed for these farmers, and if they do not get it, the responsibility will rest upon the shoulders of hon. members opposite.
If they want to block this measure, let them do so.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Edward James Young: That is just what I said, the farmers are being held as hostages for our behaviour.


Thomas F. Donnelly: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member's time has elapsed.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Gray):	Mr. Speaker, I do not intend at this
time to discuss the economic conditions of agriculture. It seems to me that this measure is designed more for the care of unemployment and to take care of abnormal agricultural conditions, due to lack of rain and things of that sort, and an opportunity will be provided later on in the session to discuss economic conditions. I desire to say a few words on the resolution before the house. Numerous members of the opposition have said that they are quite willing to vote the government any amount of money to take care of relief; if the government will bring down a bill stating any reasonable sum, parliament is willing to vote the money. I judge there is no fear in connection with the money involved and, personally, I think the government is more anxious to conserve the clause "peace, order and good government" than to do anything else. It cannot be the money, because there is no dispute as to that.
There are certain things which make me think that this is true, and one is the increase in certain of the estimates. The largest increase is in connection with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and there are other increases. A week ago yesterday we had on parliament hill a display of force such as this house has never seen before. If that is an interpretation of the government's idea of peace, order and good government, then I for one do not want to be a party to extending that privilege and that power any further. A thousand unemployed men gathered in Confederation square, and we had the spectacle of heavily armed men standing at the gates and an armoured car careening all around parliament hill. We knew there was a detachment of mounted and armed policemen ready to dash out should trouble occur. Why all this? Because a thousand unarmed, unemployed, destitute men were gathered to lay their troubles at the foot of the throne. If that is the government's idea of peace, order and good government, then parliament had better retain what little authority it has. I cannot think of a greater error made by the government during this session, unless it was that of refusing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) the right to introduce a bill. These are two tragic blunders on the part of the government. If this statement meets with doubt, I advise private members of the government to go into the country without disclosing who they are and they will soon find out what the people think.
Considering this as an interested student of democratic institutions, I have come to the conclusion that for some little time the democratic aspect of our parliament has been slipping through our fingers, and I contend that what the government is now asking for will further impair the power of parliament. For these reasons I am opposed to this resolution. I do not think the government has any business to put upon the opposition the blame of holding up relief for the unemployed. For quite some time the government has known that its authority would terminate on March 1 and they could have made their plans accordingly. If they have not, let them, and not us, take the responsibility.
If we are to have representative government, if we are to be the representatives of the people, there is no reason why the cabinet should carry on all the business of parliament. That is what they are doing at the moment. That is practically what they are doing at the moment, if they take from parliament what little power it has and put it all into the hands of the cabinet. They now value for customs purposes goods coming into Canada; they have an unnamed sum of money to spend in an unnamed way; they have complete power to call out the militia, whether it is really needed or not, and all this sort of thing. Let us face the situation and realize that democratic institutions in Canada have fallen down and that we simply have a dictatorship, not even a thinly disguised one, but one out in the open. After all, the rank and file, the common people, are shrewd; for a time perhaps, things may be put over them; they may let themselves be badly fooled, but give them time and they will always see conditions in their true light. The people of this country know exactly what is going on and I, as a representative of a constituency, feel a responsibility for keeping, to the degree that I can, power in the hands of parliament. We have already given far too much power into the hands of the cabinet which, while supposed to be a committee of the House of Commons, is no such thing. I doubt also if it is a representative committee of the governing party, but certainly it is not

Unemployment Continuance Act
a committee of the commons and, indeed, as things work out in practice, it has practically no responsibility to the commons.
We have a very good barometer of unemployment right on Wellington street. Just down the street at No. 337 and at the Perley home, we have the Legion shelter which was opened on the 8th of December, 1930, with sixty beds. To-day it has 400, all full. At that shelter about 1,350 meals a day are given. There are still men who have enough to keep a room, and yet who have not enough to feed themselves, and so they come to the shelter to eat. This institution does not receive a grant from the government. In fact, it has no particular bearing on this resolution other than it furnishes a very good barometer of how greatly unemployment is increasing.
I think we are all beginning to realize that the cost of unemployment, as our financing is being done at the moment, is becoming an unbearable burden, because it is being put upon the shoulders of those who have little; that is, those who have little must take care of those who have nothing, while those who have much go almost scot-free. This cannot go on very much longer. I realize, as we all do, that there can be no permanent cure of unemployment without the elimination of the causes of the depression, and that means fundamental changes in our economic system. We all know that; we might not like to admit it, but this continual taxation of the people cannot go on. Just think of the people who have been cared for this year in the dried-out areas of the prairie provinces, and the unemployed throughout Canada. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of the house: How long can this go on as it is now being financed? How much longer can the provinces carry their load of debt with ever-increasing interest rates? I do not presume to be an authority, nor do I preen myself on being particularly clever, but just looking at the situation as an ordinary person would do, I feel this cannot last. Therefore, I fancy, we shall have fundamental changes in our economic system. I would say to the Liberal party that their only chance of survival is in championing those changes. They have a chance, though they may or may not avail themselves of it. Canada cannot stand two ultra-conservative parties; the burden is too great.
One other matter to which I wish to refer is that of women unemployed. I really have no data on the subject, because you cannot get it, but I believe there are many women unemployed who are suffering greatly. They [Miss Macphail.j
will not go into queues for meals. No shelters, or very few at any rate, have been provided for them. We have only the census of 1921 to go upon and at that time there were 490,150 women gainfully employed. I believe the census of last year will show many more than that. What proportion is unemployed, I cannot say. That the numbers are great is shown by the fact that it used to be very difficult to get girls and women in the homes, for what is called domestic service. To-day it is quite easy. In other words, many women who were formerly in offices are now willing to work in houses at pitifully low wages, in some cases almost just for shelter and food. That shows that their condition is desperate and I am afraid that no provision has been made for unemployed women. I admit this is a difficult matter to handle because they do not make their condition known. They are humiliated on account of it; they have not been so long in the workaday world as men and they are more diffident as a consequence. I am not blaming anyone for this, but I think special care will have to be taken in the future, if this depression lasts for some time, to see that the unemployed woman is given care equal to that given the unemployed man.


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident that unemployment is becoming, and, indeed, is now, a major problem in this country, and is assuming the proportions of a national calamity. According to the report of the Director of Unemployment, during the month of January work was provided for 339,007 men. That did not include repeaters, so that we can safely assume that at the present time there are upwards of 400,000 unemployed in Canada, May I say that under the existing system it seems certain that a great number of those unemployed never will get work; their places have been taken by labour-saving machines and devices of that kind. Their problem will not be solved by the first of May.
Then again we have throughout this country many farmers whose resources are being rapidly depleted and who are in need of seed and fodder. This is not only a seasonal depression; it is an abnormal condition. Their problem will not be solved by the first of May, and yet the substance of this resolution looks only to that date. It proposes to give the government power to spend money by order in council, and it gives no indication as to what will be done after the first of May.

Unemployment Continuance Act
No comprehensive scheme has been outlined as to how conditions will be met after that date.
After a long struggle in years gone by, the early pioneers in politics succeeded in securing the right to have the House of Commons scrutinize and discuss expenditures before money was taken from the consolidated revenue fund of Canada. This resolution proposes to transfer that authority from the commons to another body. We are trustees of what has been done in the past and we should not lightly divest ourselves of those rights which were attained at such a cost. Members on this side of the house have agreed to pass any supply bill that is brought down looking to the amelioration of existing conditions, but are loath to part with a right which has been won so dearly.
During the course of this debate a number of suggestions have been made looking to the solution of our most pressing problems. The monetary system has been discussed. A few days ago we had the suggestion of building homes for the people of Canada. The question of unemployment insurance has been discussed, and the suggestion has been made that shorter working hours would provide work for a greater number of people. The government have also done a few things in regard to these problems. They have reduced the wages of the working people of the country, of the civil servants. They have increased the tariff. They have made a few trade treaties with other countries, and we have the promise of the Imperial conference which will meet in Ottwa during the coming summer. But yet it seems clear, and it must be admitted, that no comprehensive study of the underlying causes of these great difficulties has been made, and certainly no far-reaching plan has been advanced that holds out any hope of making less dreadful the terrible spectre of poverty and unemployment. We have been temporizing, living, as it were, from hand to mouth, taking money from some of those who have it and giving it to some of those who have not. In this country we have large supplies of lumber, of food and clothing, and yet the poorly housed, the hungry and the ragged are unable to purchase them. They must accept charity, unwillingly and in a spirit of shame in a great many cases.
I wish to discuss very briefly a policy that might be called a home colonization policy, which I believe could be .pursued with considerable vigour and confidence in this country. Among that great army of unemployed which we have in Canada there are many
men and women trained and fitted by temperament and education to provide themselves with the necessities of life if they could only be settled on suitable land. I realize that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) has already done something along this line by placing some 44,000 men, women and children on farms. This has been done without expense to the government of Canada. It has been done with the assistance of officers already in the department. These people, who were able to pay their own expenses, they have been located on lands belonging to the government. I realize that the larger schemes of settlement have usually been unsuccessful. The British treasury have made marjy loans and have lost very greatly in their efforts to assist migration. They made agreements with the Canadian government and with certain land companies, and carrying out those agreements they spent no less than 14,064,470. Of that amount only $445,465 was repaid. In Australia they spent no less than $6,605,000. The settlers themselves put up $2,500,000, went to far-off Australia and purchased farms, but found it impossible to make a living and were reduced to the direst want and poverty. Most big land settlement schemes have not been successful. We have had in Canada the experience of the soldier settlement board, which has cost $54,000,000, but still it has done a great deal of good because it placed on the land men who are still on the farms and are not at present unemployed. These men went on the land under very unfavourable conditions. Many of them had had no farming experience, many of them had in the trenches lived an unnatural and strained life and their mental poise was not what it should have been. Moreover, they were placed on the land when prices were at the very peak, and so they did not have a chance to make good when prices fell so low.
The people I have in mind are persons who are at present out of work but who might if suitably placed on the land be able to produce food and supplies for themselves-not supplies to put on the market, which seems to be over-supplied at the present time. This is not a scheme for any man who is a wage earner. Any man who has a job should hold it in these trying times. It is not even a scheme for those who are likely to become wage earners. It is a scheme to help those who have had some experience in farm work, who could pass an examination on farm problems, men who have a good record, and who would be supported on the farms at a smaller cost to the state than the state must meet in any case.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Mr. STANLEY:: Has the hon member in mind privately-owned farms or present homestead lands?


Frederick William Gershaw: I was thinking more
particularly of lands which have been transferred to the provincial governments, and the dominion government still have a lot of lands that were taken up and abandoned by soldier settlers However, the details of the scheme might be worked out later. I believe that there are farms an many parts of this country which could be obtained very cheaply* Some of us live near the railways and we can see any day in the week and almost any hour of the day men, and sometimes women, riding on the freight trains going east or west, north or south, going anywhere; they know not where ^they are going, but they are hoping to find work, and they know not where to look for it.
Land settlement schemes have been carried out in several countries. Germany, Belgium, Holland, France, and Switzerland have all had land settlement schemes. We have the Had-ledgh colony in England, which for a long time greatly relieved the unemployment situation. At 'the beginning of this century Sir Rider Haggard was employed by the British government to make a survey of the various land settlement schemes, particularly in the United States and those which had been undertaken by the Salvation Army. It is true that failures and successes were found, but the knowledge that he gained throws much light on a possible solution of the present problem. Referring to the settlements at Fort Romie, California, and Fort Amity, Colorado, the author states:
To begin with, the settlers were destitute. They were taken from the poor of Chicago and other cities. The Salvation Army had even to pay their transportation. Some had no agricultural experience.
In these cases the land was sold to the settlers and they were supposed to repay the amount over a term of twenty years. The following extracts from Sir Rider Haggard's report indicate some of the results that were obtained. On page 7 we find:
The two experiments seem to me to be eminently successful, and to demonstrate in the case of Fort Romie that indigent people of the agricultural class can be settled on the land and do well, and in the case of Fort Amity that people can be taken from the towns and prosper. To sum up the results, and not to mince matters, the experiment has proven a success.
Then on page 41 of Sir Rider Haggard's report we read:

The value of the security is increasing yearly as shown by the annexed documents of valuation. If a settler dies or moves away the value of his equity is more than enough to pay his obligations to .the Salvation Army and others.
Some of these people on one of the colonies gathered together and passed a resolution of which the following is a short extract:
We would like the benefits which we, our wives and families are receiving to be extended to the thousands who have been longing and praying for such a chance.
Then, at page 77 Colonel Holland remarks:
As I have pointed out prosperity has been much retarded owing to the causes given, but our people are self supporting. They are making some payments and improving their buildings. They are certainly in a much more flourishing condition than they ever would have been had they remained in the city.
Someone will say, "Why talk about a scheme like that? We cannot afford to do anything of the kind." May I point out that the other day the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) outlined a scheme by which a plan such as I have described could be financed. As regards these particular people there is no doubt that some government in Canada must pay for their keep. Three, four or five hundred dollars a year must be advanced to keep them from starvation. If a small amount of money were advanced by way of credit, and the people benefiting thereby were carefully chosen, having special regard to their record and their ability, experience and military service, and if the lands were properly selected, it seems clear that many who are unemployed and now have no hope for the future would be given fresh courage, and their conditions vastly improved. It may be suggested that such an arrangement would add to the overproduction of farm products. If that were the case we might conclude that we had succeeded far beyond our hopes, because we would expect that they would produce no more than sufficient food for their own use. No great or vast scheme need be undertaken. Individuals might be located in suitable places, and arrangements could be made to have groups who could work together located in the same district.
This is not a scheme to take people from one country and plant them in a far distant land where conditions are new and strange. They would be right within the borders of our own country, and would be familiar with the conditions. In the city whence I come there is a group of thirty men every one of whom has seen service in the trenches and has had farming experience. They are willing and anxious to have an opportunity to go to some

Unemployment Continuance Act
district where they could farm, but they would need government help. Anyone who is familiar with farm work knows that there is always work to be done about a farm. No one except the man who from day to day and from week to week has experienced unemployment can realize the sense of disappointment it produces and its demoralizing effect upon body, mind and soul. Officers now attached to the department might undertake this work. They would need the assistance of voluntary organizations throughout the country and could choose, from the ranks of the unemployed, men who would be suitable for work on the land. In that way I believe the number of unemployed would be reduced and as a result there would grow up in Canada a self-reliant and self-supporting group of men who would add much to the prosperity of Canada, and relieve the treasury of calls for charity.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth consecutive day-and it is now evening-that foolishly and futilely the government has been endeavouring to breathe the newness of life into a dead bill. Into those dead bones they are now endeavouring to place fresh blood, muscles and marrow and are attempting to cause them to rise up and look like something alive. That, Mr. Speaker, is a remarkable task-a very foolish task. Why should men who in every other respect would seem to be sensible and honourable gentlemen seek to do this foolish thing? I think in order to understand this government we will all have to study psychology.
Why do they do these things? I imagine when I go back to my people and tell them about this fiasco-because that is what it is- they will ask. "But why do they do these things?" and I shall have to tell them that 1 do not know. How can I tell, when scarcely any of them will get up and defend their conduct? True, the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) made a noble effort, but he squared himself only with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) who spoke before him. He did not attempt to defend the measure, and we will not find the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) who is now entering the chamber, defending this bill.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Oh yes, you will.


William Richard Motherwell: Will he get up and defend this bill? Certainly he did not try to defend the bill concerning the salary out. I think too much of his ability as a lawyer and respect too much his powers as a parlia-41761-67
mentarian to believe that he would promote any such legislation. Our friend the Minister of Railways and Canals is a good scrapper, and yet I do not think he should be asked to bear all the sins and crimes of his colleagues, not one of whom has yet attempted to defend this bill.
The calendar on the table of the house tells me that the thing has been dead for eleven days; surely it is high time for interment. If it is left lying around on our desks any longer I am afraid the olfactory nerves of even government members will be offended. I am content to go to the funeral of the old blank check bill of last session, but certainly not to the birthday party of a new bill such as one which could be founded on this resolution.
Why are they doing it? I don't know. I wish some of the ministry would get up and defend it so that I could carry the news to my constituency and tell my people why the government is doing such strange things. Have they let the act expire by default, simply to see what we would say, and to give them an opportunity to raise the hue and cry that we are blocking relief? That is what they are doing now, and I consider it is a pretty small piece of politics. Or, are they just behind with their work?-because we know that ever since the opening of the session they have been behind with their work. Mr. Speaker, they are like the cow's tail, they are always behind, and let me tell them that when they are confronted with another ballot box tryout they will be behind again, if they don't watch out.


Mr. SPENCE:: Well, you know what it is to be behind.


William Richard Motherwell: I cannot see any sporting instinct in a government which will not stand up and defend its conduct. One feels a sort of squeamishness about discussing something which is dead. I have always respected old age and dead things-at least until they are buried. I am afraid I shall have to leave the enigma unsolved.
I look forward with keen interest to the next move of the government in connection with the salary cut. That legislation is just about the same-nonsense and panic. Then, as an aggregation the government is terrible. I must say however, that as individuals they are a lot of fine fellows. Probably I could illustrate in this way: We all love and admire a nice collie dog, and we are pleased to have one in the home which is gentle with the children, friendly towards strangers and generally peaceful. When we get five or six of them together, however, in a midnight frolic,



HEVI8ED EDITION COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Unemployment Continuance Act
we find that they will kill half the sheep and frighten the life out of the remainder. So it is with this government. Individually we like them, but as an aggregation they kill sheep-civil servants-and those they don't kill they frighten to death for fear they are going to get the axe to-morrow. How do you account for these things? I cannot account for them. They say we have a dictatorship. Well, if there was a real dictatorship there would be nothing like that going on. I have been in cabinets for a good many years. I know you cannot get men of strong minds to agree to some things without some of them discussing it very earnestly. I don't know whether these hon. gentlemen ever come to a conclusion or not that they really agree upon, because here they sit back and sulk and won't defend the measure that the Prime Minister has introduced. He did not defend it, he gave a beautiful recital. As I listened to him I thought: Anybody who would not agree to the whole works, even if some details are doubtful, would be a very sceptical person, for he told such a hundred per cent set-up, such a fine sounding story that it was fairly convincing. But he told only one side of it. Oh, so dissociated from politics too. The only minister who exceeded him in that particular was my good friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). You would think butter would not melt in their mouths; one would feel assured that politics was taboo from their minds the whole year round.
I am going to follow up some of the remarks made by the hon. gentleman from Weybum (Mr. Young), whom I want to congratulate for stirring up the government into something like life. I had come to the conclusion that they had got such a spanking yesterday from the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and others that they could not sit comfortably on their seats; but in the meantime they have had a rest and are able to come back into the chamber. But you will notice that they only yapped away at the member for Weyburn. The Knight of the Nighties of Long Lake-I could not tell what he said, but outside of his attempt the ministerialists contented themselves with heckling at the aforementioned member, and never attempted to offset what he said; and surely they do not pretend that the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) offset anything.
I am not going into the details of this relief administration. Every time a minister would go out there the relief officers would rush into Regina to see vdio was coming next. As the hon. member for Weyburn said, there was complete disorganization between the

dying of the old scheme through the rural municipalities and the introduction of the new. I challenge hon. gentlemen opposite now or next week to give any reasons why the old rural municipal system that has been in vogue for twenty-five years was discarded and a new system introduced. There are many reasons why the old system should prevail. The rural councils were elected by the ratepayers of each municipality, not for political purposes but for municipal purposes. They had been engaged on this work for many years, for although this is the worst year it is not the first time that the municipalities have had to administer relief. As I say, they were nonpolitical; but this government were not satisfied with that kind of -rural body, they must have one of their own -choice -and selection. I have no particular fault to find with the Saskatchewan rural commission as a buffer between the Saskatchewan government and the administrative body. That buffer relief commission is composed of four gentlemen and a lady. We have nothing to say of them. They are not the -men behind the throne. It is the Saskatchewan government -that guides things and works in conjunction with the administrative body run by two of the prominent political-I was going to say heelers, but all political organizers are not what we call heelers; they may be good respectable men, but they are political organizers. I refer to Art Kendall and C. B. Daniel. These organizers and others were gathered in from various parts of the country -and centered in Regina as the administrative heads of this relief and seed distribution. The ornamental or show window heia-d is the commission itself, headed by Mr Black, a former mayor of Regina, an eminently respectable Conservative-of course -there are many respectable Conservatives. But these hon. gentlemen- opposite are not Conservatives, they are reactionary Tories. There are three preeminently respectable Conservatives on this commission, one Progressive and one Liberal, who are not actively engaged in administration or under pay. They are no doubt advising the administrative body, but it is Mr. Daniel and Mr. Kendall and others of their political kidney who are running the show. You have your buffer commission, eminently respectable and fairly non-partisan. Although three are strong Conservatives, one is a moderate Liberal, and the lady, I think, is a disciple of the United Farmers. We have nothing to say against them at all, but they are not the ones who are running the show, as I said before. Who are running it? Without wishing to say too -much of Mr. Daniel, the fact remains that he is a political organizer. He organized the Moose Jaw campaign recently. Mr. Kendall

Unemployment Continuance Act
organized the 1929 provincial elections in lie Gros and North Battleford and the federal campaigns in the two Battlefords, and then he was gathered into the bosom of the Saskatchewan government and centred in Regina. Mr. Kendall appointed the rural relief officers, and Mr. Daniel is the administrative head of the office-a good man but an efficient Tory organizer. Look at my hon. friends apposite staring in amazement! As though I were telling them the isame kind of yarns as they tell themselves.
An hon. MEMBER:: You tell them so well.


William Richard Motherwell: Then there is the hon. Minister of Agriculture-and his supervisors; the government has a right to have supervisors. The Prime Minister spoke in complimentary terms of the king's counsel who was a supervisor of this commission. There was a supervisor necessary. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture-you would think they were as innocent as lambs, pet lambs at that, about .politics. Why did they scrap the rural municipal councils? I see some members from the west on the other side. I should like to see them defend the government's action in this respect. That is what the hon. member for Weyburn said, that between scrapping the regular, old non-partisan channel, and the organization of the new political channel there was a great hiatus. A regular bedlam prevailed. People were shocked at the idea that the old order of things was scrapped and a new order constituted that was Tory to the hilt. I don't know that it is such a crime to be a Tory, but just the same you will find the Saskatchewan government are just as ready for an election as Kaiser Bill was on the fourth of August, 1914, when he touched the button that sent his army into Belgium. If the Saskatchewan government is forced to the country that is all they will have to do, touch a button and put into action a completely equipped force kept up by government relief money. I can give the names of the heads of all the branches. I do not often read from notes, but I must do so now to be correct. There are three supervisors. Percy Gordon, Conservative KjC.- that is the one I expect the Prime Minister was referring to. I am not going to report to the house what I have noted -here in regard to him because I cannot prove it.


George Douglass Stanley: Say it anyway.


William Richard Motherwell: But I know there was somebody around the Regina Star for two years before the provincial and federal elections conducting a violent anti-French and
41761-67J
pro-K.KK. campaign, and this gentleman was also associated with it in some way.


George Douglass Stanley: There is a good deal of courage in the way the hon. gentleman has said it.


William Richard Motherwell: What is that?


George Douglass Stanley: I say, there is a good
deal of courage in the way the hon. gentleman has said it.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know what the hon. member is trying to say; I suppose he has said it interrogatively. Well, I will tell you:	It is almost correct enough for me
to say it right out.


George Douglass Stanley: Say it then.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know it
in the same way as if I knew it of my own personal knowledge. But I have said all the rest of them straight out. Next I come to Mr. Graham, another of these federal overseers. There is nothing wrong with him. He was the Conservative candidate in the provincial election in 1925 against Mr. Sykes. The other one, the Minister of Agriculture has indicated, was in his own constituency and he thought he was a Progressive. I accept that. At the head of the accounting department is Mr. C. H. Stevens, and the others are: fuel department, L. A. Snider; clothing department, L. A. Whitley; food department, W. L. McMullen, and field service, A. Kendall. That is a very significant term-'field service. He has the appointing of all relief officers in the rural municipalities. Who gave him the authority? Ask the Saskatchewan government. In charge of feed and seed purchase is Mr. A. E. Wilson. This is the only gentleman in the whole crew I know of who has had1 any previous experience in this work. There may be some of the others with experience, but they have been successful up to the present time in concealing it. Mr. Wilson is a first class man, and though it is his misfortune to be a Tory he is a good man on such business. On food and fuel distribution we have Mr. Hemmel-the only Liberal at the head of any of these bodies. He is the only Liberal reported to me. If there is any other Liberal among them, let someone name him. Personally I know Mr. Hemmel to be a Liberal and I know Mr. Wilson to be a Conservative; but all these other gentlemen are reported to me as Conservatives- and reported by the best authority, a better authority than I can find anywhere in this house.

Unemployment Continuance Act
Mr. Kendall, therefore, holds the key to the entire position. How has he used it? I will speak only of my own municipality and allow the house to come to its own conclusion. I live in municipality 186, the same municipality in which the Hon. Mr. Gardiner resides. It is like the average municipality; it contains nine townships, approximately eighteen miles square, with a little gore along the Qu'Appelle river in addition. There were ten relief officers there, one being paid and nine nonpay. The paid officer is Mr. J. R. Dinnin. If the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Per-ley) is here, he knows that you cannot get a more respectable citizen than Mr. Dinnin. As it happens, he was my Conservative opponent in 1925, and if he renews his youth as some people do when they get up to seventy he may be my opponent again. Of course there is no politics in fhis at all- perish the thought. I will guarantee that he will discharge his duties as squarely as he knows how. But there is a lot of practical politics in this matter, and grand contacts. There are two other relief defeated candidates in the municipality. One is Mr. George Balfour, another personal friend of mine, although not a political friend. He is a good Conservative when it comes to elections, and he was Conservative candidate against Mr. Gardiner in one of the provincial elections. Then there is Walter Weston, another defeated candidate. There you have three of them relief officers. Of the other seven, six are Conservatives. I have not a word to say against them, but they are no good to me in election time, although they are a lot of good to the other fellow. The Liberal is Jack Bonner, and if anything goes wrong, if some man doesn't get enough or doesn't get anything at all, they blame it on him. Oh, it is the finest thing you ever saw, Mr. Speaker. In all human experience, of all political machines you could not get anything so fine; it is as fine as silk and it is anticipated that it will be quite effective. I do not think it will be but that is the intention. Here you have a Liberal goat and invariably a good' officer on every committee; you have someone to whom the buck can be passed, while the other nine are laughing up their sleeves. But you would not realize this from what the Prime Minister has said and described so beautifully, and that is the advantage of having both sides represented.
I have only one big fault to find with the government and it is this, that they deliberately discarded a non-political body while professing to be non-political. They have appointed a body that- is actually worse than
[Mr. Motherwell.l
if it were one hundred per cent Tory, because they have the odd Liberal stuck in there for the purpose I have indicated. You couldn't beat it in a thousand years. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite, Can they beat it? I venture the guess that every practical Conservative member over there-and they are all practical or they would not be here-will agree when I say that you could not beat this for ingenuity. If they had put on all Conservatives, the people would have risen in disgust at the enormity of such an action. But here they have the odd fellow to play the part of the useful goat.


Mr. VENIOT:: Who was at the helm?


William Richard Motherwell: The Saskatchewan
government is at the helm, and the Ku Klux Klan was the spearhead of their campaign in 1929. So much for these relief officers. No one has challenged any of them, although one hon. gentleman across the floor did insinuate something about lack of courage.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, before I get
through we shall see who has courage. I have never been accused of any want of courage. I merely said that I was not going to make a statement because I had not the evidence, but I have as good evidence that it is so as hon. gentlemen have that it is not so. Now, M.r. Speaker, it is getting late-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: I forgot that Mr. Kendall, in the hiatus between organizing the Conservative elections and going on the commission, was engaged in a liquor store. I suppose that is a commendation in the minds of some people.
Now I have been looking into this relief act of last year and I have asked my old colleague to my right (Mr. Lapointe) whether he could find between the covers of the act any authority for taking a promissory note from the farmers when they got their relief, and he cannot find anything to that effect, except the phrase "peace, order and good government." Where is the authority for taking a lien on crops resulting from seed advanced? I pointed out rather triumphantly, to my old friend the hon. member for Quebec East, the section which indicated clearly what was meant with respect to relief. Subsection (b) of section 3 makes provision to:
Assist in defraying the cost of the production, sale and distribution of the products of the field, farm, forest, sea, river and mine.

Unemployment Continuance Act
But again I was told that the elastic term, "peace, order and good government" covered everything. The relief policy was changed to a loan policy. Promissory notes were taken from the farmers no matter how destitute they were, no matter if they could not get enough clothing to wind around their little finger, no matter if they had not coal or flour to fill a thimble; they had to sign a promissory note in blank in advance. The costs of administration may be added to the face of the note, but these men were not in position to argue. They were destitute and were ready to sign anything in order to have their hunger appeased and obtain clothing for their children. Section 2 of the act reads:
There may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund such moneys as the governor in council in his discretion may deem expedient to expend for relieving distress, providing employment and maintaining within the competence of parliament, peace, order and good government throughout Canada.
I am told by those who know that almost anything can be done under that section except the stealing of sheep. The rest of the bill need not have been there at all. We were deceived when this legislation was put through last session. My hon. friend to my right predicted what would happen. Those who have been longer in this house than I have known what would happen, and it has turned out to be worse than anticipated.


Ernest Lapointe: A good deal worse.


Mr MOTHERWELL:: Under this elastic
relief act an amendment to the Bank Act was made by order in council; likewise the Insurance Act-doing wrong, I suppose, that good may come out of it. We learn also of the prohibition of gold exports-all under unemployment. How much good did that do for unemployment? It might easily have done great damage to Canada. Things like that should be dealt with only by means of statute, and yet we are expected to meekly fall in behind it for fear we will be blamed for blocking relief.
I am ready to take all the responsibility that can be laid at my door. The people of the country know what is going on. The government can say what they like but the people know that what was promised at the last election and what has been accomplished are poles apart. The people do not take much stock in what the government says now; the government's credit is badly discounted as far as statements are concerned. I am not afraid of what the people are going to say when they know that my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) made an unqualified
offer to the government to give every cooperation if it would do things in a constitutional way, the way for which our fathers fought and bled and died over a hundred years ago.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: What are hon.
members over there yapping about? We know all about 1837. Our hon. friends are handicapped in their non-understanding of reform. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) said that the government benches did [DOT]not understand the meaning of cooperation; they do not understand it, it is a dead language to them. I wonder how many hon. members opposite have read of the period of 1837-the struggle for parliamentary control of the executive? I am old enough to have a recollection of what my father had to say about those stirring times. Sir Francis Bond Head was the governor and all he had to do was to call in a few men like Justice Robertson and Justice Bolton-


An hon. MEMBER:: Lay off that heavy stuff.


William Richard Motherwell: He was the governor and he called about him a little clique like that to be the government of old Canada in those days. Is it any wonder that the assembly demanded and insisted on a change? The grandfather of my leader and Papineau from Quebec led the van in that great reform movement.


Mr. SPOTTON:: My grandfather helped to chase the grandfather of the Liberal leader across the border.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not hear what the hon. member said, but the other hon. members are laughing at their own folly. What a grand pair of Tories the leader of the government and the Minister of National Revenue-I will pick him out-would have made in those days. They would have made a nice Solicitor General and Minister of Justice for the governor.
In Jamaica to-day we find the same thing, a reminder of old colonial days. The Prime Minister should apply for one of these positions as he knows all about family compacts. I do not know whether or not he is well versed in clergy reserves, but he should enjoy a position where all you have to do is touch a button and everything goes his way. I gained some knowledge of the colonial system in Jamaica. I have forgotten the name of the governor and my memory is not long enough to remember all the positions which he holds.

Unemployment Continuance Act
First, he was the governor, then he was the commander in chief of the army, admiral of the navy, prime minister, president of the council, and many other things which I have forgotten. The Prime Minister could fill all these positions, in fact he has been filling many of them here for the last year and a half. The house will remember the first estimates which were put through by this government. There were supplementaries to cover money which had been spent, but instead of each minister handling his own, the Prime Minister handled them all.
When it came to entomology I offered a modest suggestion. Although I could hardly stand upon my feet. I made a few remarks about the cutworm, and when the Minister of Agriculture made his maiden speech-he was in good form and he made a good fighting speech-he used up a column of Hansard to ridicule what I had said. If he had lost as much through the cutworm as I had, he would have understood what I was saying.
The government has received many other suggestions from this side of the house but it does not understand them. I can understand that because the Tory and Liberal minds are poles asunder. We do not understand each other. I will admit quite candidly that I do not know a Tory from Adam; I do not understand him and I cannot grasp his psychology, but the electors will soon understand and will correct any difference there is between us. I intend to offer some more suggestions if eleven o'clock does not come too soon.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: Is there someone hollering over there? Look at those two birds in the front row-I am up in years enough to respect old age and I will let it go at that.
Suggestions have been offered from this side of the house right down to the east end. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) offered a suggestion regarding the construction of houses, and yet we are told we are offering no constructive suggestions. They have appealed to us for cooperation, they have asked us to work shoulder to shoulder with them while the best authority in the world tells us not to cast our pearls before-Tories. Why should we? Yet I am going to continue because some of the seed may fall in good ground; I hope it will not be all stony and sterile. The seed fell in some good ground last year.
I see the Prime Minister is now in his seat. I was about to remark that the Prime Minister was far more docile, far more amenable to reason last year than he is this. He has been far more difficult to bring up this year.
fMr. Motherwell.]
Maggie's task at bringing up Jiggs is not in it with the Conservatives' task of bringing up my right hon friend. Last year I had some encouragement in making a few suggestions. When the Prime Minister brought down his budget last session, it was claimed that it was the only budget ever brought down that was worthy of the name. Nobody ever budgeted like that before and nobody ever backed away so much before. But we do not want to rub it in too much because we think the country benefited by his backing away. This year, however, he will not back away one inch; he is just like a balky horse. I am going to blame his colleagues for this. The greatest move the Prime Minister made last year was when he discarded two proposals. At first he was going to give the five cents to the exporters of wheat; they were the only ones who could prove the export was made, but he backed away from that. Then he was going to have a magnificent new income tax schedule, but he backed away from that, rather ungraciously, it is true. I believe if we were to keep on hammering he would back away from this rotten thing we now have before us. But many think he will not; he shows no signs yet of doing so. We are going to try to shame him into it, but I propose to hold responsible, not only my right hon. friend but every one of the other members of the cabinet. I have been in government too long-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: It is the only little opportunity my hon. friends have had to clap and laugh, but if they had let me put my words closer together, maybe they would not have had the opportunity. I have been in government too long not to know the difficulties of government; but no man can ever attain the dictatorial temperament, powers and practices of the present Prime Minister without the consent of his colleagues, at least, without their tacit consent. They must all accept the responsibility. If any of them do not like present conditions and feel strongly about it, they can stop it by one resignation; that is all it needs. At the time the Minister of Agriculture submitted to the most horrible cut in his estimates, he could have prevented it; it would have been a great trial, but he would have been the victor. No prime minister would let his minister of agriculture resign on that cut in the estimates, because to do so would wreck the whole government. I know what I am talking about.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.

Supplementary Estimates


William Richard Motherwell: I resigned from a
government once, and by going out I attained my end. [DOT]


James Houston Spence: The hon. member is liable to do anything.


William Richard Motherwell: I accomplished my purpose and there are many members in the house who know what that purpose was. I attained my end and I stayed out. No one of the members of the cabinet can escape his responsibility; they cannot load the responsibility of this legislation on to the shoulders of the Prime Minister and escape their share.
I say to the rearguard also who support the government-and there are a lot of good men in it too-they are responsible also. I happen to know that while some of us on this side may think we were the ones who induced the Prime Minister to back away last year from his horrible income tax proposals, it was the rank and file of the Tory party, I believe, who had a caucus that day who had a hand in it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the case.


William Richard Motherwell: I give them credit for doing so anyway. They did it once; why cannot they do it again? It was they who had to sit over there until they were blistered listening to the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), while nearly all the members of the government were away off in their lairs having a comfortable time while the back benchers were standing the gaff. The private members opposite will have to assume their share of the responsibility for the introduction of a dictatorship in Canada at this time, and they cannot pass the buck on to the Prime Minister. I am not saying this to defend the Prime Minister; I am merely stating the fact. If the private members opposite think they are going to escape their share of responsibility, they have one more think to come. No one but the electors can take care of the situation; it has become so bad, so acute that that is the only redress.
I was going, as I said before, to make some suggestions. I am not going to say anything about the distribution of relief because no body of men can distribute such a vast amount of relief without making some mistakes. Many years ago I was engaged in similar work and I know the difficulties surrounding it. Therefore I refrain from making any criticism as to the distribution of so much for this man and so much for the other. I am not going to say anything about the matter, at least until it is all over, and then I shall want to know the facts before I make any complaints. I know, however, many people are burning
coal who never burnt a shovelful before in their lives. One cannot prevent little things like that from happening in such a vast undertaking. But I claim it is up to the government to explain why they got rid of the regular channels of distributing relief, namely, the rural municipalities, and selected an arbitrary bunch, a ninety per cent Tory organization that they have converted to their political use ait this time. If there is an election next June, they can just touch a button, as already indicated, and the whole thing will operate as smooth as silk. My hon. friends opposite disclaim any politics in the matter, but they do not believe what they say. Where, under this act, do they get authority to take promissory notes, seed grain liens, except by some deceptive use, undreamed of a year ago, of this measure?


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


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, March 14, 1932