1932-03-30

PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 37, to incorporate the Fort Smith-Fitzgerald Railway Company.-Mr. Irvine.
Bill No. 38, to incorporate the Ontario-Quebec Canal and Power Company.-Mr. McGillis.

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

Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Is it a fact that the government intends to reduce the size of state-notes?
2.	WTill the Canadian banks also reduce the size of their bank-notes?
3.	Will the reduction in size of the state-notes and the Canadian bank-notes necessitate

the making of new designs, new lithographic plates, new dies and new stereotype plates to print the new reduced notes?
4.	Will the proposed reduction in size of state-notes necessitate 'letting out new contracts for the engraving and printing?
5.	Will the government take advantage of this opportunity to have the new state-notes of Canada issued in the two official languages of this country?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	The question of reducing the size of Canadian bank notes has been under consideration for some years, having in fact been initiated by the previous administration. As yet no decision has been arrived at. If and when a decision is reached, the house will be advised in due course.
2.	No information.
3.	4 and 5. Answered by No. 1.


Mr. EULER:: Why not cut the nickle too?


FACTORIES CLOSED IN CANADA
Mr. CASGRAIN:: How many factories have closed down in Canada, since September 1, 1930, to date?


Mr. STEVENS:: Information not available in Dominion Bureau of Statistics.


BLACKFOOT INDIAN RESERVE-COAL MINES
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What sums of money were spent in each of the years 1929, 1930 and 1931, in modernization and developing the coal mines on the Blaekfoot Indian reserve?
2.	Has there been a Dominion engineer in charge of these developments?
3.	What was the total output of coal from these mines in each of these years?
4.	What is the price charged for the coal at the shaft head?
5.	What were the profits in operation?
6.	To whom do these profits accrue?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	1929, $56.11; 1930, $100.56; 1931, $2,193.39.
2.	No.
3.	1929, 260 tons; 1930, 600 tons; 1931, 3,085 tons.
4.	Lump coal, $3.25 per ton; Nut coal, $1.25 per bon.
5.	No profits are estimated. Any surplus remaining after. Indian miners are paid is credited to mines account, from which costs of operation and supervision must be met.
6.	Answered by No. 5.

Questions


ST. ANDRE DE RESTIGOTJCHE, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the postmaster of St. Andre de Restigouche, Quebec, been dismissed and for what reasons?
2.	Has a temporary postmaster been appointed, if so, what is his name and on whose recommendation was the appointment made?
3.	Has a permanent appointment been made in that office?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	No.	'
2 and 3. See answer to No. 1.


ST. JEAN l'EVANGELISTE, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the postmaster of St. Jean i'Evan-geliste, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, been dismissed and for what reasons?
2.	Has a temporary postmaster been appointed, if so, what is his name and on whose recommendation was the appointment made?
3.	Has a permanent appointment been made in that office?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes, commissioners' report found postmaster guilty of active political partisanship.
2.	Yes, Georges Frenette. Recommended by Hon. Dr. E. Paquet.
3.	Yes.


ST. SIMEON DE BONAVENTURE, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the postmaster of St. Simeon de Bonaventure, Quebec, been dismissed, if so, for what reasons?
2.	Has a temporary postmaster been
appointed, if so, what is his name and on whose recommendation was the appointment made?	_	'
3.	Has a permanent appointment been made in that office, if so, who has been appointed?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes, commissioners' report found postmaster guilty of active political partisanship.
2.	Yes, Lazare Poirier. Recommended by Hon. Dr. E. Paquet and E. A. D. Morgan.
3.	Yes, Lazare Poirier.


GASCONS WEST, BONAVENTURE COUNTY, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. MARCIL:: 1. Has the postmaster of Gascons West, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, been dismissed, if so, for what reasons?
2. Has	a	temporary postmaster been
appointed, if so, what is his name and on whose recommendation was the appointment made ?
3.	Has a permanent appointment been made in that office?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes, commissioners' report found postmaster guilty of active political partisanship.
2.	Yes, Mrs. Marguerite Huard. Recommended by Hon. Dr. E. Paquet.
3.	Yes.


NEW RICHMOND, QUE., MAIL SERVICE
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has a contract for the mail service between New Richmond, Quebec, and New Richmond Station, been awarded?
2.	If so, to whom, at what price and when does it become effective?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	A contract was awarded to Romeo Fournier at S295 per annum. Contract dates from 1st April, 1932.


NOTRE DAME DU LAC, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	On what date was Mr. Antoine Landry dismissed as postmaster of Notre Dame du Lac, Quebec?
2.	Why was he dismissed?
3.	Did many persons apply for his position?
4.	If so, what are their names?
5.	On whose recommendation did the Postmaster General appoint the present postmaster, and why was he chosen in preference to other candidates?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	28th October, 1931.
2.	Commissioner's report found postmaster guilty of active political partisanship.
3.	Five.
4.	Thomas Voisine, Dominique Cote, E. H. Dumas, Omer Bouchard, and Miss Josephine Cote.
5.	Temporary appointment of Thomas Voisine on recommendation of Mr. C. E. Dube. Permanent appointment will be made by the Civil Service Commission.


LAMY SUD, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	On what date was Mr. Narcisse Ouellet dismissed as postmaster of Lamy Sud, Quebec?
2.	Why was he dismissed?
3.	Did many persons apply for his position?
4.	If so, what are their names?
5.	On whose recommendation did the Postmaster General appoint the present postmaster, and why was he chosen in preference to other candidates?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	November 28, 1931.
2.	Commissioners' report found postmaster guilty of active political partisanship.
3.	4 and 5. One applicant, Isidore Ouellet. Recommended by Mr. C. E. Dube.

Questions


RAUDOT, QUE.-POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	On what date was Mr. Andre Beaulieu dismissed as postmaster at Baudot, Quebec?
2.	Why was he dismissed?
3.	Did many persons apply for his position?
4.	If so, what are their names?
5.	On whose recommendation did the Postmaster General appoint the present postmaster, and why was he chosen in preference to other candidates?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	October 31, 1931.
2.	Commissioners' report found postmaster guilty of active political partisanship.
3.	4 and 5. One applicant; Alexandre Lebel. Recommended by Mr. C. E. Dube.


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


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Mr. C. E. Dube; (b) written request was accompanied by witnessed statement dated February 23, 1931, from (c) Eugene Lepage; (d) February 26, 1931; (e) instructions sent to commissioner, March 25, 1931.


MATURING CANADIAN OBLIGATIONS- GOLD PRODUCTION
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	What Canadian obligations are maturing outside of Canada in 1932?
2.	How many of these (in amount) are maturing in New York?
3.	Are these all payable in gold?
4.	How many of these Canadian obligations are owing by: (a) the federal government; (b) the various provincial governments; (c) Canadian municipalities; (d) Canadian railways;
(e)	other parties?
5.	How much gold is there available in Caanda at the present time for export if considered necessary?
6.	What was the gold production of Canada in 1931?


Mr. RHODES:: 1,	2, 3 and 4. Dominion of Canada: $55,000,000, payable in gold in New York. While certain data are obtainable from public

and other sources, particulars of the debts of all other governments, corporations, etc., are not matters of Dominion government record.
5.	Total' gold held) by banks and government, $118,500,000.
6.	Estimated value, $55,715,120.


LAUZON ENGINEERING SHOPS-SALE OF MACHINERY
Mr. FORTIN:: 1.	Did Mr. Beer, of the Interior department, during the summer of 1931, call for tenders in connection with the sale of machinery and other articles in the shops of Lauzon Engineering at Lauzon, Quebec?
2.	If so, what are the names of the tenderers?
3.	What was the lowest tender?
4.	To whom was the sale made?
5.	Was it to the lowest tenderer, if not, why was the lowest tenderer not given the preference?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	Yes (by the salvage officer, government contracts supervision committee).
2,	3 and 5. No bid was received prior to date set in call for tenders.
4.	To B. S. Judson, who made written offer subsequently.


ST. ARSENE, QUE.-POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	On what date was Edmond Rioux, postmaster at St. Arsene, Quebec, dismissed?
2.	Why was he dismissed?
3.	Have many persons applied for this position?
4.	If so, who are they?
5.	Upon whose recommendation did the Postmaster Generali appoint the present postmaster, and on what grounds did he select him in preference to the other applicants?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	September 10, 1931.
2.	Poet office was removed to a more central site.
3.	Two.
4.	Mr. Edmond Rioux, the postmaster released on account of site not being central. Mr. J. B. Laforest who offered a more central site.
5.	The temporary selection of Mr. Laforest was made on the recommendation of Mr. C. E. Dube, on the grounds that Mr. Laforest offered more central site, as it was reported by the district superintendent of the department in 1927 and 1931.


CRANE ISLAND, QUE.-MAIL SERVICE
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	On what date was the contract of Mr. Alphonse Normand. for carrying the mail between Crane island and the mainland,-cancelled ?

Questions
2.	Was this contract cancelled following an inquiry?
3.	Why was it cancelled?
4.	Upon whose request?
5.	Who carries the mail between Crane island and the mainland at the present time?
6.	Were tenders called for in connection with this service ?
7.	If so: (a) on rvhat date; (b) what was the name of each tenderer, and what was the amount of his tender?
8.	If not, why does the department not call for tenders?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	On August, 18, 1931.
2.	No.
3.	In the public interest.
4.	Armand Lavergne, MP.
5.	Emile Gagne.
6.	No.
7.	See Answer to No. 6.
8.	Department considers present rate of payment reasonable in view of the conditions under which service is performed.


UNEMPLOYMENT BELIEF-EASTERN TOWNSHIPS
Mr. HOWARD:: 1.	Were there any moneys allotted or paid to counties in the Eastern Townships of the province of Quebec, in connection with unemployment?
2.	If so, what were the amounts in each ease, and to which county were they paid?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Return attached hereto:
Moneys allotted and paid to counties in the Eastern Townships of the province of Quebec to relieve unemployment under the Unemployment Relief Act, 1930.
Counties	Total amount allotted for Public Works	Dom inion proportion	Dominion payments to date for Public Works	Dominion payments to date for Direct Relief%	s	$ cts.	$ cts.68,300	17,445	14,612 39	12,476 5623,200	5,800	5,556 62	150 0058,000	19,800	19,153 56	15,405 4933,300	8,325	7,189 99	402 35131,000	46,795	46,771 87	4,237 7340,500	10,125	10,124 98	1,033 3469,000	20,155	16.705 56	243 9878,500	19,975	18,474 99	73 74191,000	48,150	46,701 76	483 3373,500	18,675	15,065 50	1,616 45Wolfe 	36,500	19,955	12,412 26	2,286 41
Moneys allotted and paid to counties in the Eastern Townships of the province of Quebec to relieve unemployment under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act 1931.
Counties	Total amount allotted for Public Works	Dominion pro- portion	Dominion payments to date for Public ' Works	Dominion payments to date for Direct Relief$ 13.000 3,000 62,700 58.000 188,000 20.000 75,000 122,000 333.000 114.000 17,500	$ 3,250 750 25,455 16,300 78,625 5.000 23.100 30.500 84.500 29.100 7.000	$ cts.	$ cts.
34 35
				
			34,493 21	
				
			1,144 61 369 63 5,230 96 218 79 747 07	
				
				
				
Wolfe 					938 37
				
1524
Questions


RESIDENT ENGINEER, RIMOUSKI, QTJE.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has Mr. P. E. Amiot, resident engineer, of Rimouski, been superannuated?
2.	If so, who has been appointed to replace him, and is the appointment a permanent one?
3.	Has any change been made in the district under the control of this officer?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: .
1.	Yes.
2.	No appointment has yet been made.
3.	No.


ST. FRANCOIS D'ASSISES, QTJE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has Cleophas Chabot, postmaster of St. Francois d'Assises, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, been dismissed?
2.	If so, who has been appointed temporarily, on whose recommendation, was an investigation held, by whom and for what reasons?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Arrangements being made for appointment of Miss Marguerite Martin, recommended by Hon. Doctor Eugene Paquet. An investigation was held by Mr. Gerard Simard and the postmaster was found guilty of active political partisanship.


DETOUR DU LAC, QUE., POST OFFICE
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	On what date was the post office of Detour du Lac, county of Temiscouata, Quebec, abolished?
2.	At whose request?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	March 23, 1931.
2.	The matter was brought to the attention of the department by Mr. C. E. Dube. The report submitted by the district superintendent indicated that the office was serving only five families and could be closed without serious public inconvenience.


HIGHWAY NO. 6, BONAVENTURE COUNTY
Mr. MARCIL:: Who is in charge of the works of blasting, clearing, widening and grading the highway No. 6, in Bonaventure county, for which $31,250 "'ere authorized, the provincial government paying GO per cent and the dominion 40 per cent, the dominion's proportion being $12,500, and on whose recommendation was this appointment made, and what amount has been paid up to date?


Mr. GORDON:: Under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, the dominion government has paid to the province for the work of blasting, clearing, widening and grad-
IMr. Gordon.]
ing on highway No. 6, in Bonaventure county, the sum of $1,412.23, which represents 40 per cent of the total expenditure made in connection with this project to date.
As the project is being carried out by the provincial authorities, information such as "who is in charge of the works" and "on whose recommendation was this appointment made" will have to be obtained from the province.


PAYMENTS TO MR. GERARD SIMARD
Mr. MARCIL:: 1. What amount has been paid to Mr. Gerard Simard, commissioner, appointed by the Post Office Department, to investigate charges of political partisanship in post offices in the county of Bonaventure?
2. How much of this amount was for travelling expenses?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	$1,567.05.
2.	$502.29.


LETTER CARRIER SERVICE-NEPEAN TOWNSHIP, ONTARIO
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Does the Post Office Department intend to introduce the letter carrier service in Westboro and other parts in Nepean township?
2.	Is there any reason for preventing this from being done, and what is the reason?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Not during the coming fiscal year at least.
2.	Yes. Even if conditions governing the establishment of letter carrier delivery were fully complied with, the fact that no funds are available to cover the additional expenditure involved would preclude the establishment at the present time.
LAUIilER, LOTBINIERE COUNTY, QUE.,


POST MASTER-SALARY
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Was the salary of the postmaster at Laurier, county of Lotbiniere, more than $400 for the years 1930 and 1931?
2.	What amounts were paid to said postmaster in salary and commissions for 1930 and 1931?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	No.
2.	Year ended 31st March, 1930, $358.80; year ended 31st March, 1931, $353.95.


ST. OCTAVE DE DOSQUET-ST. AGATHE, MAIL SERVICE
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1. Was the contract for the carrying of mail between St. Octave de Dosquet and Ste. Agathe, county of Lotbiniere, renewed?
2. Were tenders called for?

Unopposed motion$ jor Papers
3.	What are the names of the tenderers and amount asked by each?
4.	To whom was the contract given and on what date was the tender of the successful tenderer received?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes.
3.	Achille Lehoux, S395; Joseph Faucher, S435.
4.	Contract awarded to Achille Lehoux. Tender received 21st December, 1931.


DESCHAILLONS, LOTBINIEEE COUNTY, DREDGING INSPECTORS
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Were Messrs. Hector St-. Jean, Lucien Guertin, Paul Gervais, McDonald Bonrbeau, employed by the government at Deschaillons, countv of Lotbiniere, during the summer season of 1931?
2.	If so, in what capacity?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to hold an inquiry in connection with political partisanship shown by these persons during the last provincial elections in Quebec?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Dredging inspectors in connection with river St. Lawrence dredging contract.
3.	No; their services terminated at the close of the dredging season in the fall of 1931.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	How much gold was exported from Canada to New York since January 1, 1932, giving dates and amounts?
2.	Were such amounts exported at the request of Canadian chartered banks?
3.	If so, which bank made the request in each instance?



MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION


Mr. SENN:: 1.	Has any pension been paid to M. P. Fennell, late general manager of Montreal harbour commission, and, if so, why?
2.	What was Mr. Fennell's age at time pension was granted?



MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION-COAL

Mr. SENN:: What harbour plant was used and what labour performed by the Montreal harbour commission in the handling of coal for the Ogdensburg Coal and Towing Company, and the Century Coal Company, during the period January, 1922, to June, 1926, and from October, 1926, to August, 1930, and did the harbour commission receive full tariff rates for such service ?



CANADLAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS, VANCOUVER HOTEL

Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Who are the architects for the Canadian National hotel now under construction at Vancouver, British Columbia?
2.	On what basis are the architects paid?
3.	How much have they been paid to March 1, 1932?
4.	Who are the contractors for the said hotel?
5.	What is the total contract price?
6.	Is the work done as a straight contract or on a cost plus basis?
7.	If on a cost plus basis, what per cent is allowed ?
8.	How much have the contractors been paid to March 1, 1932?
9.	Is the cost of furnishings and equipment included in the contract price?
10.	If the answer to No. 9 is no, what is the estimated cost of furnishings and equipment?
11.	What is the total amount paid on the construction of the said hotel to March 1, 1932?
12.	What is the estimated amount required to complete the building?
13.	What was the date on which the building of the hotel was: (a) approved; (b) contract signed ?



CIVIL SERVICE-RETIREMENTS

Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1. What is, from April 1, 1931, to March 15, 1932, the total number of government employees, by departments: (a) temporary; (b) permanent, who (1) have been actually retired from the said service; and (2) have not been actually retired from the service but who have received notice that from and after a given date their services will no longer be required?
2.	What is the number of government employees, by departments:	(a) temporary; (b)
permanent, who, from the 15th March, 1932, have received notice that from and after a given date their services will no longer be required?
3.	When all of the said employees shall have been actually retired, how many will be: (1) enjoying the benefits of: (a) the Superannuation Act, (b) the Retirement Act, (c) any other such act; (2) without the benefits of any superannuation measure whatever ?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. CASGRAIN (for Mr. Fontaine):: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, evidence, petitions, and other documents, in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Philibert Auclair. postmaster of St. Hilaire, county of Rouville, and the appointment of his successor.
Deauharnois Power Project



ST. ANGELE DE MONNOIR, ROUVILLE COUNTY, POSTMASTER-DISMISSAL

Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, evidence, inquiries, petitions, and other documents, in connection with the dismissal of Mr. J. Remus Boulais, postmaster of Ste. Angele de Monnoir, county of Rouville, and the appointment of his successor.



STE. ANGELE DE MONNOIR, RURAL MAIL SERVICE

Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, evidence, inquiries, petitions, and other documents, in connection with the cancelling of the contract of Mr. Donat Yincelette, mail carrier on rural route No. 1, Ste. Angele de Monnoir, county of Rouville.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-D1GBY COUNTY, N.S.

Mr. ILSLEY:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda, reports and other documents exchanged between the Department of Public Works and any person or persons regarding the expenditure of public money under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931, on the breakwater at Port Gilbert, Digby county, Nova Scotia; also a copy of the payroll showing the amounts expended for labour; also a copy of accounts showing the prices paid for iron, logs, ballast, ballast poles, timber and planks, from whom purchased, the amount paid for a wharf site at that place, and from whom purchased.


James Lorimer Ilsley: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda, reports and other documents exchanged between the Department of Public Works and any person or persons regarding the expenditure of public money under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931, on the breakwater at Little Brook, Digby county, Nova Scotia; also a copy of the payroll showing the amounts expended for labour; also a copy of accounts showing the prices paid for iron, logs, ballast, ballast poles, timber and planks, and from whom purchased.



BOULANGER, LAKE ST. JOHN, POSTMASTER- DISMISSAL

Mr. POULIOT:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, affidavits, petitions, evidence at the inquiry, and reports, in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Boulanger, as postmaster, in the parish of Sainte Jeanne d'Arc, Lake St. John, Quebec, and the appointment of his successor.
He said: I should like to make a correction in this motion, Mr. Speaker. Instead of reading "the dismissal of Mr. Boulanger" it should read "the dismissal of the postmaster of Boulanger."


Mr. SPEAKER:: By consent the motion is amended accordingly.
Motion as amended agreed to.



LOWER BURLINGTON, N.S., WHARF

James Lorimer Ilsley: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda, reports and other documents exchanged between the Department of Public Works and any person or persons regarding the expenditure of public money under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931, on the wharf at Lower Burlington, Hants county, Nova Scotia; also a copy of the payroll showing the amounts expended for labour; also a copy of accounts showing the prices paid for iron, logs, ballast, ballast poles, timber and planks, and from whom purchased.



HANTSPORT, N.S., WHARF

James Lorimer Ilsley: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda, reports and other documents exchanged between the Department of Public Works and any person or persons regarding the expenditure of public money under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931, on the wharf at Hantsport, Nova Scotia; also a copy of the payroll showing the amounts expended for labour, and a copy of accounts showing the prices paid for iron, logs, ballast poles, timber and planks, and from whom purchased.



CACOUNA, QUE., INDIAN AGENT

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, petitions, applications, exchanged between all persons in the county of Temis-couata, and all ministers and officials of the dominion government, in connection with the position of Indian agent at Caeouna, since August, 1930.



BEAUHARNOIS POWER PROJECT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Pierre-François Casgrain: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question with reference to the Beauharnois waterpower development. In view of the declaration made a year ago in this house by the Prime Minister that the bona fide subscribers to this enterprise would be protected, and that declaration having been made during the -course of a debate which took place in this house last year, would the Prime Minister be in a position to give to the country to-day a statement in connection with this matter along the lines suggested by hon. members for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) and West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart).


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: There is also a question on the order paper dealing with the same matter. I have certain information which I will endeavour to communicate to the house before the closing on Friday. At the moment I have not all the information in my possession, but I shall endeavour to secure it and have it available before the house rises at the end of the week.

Grading of Garnet Wheat



GRADING OF GARNET WHEAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce , I have before me one of many communications which I should like to read. This is from Scott, Saskatchewan, and is as follows:-	*
In regard to the proposed placing of Garnet wheat in a grade by itself: A statement of the decision of those in charge of this matter should be made before seeding time. In many districts, this for one, Garnet is the best wheat and farmers are holding Garnet for seed. If Garnet is to be penalized next fall, growers should be told of it in time to change their seed.
Is the minister in a position to tell us when the department will announce a policy regarding Garnet wheat?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think my hon. friend will recall I introduced a resolution referring the matter to the committee on agriculture. I understand that committee will be called on Tuesday next, and that Mr. Ramsay, the chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners, and others who have been making a study will attend before the agriculture committee so that the whole matter may be given careful consideration.



FACTORIES CLOSED IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Pierre-François Casgrain: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to an answer given to a question standing under my name which has been on the order paper for some time. My question was:
How many factories have been closed down in Canada since September 1, 1930, to date?
The answer I received was:
Information not available in Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
Mr. Speaker, I think I am entitled to draw the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the government to such an answer. Surely the government is in a position to find out how many companies have made returns under The Companies Act, or how many have filed returns for business taxes. Any hon. member should be in a position to secure such information. To my mind the answer is not satisfactory. The Department of Labour also has a statement of factories and new institutions established in Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I have a right as a member of this house to draw attention to a question which has been badly answered. No answer whatever has been given. I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Prime Minister to reconsider the question which has been on the order paper for nearly a month. If it has required a month to give an answer which is not satisfactory, I wonder how long it will take to give a satisfactory answer. The government must know the number of institutions or factories which have been opened since the tariff changes were made, and we should like to know also how many have been closed down since the new tariff has been in force.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, replying to my hon. friend may I say that a great deal of care was taken in an endeavour to secure an answer to his question. It would take some time to give all the explanations which go to indicate that the answer given to-day is a fair one and based upon very sound reasons.


Pierre-François Casgrain: It is no answer at all; it is a joke.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am sorry.



STAMP COMMISSION EXPENDITURES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce when I may expect an answer to question No. 1 which has been on the order paper for some time. The question is simple and should not entail a great deal of work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Probably I should answer the hon. member. The question has not been answered because the information is not all available. Another matter has to be considered, and that is the reason this question has not been answered.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Could the Prime Minister give me all the information he has before the estimates are considered for that department?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.



RESIGNATION OF POSTMASTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-François Pouliot: As the hon. Postmaster General seems to have his smile of happy

Unemployment Continuance Act
days, may I inquire as to when he will bring down the documents which were ordered by the house at the end of February and at the beginning of this month, in connection with the resignation of a number of postmasters in the counties of Temiscouata and Lake St. John? I have waited patiently until now because the hon. Postmaster General had assured me that he would shortly bring them down, I trust that he will soon keep his word.


Hon. Mr. SAUVE (Postmaster General) (Translation):: Certainly. I shall bring down these documents as soon as possible.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 24, respecting unemployment and farm relief.
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, owing to the fact that we have only comparatively recently had an opportunity of obtaining a copy of Bill No. 24, hon. members might have expected that the Prime Minister would have given an explanation to the house of the provisions contained in the bill. However as he has not done so we must rely on our own analysis of the measure when we are discussing it before this house.
Mr. Speaker, this is the concrete product after about three weeks of debate offered by the administration to this assembly and to the people of the Dominion of Canada. Bill No. 24 constitutes the unemployment policy of this administration now offered to the people of the Dominion of Canada. It is but fair and proper to recall on this occasion that on February 24 last notice of a certain resolution was given by the Prime Minister. On February 26 that resolution appeared on the order paper, the purport of it' being to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, by substituting the word "May" for the word "March." Although chapter 58 expired on March 1 of this year, and although no real, concrete, excuse has been. given to this assembly for the failure to take appropriate action, that resolution was not submitted to this assembly for discussion until March 8, seven days after chapter 58 had expired. The debate on that resolution lasted from March 8 until its termination in the early hours of this day, which was brought about by a process of compulsion, coercion, closure and gag.
[Mr. Pouliot.l
As a result of that resolution hon. members on this side took the position that the resolution was entirely out of order, that it proposed to enact something by way of resolution, which could not be enacted by this assembly, and that it proposed to amend a dead statute. After the administration informed this assembly that the resolution would be offered, we took the position that presumably in the first instance the resolution had received the consent of His Excellency the Governor General, and that the amendment submitted by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) last evening dealt with an entirely different principle, an entirely different matter, and dealt with it in an entirely different way.
So we have the three positions taken by this administration. In the first place we have the resolution appearing on the 26th day of February to amend chapter 58 of last session. In the second place we have the declaration of the Prime Minister in regard to what the proposals of the administration might be. Last night the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) moved in committee an amendment, not to amend a dead statute, but to extend chapter 58; and to-day we are given what presumably is the concrete result of that amendment. I find, Mr. Speaker, this third variation in the unemployment policy of the administration in the last three weeks. First, we had a resolution, that was admittedly out of order to amend a dead statute-so described, and properly described -although it occupies the valuable time of this house for some three weeks. Then last night under the compulsion of closure they forced this resolution through the house and into committee of the whole, when my hon. friend the Minister of Justice moved another resolution to extend the provisions of chapter 58. To-day we have the second reading of Bill No. 24 which Hoes far more than extend chapter 58. It is an entirely new bill. This is not an extension of chapter 58 of last session; there are some provisions in this bill which were never in that statute. It contains all of the vicious, pernicious, contentious and iniquitous clauses-[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
are not sufficient adjectives in the English language to describe the iniquity of that measure. We find that in deference to the criticism offered by hon. members on this side of the house section 2 of Bill No. 24 provides:
All orders in council and regulations made under the provisions of this act shall be laid

Unemployment Continuance Act
before the House of Commons forthwith after the making thereof, if parliament is then sitting, or if not, within the first fifteen days of the next ensuing session.
That was a grudging concession to hon. members on this side. The administration are to pass orders in council in the east block to-day, and they are gracious enough to lay them on the table of the house on the succeeding day. Under this procedure we are nothing more than a glorified information bureau after the administration has acted through order in council. But I would ask the house to listen to section 3:
The Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931. and this act. shall be read and construed as one act, and this act may be cited as The Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932.
I suggest that a better title for this legislation would be the Tory Government Dictatorship Perpetuation Act, 1932. The Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931 is a dead thing, it is absolutely extinct, but by this peculiar bill we are trying to breathe some vitality into the bare bones of this skeleton of Tory policy. We are trying to bring about this unholy alliance, to make these two one flesh, this bill and the dead act of last year. That is the policy of the administration. What is this thing after all? It is the child of chaos out of closure-the result of Tory administration.
Had my right hon. friend heeded the admonitions of hon. gentlemen on this side of the house he could have amended the act before it expired on the first of March, that is, if he still desired to retain the clauses of that legislation. If he had paid proper attention to our admonitions, on the second of March he could have introduced another bill containing all the clauses of chapter 58, adding thereto the provisions contained in section 2 of the present bill. That would not be such a violation of the rules of procedure as is now being attempted. What is being offered the house this afternoon is the result of chaos, confusion, coercion and closure.
It is true we were silenced yesterday by the closure. But I wish to inform hon. gentlemen opposite that we will fight out this issue on the public platform. Hon. gentlemen opposite in all their mishandling of the unemployment situation have been sliding down the slithery slope of political expediency; whereas we on this side with our minority-not a dictatorship minority, because one of the fundamental principles of a British parliament is not only the rule of the majority but also the protection of the minority-we on this side of the house stand on the firm bedrock of principle. They are sliding down the slithery slope like those Gadarene swine in the old book, with their progress accelerated by the sow policy of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). While they are animated only by the principle of expediency, we on this side-though our numbers are small, it is true-have right on our side; and right at all times is better than expediency. Until the last word is uttered in this debate we stand firm and solid on the bedrock of principle, and from that position we will not recede.
In regard to what he termed the "dictatorship of the minority," my right hon. friend quoted certain sentences from what is admitted to be one of the greatest authorities upon the procedure of the British House of Commons, Redlich. He did not quote the entire substance of some of the finest passages in that book. For instance at page 49, volume 1, Redlich says:
The principle of the protection of the minority is a fundamental basis of parliamentary government.
At page 193, volume 3, he says:
The feeling of the universal benefit conferred, as a rule by strenuous and powerful opposition is one which centuries of experience have worked into the very flesh and blood of the English nation.
And again:
Over and over again it has been seen that the energetic resistance of a minority has roused the entire country to take part in political life-hasty measures have been checked and proposals for large alterations in the law have been modified.
That is a complete reply to my right hon. friend's representations with respect to the alleged dictation of a minority. The right hon. gentleman also adduced two other examples in justification of this policy of "blank cheque" expenditure: old age pensions and the bridge over the St. Law-rence. But I think my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) completely and conclusively confuted his arguments in this regard.
Then I look through the pages of Canadian history to occasions when we were accused of obstruction by my right hon. friend. Looking over some of the exploits of my right hon. friend and of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice and of other members of the Tory party, during their parliamentary career, if obstruction be an offence I call upon one hon. gentleman apposite who is without fault to cast the first stone to-day. I refer the house to the uniform franchise bill introduced by the great Conservative chieftain, Sir John A. Macdonald, in 1885. The Liberal party fought it tooth

Unemployment Continuance Act
and nail, night and day, and as a result of their opposition -certain important amendments were embodied in the legislation, which it is generally conceded to-day were for the good of the Canadian people. In 1806 the Manitoba school question was under consideration in the dying days of a moribund parliament. The Liberal party asked that it be referred to the people. They won out and were justified by the electorate. In 1908 an election measure was submitted to -parliament by the Liberal party of that day. It was obstructed by the Conservatives; a compromise was offered by the Liberals and accepted by their opponents. In 1911 the reciprocity resolutions were introduced in this house. The first resolution was introduced on January 26, and up to July 28 not a single preliminary vote had been taken in regard to any one resolution. Then we had the obstruction in 1913 with regard to the naval aid bill. That obstruction was caused by the Liberal party, and I am sure my friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) will bear me out when I say that if any course ever has been justified and vindicated by the verdict of history, it is the course taken by the Liberal party in regard to the Canadian naval policy in 1913.
The other day the right hon. Prime Minister spoke about conferences. He said that last year he saw some of the premiers of the provinces, and that after the termination of this session he was going to call a conference of the premiers of the nine provinces of Canada. That was not his policy in 1930, when he condemned those on this side of the house who advocated two immediate conferences, one with the premiers or treasurers of the provinces to consider the financial aspects of the question, and the other a larger conference to deal with this unemployment situation in a national way.
My right hon. friend has said that the policy of this government has worked well. Has he read the evidence given in Victoria the other day by an employee of this government? I refer to Mr. McGeough, who works directly under Mr. Hereford, an officer of this government. In the press report of his sworn testimony given before an investigating committee of the provincial legislature, appears the following:
That at camps 1, 2, 3 and 4, Deroehe, on October 17, Mr. McGeough found 104 names on the provincial government pay-roll as carpenters at $4 a day, although only four men were working as carpenters, and the camps were virtually completed.


An hon. MEMBER:: That has been disproved.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend has no right to say that, because the committee has not finished its work or made any report. So in the province of British Columbia at least we have had gross mismanagement of public funds, and that alone absolutely justifies the demand we made in 1930, and which we renewed in 1931, for a complete supervision by the Auditor General of Canada over all funds expended in the relief of unemployment. I very well recall the words of the Prime Minister during the special session of 1930, when he said, "This administration accepts full responsibility for all expenditures."
I must hurry along. Here we have what is now a national problem, and what was spoken of by the Prime Minister in 1930 at Montreal, at Calgary, and in fact all over Canada as a national problem. What is happening to-day? After eighteen months of the application of Tory principles to the solution of the unemployment problem; after the expenditure of $150,000,000 of the money of the taxpayers, instead of the 117,000 unemployed which were admitted by the right hon. gentleman in September, 1930, to-day we have 550,000 unemployed according to the figures given by the president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. That is the result of our experience during the last two years, and through that expenditure of public money what has happened? To-day the provinces are almost bankrupt, and in the west the municipalities are in a very serious situation, largely because of the strain put upon them by the misguided and mistaken policies of this administration. Here it is March 30 and this measure is only to be in force for another month at best. This measure will die on May 1, just as the last measure died on March 1, and nothing has been said by this administration as to what will be their unemployment policy after May
1.	So I say, Mr. Speaker, in the first place, that this legislation which they bring forward this afternoon accentuates and intensifies all the miseries and evils of last year, and that it violates every rule and usage of this parliament. In the second place, it offers no concrete remedy for the unemployment situation which exists to-day in this country.
We took the position in 1931 that we objected to any blanket authority being given this executive, and in particular we objected to the power not only to control expenditure but to amend legislation passed by this parliament by means of secret and sinister orders in council. What right has this administration to-day to pass an order in council

Unemployment Continuance Act
increasing the armed forces of Canada, without reference to the supreme parliamentary authority in the country? That is one example. Then there is the question of the export of gold, and we heard a good deal about the necessity for an order in council to deal with that question. My hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) asked whether that action could not have been taken under the provisions of the Finance Act, and the answer was "Oh, yes, but that might involve a proclamation; it might involve the consideration of war or insurrection, either actual or apprehended." I tell my right hon. friend that if he looks through the record of the Liberal party he will find that in 1929 action was taken in regard to the gold standard. That action was not taken by order in council under any relief measure, nor was it taken by means of any proclamation under the Finance Act. It was done by arrangement between the Minister of Finance of the day and the financial institutions of Canada. So I believe that finally and effectually destroys the argument that the greatest necessity for these powers was to permit the government to deal with the export of gold from this country, because that could have been dealt with in another way, not involving the relief measure at all.
Then we had an order in council having to do with 2,000,000 railway ties not to exceed sixty-five cents each in cost. This money was voted by this parliament under the relief act, but we are not told how it was spent; we are refused the information, and we cannot even find out who were the contractors. I ask my hon. friend, in all fairness, whether it can be said that we have any control at all over expenditures when that condition of affairs exists. Surely my hon. friend is morally bound to give us all possible information with regard to the purchase of ties or anything else under the Unemployment Relief Act.


Mr. MANION:: I have already stated to
my hon. friend and to the house that we made no contract for ties. We passed an order in council granting a certain amount of money to the Canadian National Railways, and that company has entered into contracts for the purchase of ties; they have set the prices and done everything else, just as these things have been done in past years. I have not refused to give any information that was in the hands of the government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If that
is the policy of the administration I suggest to my hon. "friend that it is not a policy which
should receive the support of this house. Parliament should have absolute control over and full knowledge of every cent of money spent under the provisions of this act. That is a principle, surely, which has been embodied in our constitution for centuries.
There is one other point to which I should like to refer. In speaking on the resolution a few days ago the Prime Minister held up an example from the old country; he referred to chapter 48 of the statutes of Great Britain, passed on September 30, 1931. He would have this parliament believe that we had there an absolute precedent to guide us in regard to this legislation. But what was the situation there? They gave the executive power for a period of one month after the first day of October, 1931; they gave the executive power to pass certain orders in council, but only for thirty days. What was the situation in England at that time? A national government had just been formed. The Right Hon. Ramsay MacDonald had announced his decision to appeal to the electorate and he went to the people five or six or seven days after this very bill was passed conferring certain powers upon the government. And those powers were not for expenditures but for the purpose of effecting economies in the administration of Great Britain-England and Scotland. I suggest to my right hon. friend, therefore, that there is no parallel between the case in England which he cited and the case in Canada as indicated by him. The Right Hon. Ramsay MacDonald went to the country and sought a "doctor's" mandate, and I suggest to my right hon. friend that if he is going to violate all the accepted canons, ethics and usages of Canadian parliamentary practice and push this legislation down our throats by means of closure and compulsion, then he should go to the country and seek a dictatorship mandate from the people with respect to this legislation.
I am opposed to every single clause in this legislation. We are ready now, as we always have been, to assist the administration in voting all the moneys they desire in order to meet the situation, but I do not think that hon. gentlemen opposite have the right to ask us to abandon our cherished principles touching the accepted doctrines of parliamentary usage and control. They have no right to force their theories down our throats in this free parliament of Canada. If this type of legislation is going to be introduced year after year, becoming accentuated as time goes on, we might as well close the doors of parliament, take that mace off the table and throw it

Unemployment Continuance Act
into the Rideau canal, and disperse and go home. Since this session began I have met people in various parts of the country and I venture to say to hon. gentlemen opposite that the Canadian people will endorse the stand we have taken.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Well, if hon. gentlemen apposite do not agree with that statement will they put it to the test? Will they submit to the acid test to-morrow? Will they seek the opinion of the people on their bungling of the unemployment situation in this country? They will not, because they know that if they did they would be swept out of power on the crest of a tide of popular indignation which would spread sheer terror into the ranks of a bruised and battered Toryism.
We have fought this iniquitous measure on principle. It is true that we have been silenced by the gag, and this is probably the last opportunity left us to express our considered convictions with respect to this question. There is no one on the other side of the house who is more anxious than we are on this side to do all that can be done fairly, honestly and squarely to relieve the distress of the unemployed from shore to shore. But there are two things that we cannot do at once; all we are asking hon. gentlemen opposite to do is to sacrifice a little of t'heir stubborn pride, whereas they are trying to compel us to sacrifice all of our cherished principles, and that we refuse to do.
In order, therefore, to place on record the concerted convictions of His Majesty's loyal opposition with regard to this measure now before the house, I ibeg to move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), the following amendment:
That this bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved:
1.	That this house has been from the commencement of the session and continues to be ready and willing to consider and vote without delay any money or grant, submitted and asked for by the government for relieving distress and providing employment throughout Canada.
2.	That this house cannot surrender the rights of the people of Canada, through their representatives in parliament, to maintain direct control over matters of taxation and expenditure, nor vest in the governor in council or in any other body absolute and despotic powers under the guise of dealing with peace, order and good government, particularly while parliament is in session.
And by these principles, sir, we stand.
^Mr. I. Mackenzie.]


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I was paired with the hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. Murphy). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was
paired with the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I was paired with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I was paired with the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Cowan). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. FERLAND:: I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dupre) Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. COOTE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Beynon). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.	.


Mr. IRVINE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Charles Marcil: I was paired with the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I was paired with the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. RYERSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MULLINS:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. HARRIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: I was paired with the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Duff). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Arthur Sauvé: I was paired with the hon. member for L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Seguin). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.

Unemployment Continuance Act
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Justice White decided in Sherbrooke in 1930 in the case of Edney vs. Fitzpatrick that there oannot be a valid contract of pledge unless the object pledged is in the actual possession of the creditor or of a third party appointed to act for the said creditor.
In order to obtain information for the government, Mr. Harry Hereford wrote to me under date of August 7, 1931, asking for full particulars with regard to the undertakings in my constituency for the relief of unemployment. This letter was forwarded eleven days before order in council P.C. 2043 was passed, which order in council indicates the conditions under which relief would be granted. I answered Mr. Hereford on August 13, and my letter was acknowledged by the then Minister of Labour (Senator Robertson) on August 19. I informed Mr. Hereford that I was communicating with each municipality in my constituency in order to obtain the required information in connection with unemployment relief. On September 1, Mr. Hereford forwarded a copy of the order in council which had been passed on August 18. After receiving the information from the different municipalities I forwarded this to Mr. Hereford. He did not reply direct, but I received the following letter from the then Minister of Labour, dated September 3:
Dear Sir,-
It has accidentally come to my attention that this department has received from you personally eleven letters and one telegram, all within the last two days, with reference to unemployment works proposed in your riding.
I note that each refers to matters that are within provincial jurisdiction, and it has been made amply clear to every federal member, through declarations in parliament, that the federal government must deal with such matters through provincial authority, and communications from any persons, municipalities or members of parliament, with reference to works in which the province must be consulted, should come to us through the province instead of direct, as they must necessarily in each case be referred to the province for its information and endorsement.
When I was first communicated with by Mr. Hereford I got in touch with the municipalities in order to obtain the best available information on the matter. I forwarded this information to him but the only answer 1 received was from someone else. I answered the Minister of Labour under date of September 14, 1931, as follows:
Hon. G. D. Robertson,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your favour of September 3rd, in which you 
complain that .the department has received from me personally eleven letters and one telegram, within the last two days, with reference to unemployment works proposed in my riding.
First of all I have forwarded to every municipal council in this constituency a copy of Mr. Hereford's letter of August 7th, in order to take the inventory of the needs of my constituency with regard to unemployment. I have sent each answer to the director of unemployment.
Mr. Hereford's letter of August 7th was sent eleven days before P.C. 2043, dated August 18th, was passed. Therefore, when Mr. Hereford sent his letter to me, there were no regulations relating to unemployment fund this year. It is only on September 1st that, acting under your instructions, he sent me a copy of P.C. 2043.
In the meantime, the municipal councils of this constituency had sent me their requests for assistance, which I have found my duty to communicate to you.
I have written to Mr. Hereford to ask you to send back to me the requests from ten municipalities which are mentioned in the second page of a letter dated September 11th.
I took the trouble to take that inventory in order to show my good-will towards the unemployed and I resent very much the fact that Mr. Hereford wrote me on September 8th: "Aucun bon but ne semble avoir ete atteint de cette action de votre part."-No good result has been attained from what you have done in that connection.
I have done that work to the best of my ability and without, knowing what regulations had been passed by the council. Now that that inventory has been taken, it will serve the same purpose, because I will communicate all the answers which I have received to my colleagues of the Quebec legislature; but if I had received the regulations sooner, it would have spared me that trouble.
I received the following letter from Mr. Hereford under date of September 8, 1931:
(Translation) I am in receipt of your letter dated September 3, and in answer I wish to inform you that, as requested in your telegram.
I recently forwarded to your address forty copies of the order in council, P.C. 2043, embodying the regulations governing the enforcement of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act.
No agreement has yet been made between the dominion government and the Quebec provincial government in connection with unemployment relief, although it is understood one will soon be made. No doubt, when the agreement is concluded, the terms will be published,
I shall then forward you a copy.
I note that you have distributed copies of my letter of August 7 to all the municipalities, and since the latter seemed to have recommended municipal works instead of enterprises of a federal nature, no useful purpose seems to have been served by this action on your part, and as previously explained to you, municipal undertakings must first be agreed upon with the provincial authorities.
Respectfully yours,

Unemployment Continuance Act
This gentleman stated that there was then no agreement between the federal and provincial governments, so how was I to know the jurisdiction of the respective governments? I replied under date of September 11, as follows:
(Translation)
Dear Sir,-
I am in receipt of your two letters dated September 4 and 8, and I wish to thank you for having forwarded me forty copies of P.C. 2043. I requested the warden of the county to distribute a copy of this order in council to each of the mayors who were at the last meeting of the county council.
In your last letter dated September 8, you wrote that no good purpose seemed to have been served by my forwarding copies of your letter of August 7 to all the municipalities of my county, seeing that the latter recommended municipal instead of dominion works.
My first duty on receiving your letter dated August 7, was to communicate the contents to the proper athorities, namely the municipal councils of each parish, so as to have them prepare a list of the works to be carried out in each locality in order to relieve unemployment. Had I acted otherwise, they would have probably blamed me.
Since you inform me that the works which were recommended are of a municipal nature, would you be so kind as to return to me, at your earliest convenience, the requests which I forwarded to you for each of the following municipalities in the county of Temiscouata:
1.	Town of Cabano.
2.	Notre Dame de l'lsle-Verte.
3.	Riviere-Bleue.
4.	Riviere-Trois-Pistoles.
5.	St. Benoit Abbe de Pacldngton.
6.	St. Clement.
7.	St. Eloi.
8.	Ste. Frangoise.
0	St. Hubert.
10. Ste. Rose du Degele.
May I draw your attention to the fact that the parish of Notre Dame du Portage request repairs to their wharf which is in a dangerous condition. May I further state that I am most desirous to help the unemployed and that I intend to take all the means at my disposal to attain this end.
I regret very much that this list was not made sooner.
As soon as you have returned to me the requests which I forwarded to you, I shall be pleased to send them to my colleagues, the two members for the county of Temiscouata, at the Quebec legislature.
In closing my letter, allow me to express my regrets for the trouble you may have been put to, however, I hasten to add that the work which was done and which might have fallen upon other shoulders is far from being useless, because pursuant to the correspondence which I exchanged with the municipal authorities of my county, I found out what were the most effective means of relieving this crisis.
1	trust that the government will first take up, themselves, the study of the underlying causes of the present crisis, so as to remedy it as soon as possible and in a definite way.
Respectfully yours,
Mr. Hereford on September 17, 1931, replied as follows:
Ottawa, September 17, 1931.
Mr. Jean-Fran<;ois Pouliot, M.P., Riviere-du-Loup, P.Q.
Dear sir,
I am in receipt of your letter dated September 11, in which you ask me to return to you at my earliest convenience the requests that you forwarded ito me for each of the municipalities of the county of Temiscouata:
1.	Village of Cabano.
2.	Notre Dame de Tile Verte.
3.	Riviere-Bleue.
4.	Riviere-Trois-Pistoles.
5.	St. Benoit Abbe de Packington.
6.	St. Clement.
7.	St. Eloi.
8.	Ste. FranQoi.se.
9.	St. Hubert.
10.	Ste. Rose du Degele.
Conforming to your request I am returning these letters, however, I have filed a copy, so that I may refer them to the Minister of Labour when the question of unemployment relief is discussed with the provincial authorities. I note that you are aware that requests dealing with municipal works, must first be submitted to the provincial authorities.
Respectfully yours,
Harry Hereford, Dominion Director.
It has been said by some members on the other side of the house that there has been no cooperation between the provincial government in Quebec and the federal government with regard to unemployment relief. I have here the report for 1930 of the dominion director of unemployment relief, dated March 16, 1931, together with a supplement to the official gazette of the province of Quebec, containing the statute 21 George V, chapter 2, which was passed by the Quebec legislature in 1930 for the relief of unemployment. A similar statute was passed by the provincial legislature in December last. I have also the report of the dominion director of unemployment relief dated March 1, 1932, together with a supplement to the official gazette of the province of Quebec dated December 5, 1931, containing the statute 22 George V, chaipter 7, which gives approval by the province to the arrangement made by the provincial and federal government delegates. On September 10, 1930, at pages 64 and 65 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said:
It is not proposed that this dominion government should in any sense deal with these problems directly. These are primarily problems of provinces and municipalities, and apart from national undertakings.
Some hon. Members:	Oh, oh.
Mr. Bennett:	There never was any question
as to that.
Unemployment Continuance Act

The total cost of public works initiated to relieve unemployment in 1930 was $68,730,647, of which the dominion contributed only $14,303,603, and there was a balance unallotted of $5,696,397. So while the provinces and municipalities were spending over $68,000,000 to relieve unemployment, the amount disbursed by the federal government was only a little over $14,000,000, instead of the $20,000,000 appropriated by parliament.
The last report which we have from the dominion director of unemployment relief, dated March 1, 1932-and note, Mr. Speaker, that this is addressed to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), not to the clerk of the council-says:
Sir, the undersigned has the honour to report as follows concerning the administration of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931.
Then he goes on to report as to the amount of money spent for unemployment relief, but I repeat, he reports to the minister in charge of the Department of Labour, and not to the clerk of the council.
I was a little surprised, Mr. Speaker, when I heard some of my friends on the other side of the house complaining of the alleged bad relations that exist between the federal authorities and the provincial authorities in Quebec. But the other day I heard the Prime Minister himself state that the representatives from the province of Quebec had met the Minister of Labour and had come to an agreement with him with regard to unemployment relief. I think that that is the best answer to the futile complaints that have been made by my hon. friends opposite as to the supposed lack of cooperation by the provincial authorities in Quebec.
There are other matters on which I wish to touch briefly. First of all, as to the relief works that were asked to be constructed in my constituency. There was a request made by the municipality of Notre Dame du Portage for repairs to a public wharf there which is under the jurisdiction of the federal Department of Public Works. A resolution urging the undertaking of these repairs was passed by the municipal council and was forwarded to Mr. Hereford, the dominion director of unemployment relief, and I received an answer from him under date of September 17, 1931, in which he states that he has received my letter and the copy of the resolution passed by the municipal council. He then goes on to say:
(Translation):
You inquire what the department intends to do in this respect, in answer, I wish to state 
that I understand the work projected as well as others suggested by members of parliament, are, at present, receiving the close attention of the Minister of Labour and his engineers.
Kindly accept my sincere regards,
(Signed) Harry Hereford,
Dominion Director.
The Department of Public Works was giving such serious consideration to this matter, Mr. Speaker, that no amount was put in the estimates for this work either last year or this, and the work has never been done. It has been said that when the people were asking for bread the government gave them a stone. So far as my constituency is concerned, may I say that when the people asked for bread the government gave them cement. What works have been undertaken in Temis-couata county for the relief of unemployment since the special session of 1930? There was the construction of a wharf, sewer works, sidewalks, and pillars for a bridge. The cost of the whole was only $21,000, but the quantity of cement purchased was 8,166 bags, costing $5,112.90. I wonder if that is because the exclusive agent of the cement companies in Riviere du Loup is the perpetual Tory candidate in that county. That is going on to such an extent that perhaps the government may have to build a citadel at Riviere du Loup, with all its wasted scenic beauty. A resolution was passed by the school board in my home town of Riviere du Loup asking for an expenditure of relief moneys to build schools. I received the following answer from the then Minister of Labour:
Ottawa, August 31, 1931. Dear Mr. Pouliot,-
Attention has been drawn to recommendations sought in Mr. Harry Hereford's circular letter to all members of parliament, dated August 7, indicating that you were going to the trouble of communicating with all local school boards in your constituency.
May I call attention to the fact that this would seem to be unnecessary trouble on your part, as Mr. Hereford's circular referred only to federal public works on which you, as sitting member of parliament, should express your views.
Then follows a lecture from the then minister, who was such a great man.
Local school buildings are, of course, within the jurisdiction of the province, and are regarded as not coming within the federal jurisdiction, and, therefore, if the government's invitation to members is being regarded as affecting purely provincial matters, may I correct that impression, as the federal government has no desire, and, indeed, intends to refrain from any interference with provincial or municipal affairs.

Unemployment Continuance Act
We asked an amount between $100,000 and $125,000. Needless to say the people would have had to pay their share.
In the last report of the dominion director of unemployment relief I find at page 44, schedule No. N-212, the following item:
Provincial works; Winnipeg, Greater-construction of new unit of Manitoba university and waterline.
' The total expenditure for that work was $700,000. The percentages shared by the province and the dominion respectively were 75 and 25, making the cash expenditure by the dominion the sum of $175,000. If that expenditure was good for Winnipeg why would it not be good for Riviere du Loup? If it was bad for Riviere du Loup why was it good for Winnipeg?
I am sorry the Prime Minister is not in his seat, because I have a quotation I should like him to hear. Nothing could be worse, Mr. Speaker, than to exploit the miseries of the people in order to gain political advantage. That was done at a village called Tobin or Riviere Trois Pistoles. During the last provincial campaign a gentleman said to the electors who were unemployed, "Vote Tory; the greater Tory majority you return the more help you will receive from the unemployment fund in Ottawa." I took the liberty of writing the following letter, dated September 15, 1931, to the Prime Minister:
Rt. Hon. R. B. Bennett,
Prime Minister,
Ottawa, Out.
Dear Mr. Bennett,-
A man named E. W. Morissette, who is employed by the Brown Corporation at Riviere Trois Pistoles (Tobin), has boasted that between the 17th and the 24th of August ultimo, he had received a wire from yourself to the effect that you were very much interested in the establishment of a manufacture of artificial leather at Riviere Trois Pistoles, to relieve unemployment, and that you wanted him to meet you in Montreal in that connection.
As he took your name in vain, would you have any objection to tell me when you have left for Calgary and when you came back?
With thanks,
Sincerely yours,
Jean-Frangois Pouliot.
Contrary to the customary good will shown by the Prime Minister, I received no reply to this letter. I should like to quote another letter dated at Ottawa May 8, 1931, from the then Minister of Labour:
Dear Mr. Pouliot,-
Your letter of May 6. is received, advising that you are informed that no farmers have been allowed to work under the unemployment scheme.
I can definitely assure you that your information is in general quite incorrect, because a 41761-97	[DOT]
very large proportion of the expenditures that have been made is the result of road grading work, gravelling, et cetera, in which farmers only have participated, and the Director of Unemployment Relief has received numerous complaints that many farmers in comfortable circumstances

Rich farmers.
-who were not in need, have enjoyed a large share of the benefits of these unemployment relief works.
I cannot say as to the municipality of Notre Dame du Lac, which you mention, but generally speaking I inow the above to be true.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) G. D. Robertson,
Minister of Labour.
Apparently the then minister thought the farmers were rich and did not need assistance. Some Conservative members have complained that in the province of Quebec Conservatives were not given a chance to work. In my constituency that condition certainly does not obtain. On all relief works Conservatives were treated as well as Liberals. May I point out that the Liberals have not introduced politics into the matter of relief, but Conservatives have. The government has appointed two men, one in Montreal and one in Quebec, to prevent Liberals from obtaining work when they were in poor circumstances and needed help.
Le Soleil of March 22 contains an interview by Lieutenant Colonel J. L. Boulanger, provincial Deputy Minister of Roads, which is as follows:
(Translation):
We have been able to obtain, thanks to an excellent organization and the good will of the workers, a return of 100 per cent on this work-
Work on the highways.
*-and we have employed, without making any distinction, Liberals and Conservatives. The very best feelings prevailed among the groups of labourers, and we cooperated with the Director of unemployment and his assistants.
He adds:
As in the case of labour, materials were equally supplied by Liberal and Conservative contractors.
I had to complain about relief works, because no Liberals were allowed to work on repairs to wharves until I communicated with the Minister of Public Works. After I told him, he was fair enough to give instructions to the effect that relief must be given to people belonging to any political party.
I made a suggestion to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland). I wrote him to tell him that in the armoury at Riviere du Loup there was some clothing which could be given to the unemployed. I said there was

153S

Unemployment Continuance Act
no war and that the clothes which had been there for several years and otherwise would be eaten by the moths could be used by those who needed them. His answer was "No." I relate that incident because I believe it is well to remind him of it. I do not wish to speak further, but should like to quote from Montesquieu, the great French philosopher, who wrote about the organization of the state. The following are his words:
In a free state, every man who is supposed a free agent ought to be concerned in his own government; therefore the legislative should reside in the whole body of the people or their representatives. The political liberty of the subject is a tranquillity of mind, arising from the opinion each person has of his safety. In order to have this liberty, it is requisite the government be so constituted that one man need not be afraid of another. When the power of making laws and the power of executing them are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or Senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.
A great British parliamentarian, Charles James Fox, on one occasion uttered these memorable words:
We are compelled to own that the democratic form of government gives a power of which no other form is capable. Why? Because it incorporates every man with the state. Because it arouses everything that belongs to the soul, as well as to the body of man. Because it makes every individual feel that he is fighting for himself; that it is his owm cause, his own safety, his owm dignity, on the face of the earth, that he is asserting.
Then may I quote Byron:
Freedom's battle, once begun,
Bequeath'd by bleeding sire to son,
Tho' baffled oft, is ever won.
In my part of the country, Mr. Speaker, we do not complain of the fact that the federal director of unemployment wrote us for information with respect to the best way of helping the unemployed; but we do complain that no notice was taken of the representations which we made to him. Why should he object that we sent to him requests for works that came under provincial jurisdiction when at the time no order in council had been passed designating the relative jurisdiction in the matter of the federal and provincial authorities? I am confident that every member of this house took the same course-gave the director of unemployment relief all available information in reply to his request. My grievance is that in my constituency certain selfish people were too ready to keep all they possibly could for themselves without giving any consideration whatever to their need}' brothers. May I tell the right [Mr. Pouliot.}
hon. Prime Minister and the members of his government that I am convinced they are well-disposed towards our people who are suffering at the present time, and I cannot believe they are so hard-hearted as to shut their eyes to the misery of the unemployed. Therefore I would advise them to take the right means to help those people. We on this side of the house do not pretend to be infallible, neither do we think our friends opposite never make mistakes, but I believe we are all animated by good will towards the unemployed, and we are here at great personal sacrifice to do our best to relieve their sufferings as far as possible. That is why we offer our very hearty cooperation to the government, and in discussing matters affecting unemployment we do so not to obstruct, but to keep the government well posted on matters of such vital importance to the country generally.


Charles Marcil: On behalf of my constituents Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) to the fact that this present bill will not meet their requirements. Last week I had the pleasure of presenting to him a petition from my people to extend relief until the first of June, or, if possible, the first of July. I hope he will give this request his favourable consideration.
On August 7, 1931, in common with other members of the house, I received a letter from the dominion director of unemployment relief asking for information as to steps necessary to give employment to the largest number of people in my constituency. I had copies of the letter made and sent to about thirty municipalities in my riding, and I got the local authorities to cooperate and recommend what works should be undertaken. Those recommendations were transmitted to the minister, but that is the last I heard of them until some months ago, when I found that an agreement bad been arrived at between the federal and the provincial government to assume their respective shares of the cost of certain unemployment relief works. These works are divided into three classes in my constituency. First, we have the ordinary federal public works, but no new undertakings of this class have been started. Secondly, we have provincial public works, part of the cost of which is contributed by the dominion treasury. The third class covers municipal works in which the farmers of my riding are more directly concerned, the cost of which is borne by the dominion, the province and the municipality in certain proportions. The disadvantages of

Unemployment Continuance Act
this latter class of works is that they do not provide sufficient employment. After the elections in 1930 the people expected that the new administration would bring about such an improved state of affairs that there would be no unemployment, that work would be found for everyone, and that the prosperity that had existed so long under the Laurier regime, and again under the Mackenzie King regime, would prevail once more.
Of course, the measures taken now cannot be considered a solution of the problem of unemployment. The people of my riding are disappointed that the promises made to them in 1930 have not been fulfilled, and the closing up of saw mills and other local industries has brought about a condition in my constituency more serious than anything I can remember. I have had the honour of sitting in this house through many sessions- this is my thirty-fifth-and I am sorry to say that I have never seen Canada passing through such an ordeal of depression as now prevails. In the campaign of 1878, when the Mackenzie government was turned out of office because of hard times, the depression was a drop in the bucket compared with the present condition. In 1894 and 1895 we had a similar condition; then Laurier came into office. Now, after twenty or twenty-five years, we seem to agree that the policy inaugurated by Laurier and Fielding was sound. The chief reason for our difficulties at the present time, our financial condition, our railway catastrophe and our unemployment situation, is lack of markets. We have no markets for our products, and that condition has been brought about by increases in the tariff which have closed our markets to the products of other countries and shut our goods out of other markets. Tariffs are barriers to the free intercourse of nations; they must be lowered if we are to have good will between the nations of the world and if prosperity is to return.
When I was elected in 1911 we did not dream we would soon be at war with Germany, but I was here for the special session in August, 1914, and I was proud to pledge the support of my people in that crisis. We had no choice then; we were not asked whether or not we wanted to go to war. War had been declared, and the money for the first, second and third contingents was voted without a dissenting voice. But when the rules of the game were changed and conscription was imposed upon the people, we asked that the question be referred to the people. That request was refused. That was 41761-97J
the second time closure was resorted to in thio house, but now it has become quite a common practice. Probably as our business increases and the time at our disposal decreases, closure will be invoked more often.
I say frankly, Mr. Speaker, that in connection with a question so vitally affecting the people as that of unemployment, it is too bad that an understanding could not have been arrived at between the two political parties. The leader of the opposition declared many times in the name of the party to which I have the honour to belong that we were prepared to give the government all possible assistance if they would follow parliamentary practice. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, who are old parliamentarians, know that this is far removed from ordinary parliamentary procedure; it is something to which we are not accustomed. Though we may have faith in the honesty of the government and may feel sure that this money will be expended in the public interest, there is no limit to the expenditure. The St. Lawrence waterway or anything else might be constructed under this measure. Back in 1837 this same question of taxation without representation came to a head. The governor of that day was surrounded by a council and did not consult the assembly; he simply imposed taxes and spent the money as he saw fit. The people objected; the cry of "no taxation without representation" was kept up for several years, and finally all that we asked was conceded. All we ask now is that the foundation of parliamentary institutions be observed and that the control of public expenditures by the representatives of the people be continued. That is the parliamentary procedure, and it should be followed. Unfortunately it has not been followed; the majority rules, the majority have resorted to closure, and we have had to submit. But let me again call the attention of the government to the fact that they are mistaken if they imagine that by such means as this the difficulty in Canada can be remedied. It will be remedied only when a wiser policy prevails and when we realize that we cannot do business with other nations unless they do business with us. If we break down those barriers and maintain a tariff merely for the purposes of revenue we will be doing something really worth while.
In the old days,' Mr. Speaker, the idea of federal taxation was that it should be indirect collected through customs and excise and so on, but circumstances have changed and the

Unemployment Continuance Act
case has been altered. Now we have a new state of affairs. We are to have a conference, and for the sake of the country I hope that conference may be successful. When the delegates of the British government come here and ask if we will admit from Great Britain cottons, woollen goods, iron and steel and coal, what will be our position? One of the planks of the platform of the Conservative party is protection for cotton and woollen mills, the iron and steel industry and so on. We can get nothing from Great Britain unless we give something in return; we must give a quid pro quo. We will be compelled by the force of circumstances to follow that idea, and then I hope a new light will dawn on the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. They may realize then that when England imposed a tariff, that tariff amounted to only ten per cent. The high tariff we have in this country is of no advantage either to the government or to the country; the higher the tariff the smaller the revenue. Our trade has fallen off by about $500,000,000 or $600,000,000 in the last two or three years, something we did not dream could happen in such a short time. We are losing from $500,000 to $1,000,000 a week on our railways; people are unemployed, and we are in a serious condition. As I said before, it is too bad that both political parties could not have agreed to the appointment of a national committee to deal with the situation. There are times in the history of nations, as well as in the history of individuals, when we must get away from parties, and I hope the government will consult the men at the heads of the provincial governments so that before this session closes we may show that we are willing to cooperate and do our share of what must be done.
Let me conclude by again directing the attention of the Minister of Labour to the geographical location of the county of Bona-venture, where the long winter and late spring have made it impossible to carry on the work proposed. No relief has been given there; few of the works have been even started, so if the government persist in handing out money this way they will have to extend this measure far beyond May 1. There is a mayoralty campaign proceeding in the city of Montreal at the present time, and every night speeches are being made by the candidates and their friends. It is being freely predicted that next winter will be the worst in the history of Montreal, with no relief given, with the work on the new station stopped and no new work being commenced.

The condition in which we find ourselves is very bad, and I sympathize with the Prime Minister in his predicament. I hope he will see the wisdom of dropping party lines at a time like this and working with all hon. members of this house in the interests of the whole people.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Gott in the chair.
On section 1-Validity of act and proceedings thereunder notwithstanding date of expiration.


Mr. HOWARD:: The Minister of Labour is not in his place, but no doubt other ministers will answer two or three questions I have to ask. At page 28 of the report giving a resume of unemployment relief I find that the city of Sherbrooke was allotted a certain amount of money, and the proportions paid from the federal treasury and out of different moneys are given. At page 65 there is an item, at the bottom of the page, of money spent in Sherbrooke and taken out of unemployment money, but through the Public Works department. Why is this separation made? For what reason has money been spent through the Public Works department and also directly from the unemployment relief fund?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were made out of the fund direct appropriations which were expended under the control of the Public Works department as public works. Then there were municipal works which were arranged between the province and the municipalities, to which the dominion contributed the proportions that are mentioned in the schedules. The division was arrived at in this way. In Nova Scotia, for instance, where there had been a storm that had swept over a considerable section of the coast, repairs had to be made to wharves, and matters of that kind. In the province of Quebec, as the hon. gentleman will recall, communications were sent to the members, and I am bound to say that if the suggestions had all been given effect to it' would have been rather difficult to conduct government at all. But in a broad and general way Mr. Hereford tabulated them and then the department undertook the construction of the works in question, similar to those that are mentioned here, some of which could be completed by February 29, although others could not. The Department of the Interior had, for example, a grant with respect to national parks, and under

Unemployment Continuance Act
railways and canals there were matters to which reference has been made this afternoon. The dividing line was arbitrarily fixed in one way but not in another; that is to say, such works as it has been the custom of the Public Works department or the Railway department or the Department of the Interior to undertake were undertaken by these departments in connection with unemployment relief, the object being to employ as many people' as possible while work was being carried forward.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The Prime Minister has not exactly got what I am driving at. The money was allotted and the proportions were fixed to be contributed by the city of Sherbrooke, by the federal government and by the provincial authorities, and that money went through the channels of the provincial government; this government did not have it. It went through the provincial government, who approved of the works, and the city of Sherbrooke contributed its share and did the work. At the bottom of page 65 there are indicated certain works done directly from here. I am not going to discuss these items except where they concern my own county, but, as I say, at the bottom of page 65 there is this small item: "Sherbrooke-public building, S742." The point is this. That money was taken out of the public treasury or out of the unemployment fund; but why was it not shown in the estimates in the regular way, charged either to income or to capital through the Public Works department, and not from unemployment moneys? Who is to decide whether the money shall come out of the unemployment fund or through the regular channels of the Public Works department


Richard Bedford Bennett: I take it that the hon.
gentleman, being a resident of Sherbrooke, will be able to determine whether or not that $742 was for repairs. With respect to a large number of these items, my memory is that reports were asked for from the resident engineers as to what works might reasonably be done to afford employment to casual labourers such as carpenters and men occupied similarly. This $742, if it is like the items I have in mind-the hon. gentleman will be able to speak with authority so far as this item is concerned-would represent work done for the purpose of affording such employment as was possible to men who sometimes might, for instance, repair a sewer or perhaps the outside premises in connection with a public building, or who might do painting. Painting is one bit of work that was done in many instances. The reason it is not in the estimates is that parliament was not in session
at the time the money was expended or when the reports were made; but as I have indicated to the house on many occasions, these items are all represented by vouchers for expenditure, which the auditor general approves, as he does any other item of public expenditure. They could not well be in the estimates because they did not arise until afterwards. The supreme purpose was unemployment relief.


Mr. DONNELLY:: At the last session the Prime Minister told us that in order to relieve distress in the dried-out area and in the agricultural districts of the west, the government proposed a $5,000,000 revolving credit, through a credit association under what is known as the Beatty scheme. Has that scheme been put into operation and has credit been extended to the western farmers? Perhaps the Prime Minister will inform the committee how much has been given out or whether that scheme is in operation at the present time. Is there a report?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I told hon. gentlemen, it was not a governmental instrumentality; it was an instrumentality for the public to which the government had made a contribution. A contribution was made through the Canadian National Railways and contributions were made through the Canadian Pacific Railway, the banks and the trust companies to create the fund; but the government has nothing whatever to do with the direction or administration of it. I have not inquired into the matter within the last month or so, but the administration was in charge of a very excellent gentleman as general manager, who at one time, if my memory serves me, was general manager of the Weyburn Securities bank. As to the extent to which their operations were carried on, I cannot say, because I have not the information; it has not been given to us. It is not a governmental instrumentality.


Mr. NEILL:: I wish to move a small
amendment if the Prime Minister will accept it; if he does not, I will not press it. In the fifth line of section 1, I would suggest that the word "not" should be deleted and inserted instead after the word "deemed." As the section reads now, it is provided that the act "shall not be deemed to have expired" on a certain date. The dictionary meaning of the word "deemed" is thought, or considered, or assumed, or pretended. While "pretended" is an excessive stressing of the word, in this case I use it because it illustrates best my meaning. So that we are going to say now

Unemployment Continuance Act
that we shall not pretend that the act has expired on a certain date. It is not pretence to say that the act expired because we all know that it expired at the time stated. That is, therefore, illogical, and is bad grammar. But we can pretend, or assume that it did not expire. I think it would be better if it read as follows:
The orders in council and regulations made thereunder shall be deemed not to have expired, etc.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The language of many statutes by custom and habit is not always the language that purists and stylists such as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) would choose. In this instance the law officer of this house has settled the terms in the manner indicated and I think there is sufficient authority in British statutes of a similar character for the use of the words in just that way.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, I had not finished my observations. The item which I mentioned and which appears at the bottom of page 65 covers repairs to a public building in Sherbrooke. I would direct the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that by the use of this method we will not be able to show the Canadian public a true picture of affairs for the next twelve months. I claim that that $742 should have been an expenditure of the Department of Public Works chargeable to income, such as is shown in the estimates or provided for in the contingent fund. Had this been done, the Auditor General's report for next year would show the expenditures for public works as so much, and the expenditures for unemployment as so much. Using this method more money will be shown as having been expended on unemployment than really was legitimately chargeable thereto, while the phblic works estimates will show a smaller expenditure than was actually the case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman should realize that this was not an ordinary expenditure nor was it intended to be such; this is an expenditure of $742 to cover repairs to that building for one purpose and one only, to afford relief and employment. It does not rank with the ordinary expenditures for public works. All the safeguards with which the law surrounds expenditures are observed by the Auditor General and by the departmental officials, and I am quite sure that the minister in charge will be pleased to show to the hon. gentleman the original documents which refer to this expenditure. I cannot see that an expenditure thus made for a specific purpose

can be taken as having an effeot upon the general position of the country. It is regarded as money borrowed, and, as a matter of fact, it is part of the obligations of the country as a whole. If conditions improve, as we believe they must or else this country will not be worth even its loans, these obligations will be met out of income as they mature. We are thus enabled to transfer to income charges which ordinarily, but for the depression, would have been made against income.


Charles Benjamin Howard: That may be all right as far as it goes, but surely the Prime Minister does not think that when the city of Sherbrooke is spending $320,000 on unemployment, an expenditure of $742 will change the situation very much?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Charles Benjamin Howard: That is just the point. I do not think a correct picture of the nation's affairs will be shown in the future. I do not doubt that vouchers can be produced for the money expended, but I do not like this way of doing things. I contend that this expenditure for repairs to the public building in Sherbrooke should have been chargeable to income or to the contingent fund, rather than to the unemployment fund.


Mr. RALSTON:: Mr. Chairman, I desire
to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister a matter which I mentioned last year. At that time I intimated that I would not trouble him with any particulars but I asked him to look into the question of the manner in which men were selected to receive the benefits of the various relief projects.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think the hon. gentleman asked me a question with respect to that matter.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, I did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it was the Minister of Labour. I did not understand that I had undertaken any responsibility with respect to that, because obviously I would not be in position to furnish the information.


James Layton Ralston: My right hon. friend was piloting the bill last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes, last year.


James Layton Ralston: I told my right hon.
friend that I would not trouble him with details but I felt that the administration of the act should be looked into. At that time I had under my hand the particulars of a number of instances in which I felt that the money of the country was being wasted in so far as it was not reaching the needy and

Unemployment Continuance Act
those for whom it was intended, and that others were being discriminated against. I wanted to give my right hon. friend and the Minister of Labour a chance to evolve some system whereby there would be a decent and proper distribution of labour. A few days ago I mentioned that the system had not proven, at least in the province of Nova Scotia, to be working out in the interests of those who are most in need.
I shall mention three or four instances to my right hon. friend, and I believe that he as a business man and as a man who intends to get the most for the country's money in the way of relief will realize that these instances indicate that this money is not being properly spent and is not reaching those for whom it was intended.
One case was brought to my attention in my own constituency where of those employed on the work, three were in good circumstances, four had bank accounts, and ten were unmarried men. There were several men with families in that neighbourhood who were in hard circumstances but who were refused work. I do not intend to put on record the reason for this refusal, but I will say that it was not that they did not need work. I do not believe that the Minister of Labour himself would approve of the reason given and that is why I ask for an investigation of some of these cases.
Another case was where one man employed on the work was well enough off to be able to lend money to the school section, while the only support of a widowed mother was refused work.
In another instance the son of a widowed mother of eight, the bread winner of the family, three other men each with five or six dependents, one with a family of nine and ten others were refused work while there were employed one man with a bank account, and an unmarried man whose father and brother were both permanent employees of the provincial government and had been working steadily.
In another instance where seven men were employed, no less than five had bank accounts, while others, in need were refused work.
I have received a return in connection with another case at lower Sandy Point in Shelburne county. In this instance the total expenditure was $2,996, one thousand dollars of which was unemployment relief money. The gentleman employed as foreman was a storekeeper, the owner of an automobile and the operator of a taxicab. He drew no less than $229 at the rate of $4.50 per day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What sort of work was
he doing?


James Layton Ralston: He was acting as foreman, although he had had no experience with construction work. The reason he was employed, as hon. gentlemen can find out upon investigation, was that he was a good friend of the administration. Lots of men in this vicinity needed work but this storekeeper was selected a3 construction foreman.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is the hon. gentleman quite sure he is referring to work done under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act?


James Layton Ralston: I am, yes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: And not work done as
ordinary public works?


James Layton Ralston: I can let my hon. friend have the return, which is number 186. It shows that the total expenditure was $2,996, one thousand dollars of which was expended under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act. This money was all spent together and I cannot tell where the one begins and the other ends. The foreman on this work where $1,000 of unemployment relief money was expended was a storekeeper. In addition to this, two of his sons were employed. One drew $99, and the other $110. That makes about $438 out of the $2,900, or nearly half of the $1,000 drawn by these three men.
In addition to that, another shopkeeper who was on the work, a Mr. Coffin, appears as a labourer and as a timber man and appears also for a team of oxen, and a gentleman who I understand is his son appears for a double team, and they between them get $340. So there is a total of $778 paid out to men who did not need unemployment relief at all, $778 out of a total vote of $2,900. Now if that situation exists generally, then it seems to me that we are not getting the benefit of the unemployment relief money and that it is not being devoted to the purpose for which it was voted by this parliament or which was intended by the government; for the government did make definite regulations that party and creed and religion and race was not in any way to interfere with a man's employment. But that has been allowed to interfere in connection with these cases and in connection with quite a number of others that I could cite.
I have not brought this matter to the attention of the committee without first having brought it to the attention of the Minister of Labour, not my hon. friend who now occupies that portfolio (Mr. Gordon), but his predecessor. I wrote to his predecessor

Unemployment Continuance Act
last fall and gave him one of these instances and asked him to investigate the case. I also wrote to the director of unemployment in Nova Scotia and called his attention to the matter. The then Minister of Labour wrote me back that it was something of a minor case; that was the adjective he used. I wrote back rather strongly and intimated that it seemed to me that the government was not doing its duty and the Department of Labour was not doing its duty if it did not see that this money reached the people for whom it was intended, namely, the needy, and that nobody else but the Minister of Labour and the Department of Labour were responsible for seeing that this money reached this class of people. We had some correspondence about it, but the result was nil. Now those instances have occurred and they still remain uninvestigated.
This is what I ask of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. I ask, first, that these cases be investigated. If the information which is given me is wrong I want to know it, but this is the information that comes to me, and I believe it to be correct. The information has come from a number of different sources which I believe to be reliable.
I ask, in the second place, that some method be adopted by the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the administration of this money, whereby the selection of the unemployed will be made by people who have no political interest one way or the other, such as the overseers of the poor, the clergymen of the district, a Red Cross committee. Somebody who knows who are those most in need and who are most deserving, should be selected for the purpose of saying who shall go on these jobs; for I say to my right hon. friend, whether he thinks it is the case or not, that down in Nova Scotia in a great many cases the needy' and the unemployed are waiting outside the doors of the Tory patronage committee to see if they are going to get put on the job or not, and men are being taken on just under the same old organization as operates in respect of ordinary federal public works. That is, a foreman is appointed, a friend of the party. He meets the patronage committee, and they decide who is going to get the work and who is not, and they are influenced in very large degree by the politics of the various applicants. I say it cannot be otherwise so long as my hon. friend the Minister of Labour leaves it that way. All the instructions that he can issue and all the orders in council that he can put through will not stop that sort of thing, because after all what you are trying to do, or should do,

is not to deal with the matter here in Ottawa, but to reach the needy of that particular district and provide them with work and an opportunity for sustenance for themselves and their families. The people who are allowed to make the selections are in many cases not taking the instructions issued from Ottawa. So I ask my hon. friend in the first place to investigate, and in the second place to adopt a different system in regard to the distribution of these relief moneys and particularly in the selection of the men who are to receive this relief work.
I wish to deal with certain other questions.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Would it not
necessarily happen in cases of the kind to which my hon. friend has referred, that the selections would be made by the officials of some municipal government?


James Layton Ralston: No, not in the counties
I know. I only wish that were true. The selections are made in the instances to which I have referred, I am informed, by the usual district patronage committee, the political patronage committee in the district.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Is my
hon. friend quite sure of the facts, or are his statements merely hearsay? He is a lawyer and he knows that the evidence which he has given to the committee would not for one minute be received in a court of law. It is a hearsay statement. I venture to say that the selection of these officials, if it is done in the same manner as it is done in New Brunswick, is made through the provincial government. In every case an outstanding man in the community is selected as foreman to take charge of the work. He will be a good man in whom the public will have confidence. The storekeeper to whom my hon. friend referred, if he has given a correct statement of the facts, and I am not questioning that at all, probably is a man who understands construction, and the fact that he runs a little country store does not preclude him from being capable of carrying on construction work of that character.


James Layton Ralston: It means that other people who are just as well qualified and who need the work do not get the job.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That mayor may not be true. I am pointing out that being a storekeeper does not necessarily mean that he is not a proper man for carrying on that work. I venture to suggest that if the facts were known it would be found that the foreman was appointed through the provincial

Unemployment Continuance Act
Department of Public Works, the municipalities in these cases not having anything to do with the employment of the men and not contributing anything.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will
listen to me, the foreman is appointed on the recommendation of the district engineer for the federal Department of Public Works. Because I was frank enough to say that I would like to have an investigation, my hon. friend seems to think that I am not quite convinced of the soundness of the case I am presenting.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not
say that.


James Layton Ralston: What I say and what I
said before is that I received my information from a number of different sources which I believe to be reliable, and when I state that according to the information a storekeeper is selected for work of this kind and that men with bank accounts in different places in the constituency I represent are being put on the work, I say that the burden is on my right hon. friend to have an investigation and find out who is making these selections, because the men selected and given the work are not the men for whom the money was voted at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought the hon. gentleman said that the district engineer made the recommendations.


James Layton Ralston: I know that the district
engineer made the recommendations, but of course he made them on the recommendations of the local patronage committee. That is what he always does.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
what he did when you were minister.


James Layton Ralston: Certainly he did, and I
am not making any objection to that system when you are dealing with ordinary federal public works. I have never objected to that system in the case of ordinary federal public works. I have taken my medicine, if you like to put it that way, and when I have been administering patronage people have been selected who have been favourable to the government. But that is not what we are dealing with here. We are dealing with relief to the needy. The Prime Minister stated so himself. He said that the relief of the needy is what we are after. Under these circumstances you cannot have the same system that prevails under what is known as the ordinary political patronage system. That is what I am saying. I say to my right hon. friend that
so long as you use the ordinary organization, with the local district political patronage committee selecting the foreman, and the foreman consulting with the committee to find out what men he should put on the pay-roll and what men he should not, you cannot have a fair administration of the act.


Mr. HACKETT:: Is the method followed in Nova Scotia any different from that followed in the other provinces?-in Quebec, for instance, where the municipalities alone select the men upon whom these moneys are to be spent, and by whom the work is to be done?


James Layton Ralston: I have never heard in my constituency of the municipalities making any selection of that kind whatsoever.


John Thomas Hackett: Is not the work done by the municipalities?


James Layton Ralston: No. The work is either direct federal public work or work contributed to by the provincial and federal administrations. I know of no instance where the work has been municipal. When my right hon. friend has that machinery he cannot expect it to work properly. There would be no use having the most .pious regulations in the world. Therefore I submit he has to revise his method and select some sort of impartial committee, or the overseers of the poor, or a citizens' committee. I wrote to the provincial director of unemployment, Mr. Spicer, and made that suggestion to him. I said, "Get the services of the overseers of the poor; they know the poor and those who need work. They are the people to make selections. Or, if that is not satisfactory, let the Red Cross or a local citizens' committee do the work." He wrote back and said he did not think-


Mr. SPENCE:: Get a good Liberal.


James Layton Ralston: Well, if we had one or two Liberals out of ten or twenty it would not be so bad. I assure hon. members opposite that even some of the Liberals are needy. I made the suggestion to Mr. Spicer and he wrote back saying he was not sure that the men suggested by overseers of the poor would be the best for the work. I assure you, Mr. Chairman it is better to spend unemployment relief money for those who are needy even though some might not do as efficient work rather than for those who do not need assistance.


Mr. HEAPS:: What kind of work was it?


James Layton Ralston: Work on breakwaters,
wharves and roads. '

Unemployment Continuance Act


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: I know I should not interrupt my hon. friend but I should like to ask what portion of the relief moneys in the province of Nova Scotia is expended on wharves and breakwaters such as he has suggested? I should like to ask this further question: Is it not true that 97 per cent of the foremen appointed by engineers in Halifax responsible for the construction of the breakwaters were appointed by a Liberal administration? Is that not so?


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Chairman, shall we return to the question before us?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I should like an answer.


James Layton Ralston: I do not know how much money was spent on wharves and breakwaters. The minister may be able to tell my hon. friend. I should think that in the western end of Nova Scotia about $50,000 has been spent on wharves and breakwaters.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I want to tell my hon. friend that this government spent $148,000 in the constituency represented by my hon. friend.


James Layton Ralston: I have a return in my room. I am not going to bandy words with my hon. friend, but I assure him he is wrong. With regard to the appointment of federal engineers I must say I do not know whether any have been appointed lately or not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are appointed by the Civil Service Commission.


James Layton Ralston: I do say that in our district the recommendations to the engineers are made by local committees. With that machinery we cannot get along very well, so far as the administration of these funds is concerned My hon. friend the Minister of Labour should see that the situation is remedied.


George Gordon: The situation which has
been spread upon the record by the hon. member, if true or based upon facts, would of course raise great anxiety anywhere in Canada. It is strange, however, that the Department of Labour has never received a single complaint, even from the hon. member himself.


James Layton Ralston: I am surprised at that
statement. If the minister had ever read his files he would know something about it.


George Gordon: I do know.


James Layton Ralston: He knows nothing about
it.


George Gordon: You are in Montreal, and not in the Department of Labour.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend will find
a file of his own predecessor setting out specifically one instance, and adding that the instance described was but a sample. A further request was made that the then minister make an investigation.


George Gordon: Instead of sending a
sample why did you not send the substance?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has made one statement which has proven to be wrong. During the last day or two he has shown a lamentable lack of knowledge of the working of his department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A very unfair statement.


James Layton Ralston: He would have done
better to have stayed in the house and listened to the discussion than to run around the corridors, as he has been doing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very small, cheap.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend got up
and made the statement that I had not made a single complaint, when the fact is that I had expressly stated before and repeat it today that I had made complaints. There are available about four letters which passed between the predecessor of the present minister and myself. Why does he take that stand? Simply out of ignorance, that is all-nothing else.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Getting nasty again.


James Layton Ralston: In view of the fact that
complaints have been made, will the minister have investigations made? If he finds that my contentions are correct, will he take steps to correct the mistake and have selections made by some body capable of selecting men for these different works? I wait for the minister's answer.


George Gordon: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member does not need to wait long. I have had something to do with the administration of the act, and for the past two years have worked in conjunction with many bodies throughout Canada. I am not going to suggest mistakes have not been made. Owing to the fact, however, that my hon. friend lives in the city of Montreal, far away from his riding, and his information is purely hearsay, I do not feel inclined to have investigations made.

Unemployment Continuance Act


James Layton Ralston: That is about the finest
exhibition of shifty work I have witnessed.


An hon. MEMBER:: You should know.


James Layton Ralston: I have given my hon.
friend the facts. I have been in my own constituency, and talked with the men who gave the information to me. My contentions are on record in the department over which my hon. friend has control. However, if he is quite content with it-


An hon. MEMBER:: Give us the names.


George Gordon: Yes, let us have the names.


James Layton Ralston: The minister is not interested in them, at all.


George Gordon: Yes, I am quite interested.


James Layton Ralston: I believe the Minister
of Public Works wishes to make a few comments.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman,
I desire briefly to reply to some of the statements made by the hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). I wish to assure him that when starting out on this program to relieve the unemployed the government and every member of it kept in mind the primary object of having the work conducted in every case so as to provide the largest possible measure of relief to those in need. I think my hon. friend will admit we had no easy task, and that at times it is impossible to conduct work of this kind in a way which will be absolutely fair and satisfactory to all parties concerned. We agree also that sometimes for some motive or another complaints are made which are not well founded. Sometimes the motives are political, and sometimes they are motives equally unsatisfactory. I wish to assure my hon. friend that from the beginning the Department of Public Works and the officials connected with it have realized their responsibility. We started out with the fixed determination that as far as we could control the situation the work should be given to those who most needed it. I am not aware that my hon. friend sent to the department any complaints whatever with respect to work in his constituency. If he did, such complaints were immediately investigated, and if any abuses were found they were corrected -not only in his constituency, but in every other constituency from which any complaints came.
From the beginning the government has made a sincere and honest, and, in large measure, a very successful effort to meet the unemployment situation in the administration
of these works. I am going to read to my hon. friend a letter that early in the season was sent out from the Department of Public Works to all the district engineers. It is dated November 25, 1931:
Dear Sir,-
It has, in a few instances, been reported to the department that the spirit and intent of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, in connection with employment of labour, have not been fully lived up to. The purpose of providing funds from which works would be carried out was to give employment to the needy and this was to be so arranged that the funds available for payment of labour would be distributed as fairly as possible among those in the locality where work was being carried on who were known to be in need, and in the first instance to those who were also the support of dependents.
Employment was to be given to parties in the above category regardless of political affiliations, race or creed.
The department wishes to reiterate that employment is to be distributed as fairly as possible among the people in the locality where money is being expended by giving employment to those in need of funds to sustain their dependents and themselves, and who have not other resources to carry them over the present period.
Employment is to be offered regardless of any political or religious affiliations, or racial stock.
In order that employment may be distributed amongst the needy as fairily as possible, the authorities in the locality who are in a position to know the circumstances of heads of families, and who can be most relied on to furnish a list of parties in need, are to be consulted, and the men are to be engaged in rotation for a few days at a time.
You will be expected to see, as far as possible, that the spirit and intent of parliament in granting the funds for this purpose, and of the government in allotting the funds, are met.
Kindly let me know what your procedure is in assuring this result.
That letter on the instructions of the head of the department was sent by the chief engineer to every district engineer. We have many letters of approval and commendation as to the way in which the works have been carried on. As I have said, any complaint that came in was immediately investigated. In some cases foremen were suspended, in other cases they were dismissed, and in every instance a sincere attempt was made to rectify anything that was not in keeping with the spirit of this legislation and with the tenor of these instructions.


Mr. YENIOT:: The minister will admit that his orders were not always obeyed, then.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In some instances they were not, and, as my hon. friend said, in his constituency where they were not obeyed the conditions were very speedily rectified.



I54S COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Unemployment Continuance Act
Jean-François Pouliot: Was a copy of that excellent letter sent to every Conservative member and to every defeated Tory candidate?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No. This is a letter of instructions to the responsible officers of the department-the district engineers-and it meant just what it said.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) not only wrote Mr. Spicer, who under the Department of Labour was the director of expenditures under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, but he also wrote to myself, and I was at pains to take up direct with Mr. Spicer the question which he raised in his letter. I am extremely sorry that not knowing that this stage of the subject would come under discussion this afternoon I am at the moment unable to place my hands on the answers I received and the statistics I have with respect to the investigations I made. But I am in a position to say this, that in every one of those cases investigation was made, and the information which came to me was that these works with respect to which my hon. friend was complaining that his friends were not being employed in as large numbers as they ought to be, were direct public works, which are entirely different, as my hon. friend will know-


James Layton Ralston: Certainly.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: -from relief works as such. Furthermore, my hon. friend in his statement a few moments ago said that the foremen in question were appointed by the district engineer of the Department of Public Works at Halifax. If that is so, it is evident upon its face that they were direct public works.


James Layton Ralston: Oh no.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Otherwise the appointments in question would come under the direction of the Department of Labour upon the recommendation of the representative of the Department of Labour in Nova Scotia.
But let me say this to my hon. friend. Although I have not the records before me, I know something of political divisions in that province, I know something of the political atmosphere down there, and speaking from memory, but I think with correctness, I may say my hon. friend was the only member from Nova Scotia who wrote to me by way of complaint with respect to expenditures in tha-t province. Furthermore, let me say to him that his complaint arises in the constituency of Shelburne-Yarmouth. I hope the fact that that is the only constituency from which at the moment I have had complaints of any

kind whatsoever does not cast any reflection upon the character of the political administration carried on there when my hon. friend was minister. But the fact of the matter is this, his are the only complaints I have had from that province. On the other hand, I have had numerous complaints from political friends of my own that they were not getting opportunities for employment, and they presented upon the face of it a very good case indeed why they ought to be employed. They complained very bitterly that a large number of Liberals could get employment.
But to my mind the best evidence upon the whole that expenditures in that province were based upon unemployment and need, irrespective of the political affiliations of those who were employed, is found in the circumstance that the Halifax Chronicle-which I may say is a rock-ribbed, thick-and-thin Liberal newspaper, the like of which is not to be found in any other part of Canada- sent a reporter down through the province to investigate expenditures upon public works, and amongst other places, he visited the constituency of Shelburne-Yarmouth. I am sorry I have not under my hand-if the debate proceeds beyond to-day I will produce it- the statement in that newspaper by its reporter that he found the work had been distributed with absolute fairness so far as the political complexion of the people employed was concerned. My hon. friend is too wise to attempt to argue from the particular to the general, but in effect that is what he is trying to do w'hen he cites the case involving some S200. Let us admit that in the case in point men who should not have been employed were employed. I submit that this proves nothing in view of the fact that there was authorized for the province of Nova Scotia, not only under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act but through direct public works, the expenditure of no less than $1,600,000, the larger part of which was either expended or in process of being expended. As my hon. friend knows, a large part of that amount was spent on highways under the direct supervision of the province, which made a contribution. I may say to my hon. friend that I have yet to receive one complaint from the province of Nova Scotia that this work was not fairly allocated and divided without regard to the political views of the men employed.
I would say this:	If my hon. friend has
no better evidence with which to bolster up his assertion that money was improperly expended in Nova Scotia than the evidence he has brought forward this afternoon-if it

Unemployment Continuance Act
can be called evidence-then he has made a very poor case indeed. I submit that in all fairness to my hon. friend. I think in justice not only to the provincial government but to this government, with regard to expenditures which were made by the Department of Public Works, it is only fair that I should make this general statement in reply to my hon. friend.


Mr. SHORT:: As my constituency joins
that of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yar-mouth, I am somewhat familiar with conditions in that part of the province. Perhaps I know a little more about those conditions than the hon. member knows, because I spend a great deal more time among my constituents than he spends among his.
I had some $56,000 of this unemployment relief money expended on public works in my constituency, and the only complaint I heard was that too many Liberals and not enough Conservatives were obtaining employment. The trouble with my hon. friend is that his constituency has been Liberal almost constantly since confederation, and a Conservative never obtained a single dollar of public money that was spent in that riding. The Liberals have been so accustomed to spending public money that when a Conservative gets a few dollars they think it does not belong to him, and that is the whole difficulty.
The Minister of Finance mentioned the Halifax Chronicle, which sent a reporter around to the different works to see how the money was being spent. I hold in my hand a report that appeared in the Halifax Chronicle, and every Liberal in the province of Nova Scotia swears by that paper whether it is right or wrong. This article refers to one of the public works undertaken in my constituency, and it states:
Public wharf at Weymouth is completed.
Four hundred foot wharf costing $15,000 built entirely from 'local labour unemployment aid.
Weymouth, February 5.-The public wharf built at Weymouth North during the late autumn and winter under the unemployment relief work act is now completed. The wharf which is 400 feet long was built under the supervision of Captain H. B. Fitzgerald of Weymouth North,-
I may say that Captain Fitzgerald is also a storekeeper. My hon. friend mentioned that a storekeeper had been acting as foreman. Captain Fitzgerald is a storekeeper, but previously he was a ship builder and he is thoroughly competent. I assume that the man in my hon. friend's constituency is the same type. Many of these men are retired captains who built vessels in their day, and
who are familiar with carpentering work of that kind. The article goes on:
-and was of great help to the people of that district who had no employment. It gave work to about 100 men, fishermen, farmers, labourers -regardless of politics or religious creeds. The men worked in shifts with about twenty-three men to a shift; besides the work on the wharf itself, the getting of timber and lumber also gave employment to the nearby mills in the getting and sawing of it.
Further it states:
Practically the whole amount was spent in this place, the money for iron for the piers was spent in Digby county.
I quote this article in order to show that as far as work in my constituency was concerned, the foremen were instructed by the district engineer to give employment to as many persons who needed it as they possibly could, regardless of politics, religious views or anything else. It seems very peculiar that in the constituency of Shefcume-Yarmoutih, which adjoins mine, there should be so many complaints. As I say, I never received a single complaint except that too many Liberals and not enough Conservatives were receiving employment.


Mr. VENIOT:: I'll bet you fixed that.


Harry Bernard Short: No, I did not; I am not such a dyed-in-the-wool politician as my hon. friend. Every man in my constituency got a square deal.


Peter John Veniot: Oh, yes! !


Harry Bernard Short: This refers to only one of the federal works carried on in my constituency. The men were employed in shifts, twenty-three men to the shift, and over 100 men were given employment in that way. Probably another fifty men were kept busy getting out timber, ballast and supplies of that nature. This principle applied to every undertaking in my constituency; I visited each one personally and know whereof I speak. I am speaking from personal knowledge; my hon. friend from Shelbume-Yarmouth is speaking from hearsay, which he gets from party politicians in the different places where work is proceeding.


James Layton Ralston: In the first place, I am not taking the investigation of the Halifax Chronicle, as my friend the minister calls it, one way or the other; I am bringing to the attention of a responsible minister the fact that on the information I have-and I can give the names of the specific works-the order in council has been seriously violated in respect of the men who are receiving the benefit of this money. I do not care whether or not in Digby county there is a single example, but

Unemployment Continuance Act
I am rather surprised at the minister when he says he has not heard of any complaints. If he had read the Chronicle as much as he professes he would have seen a number of letters from men all over the province complaining very bitterly of the fact that they were deprived of work because of their politics.


Harry Bernard Short: That was not on public works; that was on highways.


James Layton Ralston: I remember distinctly a letter from a shore fisherman at Arichat, a man with twelve children, who complained that he was told "You want relief work now. You were so smart; you voted against us and prevented your women from coming to the polls in my car." That was in the constituency of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, and that letter appeared in the Chronicle. It is rather extraordinary that it escaped my hon. friend's attention.
I am not concerned with the matter of the Chronicle; I am concerned with the fact that in this constituency there are these instances coming to my attention of people who did not need unemployment relief half as much as their neighbours needed it, but who got that relief while others were deprived of it. The ministry can do as they like about it, but 1 ask them to investigate that condition, I say to the Minister of Finance that the only suggestion I have heard of any investigation made by Mr. Spicer was one instance, in which the best he could say was that all the men employed on the work were those who previously had been unemployed. That has nothing to do with the case. There are many men worth millions who are unemployed, but that does not entitle them to unemployment relief money. My point is that those most in need were not getting the work, and that aspect of the case does not seem to have been met. My hon. friend says he has looked into the matter; I appreciate that. But since he did look into the matter he might have given me the benefit of Mr. Spicer's report in connection with it. This is the first I have heard of his having made a report. I am appealing once more to the ministry, and if it is the Minister of Public Works I am delighted to take his assurance, because I understood it was the Minister of Labour who had to do with furnishing the work. I understood that the Minister of Public Works was the one actually doing the job, the mechanic, if I might put it that way with deference, although the people to be selected were necessarily the wards of the Department of Labour. That, I should think, would be the chain of responsibility. If the Minister of Public

Works will look into the matter I am perfectly satisfied that his investigation will be a fair one. Will the ministry give me that assurance, that they will look into these various cases to which I have referred? Surely I am not going to be expected to bring affidavits when I give specific instances in the constituencies. W'hen I point out that there is this complaint, surely the ministry of its own motion will make investigation without anything further. I do not have to come and prove the case here. I am not acting as prosecutor at all; I am simply bringing the matter to the attention of the ministry and asking them to investigate it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: So far as I recall, my hon. friend has not disclosed the names of the places where this work has been done. If he will give the names of the places and write a letter giving the substance of the complaint I will see that the matter is investigated.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 31, 1932