1933-03-03

[Stage Direction]
The clerk of petitions reported that he had examined the following petition and found that it did not comply with the requirements of paragraphs 4 and 7 of standing order 68 and therefore should not be received:
Petition of Duncan A. Campbell, and 6,695 others; demanding that the government institute immediate control of the mechanism of foreign exchanges; also a stay of proceedings for the foreclosure of mortgages and collection by forced sale.-Miss Macphail.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. Heenan be substituted for that of Mr. Dubuc on the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house-go into committee
at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Penitentiary Act to provide that the governor in council may appoint a superintendent of penitentiaries; and may appoint such inspectors, wardens, deputy wardens and other administrative or executive officers as may be required, with such salaries as are approved by the governor in council; and that the superintendent, upon the recommendation of the warden, may appoint such guards, trade instructors and other subordinate officers and employees as are necessary, with such salaries as are approved by the governor in council; and to make further provisions in respect to gratuities paid to officers on retirement and the widows or dependents of officers who die in the service.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: May I call the attention of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) to what seems to be a concerted direction given to employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I have received within the last few days five or six letters in which it is intimated that a further cut of ten per cent is going to be made by the company in wages, of which I know nothing; but besides, that the matter is to be dealt with by a committee of the house. I was rather surprised at the contents of those letters, but as the statement is contained in every one of them I presume some kind of intimation must have been given to these employees. Perhaps the minister could enlighten the house?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways) :: The hon. member for Labelle was
good enough to tell me he was going to ask this question. Perhaps it is as well to point out now as at any other time that there seems to be in this letter which he gave me, and in the other letters to which he draws attention, an entire misunderstanding of the whole question of wages on the railways. I have read in the press and been told informally by railway men that the managements of the two railways have proposed to the men a further decrease in the scale of wages. However it is obvious that this house could not appoint a committee to deal with the matter, because it is not directly within the power of the house, or the government to interfere with it in any way. It is a matter entirely between the managements of
Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Brown

the two railway companies and the men's unions. So that I am not able to offer any other suggestion to my hon. friend except that he might explain to his correspondents that neither the house nor the government has any power to interfere in the matter.



SURVEY OF NATIONAL PORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hoit. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I would like to ask the Minister
of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) if it is the intention of the government to introduce legislation to implement any of or all of the recommendations in the Gibb report?


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: We have at the present time
under study a bill concerning the management of the national harbours of Canada.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 2nd, consideration of the motion of the Minister of Labour that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to continue in force the provisions of the Relief Act, 1932, until the 31st of March, 1934.
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker,
I am not going to delay the house by any long speech on this subject. We have already had a great many speeches dealing with the stress of unemployment in its various aspects and the question of relief for those in need, but I want to call the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) to a specific case w'hich I think, ip view of the action of the government, or at least the failure to take such action as was requested of them, calls for special consideration. I had occasion when we were meeting here in the fall to call the attention of the government to this matter, and to-day I wish to take the opportunity of calling it to their attention again. In the southern part of Manitoba, part of which lies in my constituency, the grasshopper plague has prevailed for twro years. In one particular section the field and garden crops as well as the potato crop were destroyed by grasshoppers. Last fall when I brought the matter to the attention of the house, I stated that I had received word from some people in my constituency apprising me of the situation, telling me that potatoes were available across the line in the state of North Dakota at the price of ten cents a bushel, and asking me to

take the matter up with the government. I did so, I communicated with the Prime Minister, with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of National Revenue. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture referred me to the Minister of National Revenue, who in course of time gave me an answer. His answer was a refusal to admit the potatoes free of duty. In his letter he asked me this question, which shows the attitude of mind of the minister towards these matters. The question was:	Do you think
ten cents a bushel is a fair market value? Well he did not need to ask me that, everyone knows that potatoes cannot be raised for ten cents a bushel, Nevertheless the fact remains that on the Dakota side of the boundary, where they grow large areas of potatoes, for which usually they have a good market, potatoes could be got at that price, because they were unable to sell them elsewhere. I communicated the decision of the minister to my people at home, but they came back at me with further letters and telegrams. By this time it was possible for them to get the potatoes for nothing; that is, they could have them for the digging. Again I approached the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) and the answer I got was that there were better ways to take care of the situation than by creating sectional tariffs.
I want to know what are those better ways; if the government has a better way of relieving those people I should like to know what it is. It was bad enough when they could not get potatoes for table use, but now the time is coming when they will need them for seed purposes. I think in view of the answer given me by the minister I have a right to ask of the government what that better way is. How do they propose to supply the needs of those people?


Mr. SMITH (Yictoria-Carleton):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Livingstone Brown: No. I do not propose at this time to go into any lengthy discussion of tariffs, but it does seem to me that it is carrying the theories and principles held by hon. gentlemen opposite to an extreme when they will not allow us to obtain goods from a foreign country if we can get them for nothing. That is the situation which confronts the people in my constituency.


Mr. HACKETT:: What about wheat?


John Livingstone Brown: For two years in succession our crops have been destroyed by grasshoppers, yet this government would not allow those people to get potatoes for nothing when they had not the money with which to buy them elsewhere. I think I have a right to

Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Veniot
ask the government to give consideration to this special case. They would not allow these people to get relief in a way that would have cost nothing, so now I want to know what is the better way to which the Minister of National Revenue referred.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Shall .the resolution carry?


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: Before this resolution carries I should like to direct the attention of the government to a situation which exists along our shores, particularly along the straits of Northumberland, the gulf of St. Lawrence and the bay of Chaleurs. Perhaps the provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward island are affected as well.
I am the last one, Mr. Speaker, who would desire to countenance the violation of any of the laws we have established for the protection of game and the fisheries, but with the present conditions of distress, especially in the county which I have the honour to represent, I would ask if it would not be possible, as a relief measure, for the government to extend some of the seasons and not rigidly keep them as closed seasons. I well know that there is a treaty between Great Britain, including the Dominion of Canada, and other nations of the world for the protection of wild birds, and at certain periods during the year the season is closed. But you can readily understand, sir, that people with empty stomachs and with children at home wanting for food, know no respect for law. In order to prevent them from becoming criminals through the violation of the law as it now stands, I would ask the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), whoever is in charge, to consider the possibility of extending the season or declaring the season open for next year.
Conditions are not improving in northern New Brunswick nor, I believe, in other parts of the dominion. If this season could be left open next spring and fall it would contribute materially to the relief of the poor people along those shores. The officers of the government in charge of the enforcement of the law, especially the mounted police, are showing no mercy; the county gaol of Gloucester has had as many as fifteen or twenty heads of families imprisoned for violation of the game and fisheries laws. I have mentioned the act protecting game birds. These birds abound in northern New Brunswick, and it will be readily understood that when the father of a family, knowing that his children are suffering from lack of food, sees within gun shot of his residence thousands of brants and geese the temptation to violate the law in order to obtain food is very great. I
think no great harm wrould come to wild bird life if these people were given an open season at least for one year.
The same arguments apply to the fisheries. Certain sections of northern New Brunswick have a closed season for lobsters, I think from June or July each year. Last year the lobster season, especially in the bays, was an absolute failure, while later in the fall, after the lobster had shed its shell and taken on a new coat, there was a great abundance. Yet if those people ventured out in order to obtain food for their families they were imprisoned. I have no fault to find with the officers. They are sent there to do their duty, and having received no contrary instructions from the department they have to carry out that duty according to the solemn oath they have taken. However, I would ask the Department of Fisheries seriously to consider granting a fall open season for at least one or two years in order to permit lobster fishing to be carried on in northern New Brunswick. If this is done it will relieve the federal, provincial and municipal governments of the necessity of spending a great deal of the money now necessary to relieve the distress which exists among the people along those shores. It is very hard indeed for them to conform to the law when they see that a few miles beyond an imaginary line lobster fishing is permitted, beyond Chockpish in the county of Kent, which is only perhaps eighty miles from the northern counties. I am referring to lobsters fished in the fall of the year from some time in September to the middle of October, down to Cape Tormentine. In the spring of the year, when the season is open in northern New Brunswick, the fishermen from that lower section come up and fish in our waters. Our people are too poor to go from their homes and fish beyond the imaginary line between Cape Tormentine and Ste. Anne de Chockpish in the county of Kent, because the only fishing they wish to have the liberty of engaging in at that time is to catch enough lobsters, not for public sale but for the nourishment of their families.
It may be said that they will violate the law, that they will abuse the privilege given them. I am free to admit that there will be some who will abuse that privilege, but it can be regulated under instructions from the department given to the officials or the mounted police in charge of that district, to see that no abuses shall take place. They are on the ground, they have their patrol boats, and they can visit these fishing grounds and issue permits to these people to lay traps
Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Gordon

and catch a certain quantity of lobsters each day.
Touching the rigid enforcement of the law, the same thing applies to the fishing of oysters in the county of Gloucester. I am thinking of a particular case in point where I think it would be well for the Minister of Fisheries to look into the matter. Under the present law the size of oysters to be caught was fixed two years ago; the round oyster was fixed at 3i inches-that was the smallest allowed to be fished-and the long oyster was 4 or inches, I believe. Now there are certain sections of the county of Gloucester where the beds have never produced a round oyster of over 3 inches. The nature of the oyster in these beds is such that it reaches its extreme growth at 3 inches in the case of the round and 3i or 4 inches in the case of the long oyster.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but surely the subject he is now elaborating is quite remote from the resolution.


Peter John Veniot: The resolution relates to unemployment relief, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The resolution proposes:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to continue in force the provisions of the Relief Act, J932, until the 31st of March, 1934.


Peter John Veniot: I regret very much indeed if I am violating the rules but I submit that a great deal of latitude has been given others. I should be glad of the privilege of finishing this topic, because I think I am discussing relief measures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not for the last ten minutes.


Peter John Veniot: Well, if the Prime Minister wishes to raise a technical objection I will take my seat and let him bear the responsibility.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall the motion carry?
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.


Mr. GORDON:: Before the resolution
carries I want to make a few observations with respect to the bill which is to follow, and that is in connection with the amount to be spent for direct relief. The question of the investing of the executive with power has been the subject of a good deal of debate in this chamber, and the government in the last two years has taken the responsibility of assuming the power without any limitation as to amount. Hon. members will well recall
fMr. Veniot.]
that in 1930 the condition of affairs throughout the world presented a rather alarming picture and it was thought desirable at that time to invest the executive with very wide authority in case matters arose that would need immediate attention, and that authority was exercised through the agency of the then legislation and was continued into the next year.
As hon. members know, the method of providing, first, work on a wage basis and afterwards devoting the attention of this government to help and succor for those in need has been continued up until the present time. After the legislation of 1930 had been in operation, with succeeding extensions, for some fifteen or sixteen months, it was made apparent at a provincial conference that the expenditure devoted towards works and subscribed to by the provinces, municipalities and this government, was too great a burden for those agencies to bear any longer. That subject was debated at length at a provincial conference held on April 9 last year, and it was the unanimous view of the provinces that they could no longer carry on. Of course, it resulted as well in a great deal of difficulty for the federal parliament to carry on and finance, and as a result of that conference it was determined to devote what moneys were available to the relief of those in need and to apply such funds to suit the peculiar situation that might arise from time to time in the dominion. Committees were set up in all the provinces, by the provinces themselves, to deal with their peculiar local conditions.
It has been argued here that a national commission of some sort should have been appointed and should still be appointed for the purpose. That matter was also discussed with representatives of the provinces and the answer was, as one would anticipate it would be, that the administering of moneys to those in need being, as I think every member will agree, peculiarly one for the municipalities and the provinces to deal with primarily and, in a condition of affairs such as at present exists, one to which the federal parliament is justified in contributing, the provinces would not be prepared under these conditions to relinquish their legislative authority and autonomy in so far as that subject was concerned and give it over to the federal power or to any commission set up by the federal authorities.
Mr. II.ANBURY:	Has that opinion been
expressed by all the provinces of Canada?


George Gordon: That is my recollection.

Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Mackenzie King


Mr. HANBURY:: Is there any correspondence to that effect?


George Gordon: I doubt it.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I doubt it, too.


George Gordon: That was the view expressed at the conference held at Ottawa on April 9 and it was reiterated just two or three weeks ago at a subsequent conference with the representatives of the provinces. The provinces took the attitude, I think very properly so, that it was one of their functions to do just that thing. Together with the municipalities they were subscribing towards relief more in money than the total of the advances made by the federal authorities. I have no reason to complain about the administration generally within the provinces and I seriously doubt if any commission, federal or otherwise, could have carried on with any more efficiency than the committees set up throughout Canada in the municipalities and the provinces. They have provided economic administration of relief to those in need.
Reverting to my observations made when I first spoke upon this resolution, I may say that as a result of the experience of the last few years, there is a much better organization of effort. Hon. members will understand that it is a most difficult thing to organize and administer a department to deal with a subject matter such as this, one that involves all the complexities of the home and of human life. Each succeeding month has disclosed that the administration is becoming better organized and being placed upon a more efficient basis. However, there is still room for improvement because, as hon. members probably know, there are a few instances where people who did not need relief took advantage of the time and the situation in order to obtain relief from the public treasuries. I do not think I have sufficient facility of speech to describe such people as they should be described. The people of this country are straining every effort at this time to provide assistance for worthy people who find themselves in need and any man who will take advantage of the times in order to obtain relief by some circuitous or underground way will not soon be forgotten or forgiven by the Canadian people.
As I said, the organization has improved greatly because of the knowledge we have gained in the past and the government considers that it is no longer necessary to have included in the bill unlimited authority so far as money is concerned. The bill to be presented to the house will have a limitation
so far as direct relief is concerned. This limitation will be in harmony with the experience we have gained in the past and will have regard to the commitments for the next fiscal year which we believe will not exceed $20,000,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, it certainly is gratifying to see that what has been urged so strongly from this side of the house right from the outset has at last come to be part of the accepted policy of the ministry.


George Gordon: I think it would have been unfortunate if we had done it before.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is unfortunate it had not been done before. It is most unfortunate that at the very outset the ministry had not followed in this, as in all matters, the regular constitutional procedure, the procedure which gives parliament control over all expenditures and especially control over all taxation.
The minister began his remarks by referring to the emergency session of 1930, and pointed out that following that session the powers which the government took to itself were somewhat enlarged. May I remind him that at that very session of 1930 the government was told in no unmistakable terms that what we were facing was a depression which in all probability would last a very considerable time, and that what they were asking for at that time, namely, the right to emergent powers, so to speak, ought to be assumed only for that particular session and should not become a regular feature of proceedings. The ministry asked at that time for $20,000,000 but they did not indicate to parliament how that amount was to be spent. What they received was a cheque for $20,000,000 for the government simply to do with as it thought best. If the ministry had been obliged to give a statement to parliament at that time which would have made clear the directions in which that $20,000,000 was to go, how it would be divided up, and to give to the house some indication as to how the amount had been arrived at, they would have found that the consequent discussion would have led to a much smaller sum being appropriated for the purposes of meeting the need for relief as it existed at that time. As I recall, there had been previous occasions upon which the federal government had assisted the municipalities and the provinces in unemployment relief. During the entire preceding ten years the total amount spent out of the federal treasury as assistance to the provinces and the municipalities for unemployment relief did not exceed $2,000,000.
2668	COMMONS
Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Mackenzie King
Yet my hon. friends asked for $20,000,000, and that is where they made the initial mistake. If they had come to parliament and had said that they thought a serious condition was arising but believed as they subsequently said that it would be over within a year as a result of their policies; and had asked for the one year an amount equivalent to that which had been spent for unemployment relief in the preceding ten years, say $2,000,000 or double the amount if you like, $4,000,000, they would have had all that they needed to meet the situation until parliament resumed again at the following regular session. It was that first mistake of the usurping of the authority of the House of Commons by the ministry which led to extravagance at the outset.
At the next session the ministry came and demanded not only a blank cheque for the purposes of unemployment relief but for powers to enact by order in council any measure which they might think advisable with respect to peace, order and good government. That was an arbitrary authority the like of which was not assumed for any purpose even during the period of the war by the prime minister of the day. This parliament never before granted to any government the power which the present ministry took from the House of Commons to deal with the unemployment situation. The minister stepped over this part of the ground very lightly; he said they took those powers to help to meet the condition. He did not mention the fact that they were taken from the House of Commons under closure. As a matter of fact, the ministry were so determined to get all this excessive and exceptional power into their own hands that in order to obtain it they had to resort to the use of the closure.


George Gordon: The country approved the action.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The country has never approved it, and I think my hon. friends will come deeply to regret the looseness of control there has been over the expenditure of public moneys. The minister has not said very much about the total expenditure which has been made by the administration without any control whatever on the part of the House of Commons. That is a fact that cannot be brought home too often to hon. members. I am quite sure that the statement by the ministry this afternoon that they are going to put some limit at least on the amount they will require is the result of the discussion that took place in this chamber the other day when the attention of the house and the country was drawn to the excessive

amounts that had been expended, because, if my hon. friend had had any virtuous intention of imposing some limit on the amount to be expended, he would have brought that fact to the attention of the house at the very outset, and made it part of his speech when he was presenting the whole matter to the House of Commons. I am glad, however, he is prepared in order to begin anew in a right direction, to take at least one step back. May I emphasize again the significance of what has been done, so that hon. members will not be led into believing that even yet we are being given very much in the way of control. Just inside two years, according to the minister's own statement the other evening, the ministry have by order in council paid out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada in direct and indirect relief, and in advances to provinces, most of which advances, I think in the minister's own mind, are likely never to be repaid, the sum of $115,000,000. That is in two years.
Prior to the time of the war there was not a single year in which the total expenditure of Canada equalled that amount. What the ministry have done in the matter of dealing with unemployment relief might be exemplified in this way: had Sir Robert Borden come to the house the year immediately preceding the war and said to the members assembled that these looked like emergent times and that he thought in the circumstances the government ought to be permitted to do what it pleased with public expenditures for that year; that it had decided no estimates would be presented to parliament, but that the government would demand a blank cheque and the right to be allowed to expend what it pleased, he would have been asking for no more in the way of exemption from control by parliament over expenditures than this government has actually taken from the House of Commons as respects the years expenditure on relief account. He would have been asking for no more for one year than this government has taken for two. If there had been no estimates presented to parliament for any portion whatever of the public service, the total expenditure would have been just equivalent in one year to the total which this government in two years has spent, but without any control by parliament, on account of unemployment relief. I do not wonder that since this fact has been brought out, the ministry have begun to shiver a little, and see the necessity of at least coming back to some restriction. I hope now that they have got far enough back in the right direction to at least fix a total amount, they will recall that this is what

Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Mackenzie King
we stressed very strongly as imperative in the last two years, and that it was in an endeavour to have them fix some amount that we were compelled to keep lip the discussion on this side until in order to get their own way they had resort to the closure. Now that the minister has begun to retreat,
I hope he will go back just one step further if only for the sake of maintaining a semblance of parliamentary control over public expenditure. That one step further is to indicate how much of that-did he say $70,000,000 or $20,000,000 they were going to ask for?-


George Gordon: There is a considerable
difference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -last year it was $70,000,000 that he used, what he is going to ask for now is $20,000,000, how much of that $20,000,000 will be used for one particular purpose and how much of it for another? The bill which we had before us last year, the provisions of which we are being asked to renew, gives the minister power to spend these moneys on particular services which are named in a very broad way. For example, they can pay out of the consolidated revenue account whatever is needed for the requirements of the national parks and the drought-stricken areas; what they need to assist in defraying the cost of the production, sale and distribution of the products of the field, farm, forest, sea, river and mine; what they wish to loan to any province on terms to be agreed upon; what they wish to guarantee of moneys to be borrowed by the provinces; what assistance they wish to give any province in the way of direct relief, and also what they wish to do in the way of loaning or guaranteeing moneys to any public or private corporations. Will the minister tell us how much of that $20,000,000 they intend to devote to those different objects? I am going to ask him to give us that in committee. But in order to have some light thrown on the matter from past experience, I should like him to tell us how much they have spent on each of these various counts in the past two years. How much has gone each year to private corporations out of this unemployment relief fund, and will similar or lesser amounts be taken out of the $20,000,000 for the same purpose? We should also be informed whether this $20,000,000 will cover all the ministry intend to loan and not merely what is paid out in the form of direct relief. These are important questions that later on I may ask the minister to answer in detail.
Before, however, coming to that, may I say a word about what my hon. friend has just said in reference to the suggestion that
there should be a national commission to supervise the expenditure so far as it is federal expenditure and to do in cooperation with provinces and municipalities what lies within its power in regard to coordinating and unifying unemployment relief measures as between the different parts of the dominion. The minister says that they discussed this matter with the provinces, and that the provinces said that their business was to administer relief. The provinces might quite rightly say that; it is their business and nobody is asking that they should be deprived of the right of carrying it out. Any suggestion made with regard to a national commission has not been to relieve the municipalities or the provinces of anything that is their duty. The proposal of a national commission has had relation to the supervision of expenditure of moneys which come from the federal treasury and from it alone, so that through such a commission an account may be given to parliament of the amounts that have been spent, and with it some statement of the policy which has governed and should govern in, the matter of expenditure. The other evening we heard the minister tell us how much had been spent on this, and on that, but as I said to him at the time, the picture that was presented on that occasion was anything but one which hon. members could comprehend as a whole; it was the most chaotic view of a national situation which could possibly be presented by a ministry.
A commission of the kind I have mentioned, had it been appointed, would have proceeded somewhat along these lines: They would have had their permanent experts associated with them who would have'advised as to what would be most in the public interest in the way of the distribution of these moneys, and at the end of the year a budget would have been presented to the government, which the government would have brought into this house and had discussed, a budget which would set out, very much as the Minister of Finance does in his budget with respect to the affairs of the country generally, what was required in all for the purposes of unemployment relief, and in some detail how the government proposed to have the necessary moneys disbursed. Does my hon. friend mean to say that with a budget like that before them, hon. members of this parliament from every part of Canada could have made no contribution towards the solution of the unemployment question? That is where I take the strongest exception, to the way in which the government has proceeded in this matter. They have proceeded
2670	COMMONS
Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Mackenzie King
as though the members of the House of Commons had no knowledge of, and had nothing to do with, and nothing to say about unemployment or unemployment relief, that all that they are expected to do is to vote sums of money to be spent by the government as it pleases. I say that is all wrong. I think this House of Commons on both sides has members who are familiar with conditions in the different constituencies of Canada and who each year, would have been able to make and would be able to make now if they were given a chance, very valuable suggestions as to what would be most desirable and serviceable in the way of meeting present conditions. More than that, I think the country would be impressed by what would be said in this house back and forth, in the way of support and criticism of the different projects that might be proposed, and thereby put in a position to form some judgment upon them. That is an opportunity which the House of Commons and the country should have at all times where the expenditure of public moneys is involved.
The answer which the minister gives for not proceeding in that way is equivalent to saying that the federal government with respect to the expenditure of federal moneys has recognized responsibility only to the provinces and to the municipalities, but recognizes no responsibility to the House of Commons, no responsibility to the federal parliament, and no responsibility to the people of Canada through the federal parliament for the expenditure of federal moneys. That is what his answer implies, and what it comes to. That I say is quite wrong, and now that to a certain extent the minister has begun to see the error of his ways I think he should begin to tell us a little more in detail and as near as he can just how he intends to spend this 820,000,000 during the course of the next fiscal year.
Just to help him on his way in that regard, may I ask him if he will tell us, to take first the last item set forth in the bill of last year, how much of the blank cheque moneys has gone up to the present in the way of loans or to guarantee the payment of money by any public corporation or undertaking, or has been advanced in cash to any public corporation or undertaking?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the right hon. gentleman has any appreciation of what he is talking about.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mean that very
seriously, for that any responsible member of parliament should give us what he has been saying in the last fifteen minutes is incomprehensible.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let the Prime Minister speak for himself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is incomprehensible that any responsible man would say in this house what has been said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am as responsible as the Prime Minister. He is talking as an irresponsible leader of the government at the moment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Don't get worried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, and I
won't stand any insulting words from my right hon. friend either. He talks about me not being responsible; I tell him that he does not know what he is talking about.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure if the right hon. gentleman has no further knowledge of that than he has of what he has been talking about, his opinion is not very valuable.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A very fine
exhibition by the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is incomprehensible
that such a statement could have been made by the right hon. gentleman as has been made in this period of depression. Why? He took the relief bill, took the different items, and he said:	How much is to be spent in guarantees and loans to the provinces? And as to the hon. member behind him who cheered the loudest, I wonder what he has got to say about how much had to be loaned to British Columbia.


Wilfred Hanbury: Too much.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly. That government happened to be opposed to him in politics, and the loan was too much.


Wilfred Hanbury: No. There happens to
be a lot of graft in British Columbia that you could have regulated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Anyone who has seen
the hon. gentleman's correspondence with the former president of the Canadian National Railways as to the establishment of an executive officer in Vancouver will understand that he is an authority on expenditure. Take the question of loans to provinces.


Wilfred Hanbury: It was stolen from my
files.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think not.


Wilfred Hanbury: I know it.

Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: All I know is that I saw a photograph of the document which came legitimately and properly before the committee.


Wilfred Hanbury: How did you get possession of that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Through the mail.


Wilfred Hanbury: From whom?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot say whom; I
cannot carry it in my mind.


Wilfred Hanbury: I accept the Prime Minister's explanation that he did not go into my files.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But at any rate the hon. gentleman admits it is correct.


Wilfred Hanbury: Absolutely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no reason why
he should be so ashamed of himself.


Wilfred Hanbury: No, I am not the Prime
Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If he is not ashamed of
himself, he should be.


Wilfred Hanbury: Not at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was willing to waste
public money. Of course he was, provided he got some political advantage out of it; that is all.
Who would be able to say how much money should be loaned to Saskatchewan or Alberta, for instance, until the crop conditions were known? Who would be able to know, until all the facts became apparent, what should be done?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How did they know in war time how much was needed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In war time it was a
question of buying and selling munitions of war, and a question of the cost of putting so many men in the field, which is known to almost a dollar per head per year. It is all worked out in great detail, and there is no trouble about it in the world. But will any hon. member say that any federal government dare accept the responsibility of providing for a limited sum that would admit of no elasticity with respect to crop conditions in any province of which we know nothing at the time? How would you know how much to advance in connection with any of the items respecting the assistance of agriculture and matters of that kind? Let us get down and grip these facts as facts, not as theories of irresponsible people. Let us grip them as facts, and what are the facts?
The facts are that in its first session this government asked this house to vote $20,000,000 to assist in the extraordinary conditions that prevailed in this country. This parliament granted that money. That money was not expended during the fiscal year that ended March 31, 1931, but it was spent subsequently, the whole of it practically in public works-there was very little of direct relief- which afforded employment to many thousands of men during the winter and enabled them to get through without accepting direct relief.
In the next year, as the right hon. gentleman has said, the government asked parliament for power to enable it by order in council to deal with peace, order and good government in this country. What happened last week? The congress of the United States for the first time in its history, put through its senate and House of Representatives between a certain hour in the afternoon and that same evening a resolution to enable the comptroller of currency to march into all state financial institutions to prevent them from being destroyed. We anticipated that. We took care to ask this parliament that we might be able to deal with every matter that might arise in connection with the government of this country in order to maintain the integrity of our institutions, and by reason of that fact no Canadian bank has shut its doors, and no financial institution of any importance in this country has ceased to function or carry on its business. Why? Because we had taken the necessary steps to foresee and do what they are now doing in congress to deal with the situation. Just since I have taken my seat here a message has been placed in my hands that the currency circulation in the United States in the last week increased 8732,000,000. Seven hundred and thirty-two million dollars! And that they are in a very grave state of apprehension with respect to the whole financial structure. But we asked this parliament to give us the power to deal with peace, order and government, and pass the necessary orders in council that did save the integrity of our institutions and enable this country to carry on. I would like the most captious critic in this house to say where we would have been if we had not had the necessary legislation to enable us to do so.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Whom did you save?
What about the farmers?
Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: The farmers got the benefit of every security that was afforded to every member of the public. What would have happened to the farmers' savings if the banks closed their doors?


Mr. VALLANCE:: How many farmers have savings?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only 49 per cent of the
farms in Saskatchewan are mortgaged.


John Vallance: But that does not mean that the others are owned by farmers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the position.
And 60 per cent of the farms in Alberta are not mortgaged. There is a certain type of member in this house who because he happens to be in opposition goes around and paints the darkest possible picture of his own country, fouls his own nest.


Mr. RALSTON:: What did you do in 1930?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We did not do that.
The leader of the opposition asked why this was necessary. This depression is universal, it is not confined to this country. Canada still, in the eyes of those who look on from the outside, is the country that is the best off in the world. Why? Because we have taken steps to prevent the dire consequences-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it any wonder that
people cannot contemplate even the possibility of government ever falling into the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite? No wonder they turn to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.


Wilfred Hanbury: What about General
Currie?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He expressed the opinion that a national government was desirable.


Wilfred Hanbury: Because he has no confidence in the present government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the reason,
it is because he knows there is a problem in this country which it is thought by some people could be solved by both parties combined. A problem the hon. member did as much to assist in making as any one I know, through the expenditure of public money in respect to the national railways.


An hon. MEMBER:: The Vancouver
hotel?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and protests were
made because a contract was signed for $4,000,000 and it is now $11,000,000.


John Vallance: And the Chateau
Laurier, too, and quite recently.
[Mr. Bouchard.!


Richard Bedford Bennett: The expenditures on that hotel were made during the right hon. gentleman's regime, and the hon. member knows it.


John Vallance: The alterations were
not.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do you know what that
hon. member wishes to ask? He wishes to ask about some repairs made in the premises I occupy in the Chateau Laurier. That is his idea, in a period of depression. What is more I have in my possession a communication to the effect that the statements which were made in the committee as to the total expenditure were false. Iam glad to have the opportunity to make that statement. That is over the signature of the chief architect of the company. That is the hon. gentleman's idea of political war, in critical times such as these.
Let us go a step further. I ask this committee to take the very statements that were made here this afternoon and ask itself-let any one member ask himself: Could I, could any committee of men, say how much money would be required for that particular purpose during the next year? That is the question. And the reason parliament was asked to grant to the government of the day authority to deal with the problems in the manner in which it did was because we believed it was more important that parliament should confer these powers upon the executive of the country than that we should listen to the cavilling criticism with respect to what was called the rights of parliament. That is the position. And history, even the history of two years, has justified our position. What was being done here was done in England, and the United States this last week has been compelled to do it. Just let each hon. member ask himself that single question: Could I, could anybodjr say, in the month in which we were obtaining those powers, what sum of money it would be essential to utilize in any particular province of this dominion to accomplish the purpose we had in mind?


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Will the right hon.
gentleman permit me a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: When the right hon. gentleman promised that he would cure unemployment, I suppose he had a scheme in his mind to cure it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That question is one
which I am perfectly prepared to discuss at any time. World conditions were improving, rapidly improving. In fact we were back to prewar conditions in 1931 when Great

Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Bennett
Britain went off the gold standard. If the * hon. gentleman is, as I believe he should be, a student of the history of our time, he will know that is the fact. That being the fact he knows what world conditions have been since. He knows what has followed, he knows that the richest country in the world, the country to the south of us, is experiencing conditions such as were never heard of before, never in the history of man. He knows what public men have said the past few weeks. He saw what happened during the past week. I ask each member of this committee, as a fair-minded Canadian, to put to himself this question: take that Relief Act of 1931, take these subdivisions as they have been put to this house this afternoon by the leader of the opposition and ask himself if he knows of any committee that could have named the amount that would be required during the next twelve months to meet the conditions that have arisen in this country. That is the real issue, it was that we dealt with. It was that we dealt with in connection with insurance enterprises, the power under the section with respect to our financial institutions. And now we have at least the satisfaction of knowing that what we did then was to foresee a condition that enabled us at least to ride the storm up to the present moment. That is what we have done. We have done it with the legislation which we asked from this parliament, and which this parliament did give us in the plenitude of its power. They say part of this legislation was obtained by closure. Closure is a rule adopted by the house to enable governments to govern, and we used it to govern. What is more, under similar circumstances we would do it again to-morrow. When you find the Liberal newspapers in the country condemning the leader of the Liberal party for the obstruction that took place in parliament, when you find resolution after resolution being passed, great bodies meeting together regardless of political affiliations, saying to this parliament that it was time to do business and stop talking, you can understand why it was not necessary for us to do more than make a preliminary application of the rule to enable the legislation to be passed.
Now I ask this committee once more to get right down to the merits of this particular legislation. We reenact a statute of the past year, and it is subdivided into heads that have been given by the leader of the opposition, and looking out upon the world today with the dark horizon that we see, the heavy clouds that are there, will any man accept the responsibility of standing up in this house and saying that "X" money will
be sufficient to meet that position or the other? Will he? Will he risk it? That is the question. I leave that problem with each member of this committee to answer for himself. Study those words. They were not put there accidentally or loosely, they were put in there with the greatest care.
Then it is suggested that some private enterprises have received money from the government. One hon. member of this house is authority for the statement that she was told that money had been given to Mr. Wright's furniture factory at Stratford by this government. That is the story that is circulated in the back concessions. Every one knows how false that is. The orders in council have been laid upon the table of this house; if not they were published in the Gazette. That safeguard was established in last year's legislation. The Auditor General will not honour a single cheque that has not behind it the authority of an order in council, and these orders in council have either been published in the Gazette or laid upon the table of the house, so that every member could fully know and appreciate how every dollar has been spent. The two orders in council with respect to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are known to everyone; the orders in council have been issued. They were passed to provide for wages paid to workmen, and the money did not go to the railway company. The great mass of receipts signed by the workmen themselves was lodged in this house; not one single dollar but went to the workmen from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In the first instance the order in council did not issue for many months after the money had been expended by the railway company because, had traffic conditions improved, it would not have been necessary for the company to have borrowed the money from the government. But the order in council is known to all, and the latter of the two orders in council is known also, because it is here. I repeat that every dollar provided was. spent for wages, and was not even used for the material that was used in connection with the work.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: Who got the benefit
of the work?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why, the men got the
benefit, the families throughout this country who were enabled to earn a living instead of having to go upon relief. It inured to the benefit of the railway company as well, and the company has promised to pay back the money if ever conditions improve to the extent of their being able to earn it. There

Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Bennett
is nothing to object to in connection with that company; the shareholders have $119 in cash invested in the company for every S100 outstanding. There has been no watering of the common stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. As I say there is more than $119, I should say $120 at least, in cash in the enterprise for every $100 of stock certificates outstanding. That is the position, and they have said that before any dividend is paid on their investment this money that was loaned to them by the government of the day will be repaid. And let me repeat that this money was loaned for the purpose of providing work for 8,800 men from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Had conditions improved and had there been the increase in traffic that was anticipated there would have been no necessity for the loan. So if any hon. member of this committee will take the statute and be fair to himself and the citizens of this country and go over it item by item he cannot say to himself that he can fix, or any committee can fix, with any degree of certainty any sum of money that will be required to meet the demands that may be made.


Mr. NEILL:: Would the right hon. Prime Minister permit a question for the sake of information? If the argument is sound that unlimited credit was necessary in the past why is it not necessary still? There may be a further crop failure this fall for all we know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was just coming to
that. I wonder if the hon. gentleman realizes that the $20,000,000 is applicable to direct relief only. The leader of the opposition did not follow the amendment that was moved; $20,000,000 is not the sum total that will be required; that amount is for direct relief only.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Exactly; that
is the point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why is that? It is because the minister who is in charge has been able, in the light of three years experience, to ascertain what should be the maximum amount that should be necessary for direct relief. That is my answer to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, who apparently was of the opinion that this was a limitation upon the whole. It is not; it is for direct relief only. We know that no body of legislators in any part of the world can foresee or predict with certainty what conditions will be, so we have sought the renewal of this legislation in the terms in which it appears. Because of the facts as ascertained with respect to direct relief, however, the minister proposes a limita-
tion of $20,000,000 for the fiscal year from March 31 of this year to March 31 of 1934. -The reason he has given has been said by the right hon. leader of the opposition to be chaotic and difficult to understand, but I think-of course it may be that what I think will not appeal to others here-that if hon. gentlemen will take the trouble to read what has been said they w'ill agree that whatever criticisms may be fairly urged there has been an earnest and sincere attempt to see to it that the great catastrophe that has overtaken the Canadian people should be ameliorated as far as the federal government, within the ambit of its powers, may do so. This committee must remember that as recently as the conference- which we held this spring it was reiterated that the provinces would not permit us to discharge their functions.


Wilfred Hanbury: They would not permit
you to look after your own money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have looked after
our money to the extent of checking and rechecking the expenditures which have been made and the contributions we have granted, but that is all. The provinces will not permit the national government to undertake their functions. Some of them made that perfectly clear. Hon. gentlemen opposite talk about a national commission to deal with relief problems, but everyone who knows the elementary principles of our constitution knows that we cannot force the federal power upon the provincial authorities.


Wilfred Hanbury: But we can withhold
federal money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We certainly can, but
does the hon. gentleman advocate that we should withhold assistance from those who require it? WThat we have done is this: We have loaned money to the provinces. To-day the right hon. leader of the opposition put a premium upon their not paying it back; he said they will not pay it back.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
said so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did the minister say
that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The other night the minister said that many of them would not pay it back.


Wilfred Hanbury: He said some had been
paid back and some he does not expect to be paid back.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We expect to be repaid, but not as the loans mature. Let me give an illustration, and just listen to this

Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Bennett
for a moment. In the province of Manitoba they had what they called a savings bank in which the people of tihat province had deposited some $12,000,000 in small savings accounts. When the cheques were being written to withdraw that money what did they have? They had the promises to pay, the I.O.U's of the province of Manitoba. The money was gone; in its place had been substituted I.O.U's of the province of Manitoba that could not be sold.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Does that not apply to
all banks to a certain extent?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We guaranteed the
$12,000,000 of those deposits to enable the depositors to draw out money with which to live. That was one of the guarantees we made under the statute, and the order in council was laid upon the table of this house.


James Layton Ralston: The minister did not
mention that in the statement he made the other day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it is known, because I filed the order in council here in this house last year.


James Layton Ralston: That is not what we are
discussing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what we are discussing; it has been referred to by the right hon. leader of the opposition, and I will go a step further. Within the last ten days that $12,000,000 guarantee to Manitoba fell due. They came to us asking that we renew that guarantee, it being their only choice between bankruptcy and solvency.


Wilfred Hanbury: And they will keep coming just as long as the right hon. gentleman pays them money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But would the hon. gentleman say we should not have guaranteed that amount?


Wilfred Hanbury: I certainly do say so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the hon. gentleman's statement is that these forty thousand small depositors in the province of Manitoba, who believed in a provincial administration but who, when they went to draw out their money, could get nothing but the promises to pay of a government that could not pay, should have been allowed to lose their money and that we were not justified in taking that action in the national interest? Why did we do it, sir? Does the hon. gentleman think that any minister, whoever he might be, or any government is anxious to do that sort of thing?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: May I ask a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why did we do it? The reason is this:	We did it because it was in
the national interest of the Dominion of Canada that a province should not be forced into bankruptcy. Does anyone suggest for a moment that it would not reflect upon the credit of this dominion? What a noise would have been made if we had allowed that to happen. In an endeavour that has subjected us to harsh criticism and in order to save the national credit of this dominion we made that guarantee and renewed it the other day.


Wilfred Hanbury: And must continue to
renew it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I still have confidence that the provinces can pay, but if the hon. gentleman says they cannot I can only say to him that at least two of the western provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, until recently never knew what it was to have other than a Liberal government. That is the position there.


An hon. MEMBER:: And they wish they
had yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They wish they had yet? Well, there is no evidence of it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh yes; wait and see.


An hon. MEMBER:: If they had they
might have been able to pay.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They might have been
able to pay, someone says. All you have to do is to look at the facts and see what the fixed charges of these provinces are, and when and by whom created. If you do you will have a fair understanding of the situation. Let us go a step further.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about Saskatchewan?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and there $11,000,000 consisted of promises to pay left by the outgoing government of the province.


John Vallance: After twenty-four years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let me go a step further. I ask every member of this committee to put himself in our place, to put himself in the place of a member of this administration.


An hon. MEMBER:: And cooperate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the hon. gentleman
repudiating the thought? In the province of Saskatchewan, let me point out, we fed some 330,000 people at the sole expense of this dominion because there had been three successive crop failures and it was a national disaster. On the first of July I ventured to tell



Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Bennett
the house that there was a national disaster and the house was a unit in believing that there was. When there was a great earthquake in the British West Indies or in some foreign country we sent large contributions to relieve such emergencies. Well, here we had seventy odd municipalities faced with three successive crop failures, and we undertook as a national obligation, because of a national disaster, to make the contribution to which I have referred.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Did they sign notes for it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe they did; but
what has that to do with the fact that we fed some 330,000 people though we have not talked about it.


John Vallance: The provincial government in Manitoba did the same thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
should know-it is impossible to say that he does know, but be should know at any rate- that what he states is inaccurate.


John Vallance: You speak for yourself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have stated the situation, and hon. members are thoroughly familiar with it, so far as Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba are concerned. When you come to the maritime provinces, you find that the contribution has been smaller because they felt the depression less. They were not in the same position as the community in Saskatchewan, where they depended on one crop; they had homes, farms and all the conveniences of life. But in the west where, by reason of drought for three years, they could not maintain their homes, we provided the wherewithal. Hon. gentlemen did, this house did; the house was a unit in believing that it should be done, and that is the largest single item in the expenditures we have made. Do we want to repudiate it Do hon. members opposite want to repudiate it?
Could we have foreseen the exact amount that would be required, or could anyone? It was in July, mark you, that we made the statement; it was in the months of July and August that we took charge. Could anyone have foreseen then that a fourth year was to follow? The crop that was then expected to be good failed in some parts and was only fair in others. Now, we must face these facts, and I do wish that some of those who are so critical had had to face the issue and to decide what action should be taken. The responsibility rests on the executive of this country.


Mr. McINTOSH:: That is responsible government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is responsible
government and we have endeavoured to discharge it. But when I hear the kind of criticism to which we have listened this afternoon, after the sermon on the Mount


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is this
the Doxology?


Richard Bedford Bennett: When I hear that sort
of criticism I wonder what would have happened if hon. gentlemen opposite had been charged with the same responsibility. I wonder if they could possibly imagine themselves in the position where they would have to provide facilities, to see that the money was forthcoming, to make the necessary arrangements; where they must try by a series of checks and balances to maintain the integrity of the institutions and the credit of the country. I put that to my hon. friends fairly, and it is for them to say whether they desire to censure this government. If they do, well and good. Certainly, if this country desires that we should give place to my hon. friends, we should be only too glad to do so ins that sense; but from the standpoint of the safety of the country, in view of what we have heard to-day, I am perfectly certain that no one could contemplate such a thing without apprehension of the gravest possible disaster to the body politic.
The suggestion limiting the amount for direct relief, to which this amendment refers, is made for the purpose of taking advantage of the experience that has been gained. I am not one of those who believe that there is any general desire on the part of the Canadian citizenship to take advantage of the difficulties in which this country finds itself and to impose upon it. There are some who believe that; we have had evidence of it to-day in the interruptions that have been made by hon. gentlemen, We have had the suggestion that there is a studied design on the part of a great mass of Canadians to see in what way they may impose upon the state. I do not believe that for a moment, for personally I have seen no evidence of it. I have seen however, as the minister in charge has seen, evidence of there being every now and then a willingness on the part of some to rely upon the state rather than upon their own efforts. Do not forget this, either. It is only a few years ago that the right hon. gentleman opposite, in his place as first minister, saw fit to direct to representatives of soviet Russia a letter in which he said that although they had promised that they would not do so and so, they had within this

Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Bennett
dominion endeavoured to destroy the empire and the government of this country. And what is the situation to-cay, if that is true? Read that letter which ths right hon. gentleman then sent to these representatives of soviet Russia. Read it and see what his experience had been with the forces of soviet Russia in this country, and then go out and see for yourselves the evidence that was given under oath in the trials in Toronto. See the evidence that is forthcoming day after day with respect to these matters, in this time of trial through which this country is passing.
I will admit that there are those who are endeavouring to impose upon the state because they are enemies of the state. They are using such power as they have to impose upon the people in this period of depression in order to advance their theories for the purpose of destroying the state. The evidence is there; we know the evidence is there as to where the money came from. Now, all that has added to the difficulties which we have to meet. During the period of war, every man who was put into uniform added one more to the demand for food and clothing, and was the means of putting into circulation moneys for allowances and all that sort of thing. That was the situation then, and one could predict with some degree of certainty what the requirements would be as soon as one knew the number of men who were being called up. But when you are faced with the condition that exists to-day you are confronted with factors that are unknowable, factors that cannot be determined; and we are endeavouring to foresee conditions for a period of twelve months. In that effort we ask parliament to clothe the executive with powers, not that we want power merely for the sake of power, but that we may be able, having these powers in an emergency, to preserve the state from destruction. That is all we have tried to do, and I ask any hon. member who desires to do so, honestly, fearlessly and fairly to look at the matter, to take the statute of last year item by item, and ask himself whether he can face his countrymen for the next twelve months and say that he has done his duty, if he takes this position: so many million dollars for this, so many for that and so much for something else, when we know that you must have power to do effectively that which you seek to do. Power which is not effective is worse than no power at all.


Wilfred Hanbury: You have lots of power.
53719-170|


Richard Bedford Bennett: We would not have had
with the restrictions this parliament sought to impose. We would have had no such power to save the situation as we have saved it.


James Layton Ralston: Have there been any
bank failures in Canada? My hon. friend speaks about the financial situation, but has there been any financial situation other than that concerning the provincial banks?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have saved every
situation that arose in Canada. What is more, the hon. gentleman who sits behind the hon. gentleman is one of the members of this house who inveighed against the government because of what it did with respect to insurance companies. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken was one of those who knew the situation and he knew what we had to do.


James Layton Ralston: I am talking about fixing the amount and what my hon. friend is saying has nothing to do with that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has everything to do
with it if we have to guarantee and we may have to guarantee as the United States has had to do. How do I know what may happen in the next few months?


James Layton Ralston: No one has spoken about the valuation of common stocks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am talking about the
necessity of action being taken to preserve the integrity of our institutions, and the insurance companies happen to be an illustration. That is what the situation is.
It is so with respect to the whole fabric of our financial structure. To hear hon. gentlemen talk you would think that the government of the day was trying to devise some means by which it could be clothed with power which it would desire to abuse. I wonder if this committee thinks that there is any desire to abuse authority which is obtained from this parliament? From the criticisms made you would think that that was the purpose of obtaining it instead of endeavouring to do that which in our best judgment-we do not pretend that there may not be mistakes-will save intact the Dominion of Canada.
Look at the sort of rumours which circulate in the press and which have depreciated our securities in the markets of the neighbouring republic. The newspapers send them out, they refer joyfully to them but upon examination they are found to be untrue. All these things must be considered because we are living in a period of time much more
2678	COMMONS
Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Mackenzie King
serious than any other so far as the world knows. If we have to resort to every method that the genius and thought of thinkers in every part of the world can suggest, that our experience induces us to believe is sound, we are but doing what any man would do who is charged with responsibility and who has a desire to discharge his duties so that he may preserve the institutions of the state itself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) this afternoon one would think that the government had ended the depression, that its great wisdom in dealing with the affairs of the country had resulted in some remarkable salvation of conditions generally. What are the facts? At the special session of the house, a few weeks after the right hon. gentleman came into office, we were asked to vote $20,000,000 for unemployment relief. The Prime Minister himself estimated that we had at that time something like 117,000 unemployed in Canada, and said that, if the policies of the government had the effect which the government believed they were going to have, they hoped they would not have to ask parliament for further unemployment relief in another year; that the numbers of unemployed would gradually diminish. But what has happened? At the present time we have over 800,000 unemployed in Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not correct.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) told us the other evening that the number of people on relief ran up to over 1,300,000.


George Gordon: I am sorry to interject but I thought I made myself quite plain. The number receiving relief for varying periods, not constant, including men old and young, women old and young, middle-aged and infants in arms amounts to approximately 1,300,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is just what I have said. Let us leave alone the question of dependents and take the actual number of unemployed-


George Gordon: I never said the number of unemployed was 800,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the hon. gentleman did not, he did not take exception to my statement when I said that the number of unemployed had been given as such by the government's representative in Great Britain. Only two tw three months ago, Mr. Howard Ferguson announced in London that the total

number of unemployed in Canada, at that time was 800,000. No exception has been taken to that statement made by Canada's representative in Great Britain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The figure was not 800,000 unemployed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What was it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That 800,000 were then receiving relief.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that was the number of unemployed, and I think it will be found to be so. I took great care to note what the High Commissioner for Canada said at the time. I say further that, if the minister will give to this house an official statement of the total number of unemployed, he will find that figure is within the number. I do not think the government will deny that for one minute.
When the Prime Minister endeavours to have it appear that the course which he has taken has been a course Which has saved the country, I want the committee to have a realization of the facts of the situation. The country to-day is in a worse position than it has been at any time since the present administration took office, and, I think, at any time in the history of Canada. That is the situation as it exists to-d)ay. The Prime Minister would have us believe that the wisdom of the executive had been the means of saving the situation.
The Prime Minister has sought to have us believe that it is an impossible thing for a government to provide for emergencies by fixing any definite amount in the estimates, that because no one can foresee what is going to take place, therefore, that the ministry must be given unlimited power to spend whatever moneys it pleases. From the time of confederation up to the present, has there been any occasion, except that which has occurred in this parliament, where a free hand was given to the ministry in the matter of expending public moneys? No one expects the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour, or anybody else, to come to parliament and say:	We need precisely so many hundreds
of thousands, or so many millions of dollars, for a specific purpose; this is exactly what is going to be required this year. That is not what is asked of the ministry. But the ministry is asked and is expected to make some estimate, and it may make that estimate as large or as small as it pleases. All that the ministry is expected to do is to say to parliament: We believe that so much will be required this year for such and such purposes,

Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Mackenzie King
and we base our estimate upon the following grounds which would then be enumerated. We are now in the fourth session of this parliament, and we have had this method of proceeding for nearly three years. Had the ministry adopted from the outset the course which we on this side proposed, it would have been possible for the government to have said to us to-day: We believe that $20,000,000 is all that will be required for the purpose of direct relief-as the minister has just said- and we base that belief upon the following grounds; we have found that, in such and such a year, we needed so much; the next year we needed so much, and last year so much; we believe that $20,000,000 will be sufficient for this purpose this year. Similarly, the amount required for use in the national parks is simply a matter of making up an estimate in that regard. What will be required in other directions is likewise a matter of estimates. That is the way in which parliament proceeds and a ministry presents its estimates. It is idle to say that because no one can foresee what will be required there cannot be some estimate. The method is to present the estimate, give the reasons therefor, and let parliament judge of the soundness of the reasons and exercise its control.
May I point out to the committee what the Prime Minister knows better than anyone else, that, in dealing with questions of great emergency especially where human life is at stake, this House of Commons of Canada has never taken exception to a ministry taking the one course which it can constitutionally take in cases where an appropriation has not been made or is inadequate of asking for a governor general's warrant to meet a particularly emergent situation until parliament can be brought together. I made it very clear at the beginning of the special session in 1930 that, if the ministry found difficulty in estimating what would be required for the purpose of meeting some very critical situation in the matter of relief, and, if it should be necessary, before parliament could be brought together, that a certain expenditure should be made by governor general's warrants on account of the urgency of the human need involved, those of us who sit on this side of the house would take no exception to that particular course, provided that, in the first instance, parliament had been given the control it should have. That is the sound position, and it is the one which ought to be maintained. Are we to hear the same argument again next year, and, if there is a change of government next year, is the incoming government to follow along identical lines in relation to all expenditures concerning unemployment relief? Are we to continue ad-minstering the unemployment relief of the country by means of blank cheques given the ministry by vote of its supporters in the house? There will have to be a halt to that procedure, or we might as well get rid of parliament altogether. No one knows better than do hon. gentlemen opposite that in asking for this continued free hand in the matter of public expenditures, they are taking a course which cannot for a moment be defended.
I must say I believe, whether intentionally or not, the minister wholly misled the House of Commons in the statement he made this afternoon about the $20,000,000. I Certainly got the impression that this year we were going to have, with respect to this particular bill, an amount which would be definite and which would indicate what the ministry really thought would be necessary. Certainly the hon. member for Comox-AIberni had the same impression or he would not have asked of the Prime Minister the question which he did. Indeed, I was waiting until the Prime Minister had concluded his remarks, to ask him the same question: How, if the government cannot foresee what is going to take place in the course of the next few months, has the minister found it possible to fix $20,000,000 as a limit? What is the significance of fixing $20,000,000 as a limit under the circumstances of which we have just been told? It is humbug; humbug pure and simple; no other word would properly describe it. It is another instance of humbug in the case of another great matter which directly affects the Canadian people. Had the minister's statement gone out without a further explanation from him, the people would have been led to believe the government had really got the relief situation in such shape that $20,000,000 would be all that was required.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The amendment says "direct relief."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have not seen the amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was read just now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have the minister's statement and the impression left by it, but the point I want to make clear is that direct relief is only one item in the relief program, and that the ministry still retains power to use a blank cheque for any other particular expenditures which it may wish to make under the head of relief in any other shape or form. Those are large items, and we have no guarantee whatever that the amounts which will be spent by the ministry this com-
26S0
Relief Act, 1933

'ng year may not be considerably larger than ihey are during the present year or were the year before. What the Prime Minister sought to do in his utterances this afternoon was to throw as muoh dust into the face of this committee as it was possible for him so to do. I do not think he did himself much credit in his method of speaking this afternoon with his vituperations, unnecessary epithets and the manner of presenting his statement. But, most of all, may I say that he did not do himself any credit in his slighting reference to the Sermon on the Mount. When the right hon. gentleman made the slighting reference he did to the Sermon on the Mount, he forgot he was speaking of a sacred-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not make any slighting reference to the Sermon on the Mount. I made reference to the hypocritical use of it to cover up political cant.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What about the "grace of God" speech?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend did not make the reference for that purpose, he made it to provoke a sneer and a laugh in this House of Commons, which is something considerably worse. He has just this moment spoken about making references to sacred subjects for hypocritical reasons. I ask my right hon. friend: Was that his motive when he spoke in the city of Toronto about the grace of God? Was he acting the hypocrite then? Was he using phrases from the Scriptures for a political end?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This was not at a political meeting. It was a religious meeting.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is neither place nor time when it comes to stating fundamental beliefs in relation to questions of the day, and what is said on a public platform by the Prime Minister of Canada in that regard is assumed by the public to have been said from very high motives and from motives by which he will be judged by his fellow men. When I made the statement which I did in this house to the Sermon on the Mount. I was speaking of what I believe, and I said it in all reverence. It ill becomes the Prime Minister of this country to endeavour to provoke a sneer by any reflection on remarks made at that time. I might say, in justice to my right hon. friend, because I think I know him a little better than perhaps he thinks I do, I believe he lost his head a little this afternoon, or he would not have said what he did. I just wish to tell him that, if he does not expect people to be critical of his motives, he had better not impute to others

the motives which have evidently been those that have guided himself.
I would resume this discussion in committee and ask the minister to tell us what amounts of money have been paid on blank cheque account for the purpose of assisting corporations or private undertakings?


Richard Bedford Bennett: On a question of privilege may I explain to the right hon. gentleman that the observations that I made with respect to the grace of God were made at a Bible class meeting where I would again repeat them; I desire that to be perfectly clear, but those who will look at the pages of Hansard and look at the report of sneers that were made later at my having uttered those remarks, will understand something of the attitude of mind of certain hon. gentlemen.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Why did you repeat the insinuation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: While the minister is looking up the desired information, may I put before the committee the much discussed amendment. It is moved by me, seconded by the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Macdonald):
That this resolution be amended by adding thereto the following words: "Provided, however, that the amount to be paid for direct relief for the fiscal year ending the 31st of March. 1934, shall not exceed of the sum of $20,000,000."


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maloney):: Shall the resolution as amended be adopted?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. Will the minister just tell us how he arrives at $20,000,000 as being the amount he assumes will be sufficient?


George Gordon: The figures making up
the total spent or contributed by the Dominion government under the various statutes are, of course, with respect to the 1930 and 1931 acts, set out at length and detail in the report that was tabled last year in connection with this whole subject matter. The legislation now in force, which will expire at the end of this month, contemplates that all the details covering an innumerable number of items with reference to almost every county in Canada will be included in a similar report. That was the reason why a few days ago in outlining the details which I then gave I was desirous of placing in the hands of the members as much information as I could possibly give with respect to what had been done throughout Canada, what money had been spent and where it had been spent.

Relief Act, 1933
Under the Relief Act of 1930 the Dominion government contributed a total of $17,987,173.86. If it is the desire of the right hon. leader of the opposition that I should spread again upon Hansard details as to the provinces which participated in those advances I can do it, but I think if one looks at Hansard the details will be found there in the statement which I gave to the house some time ago. However, if it is thought desirable that I should again go over the same ground I have no objections to doing it.


James Layton Ralston: Is that $17,000,000 for
direct relief?


George Gordon: That is the total of disbursements made under that legislation.


James Layton Ralston: What was asked was,
where does my hon. friend get the basis on which he estimates $20,000,000 for direct relief. My hon. friend is giving us the expenditures under the act of 1930, under which there were many other expenditures besides expenditures for direct relief. There were a lot of public works, as I remember.


George Gordon: I am giving only the
amount which the Dominion government contributed, first by way of public works, and secondly I can give the sum contributed for direct relief.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Were the public works
done under the patronage system?


Mr. GAGNON:: That is a ridiculous question.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: It was done. I will
show you how ridiculous a question it is.


George Gordon: I do not quite understand the hon. member.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: The hon. member for
Dorchester could explain. He said my question was ridiculous, but I think he understood it. I can show you how ridiculous it was.


George Gordon: Under the 1930 act the
Dominion government subscribed to public works $14,396,976.81, and to direct relief $3,547,135.08.


James Layton Ralston: What was the date of the expiry of the amounts just given? Was it March 31, 1931?


George Gordon: That would be up until
August, 1931. Under the terms of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931, and the Continuance Act of 1932, the Dominion government subscribed the sum of $41,501,791.96.


James Layton Ralston: That was the total?


George Gordon: Yes, under the act of
1931 and the Continuance Act of 1932.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Until what date?


George Gordon: That would be up until
the expiration of the statute as of January 31, 1933.


James Layton Ralston: Would my hon. friend
divide the amount so that we would have that continuity which he desires, by showing the expenditure under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931, which I presume would carry us to March 31, 1932, and then show the expenditure under the Continuance Act from March 31, 1932, up to January 31, 1933?


George Gordon: The figures I have here
are not divided in that way, but I think I can have them separated so as to make that clear. In the meantime I have given the figures under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931 and the Continuance Act of 1932. The Dominion government contributed $41,501,791.96.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is that for
direct relief or does it include public works as well?


George Gordon: No; I will have to have
those figures separated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How much of that amount is for loans to corporations of any kind?


George Gordon: To answer that question I should have to have the figures separated.


James J. Donnelly: What proportion went
for administration?


George Gordon: The administration under
the 1930 legislation cost $43,061.97. I have not the exact figures for administration under the subsequent acts, but I can easily get them.
Under the present legislation, up to January 31, 1933, there has been paid the sum of $9,525,953.53, and it is estimated that up to the end of this fiscal year, having regard to the numbers who are on direct relief and the cost, because this is practically all direct relief, the amount required for the year will be in the neighbourhood of $20,000,000. Of course, that is purely an estimate, but I think it is a very nearly correct estimate. Hon. members will understand that it would be hopeless for me to attempt to give the exact amount. The best we can do is to estimate it.
With respect to advances made to corporations, I have not those figures before me at the moment, but I can get them.
Reliej Act, 1938


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
will recall that when he spoke before, I suggested to him that it might be well for him to have his deputy here when we got into committee because we would want a good deal of information along these lines. I hope the minister will not try to put us off with general . statements that so and so can be found in such and such a report, or that he will get the information to-morrow. We want the information before we get out of committee.


George Gordon: I will have the officer here for that purpose.


Wilfred Hanbury: Assuming that the minister has given all the information he has at hand-I notice the Prime Minister has now left the chamber; I had hoped to obtain some information from him. When he was speaking this afternoon he took some credit to his government for the fact that no bank in Canada had been obliged to go into liquidation, and for the vast sums of money that he had advanced to the provinces and to the provincial bank in Manitoba. I am not altogether critical of the amounts the government has found it necessary in the past to advance to provincial governments, but I would like to know whether this policy is to continue. Is the federal government to become responsible for all municipalities, all large banking corporations, all insurance companies?


James Layton Ralston: And Newfoundland.


Wilfred Hanbury: Yes, and the Dominion of Newfoundland? That is something that I believe the people of Canada are entitled to know. To what extent are we going to pyramid the liabilities of all parts of Canada? Is the Dominion government accepting full responsibility, no matter who undertakes the obligation, no matter how much a municipality is involved or how much it wishes to spend, no matter what happens to the banks or to the large companies? I say we are entitled to know from this government, now, when they ask us to pass this legislation, to what extent they are prepared to go. I would ask the minister to give us some information in that respect.


George Gordon: The answer, in so far as I can give it, is simply this, that the government is asking the house to invest it with the powers contemplated by the bill, the terms of which are well known to hon. members. They are broad in their character, from some angles, of course. To attempt to prophesy to what extent we may have to invoke the legislation in the coming year is impossible for me or for anyone else. But I think I can say this to the hon.

member, and I do not think he will quarrel much with it, that if during the coming year the occasion arises in connection with the safety of Canada., requiring such measures as are contemplated by this legislation, whether it be loans to provinces, or to business concerns the failure of which would challenge, or imperil or .perhaps destroy the business of this country, then I Should say that this government would take proper action, as contemplated by the legislation sought in this bill, to see that such an occurrence, in so far as it was in the capacity of this government to prevent it, should not take place.


Peter John Veniot: The other night when the minister was dealing with the amount advanced to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for relief, I asked him if he .could tell me what amount was advanced to the Canadian National under like conditions, that is to keep the shops of the Canadian National Railways going intermittently. He promised to get that information for me, and if he has done so I would like to have it.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps I can answer the question in a few words. The Canadian National railway shops were not closed at any time.


Peter John Veniot: No, but they were put on intermittent work.


Robert James Manion: So were those of the Canadian Pacific. The Canadian Pacific railway shops were on an even less number of days' work per month than the Canadian National shops. But the Canadian Pacific Railway Company after closing their shops, came to the conclusion that they could not open them again without some 'assistance, and the government, after considering the matter very thoroughly, decided to lend them money to keep the shops open for a certain time last year and a certain time the year before. May I point out that in view of the vast amounts of money which have been advanced from time to time to the Canadian National I do not think there should be criticism of a loan to the Canadian Pacific of, I think, about $2,500,000 in this connection.


Peter John Veniot: Wait until the criticism
is made; I have not yet made any criticism of it. But I think this committee is entitled to know what it costs to keep the Canadian National railway shops open. I will take one example, the shop at Moncton, that is carried on sometimes four days a week; was that carrying on four days a week part of the operating expenses of the Canadian National Railways charged up to deficit?

Relief Act, 1938


Robert James Manion: The Canadian National
Railways made no request for assistance in keeping their shops open at any time.


James Layton Ralston: And you have made no
advances to the Canadian National for the purpose of keeping the shops open?


Robert James Manion: Not for that specific purpose.


Peter John Veniot: But while the Canadian
National did not make any request for advances, the fact of keeping the shops open to help unemployment was charged against the deficit of the Canadian National Railways Atlantic section?
Mr.- MANION:	I do not admit that, because the Canadian National Railways have never taken the attitude that they kept them open to help unemployment. Their position is that they required to keep them open for the time they kept them open.


Peter John Veniot: I will put it the other way; the Canadian National Railways cut down the time of work in those shops to economize, and practising that economy they were still left with a deficit. That deficit was charged up against the operations of the Canadian National, not paid by the government of the country, and it becomes part of the debt of the Canadian National Railways to the government of Canada. Am I right?


Robert James Manion: I am afraid my hon.
friend is not altogether right in that either, because in the future, if we accept' the Duff report and put it into effect, as we expect to do, the deficit will be charged to the consolidated debt of this country, so it will not be charged as part of the debt of the railway.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, and interest charged
against it. Now I will come to the criticism of the loan to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The Prime Minister, speaking of that this afternoon, told us that every dollar of the money loaned to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company went to the men, that the shareholders received not one cent, and that the company were to pay back the loan. I was surprised that the Prime Minister at the time did not give the contents of that order in council, which distinctly states that the money was loaned without interest. It further states that it is not to be repaid to the government of Canada until the Canadian Pacific Railway earns sufficient to pay more than five per cent dividends to its shareholders.


Robert James Manion: Which order in council?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is the way the
press reported it.


Peter John Veniot: That is not only the press report, that is the order in council.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is the report I
saw.


Peter John Veniot: That order in council was
passed, I think, on September 30, 1932. The work was done between September 1 and December 31, 1931.


Robert James Manion: I am not trying to find
fault, but simply to keep the matter clear. May I suggest that there were two orders in council. One was on a different basis from the other.


Peter John Veniot: I will come to that. I am now dealing with the order passed for the payment of wages to these men for work done between the first of September and the last of December, 1931.


Robert James Manion: That is correct.


Peter John Veniot: Notwithstanding that that
work was done between those dates, and that parliament sat here from some -time in February to the 29th of June, not one word of information was given to this house, and it was only on the 30th September, 1932, that the order in council was passed, six days before -the opening of the present session. Under that order in council the Canadian Pacific Railway Company received that loan without the payment of one cent of interest, yet in order to make that loan to the Canadian Pacific the government had to issue bonds for $80,000,000, in which amount was included this $1,447,222.70. On that loan to-day we are paying interest at the rate of 4i or 4i per cent. During the flotation of that loan the Caandian Pacific Railway Company subscribed some $3,000,000 on which amount the company is now being paid 4^ per cent interest.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Peter John Veniot: It is said that this was trust money which was taken from the reserves. That makes no difference; it was Canadian Pacific Railway -money. Where did that reserve come from but from the people of Canada? In part it was built up by the sale of lands with which we bonused the construction of that railway back in 1882. This very rich company is not able to spend $1,500,000 to help out unemployment and keep their men going, though it was able to purchase S3,000,000 of Canadian bonds which are now earning 4i per cent. Further, the conditions under which the loan is to be paid back protect the share-
Relief Act, 1983

holders of the company. Under the order in council the loan is not to be paid until the net earnings of the company show sufficient revenue to pay dividends of more than 5 per cent to these rich shareholders.


Onésime Gagnon: Rich shareholders?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, most of them are
wealthy.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Would the government do the same thing for the farmers?


Peter John Veniot: Will the government do the same thing for the Canadian National Railways?


Robert James Manion: We have been doing it for years.


Peter John Veniot: You are charging the Canadian National Radways interest.


Mr. CANTLEY:: But the interest has never been paid.


Peter John Veniot: The Canadian Pacific Railway Company is not being charged interest. Let me go a little further. I took notice that during his speech to-day the Prime Minister once more felt called upon to attack the press of the country; he referred to rumours in the press which tend to lessen the value of our securities in the United States. Let the right hon. gentleman look at his own speeches; let him refer to the speech he made to the delegation of railway employees who waited upon him three or four weeks ago asking that certain measures be put in force for the relief of rai'lwaymen. If he was correctly reported in the press he recited the dire distress which existed among the employees of the two railway systems of this country; he went on to say that the systems were nearly bankrupt, and he wound up by saying, "I am proud to be able to state to you gentlemen that in my lifetime I predicted this situation."


Wilfred Hanbury: He meant "produced".


Peter John Veniot: Perhaps so; perhaps the press had the wrong word. What was the result? Within forty-eight hours Canadian Pacific Railway stocks fell several points on the New York market. So instead of blaming the press for rumours depreciating the value of our stocks in the United States the Prime Minister had better strike his breast and say mea culpa.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before we leave the question of advances to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company there is one other point I should like to bring up. The other evening I referred to an item which appeared in the press to the effect that the Canadian

Pacific Railway Company had been advancing money to railways in the United States which were affiliated with the company, apparently to keep those roads running and to help the men engaged thereon who otherwise were threatened with unemployment. If the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has money that can be used for the purpose of assisting unemployment in the United States surely there was no need for the government to make advances to that company.


Robert James Manion: Does my right hon. friend assert that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company advanced money to help unemployment in the United States? I did not know that. I am just asking for information.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I want to know from the Minister of Railways whether he has heard of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company making advances to roads in the United States to assist them in the distressed condition in which they find themselves.


Robert James Manion: No, I have never heard that, nor have I seen it in the press. While I am on my feet may I say just a word. I do not wish to delay my colleague's measure, but there was another order in council to which my hon. friend did not refer except in passing. I refer to the second order in council under which the second loan was made. Under the terms of that order in council the money is to be repaid before any dividends are paid.


Peter John Veniot: But that is not so under the first order in council.


Robert James Manion: I just wish to keep the record straight in that connection. I do not wish to quarrel with the facts stated by my hon. friend with regard to the first order in council, but under the terms of the second order in council we have insisted that the money must be repaid before any dividends of any kind are paid. I am not here to defend the Canadian Pacific Railway; usually they can defend themselves, but I think in justice to them and in justice to our action in helping them keep their shops open I should say that the company did not pay dividends on common stock at all last year, and I do not think they are likely to pay dividends for some time to come on that stock.


Peter John Veniot: The dividends were only postponed for discussion at the next meeting.


Robert James Manion: It is not for me to defend the Canadian Pacific Railway, but I do not think that company is likely to pay dividends on its common stock in the very near future.

Relief Act, 1933
I should like to point out also that the shops of that road extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and there were some 8,500 men affected. The Canadian Pacific Railway took the attitude that they could not afford to keep these shops open without some assistance. I do not want to make a comparison between the railways, but for years we have been giving assistance to the Canadian National Railways and I do not think there is anything out of the way in the fact that for two years we have assisted the Canadian Pacific in order to keep these 8.500 men employed. We must remember that in all probability a larger amount than the interest on these loans would have been paid out in direct relief had we not taken this action.


Peter John Veniot: I should like it distinctly understood just what I had in mind; I am afraid the Minister of Railways may have misunderstood me. I do not criticize the lending of the money to help the Canadian Pacific Railway. What I do criticize is the method that was adopted, and I am justified in that criticism by the remarks of the minister. Under the terms of the second order in council the money must be paid back before any dividends are declared; evidently the government saw the folly of their way.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What was the amount of the loan?


Mr. HEAPS:: I should like to ask the minister if he has any idea of the kind of work in which these 8,500 men were engaged?


Robert James Manion: I do not know the details, but it was shop work of some kind. I think they called them the back shops, but I am not even sure of that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I received a letter this morning which, had I known this matter was coming up, I woidd have brought with me. I will undertake to show it to the minister perhaps before the day is over. In this letter it is complained that some of the men employed in the Canadian Pacific Railway shops have not received the amount of work they should have received under the money advanced by the government. This is the claim they put forward. Whether it is justified I cannot say, but I hope an investigation will be made. In this communication which they have sent me the men complain that a large part of the money loaned by the government to the Canadian Pacific Railway was used to pay permanent officials who perhaps would otherwise have been employed whether the shops were closed or not. In this way, they say, the Canadian Pacific Railway escaped what were probably ordinary obligations in
using the money to pay permanent officials so that men who ought to have been employed for a longer period were consequently given a shorter term of employment while others had to walk the streets. The Prime Minister this afternoon said that there had been submitted to the government a statement of the wages paid by the Canadian Pacific Railway to the men, and on the basis of the work slips signed by the men an amount of money was advanced to the railway. I have no doubt the Prime Minister's statement was correct, but in view of the letters I received this morning from men actually employed in the workshops I think the Minister of Railways should investigate the matter and see whether the facts are as indicated. The men, I repeat, make the statement that the money advanced by the government to the Canadian Pacific Railway was used to pay officials who would perhaps be employed in any event and that an insufficient sum was used for the purpose of giving employment to the workmen.


Robert James Manion: I do not believe there is
truth in that statement. Money was borrowed for the purpose of giving employment to men in the shops and I have every reason to believe that it was used for that purpose. Naturally I cannot give details, but I have confidence enough in the management of the Canadian Pacific Railway to believe that they kept faith with the government in that regard. After all it is obviously difficult for men working in the shops to foe able to tell positively what disposal was made of the money borrowed by the railway. It is a common practice among men in the ranks to criticize the officers of the army. It is not necessary that one should go further than the war to find that out. I myself heard severe criticisms from privates who did not know anything about a particular battle front apart from what was going on in their own immediate section; yet they were quite free in their criticisms of headquarters staff. The same is true of workmen generally; they are prone to criticize headquarters. I believe that the Canadian Pacific Railway did with the money exactly what they undertook to do and provided work for the men as far as they could.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not think the minister
quite understands the position. In the shops themselves there are a large number of permanent officials. I have worked in the shops so that I have some idea of the situation. In these shops these permanent officials are on a monthly salary and they are the ones in
26S6

Relief Act, 1933
respect of whom the complaint is made. The money was used to pay them instead of a greater proportion of it having been used to give employment to men who had to walk the streets. I will hand on to the minister the communication I have received and I hope he will investigate the matter.


Robert James Manion: I will do that.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I regret that the Prime Minister is not in his place because I wish to make a slight comment on a statement he made. I do this for the sake of accuracy, because I think it is essential that we should have a true picture of conditions in the country, neither exaggerated nor underdrawn. In the course of his remarks the Prime Minister congratulated us on the fact that approximately sixty per cent of the farms in Alberta and Manitoba were free from mortgages, only about forty per cent or a little less being mortgaged. I had heard that statement before and I therefore made inquiries and found that my own impression was absolutely correct and that this was not the case. It is true that some sixty per cent of the titles to farms in these provinces are clear of mortgage.


Wilfred Hanbury: By acreage or number?


Alfred Speakman: By number. But that
does not mean that the title in every case rests with the farmer. It does mot take account of the agreements of sale. The titles to a great many of the farms are held by land-owning companies, such as the railway companies, the Hudson Bay Company, and various land-holding concerns. They are sold to the farmers on agreements of sale and paid for over a term of years, and while the title is clear it is not held by the farmer. So far as the farmer is concerned therefore an agreement of sale is the same thing as a mortgage. I know of my own knowledge-this is not a matter of authentic record however-that the percentage of farms now being paid for under agreements of sale is greater than the percentage of mortgages, so that so far as the farmer himself is concerned, although the statement made by the Prime Minister is technically correct, taking the actual mortgages and the agreements of sale, the percentage is nearer ninety than forty. The Prime Minister's statement is technically correct but it leaves a wrong impression, and nothing is gained by underestimating the situation any more than there is advantage in exaggerating it. It makes no difference to the farmer whether he owns the title and has subsequently borrowed money IMr. Heaps.!
and placed a mortgage on his farm, or whether some land-holding company holds the title and he has to pay under an agreement of sale, for in any event the farm is a mortgaged one. I confirmed my impression by inquiry at the bureau of statistics.


Wilfred Hanbury: Some minutes ago I
asked the Minister of Labour a question with regard to advances being made to the provinces, municipalities and so on. and he gave me an answer which explained the position the government had taken during the past year and which they might be expected to take in the coming year. What the minister said is however hardly a definite answer. I realize of course the difficulty of giving a definite answer. I wish to ask him now a definite question. Should one of the provinces of Canada be unable to meet its obligations and be in danger of defaulting, would this government furnish it with sufficient money to meet those obligations?


George Gordon: I agree with my hon. friend in one respect at least, that his question is a difficult one to answer. If there arose such an occasion as he indicates, the coming of the federal government to the relief of the province unable to meet its obligations would and, I think, should be determined from the point of view of conditions in the country generally, and the capacity of the federal government to assist the province concerned. I can however go as far as this with confidence, that if a province iound itself in such a financial position that it could not carry on and was unable to meet its obligations, the federal government in such an event would hesitate before refusing to render assistance, because the seriousness of permitting a province to default generally might very well entail very severe results from the point of view of the federal government itself. The question is hypothetical.


Wilfred Hanbury: Not at all.


George Gordon: It would depend in large
measure on the conditions generally at the time of such an event as the hon. gentleman suggests.


Wilfred Hanbury: I may be giving the minister a difficult question to answer but I believe the people are entitled to this information. He says that it is a hypothetical question, but it is far from that. It is being done by this government and it has been done, and I am just asking what they contemplate in the future, whether this is a definite policy upon which the people can depend. I think we are entitled to know'.

Relief Act, 1933
For myself, I am not in favour of it. As I stated before, I quite agree that in the past the government may have been justified; I do not criticize the action they took in the past, but does the minister and do hon. members of this house realize that the policy of this government in financial matters simply means that the federal government is assuming responsibility for every national institution, every province and every municipality in Canada? Our hon. friends in the far corner are criticized when they talk about the nationalization of credit and things of that sort, but what else is this but a nationalization of credit? What else has the government been doing but nationalizing credit? Will this government permit a municipality to default? They say they will, but a province will not.


An hon. MEMBER:: They have.
Mr. HAiSBURY: They put in their own men and they assume the responsibility of operating the municipality. This government will not permit a province to default, but I say that the time has come when in order to maintain the federal credit the provinces should be asked to look after themselves.


Mr. MORAND:: Your basis is wrong.


Wilfred Hanbury: My basis is not wrong. The time has come when the federal government cannot continue to pyramid its responsibilities. It is behind every railroad company, every trust company, every mortgage company, you might say, every insurance company, and every bank. In other words, we have pooled the credit of Canada. If we have done this and if we are going to continue to do it, then it should be announced as a definite government policy. As I see it, the time has come when we should say that we are not going to continue to do this. I come from a province that requires assistance, but in the national interest I think the time has arrived when that province should be told to stand upon its own feet. I realize that the time may come when the federal government may have to assume responsibility in so far as the bondholders of that province are concerned. The government is just staving off the evil day and perhaps bringing closer the day when the government's own bonds will not sell at the price at which they think they should sell. The time has arrived when the provinces of this country should shift for themselves, and I should like to have the assurance of the government that they will seriously consider the matter before they continue their present policy of pooling the credit resources of the whole of Canada.


Mr. COOTE:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word upon this point before we drift to something else. Right at the outset I want to say that the Dominion government is more responsible for the position in which certain provinces and municipalities now find themselves, that of being unable to meet their bond interest, than anyone else. It is the money policy persisted in and carried out so consistently by this government, the so-called sound money system, which has made it impossible for some of the provinces and municipalities to do their own financing. First of all, this government is responsible for unemployment, and then it insists that the provinces and the municipalities shall bear two-thirds of the burden of unemployment relief. The provinces are forced to borrow money for this unemployment relief, upon which borrowed money they have to pay high interest rates. One of the reasons for these high interest rates is the national service loan which was floated over a year ago. This loan carried a high rate of interest, and the western, and probably the eastern provinces as well, when entering the money market found that they had to pay the highest rates of interest that they had ever paid in their histories. Dominion of Canada bonds are supposed to be the best class of security, and when they carry a high rate of interest the province, the ' municipality or the corporation issuing bonds finds that it has to pay a rate of interest higher than this government. When this national service loan was floated with such1 a high rate of interest other outstanding bonds, amounting to probably billions of dollars, bearing lower rates of interest, immediately dropped in value. Many of these bonds were held by our financial institutions and in order to take care of that situation the government passed an order in council authorizing the banks to value their securities higher than the actual market value.
Let me come back to the government's money policy and the reference made this afternoon by the Prime Minister to the Manitoba savings bank. The right hon. gentleman said that when the government took over the assets of this bank it was found that it had nothing but the I.O.U.'s of the province, and he inferred that those I.O.U.'s were not worth their face value. That was the only inference I could draw from his remarks. If the bonds of the province of Manitoba are not worth their face value it is because that province cannot collect enough in the way of taxes to pay the interest upon those bonds. The reason they cannot collect enough taxes is because the price level of
Relief Act, 1933

agricultural and other products of that province is so low. The reason for these low prices is the unsound money policy of this government which makes the British pound worth only a little over $4. Last year it was down to about S3.70. The government's effort has been to keep down the value of the pound, or keep up the value of the dollar. Had this government adopted a more sensible and fairer money policy, the pound to-day would be worth $4.87, and would have been at least at that value during the past year. The western provinces, and probably some of the eastern provinces, would then have been able to collect several millions of dollars more in taxes. The farmers of Manitoba would have been able to pay the taxes which they have not been able to pay, and which will probably remain unpaid for some time.
I say to the committee that the Dominion government has a great responsibility in assisting the provinces and municipalities. Of course it is a case of how far it can be done; we may come to the point where it cannot be carried any further, but the responsibility rests chiefly with this government. I do not think that we can simply wash our hands of the whole affair and tell the provinces and the municipalities that they must look after their own affairs; it would not be fair. It is ' the unsound money policy of this government which has ruined the credit of some of the provinces and the municipalities, and it will finally ruin the credit of the dominion if it is persisted in too long.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Does the hon. member consider it is sound banking for a provincial savings bank to liquidate the savings of the people and place bonds instead of cash in its vaults?


George Gibson Coote: I am not discussing the policy of the savings bank in Manitoba, I am discussing the question raised by the Prime Minister as to the value of the bonds of Manitoba. I think it will be found that the banks of Canada have many millions of dollars of these bonds. It is under the banking system of which he is so fond that the tremendous bonded indebtedness of our provinces has been built up. It is because of the silly, perhaps I should say senseless financial policy which has been followed in Canada for so many years that we have borrowings, I suppose amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, in foreign countries, and these foreign borrowings constitute a great weight upon the people. These undertakings should have been financed in Canada through the operations of a government central bank. I know my hon. friend

does not like the idea of a government bank, but I would like him to think a minute and consider the position we are now in under the system which he thinks is O.K., one hundred per cent perfect.


George Brecken Nicholson: My hon. friend apparently misunderstood my question. I was not referring to what the banks generally were doing; I was referring to the provincial savings bank in Manitoba. That bank purchased Manitoba bonds-government I.O.U's -with the savings of 40,000 people and placed them in its vaults, thus making it impossible to keep its assets liquid. The result was that because of that depositors could not get their cash with which to pay the bills and taxes to which my hon. friend referred.


George Gibson Coote: Most banks consider bonds
are liquid assets. Whoever heard of a savings bank keeping all its money in cash? That is never done. I can go further and say that no bank in the world to-day can within two weeks meet all its liabilities if it were required by the investing public to do so-


George Brecken Nicholson: W'as it two weeks?


George Gibson Coote: -it is not banking business.


Mr. HOWDEN:: I should like to address
the minister on rather a different matter. We have talked about a lot of things that might happen if something else happened, but in Manitoba there is something that has actually happened. In the whole of that province there are two points at which relief measures have absolutely broken down. In the city of St. Boniface no relief of any kind has been advanced for the last ten days. I have heard the present Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal party, state that according to the constitution of this country, relief must be sought in the first place from the municipality, in the second place from the province, and, finally, in the case of those two bodies falling down, from the federal government. Well, these two bodies have now fallen down; there is not a dollar forthcoming; we have about 1,000 or 1,500 pretty snorty, cranky men milling around in St. Boniface, and I would not be very much surprised to see a heading in the paper that half the place had been burned down. Just what is going to be done about the matter? I have made it my business to interrogate-the ministers of this government before, both on the floor of the house and privately. So far, there seems to be no possible chance of relief coming from this source, and if we cannot get relief from this source, then so far as the city from which I come is concerned, God help us, because we have no money..

Relief Act, 1933
The banks have definitely refused to lend money either for relief purposes or to carry on the administration of the city. With the exception of some $20,000 or thereabouts which the federal government was good enough to advance some days ago, no moneys have been advanced to the city of St. Boniface since last December, but $20,000 is simply a drop in the bucket.


George Gordon: That is the amount of the bill sent in to us and we paid it.


John Power Howden: But the minister will
admit I have discussed this matter with him and have handed him communications, telegrams; that he has received similar communications and so has the Minister of Finance, pointing out that in this community of 10,000 people they are positively up against a stone wall. More than two-thirds of the citizens of Transcona and of St. Boniface are unemployed; sixty per cent of them are or were on relief and now there is no relief forthcoming. I should like to ask the minister whether, in heaven's name, there is any chance of our getting any help before we have bloodshed, pillage and other forms of trouble in that part of Manitoba. There is no help, no relief forthcoming from the province; the city is flat 'broke, insolvent. Is this government going to come to our aid or is it only going to send military troops after we have had open revolution and fire?


George Gordon: I have had two interviews with the hon. member for St. Boniface about the situation in that municipality. I do not understand and I cannot conceive why we do not receive such representations from Manitoba. All we have to have is the bill so far as St. Boniface is concerned, and we have not had any such bill that we have not paid. I ask the hon. member this question-and I do so not with any desire to be acrimonious- has he made the same representations to the premier of his province that he has made to me?


John Power Howden: I can reply to that by
saying that I am not supposed to make these representations to the premier of my province. I am a member of the House of Commons, and the fact is that the officials of the city of St. Boniface have appealed to me to make representations on their behalf because they can get no succour from Manitoba. I know nothing about the premier of my province or his administration, but evidently whether he is forced to do so or whether he is voluntarily doing so, he is not affording to those communities the degree of relief that they need.
The minister will agree with me that messages have come to the federal authorities and there is no doubt about the conditions that prevail in those communities.


George Gordon: Messages from the mayor
of St. Boniface.


John Power Howden: Three months ago the
city of St. Boniface discharged one-half of their officials because they could not see any possible chance of paying them. That is the condition of affairs; there is no doubt as to the situation. The town is full of unemployed, people who have, been on relief. Now the relief is shut off. What are we going to do? May I ask the minister whether, in view of the articles of the constitution of the Dominion of Canada which state that the dominion shall come to the relief of those who cannot find relief from either municipalities or provinces, we may hope for some succour, some relief, for those people who at the present time have no paeans in the world of sustenance?


George Gordon: If it is made known to this government by the Manitoba government that the city of St. Boniface-and I understand it has had a very difficult time financing the municipality for some years past; perhaps I am wrong in this, but I believe it has been in receivership for a long time-


John Power Howden: Quite so.


George Gordon: Surely there can be no
great difficulty if the man in authority, whose responsibility is certainly primary to ours, will disclose to his government that in his opinion the municipality cannot pay anything, and if Manitoba has come to the point where it has ceased to function as a province so far as St. Boniface is concerned, it will not take me very long to make up my mind as to what shall be done. I would earnestly ask the hon. member to make that representation by wire to the Premier of Manitoba and see what he says about it.


John Power Howden: Have I the minister's
undertaking that if I receive from the Premier of Manitoba a message that he is quite unable to render any succour to the city of St. Boniface, I may expect help to go out from this federal body?


George Gordon: We shall certainly take
such action as will ensure that people will not suffer for want of the necessities of life. At the same time I am not unconscious of the fact that those who essay to administer the affairs of a province cannot sit back and shift their responsibility to somebody else.
Relie/ Act, 1933


John Power Howden: I am very glad to have that word from the minister, and I shall see to it that some word is forthcoming in the very near future.


Mr. BRADETTE:: I want to supplement
and enlarge upon what I said yesterday with respect to the back to the land movement. I had not finished when my time was up. I know it is not very popular for a so-called back-bencher to make long speeches, but at the same time it is the duty of a member of parliament to bring as forcibly as he can before the house the situation which he finds in his own section of the country, particularly when it may develop into & national situation.
I said yesterday that I was in favour of the back to the land movement, and that during the last two or three years there has been a reverse movement from the cities hack to the rural centres. There are now tens of thousands of people in our industrial centres who are trying to find useful occupation on the land, and I want to compliment the government for its efforts in that direction.
I want to enlarge particularly upon a certain feature affecting the agricultural class in my own section of the country. Most of them are settlers, and some of them are now graduating into the farmer class. But in that class we find unemployment. Their position is much the same as that of our western farmers in that they are not receiving fair remuneration for their products, particularly for their pulpwood. The government has taken the initiative in bringing these settlers to my own section of the country, and the first crop they will have on their new holding will be pulpwood. It is the only production they will have for a good many years to come. I am sorry to say that the only market which we have for our pulpwood, and this applies to practically all primary products, is the United States, which is now shut to us. I saw a dispatch in this morning's paper that the Prime Minister is going to visit Washington and discuss with the American authorities a larger market for Canadian products in the United States. If this report originating from a press report in England is true, I fervently hope that the Prime Minister will consider the pulpwood question so that we can find a reasonable market for the primary product of the settlers in the newer section of Ontario and elsewhere. It would make the situation all the more easy for the government in maintaining our population on the land.
This winter, under direct relief, which is properly applied in my section under the guidance of Mr. Tackaberry, one of the major

officers of the northern development branch, the settlers on direct relief were paid $2.75 a cord for pulpwood. Anyone who knows anything about the ordinary pulpwood lumbering operations knows that it is absolutely impossible for any Canadian to earn his salt at that rate of pay. The least they should get is $4 or $4.50 a cord. Anyone who knows all the labour involved in cutting a cord, piling it in the bush, hauling it to the siding and loading it on the car, a very hard and slow process, knows that $2.75 a cord is absolutely ridiculous. I know that the government cannot settle this question overnight, but I fervently hope that the Prime Minister, if he visits Washington, will find it possible to open up that market to us. Two years ago he stated in this house that foreign countries had to come to Canada to buy their raw materials. But that does not apply so far as pulpwood is concerned, for our exports of pulpwood in the last three years have been almost nothing, the United States buying most of her supplies from Russia, Finland and other Scandinavian countries. Because of our close proximity to the United States and our railway facilities which place practically all sections of this country within easy reach of it, that is a market which I think should be regained for Canada.
As I said yesterday, we are going to see more and more of the back to the land movement, but at the same time the agricultural class must be helped more than it has been in the past. Under the scheme to which this government contributes, the settler receives a total sum of $600, as was stated by the Minister of Labour the other day, $500 being paid the first year, and the balance of $100 being reserved to take care of the settler in his second year. As I said a moment ago, we have unemployment among the agricultural class in my section of the country. Nearly seventy-five per cent of our own settlers, who have been settled for fifteen or twenty years, are now on direct relief, and unless measures are taken to anticipate the situation within the next two or three years, the back to the land movement will mean that there will be more unemployment. Is there a solution for that difficulty that we can foresee? I answer in the affirmative; yes, there is. I believe it is the duty of the central government to inaugurate a scheme for bonusing land clearing. As the minister knows well, for the last ten or fifteen years we have been agitating in northern Ontario for a land bonus scheme. Last winter, in the Ontario legislature, one of the committees of that house made a recommendation in favour of a land bonusing scheme. The province of Quebec inaugurated

Relief Act, 1933
such a scheme some seven or eight years ago, and I am in a position to know that it has done a lot of good for the northern part of the province. It is absolutely outside of politics. I am glad to be able to support my colleague from North Cochrane, Mr. A. Waters, who spoke in the Ontario house last Monday in favour of such a land bonusing scheme. I hope that the Minister of Labour, who I know has great influence with the government and is well known in every section of northern Ontario, will find it possible to inaugurate such a scheme. It would not take any very large sum of money because, from information I have received from the Department of Agriculture for the province of Quebec, I find that the average yearly expenditure under their scheme for the last three or four years has been 3300,000. I maintain that if we inaugurated such a scheme the people who are now on the land would be absolutely selfsustaining within a very few years.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Margaret Borliam Willson.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Clarence Eldon Durham.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Maurice Pash-link Simon, otherwise known as Maurice Simon Pashlinski.-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury).
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Marjorie Elizabeth Rae Dixon.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Joseph Adrien Desmarteau.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Henry Norman Bethune-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution- Mr. Gordon-Mr. Bury in the chair:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to continue in force the provisions of the Relief Act, 1932, until the 31st of March, 1934.
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: When we adjourned at six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I was enlarging upon the back to the land movement and suggesting that the government inaugurate in every province of our confederation a land bonusing scheme which is absolutely workable. After giving very thorough study to that sug-53719-171
gestion for many years I believe the amount of the bonus to each family should be $25 per acre per year for not more than ten acres, for land that is Cleared and put under cultivation and seeded. For single men the maximum might be five acres and the bonus $25 per acre per year. Already this scheme is in operation in the province of Quebec, where the maximum amount given is $24, made up of $12 for the clearing of the land to those who actually reside on it and $12 for putting the land under cultivation. This scheme has worked very well in the province of Quebec for the last seven or eight years.
I should like to speak for a moment of the conference held here last winter between the provinces and the dominion I believe the federal government was satisfied with the present policy, and I believe the provinces were looking to this government for direction. I am afraid that direction has not been given, but I hope that before we meet next session some scheme similar to the one I have suggested will have been established by this government instead of the present one of laissez-faire.
This afternoon I said that those taken from the cities and placed on the land under the present scheme have at their disposal a maximum $600, of which $500 is spent in the first year and the other $100 the following year. The man who is placed on new land in Ontario will not be in the same position at the end of his two years as will the same class of man who has been settled on land in Quebec. Under the present scheme of land bonusing in Quebec those people who have taken advantage of the scheme will have at their disposal for the first two years an average of $200 a year, and I think the federal government must realize that the people they are placing on the land now will have to be maintained for more than two years. I say this because I know the real situation in our part of the country. Last fall I read an editorial in the Ottawa Journal praising some financier who had made a speech in this city in which, the Journal claimed, he had stated the situation exactly as it existed so far as finance, industry and commerce were concerned. It is not a pleasant duty for members of parliament to discuss serious situations which may exist in their ridings, but I believe the principle which applies to financial or business men also applies to members of parliament. I am making these statements now not because it gives me any pleasure but because I realize my duty as a member of this house.
Let me urge as strongly as possible that the federal government inaugurate in every sec-

Relief Act, 1933

tioa of the country a system of bonuses, for clearing land in timber areas and for breaking land in the prairie provinces. In addition, in many areas there is a good deal of drainage to be done. The minister is familiar with the northern section of Ontario, and he knows that in a great many cases there is some marsh or muskeg to be drained. We all realize, I know, that when these men leave the cities without capital it is absolutely impossible for them to install a proper drainage system. There again I would urge the federal government to use its influence with the provincial authorities so that certain amounts of money may be given those new settlers who have to drain their land. Every man familiar with agricultural activities fully realizes that unless the land is properly drained there is practically no chance of having good crops. I do not wish to imply that the province of Quebec is leading in all these matters, but in this case I think Quebec is showing the way. In that province a certain amount of money is granted according to the percentage of drainage done on each holding, and I think that principle should be applied in Ontario and the other provinces as well.
During the present session we have heard expounded some very wonderful theories, and when I speak of the back to the land movement I know that I am talking shop. I do believe, however, that in the solution of the present agricultural problem we will find the solution of most of our troubles, I mentioned that fact some time ago, and I should like to enlarge upon that statement, but I believe an opportunity will be afforded me when I speak on the budget. At the same time, this government in cooperation with the provincial and municipal authorities is placing people on the land. These people have been accustomed to highly mechanized surroundings, whether they were working in factories or in other occupations, and we also know that it will be almost impossible for them to get very much machinery for the first few years on the land. Because of that fact alone I want the government fully to realize their responsibility for these people for the next seven or eight years.
The problem of agriculture is the most important problem facing us at the present time. The whole world has been interested in the five year plan experiment in Russia. There the government, which had power over tens of millions of people, decided on certain formulas in order to put that country on an industrial and agricultural basis which would be equal to that of the older and more civilized countries. This was all to be done within five years. I believe the plan has

worked well so far as industry is concerned; they have factories producing machinery, automobiles, farm implements and so on, but if the plan has been a failure

and I believe that in many ways it has been a ghastly failure-it is because of the fact that you cannot conduct agriculture by formulas. In the application of the five year plan they left so much to industry, so much to hydro and so much to other forms of industrial development, while to agriculture they decided on the production of millions of bushels of grain and other commodities. However, such formulas cannot apply to agriculture. Because of drought and climatic conditions that nation to-day is close to starvation; the farming class have not been able to produce what it was thought they would produce. To some extent the same thing applies in our own section of the country to-day.
The movement back to the land is going to increase steadily and I think the government should make a thorough study of the situation. Indeed I think it would be worth while for the provincial and federal governments .to hold a conference to investigate that aspect of the subject alone. That the situation may become serious is indicated by the fact that only a few days ago the hon. member for Stanstead brought the house to a realization that even the committee on agriculture could not deal with all phases of agriculture in every part of the Dominion.
I hope the government will find it possible to remove the anomaly that now exists as between the urban and the rural population in this country. I believe that it is in this direction we should look for a cure for the evils from which we are suffering at the present time.
I will not deal at greater length with the problems that arise under this act. What I stated a week ago I repeat now, namely, that so far .as northern Ontario is concerned we do not believe in the principle of direct relief. It is a palliative, I admit, and the Minister of Labour under present circumstances, seeing that .the federal government has not found it possible to inaugurate a policy of public works so as to give employment to Canadians, no doubt has to maintain this act for another year. I fervently hope however that for the sake of the morale of Canadians, whether urban or rural, the government will find it possible at the end of twelve months to adopt a different system whereby Canadians who are anxious and willing to work may be given employment and not the dole.

Keliej Act, 1933
All the newspapers in northern Ontario, such as the Northern Tribune of Kapuskasing, The Northland Post of Cochrane, and The Porcupine Advance of Timmins, have been decrying this so-called direct relief and asking that the government spend money on capital works. This country will have to make capital expenditures in that northern section, where we have wonderful resources. The population is sparse, and the government might very well spend money on public undertakings. The trans-Canada highway, the construction of colonization roads, and airways enterprises in the Department of National Defence offer opportunities for the expenditure of moneys in a public way, which would help not only the present situation but any situation that might occur in the future. I have been reading an editorial from Saturday Night, which I believe is a journal that is friendly to the present administration. It is the issue of March 4, 1933, and from it I quote the following:
This Country Needs Relief From Relief The state of despair into which we were thrown a few weeks ago by the revelation that the Dominion-provincial conference, of which we had formed high hopes, was not and was never intended to be a serious step towards the solution of any of our economic problems, has lasted until the present time and is still enduring; and under its influence we have, we believe, made practically no reference to any conceivable early alleviation of the country s troubles, save such as may come from the international debt or currency policies of other countries. This silence does not mean that we consider the present state of unemployment relief administration to be any less serious than before; we have merely no hope of anything being done about it. When, therefore, a minister of the crown tries to induce the Canadian people to believe that the problern is solving itself, it is time to protest against that assertion even though we have no expectation that he or his colleagues will do anything to solve it whether we protest or not.
The Hon. W. A. Gordon estimates that Dominion expenditure on relief for the year to March 30 will be below 25 millions. It is possible, though we think not probable, that the amount put through the books may be within that figure; but there is a very heavy lag in the charging of such expenditures against the final guarantor, the Dominion government, and we are convinced that the liability really incurred in the year will be far greater.
This optimistic figure Mr. Gordon compares with that of 41 to 45 millions attained in the preceding year (it is odd, by the way, that the expenditure of a year long since past should still be so vague and that of a year not yet ended so exactly computable), a year in which the method employed was that of financing needed public works instead of the present entirely non-productive "dole." In other words the country got something for most of the 4o millions; while it gets absolutely nothing for its 25 millions; and a considerable part of the 53719-1711
45 millions went not for labour at all but for materials. We are not defending the 1931 system, which we believe was grossly extravagant, but merely pointing out the meaningless nature of such comparisons.
In our section of the country we have had what has been known as the Sturgeon Falls scandal, and the population of that section has come in for a good deal of criticism. In this connection I wish to read the following from an editorial that appeared in the Porcupine Advance of Timmins, of February 2, which places the blame for the present state of affairs there, not on the people of Sturgeon Falls but absolutely on the act itself. I quote:
For some weeks past some of the newspapers of the province have been fairly feasting upon the sensational disclosures in connection with the .administration of direct relief at Sturgeon Falls. Day after day has brought its startling disclosure. And then comes an anti-climax. The people of Sturgeon Falls explain it all by blaming it all upon the newspapers! The newspapers have made a sensation out of inconsequential details, the theory says. The whole thing doesn't amount to anything in particular (so the explanation runs) but the newspapers have made a mountain out of a collection of molehills. Of course, quite a respectable little mountain could be made out of molehills, if you had enough of them,-and there seems to be quite a number of molehills in this Sturgeon Falls business. But after the excitement, sensation, astonishment and alarm created by the evidence in the Sturgeon Falls investigation, such an explanation seems cheap, paltry, common! The Sturgeon Falls folks had given hopes of better things. They had shown inventiveness, originality, and romance, and a fine grasp of the essentials for attracting attention. Why spoil it all by a cheap, time-worn, ancient old wheeze, like saying the newspapers are to blame. That is the excuse of all the cheap fellows, whether politicians or criminals or overtalkative fellows alarmed at their own words. Some day newspapers will demand relief from this sort of thing, but in the meantime, the newspapers are sadly disappointed in the people of Sturgeon Falls. Why not blame it all on direct relief? That would be nearer the mark. Direct relief lowers the morale of the people, fosters fraud, encourages dependence, indolence, chicanery and what have you. The newspapers only told about it all. Direct relief was the father, mother and whole family tree of the evils that have shamed Sturgeon Falls.
That editorial I believe reflects the feelings not only of the people of northern Ontario but of every section of Canada.
There is another matter I want to discuss for a moment or. two. I believe that in connection with this relief measure we are creating another bureaucracy. So far this country has kept itself pretty well away from that danger, but here we are setting up a new set of officials whose duties frequently overlap those of existing officials. In northern Ontario there is an organization that looks after
Relief Act, 1933

the farmers and settlers, and generally speaking the higher officials of that organization enjoy the confidence of the people. Now, I believe that the administration of direct relief should be left in the hands of the northern development branch. There are officials in every locality under this relief measure and personal conflicts are bound to come up, to the detriment of the whole scheme. I know that I am expresing the views of the Conservative member for North Cochrane in the legislature of Ontario, because he made the same statement in the legislature this week, when he urged that the administration of direct relief be left in the hands of the officials of the northern development branch. The Ontario government finds it necessairy to curtail expenditures to some extent in connection with the branch, but it must maintain a skeleton staff, and most of their officials-I could mention many names which are well known to the minister-are men who are fully equipped for the administration of relief. They know the situation thoroughly and are familiar with all the conditions that exist in that part of the country. Why have this overlapping of officials? I am making this suggestion in all sincerity and I hope it will be received in that spirit. I have seen it work out last summer, I have heard of many cases, and I have come to the conclusion that we have too many officials bringing about a conflict in jurisdiction. The provincial government has a splendid body of officials and efficient organizations which cover eighty per cent, of the airea of the province of Ontario. They are fully equipped and have had experience during the present depression, and I feel that their work would be satisfactory to everyone concerned.
I stated last Friday that perhaps we could criticize some of the acts of administration or certain cases here and there where politics had played a part, but taken as a whole I believe that the administration, as far as northern Ontario is concerned, has been carried out without political interference. I hope the minister will find his way clear to cooperate along these lines in the application of the direct relief act. May I again express the hope that the government will find it possible to provide work for many of the men up in our fine section of the country.
My last appeal is that the government devise means whereby in useful and fruitful occupations our people may again come into the full meaning of Canadian nationhood.


James J. Donnelly: Mr. Chairman, I fee! I would be neglecting my duty if I did not say a word or two in connection with this unemploy-IMr. Bradette.]
memt and farm relief measure now before the house. An idea seems to be prevalent in the mind of the government and of many people in the city that if they can only get the people back to the land, all will be well; that all we need to do is to get our -unemployed out of the cities and -towns and on the land and then they will be a-ble to make a living. Speaking in this house last November, I stated that it was impossible for any man to take the best farm in western- Canada and make a living out of it and1 pay his -taxes. Yet this government seem to -think that the -only thing they have to do is to get a -man out of (the city, send him out to a farm and all will be well. There is no class of people in the country to-d-ay suffering as much as the farmer. The farmer is receiving for his products only one-fif-th of what he received in- 1929. Day by day, week by week -and1 month by month his condition is becoming worse and worse.
Just look at -conditions this year as compared with last. I -hold i-n -my hand the live stock market report for December 29, 1932, sent out by the Department of Agriculture. The first item -that appears is butcher steers- the prices quoted are the top prices for each item. The price at Moose Jaw f-o-r the week ended December 29, 1932, was $2.75 per hundredweight. It -costs the farmer about $1 per -hundred-weight (to get his cattle to the market, so -he would net $1.75. In 1931, he received $5 per hundredweight, or a net figure of $4. Yet the farmer is prosperous and the depression is over! We are to congratulate one another upon the prosperous condition of the agricultural worker. If a farmer sends an ordinary cow into market he finds it has no value at all and in many oases he must put up a deposit to cover the cost of -transportation. Yet some of ou-r -hon. friends on the other side from Quebec state that the farmer in western Canada is so prosperous that he can go down to California -to spend his winters!
The next item is select bacon hogs. On December 29, 1932. the farmer got $3.40 buit In 1931 he got $4.20. What do we find with regard to wheat? Last year the farmer received somewhere between 55 and 60 cents per bushel, and as it costs abo-mt 20 cents to get the wheat to market the net return was in the neighbourhood of 35 or 40 cents. But wh-at is the farmer getting this year? The prices -have -run between 40 and 48 cents, so the farmer is receiving from 25 to 28 cents per bushel. Yet we are told that this year he is a -lot better off than he was last, and that we should get all our unemployed -back on- to the farm.

Relief Act, 1933
Take the matter of (poultry. Last fall I saw several carloads of turkeys being purchased to be dhipipeid to eastern Canada. There were big headlines in the paper stating that the Canadian turkey was receiving the top price in England, and what a wonderful bird it was. It is a wonderful bird.


Mr. DUFF:: The Prime Minister went over with some of them.


James J. Donnelly: He went over to England but I do not know whether or not he went over with the turkeys. One year ago t'he farmer received from 12 to 18 cents per pound for his turkeys, but what did he get this year? From 4 to 9 cents per pound-not half as much. I saw three large birds, each weighing from 12 to 15 pounds, sell for 50 cents each. They were off grades, they had a little twist in their breosthones and1 could not be graded as number ones, but the meat was there and they were just as good as the others.
I repeat that the farmer in western Canada is unable to make a living, and yet we are being told that the thing to do is to send our unemployed back to the land. They are to be sent back to the land in order to produce more so that the farmer will have additional competition and have his prices lowered still further. This is the condition as it exists to-day. The condition of the farmer is becoming worse and worse. This afternoon the Prime Minister told us how he had looked after seventy municipalities and had sent out direct relief to 330,000 in the dried out areas of Saskatchewan. It seems that every time we speak of the farmer we speak of relief, but when we speak of the Canadian Pacific Railway or the provincial government, we say we are giving them financial assistance. All we are doing for the farmer is to finance him. For years and years the farmer in western Canada has been going to the merchant who would finance him until he marketed his crop, but to-day the merchant cannot do this. The result is that the government is financing the farmer, but for everything the farmer gets he has to sign a note to the government. Why is it that the farmer in these dried out areas who has had the hand of Providence against him for the last three or four years has to sign a note for anything he receives in the way of assistance when he is hungry or wants a bed upon which to sleep, although the man in the city or the farmer in any other province does not have to sign a note when he is given similar assistance? Why does this government compel our farmers in the dried out areas to sign notes when they do not do it anywhere else?


George Gordon: This government never
compelled them to sign notes.


James J. Donnelly: I beg your pardon, I have the notes right here. I have one of your agreements and if it is not asking that a note be signed, I should like to know what it is.


George Gordon: When the hon. member
said "this government," did he mean the Dominion government?


James J. Donnelly: Let me read it for the hon. gentleman. If it is not for this government, it is not for the government of Tim-buctoo:
I,	, the above named applicant
hereby faithfully promise and agree to pay to the Saskatchewan Relief Commission on behalf of His Majesty the King in the right of the Dominion of Canada-
If it is not this government, what government is it? Is it the government sitting over there, or what is it? This is the government that asks men to sign these notes, and, by signing them, to agree to pay the money back. We ask the Prime Minister why he did this. "Well," he said, "I have received many telegrams from people in western Canada asking that this be done." We asked for copies of those telegrams, but we never received them and we never found out what happened to them. When I was in western Canada, on every platform I stood I asked that those who had sent telegrams should stand up, but I have never yet seen anyone do so. I believe they were afraid to stand up in case they might be lynched. Someone suggests that they were afraid section 98 of the criminal code might be used against them and they might be sent to gaol. In any case these people are discriminated against by having to sign these notes, whilst people in other parts of the country receive relief without having to do so. When the Prime Minister was returned at the last election we said: We want not charity, but work; and the Prime Minister promised work. In Regina he cried like a Billy Sunday over the situation.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was a sermon on the mount.


James J. Donnelly: Yes, we listened to the sermon on the mount then but we listened to the swan song this afternoon. It was a doleful tale, and from the way things are going the tale will be more doleful yet. We say that we should not be discriminated against, and if other people are going to get charity, we are prepared to take as much as-any of the rest of them.
Relief Act, 1933

The farmers in the dried out areas last year received assistance in matters of farm implements, twine and binder repairs. What do we find? As soon as the harvest is cut and the grain threshed and they begin to take in their crops, they have to send so much in to the municipality for direct relief. In some of those municipalities, if a man had 1,000 bushels of wheat he would have to keep 200 bushels for seed. He would have 800 bushels for sale, so that at from twenty to twenty-five cents a bushel he would receive somewhere between $160 and $200. Out of that he would have to pay $40 into the municipality, that amount being sent on to pay for this direct relief. After they got the $40 they sent a man around to distribute the relief. There was a duplication; they took it from the farmer and they had to hand it back. Over and over again that was done and we know that it is being done all through that area.
We are glad, however, to note one thing. At first when this relief was mentioned, we advised the government not to have relief officers going throughout the municipalities, but to let the relief be handled by the municipal officer. We are glad to note that this year the relief is being handled as we suggested. There are now no relief officers running about the country in high-powered cars. Last year they were driving from one town to the other, smoking big cigars, burning up gas at the rate of $150 to $200 a month, doing nothing but just going from town to town and drawing as much money themselves as they were handing out in relief. To-day we find a municipal officer carrying out the relief work just as effectively at a much lower cost.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The government are not doing it in the north in that way; they still have their relief officers sent there.


George Gordon: In answer to the interjection of the hon. member for North Battle-ford, there will be no relief officers in his con-Etitueney.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: They are there for the provincial government's relief commission, and they therefore indirectly represent the federal government in this matter.


James J. Donnelly: In the drought areas
the government is handling the relief one hundred per cent. Am I not correct?


George Gordon: We are paying one hundred per cent relief in that area.


James J. Donnelly: What we find very
strange is that although the federal government is doing that, it has nothing whatever

to do with the administration. Does that not seem odd? The government pays for all the relief and yet has nothing to say as to how it is being handled; it is leaving somebody else to do the work. That is the case in my district and others.
Last fall I referred to the manner in which these orders are brought in. A man goes into one of those relief offices and he is asked: How much a month do you want? Last year that was the way in which they handled the matter. This year they decide how much they are going to give and they give the man an enormous sum to spend and to squander. For instance, a husband and wife receive from the relief officers in the way of groceries $4.50 a month, while a single man gets $3.50 a month.


William Duff: Does he buy grapefruit with
that?


James J. Donnelly: I do not know whether he buys grapefruit, but this order is sent to him and he takes it to the grocery store. It calls for so much in the way of beans, Epsom salts, rolled oats, tea, coffee and so on, and the price is set down opposite each item. I said last year and I say again that not one merchant that I know of in western Canada is making out that order exactly as it states. He fills it in with something or another; he writes down so much salt, so much rolled oats, and so on. The result is that rolled oats and beans have gone out into that western country in carloads; more rolled oats and beans have been sold there than ever before, yet no more is being handed out than formerly. The merchant fills in the order just as he likes, making it come out to the total at the bottom, and then he asks the customer:	What do you
want? He hands the order out to the customer just as the latter wants it, and it is taken away. I said that last fall and the former hon. member for Mackenzie, who is now on the tariff board, said that he did not have that experience in his district, but he knew it was wrong. I have seen hundreds of those orders put up; I have asked hundreds of merchants and have yet to find one who says that he does not fill out orders in just that way. Moreover, I saw the relief commissioner in Regina and asked him whether those people were filling out the orders in that way. He said: " I know it." I said: "Why do you not send the people a cheque for $4.50 a month?" He said: "We are afraid to do that; they may spend it in another way." Just imagine! Do they think it is extravagant and that the people will go and buy liquor with it? Why they do not send cheques, it is impossible for me to say.
In addition to that, there is in Regina a little army of clerks-at one time there were

Relief Act, 1933
150 or 200 of them-whose occupation was to go over those orders and check them up to see that the right quantities of beans, salt, rolled oats and so forth were entered and that it was figured out correctly at the bottom. But the whole thing was fictitious. It was and still is the biggest part of their job to check up those orders that come in and to see that the bills are filled out correctly. If this government is putting up one hundred per cent of the relief that is being handed out in those drought areas, we regret this is the case, and we do not know how long it is to be continued. An hon. member beside me suggests that it will continue as long as this government remain in power, and I believe it will because I do not think they are in league with anybody, even with Providence. As long as this condition exists in which we are providing one hundred per cent of the relief I do not know why we should not have something to say as to how it shall be administered. This government most certainly should have something to say in the administration of this aot


Mr. SPROULE:: After listening to the hon. member for Willow Bunch it seems to me that it is time for somebody from Ontario to say a word or two. For two or three days we have been listening to our western friends criticize the government, and one hon. gentleman said he would welcome the day that this government would stop assisting provinces that could not look after themselves, while another hon. member wants to know if the government is not going to continue to look after them.
The hon. member for Willow Bunch talks about the prices for cattle. He knows perfectly well that cattle are not worth any more across the line than they are here, and even if they were we could not ship our cattle into the United States because of their tariff.


James J. Donnelly: What line are you talking about?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


John Thomas Sproule: Then the hon. member for Willow Bunch talked about the prices for turkeys. He would not give the Minister of Agriculture credit for assisting to market 76.000 pounds of western turkeys in the old country. He also said that turkeys were bringing only four and five cents a pound to the farmer in the west.


James J. Donnelly: That is what we got,


John Thomas Sproule: 
James J. Donnelly: They are.


John Thomas Sproule: They are not to blame for anything of the kind. I do not want to take up very much more time, Mr. Chairman, but I think it is time that a lot of these members from the west with so much wind on their stomachs should sit down, and then they will get along easier, otherwise the day will come when somebody will tell them where they get off. I do not want the day to come when there will be any division in this country. I have as much sympathy for agriculture as any man, and I defy any hon. member to stand uip and say that this government is not doing its best for agriculture. If certain hon. members from the west have anything constructive to offer, why do not they outline their remedies? Instead, they talk as though we were responsible for the United States tariff. We had nothing to do with it at all, and they know that well enough. They are only talking politics; there is nothing to it. They are simply trying to make out that this government is to blame for conditions in this country to-day. I say, Mr. Chairman, that this government is doing its best to bring this
Relief Act, 1933

country out of the depression, and prices in Canada for all agricultural commodities are higher here than in the United States. Why not give the government a little credit instead of standing up and grumbling and complaining all the time? I do not want to take up any more time, Mr. Chairman, because we want to get along with the business of the house.


Mr. BLAIR:: I enjoyed listening to the speech of the hon. member for East Lambton. I think we fully realize that the government is trying to bring this country out of its present dilapidated condition, but I think they are going about it in the wrong way. Their efforts may be conscientious enough, but they are very much misguided.
We find ourselves to-day, Mr. Chairman, in a peculiar condition in this country. We are the unwilling victims of the strangest "famine" ever recorded in history. When evil days fell upon ancient nations there was generally a famine or a plague of some kind, grasshoppers, locusts or the like. At the present time our country is well favoured by the hand of Providence. We have an abundance of everything, an overabundance, in fact. We have tqo much food, and yet we find starvation in this land. We have too much clothing, and yet some of our people are naked. We have too many houses, and many of our citizens are without homes. We have too much coal, and some of our people are freezing. We have too much of everything that the heart of man can long for, and yet we have a famine-unemployment. Imagine unemployment in a young and rich country like Canada, with its great resources! Nevertheless unemployment is here and getting worse. Let me compare our unemployment figures with those of some other countries. On October 15, 1932, in France one out of 170 was unemployed; in Italy, one out of 45; in Great Britain, one out of 25. Canada-just imagine, in this young and prosperous country!-one out of every twelve of our population is unemployed, according to the Prime Minister's own announcement. The figures I have just quoted are taken from fairly reliable papers in France, Italy and Great Britain. Unemployment is still with us, although this government were going to cure it in three days when they got into power. They are now in their third year of office-


Mr. SPENCE:: You tell us how to cure it.


John Knox Blair: I will give the hon. gentleman a little information before I get through if he happens to be here to listen.

The government, I say, took office with the avowed object of relieving the unemployment situation. The unemployed at that time were reported to number 100,000. In normal times there are 50,000 unempolyed in Canada; so at that time we had only some 50,000 more unemployed than normally. After the third session of this parliament the Prime Minister announces that he is feeding 1,370,000 people in this country. The policy advocated and chiefly depended upon by this government to relieve unemployment was high tariffs. I must say that the gentleman from Toronto who asked how they were going to do it-


James Houston Spence: They are not growling from Toronto.	(


John Knox Blair: The lodges in Toronto gave
these poor fellows buttons and ribbons and the password, they were paraded here and there-


James Houston Spence: It did not cost you anything.


John Knox Blair: These poor fellows have been eating the apples of Sodom ever since; they are travelling up and down our concessions by hundreds. Toronto should be ashamed of herself, leading these poor innocent people to vote for high tariffs, and big fat organizers getting them in their lodges and sticking little ribbons on them. I have hauled them into Toronto time and again with their pants tied up with binder twine and a little button on their lapel. I tell them: "You are the boy; you are a faithful citizen." Then the railway-men-that is another pitiable thing. Toronto Tories came through our district campaigning among the Canadian Pacific employees for high tariffs, and the men were simple enough to listen to them. They did not realize that high tariffs were not going to improve the traffic on their railway, and the Canadian National men were not much better. How can you improve traffic on the railway by raising the tariff rates three times as high, putting on a six per cent sales tax when the goods come off the cars, and an excise tax of three per cent, and then telling these fellows it will improve traffic on the railway and give employment to more railwaymen? It was one of the biggest farces ever heard of. I can never understand how they got the railwaymen to believe that nonsense. But they have been badly disappointed; I have seen men who were conductors down in the soup kitchens in Toronto getting a bite to eat. The same with commercial travellers: a band of Tory drummers out of Toronto were sent wholesale throughout the province to tell the

Relief Act, 1933
people of Ontario that the factories would be prospering and that everything would blossom as the rose, that Canada would go ahead if they would raise the tariff. But now these drummers are out of employment and have been looking for a job for the last two years. You see them at the soup kitchens in Toronto, and the same in Hamilton. And so we could go from one class to another.
The poor farmer, I pity him. I never knew why they were so much opposed to the New Zealand butter treaty, but there was a little logic and brains behind that opposition. It was a great mistake, as any farmer who looked into it could not fail to realize, when we were getting S3 from New Zealand for every dollar she got from us. The farmers are among the greatest sufferers. Ostensibly they are living in their homes, but it is a sad condition when a man has reached the age of fifty-five, has his family around him and depending on him, and knows that he is not worth a dollar, that if his creditors demanded payment he could not possibly pay them and would have to walk off his farm. That is the condition of many farmers in our good old county of Wellington, where we pride ourselves on good farms and good farmers; yet in some cases their taxes have been unpaid for two years. Yet these are men who three years ago were fairly well off. The previous speaker spoke of poverty in the west. No doubt the western farmer is poverty stricken, but in Ontario the farmers are suffering very seriously from the advice they received from Tory Toronto.
Another question is the unfortunate state of affairs existing in our prisons. We Canadians are an honest law-abiding people, and if our gaols are overflowing it is an insult to our intelligence. Seventy-five per cent of those we have in gaol are not criminals; they are the victims of unemployment caused by a wrong national policy.


William Duff: Bennett's tourists.


John Knox Blair: Yes. We are all pretty much the same by nature; if we are driven to distraction any of us would steal. If our families were in extreme poverty it is no use for us to say we would not steal; any of us would break a window and take something to keep his family from starving. Some of us may be too pious for that, but I do not think I could be depended upon if my children were in need; I would be in gaol with these other birds. We need a different distribution of wealth in this country. We do not want all the wealth in the hands of a few rich people who control our financial institutions. We want many people owning their own farms
and their own homes. We do not want great banking systems that control our economic power and set up white elephants to advertise themselves like the Bank of Commerce in Toronto-a fool enterprise-instead of lending the money to the farmers in the rural districts. They take the money from the rural parts and spend it foolishly in the cities. We want a banking system from which the small town merchant and the home builder can secure a limited amount of money and credit. We need, as never before in Canada,-and this I think is very important-we need a Magna Charta defining the rights and privileges of the poor classes. The farm and labouring classes are certainly being imposed upon by the policies of this government. Of course the rich wish to keep their fortunes; it is only natural that they wish the payment of bonds to be guaranteed and factories to be kept working-we all want that. They want to keep the banks open and solvent, and we all want that too. But the wishes of the poor take a different direction: they wish work or increased wages-and some of them surely need it. The farmers wish to get a better price for their wheat and wool; the labourer wants work so that he may have enough to eat and to wear and so that he may provide something for his old age.
Now I would like to deal more particularly with the causes of this unemployment. One important factor is the depreciation in the values of the products of the farm, as a result of which farmers are unable to buy. A farmer who bought his farm three years ago for $6,000, giving a mortgage for $3,000, to-day has not a dollar of equity in his farm. The depreciation of farms is at least fifty per cent; the mortgagee literally owns the farm. When he bought that farm, $3,000 perhaps meant 3,000 bushels of wheat, but to-day it means about 7,000 or 8,000 bushels, and the result is a double liability. What has brought about that situation? It has resulted from stangu-lated trade and commerce due to high tariffs, the sales tax, the great expenditures of this government, increased taxation of all kinds and the increase in the national debt. It seems that decreases in trade and increases in taxation go together. I suppose we all realize that the difference in tariff revenues between the last year the Liberal government was in power and the first year the present government took office was about $80,000,000. which had to be made up by taxation. There are about 2,000,000 homes in Canada, which means that $40 would have to be collected from each home to realize that amount. That amount would drive most of our farmers off the la"4

Relief Act, 1933
if they had to pay it in extra taxation. Economic conditions are not known by the public; one after another our Conservative friends stand up and boldly declaim on behalf of their beloved policy of high tariffs, telling the people that good times are just around the corner and that we are on the up grade. We believe they should tell the truth; optimism is not a species of cheerful imbecility based on bedtime stories. We must not forget the statement by Lady Nairne that "truth will stand when all else faileth," and I think the public should be told definitely what is the situation and asked to cooperate in facing it. To-day the people have lost faith, and nothing destroys faith more than falsehood. People are afraid; fear paralyzes their efforts. We must take the people into our confidence and tell them the truth and ask for intelligent cooperation. If we did so we might experience some improvement.
The other day we read in the press that Sir Arthur Currie was pleading for an inflation of the Conservative party by adding to it Liberal brains. Knowing the Curries as I do I felt that he saw a sair, need, and I would say he was one hundred per cent Conservative. You cannot ask for more members on the other side; they have so many now they do not know what to do with them. They have enough material for two cabinets, yet Sir Arthur Currie rightly thinks there should be some Liberal brains infused into the Conservative party, and he is not the only one who so thinks. The country has begun to realize that something like this is absolutely necessary.


James Houston Spence: Would you like to come
in?


John Knox Blair: Not under your present
policies; I could not do it, much as I would like to associate with some hon. gentlemen opposite, some of whom I admire very much but whose policies I detest. I believe the Prime Minister, in his own mind, was a sort of Sir Galahad, and I believe now that he was conscientious. I did not think so at the time; I thought he was wrong and knew he was wrong, but since then I have changed my mind. I believe he thought he was right, but now he is coming to the point where he knows he is absolutely wrong, and I think his followers are beginning to realize that his policy is carrying this country downhill as fast as we can go. This would not be the case if we were not following the policies of the United States, and they are bigger fools than we are. They have committed all the sins we have committed, but they were a little ahead of

us. We were imitators; we have been mimicking the United States. At one time the capitalists of the United States wanted control of the financial system; they wanted to make and valuate their own money, but Washington said, "No, we are not going to give away our rights". Later on Jefferson said the same thing but when the war came Lincoln sold the rights of the people and allowed United States capitalists to make and valuate their money. Once I attended a celebration on Lincoln's birthday, and much ado was made about Lincoln worshipping the goddess of liberty. I could not help saying that Lincoln liberated the slaves constitutionally but enslaved the inhabitants of the country economically when he tied them up to the financial institutions of the United States and of Great Britain, because at that time Great Britain had an influence over United States banking institutions similar to the influence the United States has over us at the present time.
Now I come to what I think is the great cause of this depression; I refer to deflation and its collateral forces. You can deflate money without destroying it, without taking it out and burning it as the banks do every year when the western crop is moving. Deflation simply means removing money from circulation. I think the definition of the power of money is similar to that law of physics which says that the force of a moving body is the weight of the body multiplied by its velocity. I believe the power of money is the volume of money multiplied by its velocity, and I think the power of money depends more on its velocity than on its volume. Hon. gentlemen to the left keep suggesting that we should increase the volume and inflate money. I am not sure that this has not been done; I think that action has , been taken by the government to the extent of at least $35,000,000, if not more.
The great thing about money, however, is to keep it in circulation. One dollar would pay a thousand dollars of debt if you could keep it going fast enough and in a certain direction. The usual number of moves of a dollar in circulation is ten or fifteen in a year, so one dollar will pay ten dollars' worth of debts and one hundred dollars will pay a thousand dollars' worth of debts. At the present time, however, we feel that instead of increasing the velocity of money the government has strangled trade and commerce so that money cannot circulate. I believe everything that checks the velocity of money or that comes between the producer and the consumer is a deflator, that it will lower the

Relief Act, 1933
prices of farms, that it will lower wages and throw men out of employment. I believe that the closer together you can bring the producer and consumer the more you will actually inflate. I think a hill on a railway right of way is a deflator. A storm at sea is a deflator. A cataract on a navigable river is a deflator. These all hinder the commodities of the producer reaching the consumer. Every tariff barrier is a deflator; it reduces the wages of the labourer and throws men out of employment. Time is a deflator; if you can trade your products with some person close at hand it takes less time to make a turnover.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bury):: I think the hon. member is wandering away from the resolution. He has been discussing a subject that has only the remotest connection, if any at all, with the resolution.


John Knox Blair: I will try to tie up my remarks with the resolution and put myself in order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go ahead.


John Knox Blair: No, I think the chairman is quite right. What I mean is this. If we deflate money, that has a tendency to reduce wages and throw men out of employment. Now, I hold that if we can trade with a country close to us-and I believe that my hon. friends opposite are talking about reciprocity with the United States-then it is better for us to try to trade with people right at our elbow rather than with people three thousand miles away.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Does the hon. member think he is on the resolution now?


John Knox Blair: Yes; I submit that what I am saying now is -quite relevant to the motion before the -house.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I am afraid the hon. member is not speaking to the resolution.


John Knox Blair: The chairman will see the relevancy of my remarks in a moment. The high rate of interest is a deflator and it lowers the wages of men and throws others out of employment. The Ontario government -raised the rate of interest to six per cent, with the result that farmers could not get mortgages on their farms, nor could townsmen get mortgages on- their houses. Did that interfere with employment? I think it certainly did. The banks refused to lend money to the farmers and, inasmuch as farmers could not afford to hire help, that added to the unemployment of farm labour.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I must really rule the hon. member out of or-dier.


James Houston Spence: Do you talk -like that at home?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The resolution to which the hon. member is supposed to be speaking is:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to continue in force the provisions of the Relief Act, 1932, until the 31st of March, 1934.
Mr. VALLANC-E: But there is an amendment before the house, Mr. Chairman.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The amendment is only an addition -to the -resolution.


William Duff: Will you please read the amendment, Mr. Chairman?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The amendment is:
That this resolution be amended by adding thereto the following words:
"provided, however, that the amount to be paid for direct relief for the fiscal year ending the 31st of March, 1934, shall not exceed the sum of $20,000,000.
That does not bring the hon-. member's re-marks into order.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton-):: It is just as funny on the amendment as on the main motion.


John Knox Blair: Hon. members may regard
the matter as funny but it is not. If I may be allowed to continue with this train of thought, may I point out that frozen credits bring about a greater degree of unemployment. Surely that has a marked relationship to the resolution, Mr. Chairman.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I would direct the hon. member's attention to the fact that we are not discussing the causes of the situation; we are asking whether, unemployment still existing, we should continue the Relief Act.


James Layton Ralston: May I speak to the point of order. We must remember that the Unemployment Relief Act contains many provisions other than the payment of money. Section 4 of the act which it is proposed by this resolution to continue is that the governor in council shall have full power-
-to make all such orders and regulations as may be deemed necessary or desirable for relieving distress, providing employment and, within th-e competence of parliament, maintaining peace, order and good government throughout Canada.
I submit that we are in order in discussing any measure which the governor in council might possibly take having in view the relief of distress, the provision of employment, or
Relief Act. 1933

the maintenance of peace, order and good government. Section 2 is very much in the same words but deals particularly with the payment of moneys out of the consolidated revenue fund for any of the purposes indicated. I submit therefore that this debate is a good deal wider than most debates on ordinary resolutions. This resolution precedes a bill which is intended to extend an act permitting action in any form, and any hon. member can suggest anything that relates to any of the objects contemplated.


George Gordon: My hon. friend has been
reading from the 1931 legislation, but that is not the legislation we contemplate extending for a year. The legislation with which this legislation has to do is that of 1932.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The only difference is that the clause with regard to peace, order and good government is dropped.


George Gordon: At one time that was
quite an important subject.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, it was.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The hon. member who has the floor frankly admitted that he was wandering from the subject and I ask him in fairness to the committee to keep as close to the subject as he can.


Leslie Gordon Bell: And that will be
far enough away.


John Knox Blair: I was referring to deflation.
Mr. Austen Chamberlain, I would point out, set his heart upon deflating and asked the bankers to assist him in 1920. What were the consequences? The people bought less; interest increased; scarcity of money followed with depressed industry; debts increased as money became dearer; and there was an increase in taxes. The banks at any time can restrict credits till wages fall. Lord Rother-mere pointed out that the gold standard benefited the bankers by restoring the prestige of currency, but it put an unbearable handicap on industry and farming.


John Vallance: they have only thought of to-day and thinking only of it the result has been that now we have unemployment, people walking our streets, men and women hungry,-we have all these things in this great rich country.
Are the people less hungry to-day than they were in 1930? I ask the committee to consider this question in the light of the statement made by the minister. Speaking at Vancouver on June 18 and referring to the then Prime Minister of Canada, the present leader of the opposition, he said-


Leslie Gordon Bell: That is all past.

Relief Act, 1933


John Vallance: It is all past and you
do not like to hear of it. He said:
However blind he may be to your future and deaf to your present needs, surely he cannot stop his ears with smug complacence and selfesteem to the cry that carries across the nation 

the cry of the destitute and hungry, the cry of mothers and fathers and little children who cal) to us as Christians and as Canadians to heal their pain. I would have welcomed his cooperation in this time of national distress.
He is just about to ask for it again. He continues:
It transcends the realm of politics, it appeals to the heart of man, not to the imagination of the politician.
He was not talking to a bible class at that time. This afternoon when questioned about a certain statement which he had made he drew attention to the environment in which his statement had been made, before a bible class. I think that a man occupying the position of Prime Minister of 'Canada, no matter where he makes his statement, whether it be before a bible class, whether it be on the floor of the hoarse, whether it be in Vancouver, Regina, Winnipeg or Hamilton-


Leslie Gordon Bell: Or Battleford.


John Vallance: Or in Battleford, if you like. I will make a statement in the most kindly way-if he does not mend his ways, he may be in Battleford. Then at Renfrew on July 16 he said:
There is no excuse for unemployment in our country. There is no excuse for poverty. We have the people and the resources. We have the capital, but capital will not allow itself to be used unless there is stability and certainty It must not be wiped out by factories being closed down by unfair competition from abroad.
He made that statement and used the words "unfair competition." The Prime Minister's policies have been in existence since 1930 and to-day we have only twenty-five per cent of both our external and internal trade as compared with that time. I could go on and give many more quotations from the speeches made by the Prime Minister relative to the position of the unemployed but-


An hon. MEMBER:: Make your own.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Go on, your's are better than his.


John Vallance: "Was you there, Charlie?"
Unemployment was not the only problem with which the Prime Minister was going to deal; he was going to solve all the problems of Canada overnight; he was going to give relief to everything, but he has ended up by relieving the people of all they ever had.
He made the statement this afternoon that forty-nine per oent of the farms of Saskatchewan were without mortgages. I challenged that statement this afternoon and I do so again to-night. It may be that forty-nine per cent of the land in the province is not at present under mortgage, but that land is not held by the farmers who are actively clutivating it. With the exception of a very small percentage of farms, the only farms without mortgages are those which have been wrested from the farmers by the mortgage companies. If this government is in power much longer it will be ninety-nine per cent, not forty-nine. I make this prediction: If the Prime Minister will take the statistics one year from now, that is if he goes to the country in one year, or, say, two years from now, he will find that the figure will be nearer to ninety-nine per cent than to forty-nine.


William Duff: The whole country is mortgaged under this government.


John Vallance: What did he propose to do for the farmers and what has he done for the farmers? I would be just as bold in making my statements if the right hon. gentleman was present, or perhaps a little bolder.


An hon. MEMBER:: You could not be.


John Vallance: He stated that when he backed the provincial bank of Manitoba to the extent of 812,000,000. he did so in order to save the deposits of the farmers. I doubt if over three per cent of the farmers of western Canada have deposits in the banks. They owe much more to the banks than they have in the way of deposits. He talked of sound money and about conditions as they are today, but let me give an illustration-and I hope the chairman will not rule me out of order because I believe it has some bearing upon the subject under discussion. We think each individual in Canada is entitled to fair and just consideration. We also believe we should make equal sacrifice in the condition which we find in this country. Before I left home I was speaking to some of the farmers in my constituency. Let me take the house back to 1917 and 1918 and show it a statement given to a bank in order that credit might be extended to a farmer. Let me show the house another statement given in January, 1933, which indicated the visible assets of that farmer to be 100 per cent more than they were in 1917, yet in spite of that fact he has not to-day a statement one-third as good as he had in 1917. If that same farmer had in 1917 taken that amount of money and invested it in government bonds, he would still have the
Relief Act, 1933

same amount of money and the interest on it would have a greater purchasing power to-day than it had in 1917. Hon. members ask: Why have you so much distress among the farmers? That is one of the reasons. The primary producer is bearing the burden. The $115,000,000 spent by this government in unemployment relief has to be paid, not by the factories, but from the great natural resources of Canada, and agriculture makes the largest contribution to it. The government has attempted to give some measure of relief to agriculture, and I hope that before the bill to be founded on this resolution is passed, the minister will be in a position to tell us just where the government stands in relation to the farmers, and especially the wheat growers of western Canada.
What did the Prime Minister promise the farmer? We know what he has done. I want to read a few of the promises he made.


William Duff: When was this?


John Vallance: This was during the
1930 election campaign. I think the following is the choicest one of the lot. Speaking in Winnipeg, he said:
Listen you agriculturists from the west and all the other parts of Canada, you have been taught to mock at tariffs and applaud free trade. Tell me, when did free trade fight for you? Tell me, when did free trade fight for you? You say tariffs are only for the manufacturers. I will make them fight for you as well. I will use them to blast a way into the markets that have been closed to you.
I quote merely that one. Will any member sitting behind the government or any member of the government rise in his place now and tell me of one instance where this administration has ever opened a new market, let alone blasted its way into one? Our exports show that it has not done so. It has even closed markets. The last night we wrere discussing this question, not under this minister, but under the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I drew to the attention of the government the fact, which they were very reluctant to admit, that we had been offered the sale to China of 50,000,000 bushels of wheat, which sale this government did not blast its way mto but blasted its way out of, and 'this at a time when Canada needs every possible market in order to get rid of the wheat surplus we are holding. As I have said, I hope before this measure goes through that the minister of immigration, mines, labour and deportation will tell us just the position the government finds itself in to-day with regard to the wheat situation.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Friday afternoon is usually looked upon as the parliamentary quiet week-end; it is the day that is usually chosen to put through knotty bills, agricultural estimates, difficult resolutions and that sort of thing, but this afternoon has proved to be an exception to the rule in this respect. We had a violent volcanic eruption on the part of the Prime Minister and then a sudden departure; and we have not seen him since. I was going to make the suggestion to the minister who is leading the house-it may be the Minister of Railways at this moment- that as it can be seen by the temper of this committee we are not going to get anything through to-night, they might as well take up something that we might agree on>
and thus save time. If, however, that is not considered advisable, I shall proceed.
What was the cause of the gaseous eruption we had this afternoon on the part of the Prime Minister? The Minister of Immigration and some other portfolies, in explaining this resolution, said that an amendment was to be made to the bill based on the resolution when the bill came before the house, and it was a very important amendment inasmuch as it meant reverting to the good old practice of responsible government and supervision of all expenditures by parliament. This is something that has been fought for by the Liberal party for nearly a hundred years and won, and for the first time departed from by this government. Does anybody think our right hon. leader, who has been noted ever since this government came into power for fighting first for the retention of that right and afterwards for the restoration of it, could, when he sees it restored, ignore the change? He could not lightly pass that up. Nobody would expect anyone in the position that my right hon. leader occupies would have let that pass without some comment. What was the comment? I have not read Hansard since, though I might have done so, but I recall quite well that no offensive language was used in making the criticism, nor was the tone offensive. In fact, the observation was particularly mild when one considers that after three years my right hon. leader has attained his objective with respect to this important matter. Yet the Prime Minister did not seem to take it in that way. I did not dream of such an eruption and explosion as a result of the fair comment of my leader. Well, it came, I suppose all of us have bad days and this may have been one of the Prime Minister's. He apparently got up on the wrong side of the bed. Those of us who have been in cabinets and know how tired* we sometimes are

Relief Act, 1933
towards the end of the week realize the situation. But I would ask his colleagues that when he gets into that frame of mind that he cannot control himself, they keep him out of the house altogether for a little while till recovery ensues. Let him not run amok for half an hour, pawing up the ground and throwing things around, and then take to the curtains-a curtain decorator. That is not fair either to the rest of us or to himself. We take no pleasure in discussing this matter in his absence. We would rather defer this resolution, and if the minister will say that he will do so, I shall stop talking about it right now. He can bring on supply. We can deal with the grain act, as the Board of Grain Commissioners are here, I understand; and there are a number of other items that we might discuss to better advantage than this resolution.


Robert James Manion: Go on. We always like to hear the hon. member.


William Richard Motherwell: If the government dio not choose to do that, we can continue to discuss the resolution even in the Prime Minister's absence.
As I indicated at the outset, there was no occasion for the violent language indulged in by the Prime Minister, and if the ministry want to get the session over in reasonable time, that is not the way to proceed. There is an impression abroad that as soon as our money plays out, the opposition is going to play out. That is not the case. The money may play out on the third of April, but we shall play on, especially if we get a few more scenes like this afternoon. Let hon. members make no mistake about that. An important railway bill is coming before the house on Monday and I would rather have been in a quiet frame of mind for it; but I feel we on this side have had just cause for indignation, and in the absence of the Prime Minister we are precluded from going into the matter in the way we should.
I want to commend the minister now, and I hope I can do it without any further irruptions from the treasury benches, for having reverted to the policy of having at least part of the expenditures under this bill discussed in this house. We are not possibly taking the best advantage of the opportunity at the beginning, but that is not our fault. I certainly was one of those who thought that this $20,000,000 was the entire amount that was going to be spent under this bill, but instead I find that that is only the amount for direct relief. Will the minister tell us how he arrives at that $20,000,000?
In extenuation of or excuse for the arbitrary blank cheque method of administering public moneys which this government has been practising for the last two years, the Prime Minister this afternoon made a lot of the fact that no individual could estimate the requirements of the country and specify any definite amount that would be required for relief. But you can say that of any vote in the estimates. As my right hon. leader has pointed out times without number, the Prime Minister might mention any amount he liked and my leader would let it go, and if the amount designated were not enough, the usual practice of resorting to governor general's warrants would meet any further situation that might arise. So there was no justification for departing from the regular practice of the supervision of all government expenditures by this parliament, instead of playing the dictator, mighty unsuccessfully too in this respect, until now the proper pra.ctioe is about to be resorted to.
What is the trouble then, with the Prime Minister? I know it is hard to climb down. Don't we remember in this house the night the special income tax bill was climbed down from and the booby talk that was indulged in by the Prime Minister? The coon came down, however. We do not know or care whether it was head first or tail first, but he came down, and he has had to come down many times since, and will have to many times more, and the sooner the Prime Minister learns how to back away from his many blunders the better it will be for this country. He had not the grace to climb down properly and gracefully this afternoon, but instead he blew off like an extinct volcano come to life again. He has been an extinct volcano for the last month. I thought his colleagues were bringing him up, like Maggie was bringing up Jiggs, making him behave better. But even if Maggie were successful for a while Jiggs still blows off now and again as he did this afternoon. We do not want any more of that, Mr. Chairman. We do not mind it once. We do not mind having some consideration for the Prime Minister and his colleagues in their troubles in trying to bring him up, while he is trying to bring them up. Has there been one thing that they have put their hand to that they have not made a botch of in the last two years? I do not know one. They could not come down on this policy of parliamentary control of money without making a mess of it also. If the Minister of Labour had been left to himself I think he would have acted all right. He is a ponderous gentleman but
Relief Act, 1933

I think he is a pretty good scout taken on the whole. I do not know how he came to speak of the amendment on the resolution, but since he spoke about it I presume I am also in order, Mr. Chairman, although I think he should have waited till the bill came down.
Anyway, the government has made many blunders, and the Prime Minister has not yet learned how to back down in spite of all his experience in that respect. He will have to learn soon because the way is thorny and strewn with many back-ups, and I am sure that the government will have to get a fresh pair of breeching straps on because the other ones are all worn out by this time with backing up and backing up from the sight of themselves and their evil works. Our good friend the Minister of Labour, with his more phlegmatic character, and not so much like a spirited racehorse, does not mind it so much. But they have got to do it just the same.
There are one or two other matters to which I wish to refer. The Prime Minister was continually complaining that there was no way of estimating the nature of the crop or the nature of the climate next year. Then how was this $20,000,000 estimated? There is direct relief still being given in southern Saskatchewan over a considerable area where there is no more prospect of a crop this year than there has been for the last two years, so far as the condition of the soil is concerned. The summer and fall there were exceptionally dry, the winter has been dry; there has been no snow or very little. The cars are running from Weyburn to Moose Jaw yet. The result is that the prospects in that area were never worse, and my hon. friends opposite have made an estimate under the worst possible conditions of what is likely to be required in other parts of Canada during the coming summer. If they can do that now, why not at other times? Has there been some new knowledge of meteorological conditions whereby you can forecast the rainfall for next summer? I never heard of any such new information, but if the minister has any, I wish he would tell us upon what he bases this estimate for the coming summer. If he cannot tell us, then all this fumadiddle nonsense the Prime Minister was indulging in, because that is what it was, goes by the board.
One of the statements which the Prime Minister made when he was trying to get himself out of a dilemma, although he succeeded only in getting deeper into the mire, was that the present government in Saskatchewan had inherited a legacy of a great debt from the previous government. That has not

very much to do with this debate, but since the Prime Minister indulged in gross misrepresentation regarding the debt of Saskatchewan, I may say that in the last three years, sinoe the Tory government came into power there, the debt of Saskatchewan has doubled. It was $60,000,000, in round figures, when they came in, and now it is twice that amount and more. So I would suggest to the Prime Minister that when he is speaking of Saskatchewan matters he regard the facts a little more closely. Let him go to his chief organizer, C. B. Daniel, in southern Saskatchewan, and he would get better information even from that partisan source.
I am going to deal for a little with the Saskatchewan relief commission. The hon. member for Willow Bunch has indicated to whom the relief notes were payable-to the Dominion government. The relief commission acted merely as an intermediary agent for collecting the notes. He also indicated that in the south everybody had to sign in advance a promissory note for the least little thing that would go around one's little finger before one could get anything. Contrast the violent difference between those who got relief in the south, all returnable to the government, and those who got the five-cent bonus in the north. In the northern part of the three prairie provinces, they got over $11,000,000 as a gift, and none of it was returnable. Why, you could not find fifteen children just out of high school who would make a worse muddle of administering that relief relatively between the northern and southern parts of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba. Go to any bunch of school children and their infantile minds could devise something better than hon. gentlemen opposite did on that occasion, and that has been about the size and measurement of this government on most questions.


George Gordon: The hon. member for Last Mountain does not agree with you.


William Richard Motherwell: They all agree
with me.


George Gordon: The hon. member for Last Mountain does not.


William Richard Motherwell: Of course, he agrees with me. Every sensible man agrees with me except this ministry. There is not a man from the west, no matter on which side of the house he sits, who does not consider it the standing disgrace of this government the way that relief was handled in the west, because the bigger the crop a man had the more relief he got in the way of a bonus, and the less crop a man had the less the government

Relief Act, 1933
gave him. If he had no crop at all, he got nothing except what he had to sign up for and pay for, giving promissory notes in advance or a seed grain lien on the resulting crop. Rather than go out of their way to talk about this most unjust relief distribution the government should go and buiy themselves politically for the rest of their natural lives, get out of sight of their fellow men, for the disgraceful manner in which they handled that important problem.
Now I think I will give my hon. friend the minister an opportunity to speak if he will. We might get along if he would show us how he arrives at that 820,000,000 as the amount for direct relief when he has no more opportunity to-day of forecasting the requirements than he had formerly, so far as crop prospects are concerned. He has the experience of the former two years, that is admitted, but he knows nothing about rainfall next summer, and that has everything to do with the question of relief or no relief after the crop is harvested. I shall be very pleased to hear what he can say to clear that up, then we may make some progress. I think my hon. friends on the treasury benches will agree that for the last month or so those on this side of the house have been making every endeavour to facilitate the work of the session-


James Houston Spence: To block everything, you
mean.


William Richard Motherwell: I have only to
point to two weeks ago to-night when, for the first time in my experience at any rate, two thirds of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture were passed in a little more than two hours. We gave them fair discussion; we did not neglect our duty, but we did our best to facilitate the work of the session. We have been doing that all along. I have been here for ten days at a time without opening my mouth. We cannot, therefore, be charged with holding up the work. But when we have such an exhibition of anger and venom as we had this afternoon, nothing like this can go through until we have some reasons given why they have changed their policy, or until the Prime Minister comes here and faces it out. That is the position I take. We should not be expected to go ahead with this vote in his absence. If he knows he is going to be absent-I can understand his being unavoidably absent; that is the misfortune of every leader; but if he knows he is going to be absent he should not give us such a fishwife tongue-thrashing immediately before he retires. I thought I had some of the grace
of patience and endurance left, but I cannot stand that in silence and I am not going to, and that is all there is to it.
That is all I am going to say just now. I hope the minister can explain his change in policy or acknowledge the com at once. If he does, I think we shall get along with the resolution, otherwise we cannot and will not.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I am going to take
the time of the committee for only a few minutes. I would not have risen at all had it not been for the statement of the Minister of Labour to-night that he does not supervise expenditures made by the provinces, but endeavours to give the provinces a free hand in matters of relief. That is the way I understood the minister to express himself. This afternoon the Prime Minister said the situation in the province of Saskatchewan, and the reasons that so much money had to be advanced to that province, was due to the debts incurred Iby the previous Liberal government. The last speaker has referred to that, and I wish to put on Hansard the figures in connection with the situation in Saskatchewan. It is about time the Minister of Labour did see how relief moneys are being expended there.
At the time the Liberal government went out of power in Saskatchewan after being in office for twenty-four years, they left a debt of some 882,000,000. Out of that public debt they had about $10,000,000 invested in farm loans; they had about $10,000,000 in their provincial telephone system, leaving a balance of some $42,000,000 for which they had built the parliament buildings, ten or fifteen court houses, three normal schools, two tubercular sanatoria, two mental asylums, and roads and bridges. That $62,693,011.44 of debt has been increased from April 30, 1929, to December 31, 1932, to $137,819,430.97. If the province of Saskatchewan has piled up a debt such as that in some forty months, and this government, as anounced by the Prime Minister to-day, has paid most of the relief in Saskatchewan-we do know that they paid all the direct relief in the dried out area-then we would like to know as representatives of the province of Saskatchewan where the rest of the money has gone, and what it has been used for. If Conservative governments are so wonderful, as intimated by the Prime Minister, how is it that every year since they came into office in that province they have had deficits, varying from $518,177 to $5,820,289? I feel that it is time this government took steps to see how relief is being distributed in Saskatchewan, and to look

Relief Act, 1933

after the money that they are responsible for.
I want to correct one other statement made to-night by the hon. member for East Lamb-ton (Mr. Sproule), who-said that prices of all farm products are higher in Canada than in the United States. I have quotations of March 1, from Chicago and Toronto. On that date, prices in Chicago, as quoted in the Chicago Tribune, on prime steers weighing from 1,000 to 1,500 pounds, were 6 cents to 7i cents. Making allowance for exchange the Canadian price there would be from 7 to 8-t cents. In Toronto on the same date, according to quotations in the Mail and Empire, prime steers of 1,050 pounds were worth from 3-5 to 3-6 cents.


John Thomas Sproule: If the hon. gentleman
would be fair he would not take the lowest price on one market and compare with the highest price on the other.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I took the papers and gave the quotations for the latest available date. I just wished in rising to mention those two matters, in order to correct the statement made by the hon. member for East Lambton, and to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour to the fact that it is time someone was looking after relief expenditures in Saskatchewan.


Mr. HOWARD:: I would like to ask the
hon. minister a few questions before making the few remarks I have to make.
I understand that the advances made to the Canadian Pacific Railway under the first order in council amounted to $1,447,222.71. Can the minister tell me what the second advance is up to date?


George Gordon: The second loan to the
Canadian Pacific Railway Company was $1,000,000. I do not believe that money has yet been paid. As the order in council says -it is tabled-the money was to be devoted to payment of wages for shopmen in the various shops of the company, and to that alone, I believe. The exact amount that has been earned up to date I have not in detail, and I believe that no money has yet been paid upon the last million.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Then this means that on the first loan the Canadian Pacific Railway is not to pay any interest, and that the money is not to be repaid until the company earns dividends in excess of 5 per cent on its common stock. 'Conditions were changed in the second order in council, however. This after-

noon the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour said that these loans were made to assist the men employed in the different shops from coast to coast. Some time ago I directed a question to the Prime Minister on the orders of the day, to which I received a very evasive answer. Now I wish to press the question, though possibly I would not have done so if I had been given a proper answer previously. In the city of Sherbrooke there is a shop belonging to that branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway known as the Quebec Central. During the last three years the number of employees in this shop has been gradually decreasing; finally they closed the shop, boarded up the windows and dropped their last 125 men on the streets in addition to the other unemployed in Sherbrooke. A great many of those men were heads of families, and some twenty-five of them now are on direct relief. If the government of Canada, administering the property of the people and the money of the taxpayers, can hand over to a private corporation some $2,500,000 of public money, I ask for an equal distribution. At least that money should be spent pro rata as between the different shops from coast to coast; I think that is only a just and reasonable demand.
There is some further information which I should like, and I ask this question because of a question and answer which appear at page 1095 of Hansard. The leader of the opposition directed the following question to the Prime Minister:
Am I right in understanding that this guarantee is given under the Unemployment Relief Act?
The Prime Minister's answer was:
I believe the correct name is the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act.
So I am going to ask the Minister of Labour to tell this committee the extent to which the government of Canada has guaranteed to support the wheat market or the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, in the marketing of the wheat crop of western Canada.


George Gordon: With reference to the first part of the observations of the hon. member for Sherbrooke I may say that the management of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the employees saw the government on a number of occasions with regard to the closing down of what are known as the main shops. The first order in council passed with respect to loans provided for the sum of. $1,447,222.71, and it affected 8,455 employees.


Relief Act, 1933
The shops concerned were Angus, Carleton Place, McAdam Junction, West Toronto, North Bay, Winnipeg, Ogden and Vancouver. All the money was paid in wages, as follows:
Angus	
$813,989	64Oarleton Place	
11,103	58McAdam Junction	
22,461	25West Toronto	
58,924	93North Bay	
27,326	92Winnipeg	
319,175	98Ogden	
156,041	18Vancouver	
38,199	23
That order in council was passed under the provisions of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931. The next order in council that was passed in order to keep these men at work was dated December 22, 1932, and provided for an advance not to exceed $1,000,000, to be devoted to the payment of wages to employees in the shops. The loan is to be paid back to the government before any further dividends on the common stock of the Canadian Pacific railway are declared and paid. The work has been done but the money was not to be advanced until the spring.
With regard to the other question asked by the hon. member, it is unfortunate that the Prime Minister is not in his seat just now. He is engaged with a committee of western farmers, discussing with them some of their problems. If the debate cannot go on without the answer desired by my hon. friend from Sherbrooke I will move that the committee rise, but if the answer can be delayed until the prime minister is able to be present I see no reason why the debate should not proceed.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I will let the question
stand, so long as the debate is to continue. But let me bring up this further point. Does the minister consider that the men in Montreal, in Calgary or in Vancouver are more important or stand in any different position from that of the men working in the shops in the city of Sherbrooke?


George Gordon: I would not care to express an opinion one way or the other. The Canadian Pacific Railway and their employees made representations to the government, and I take it that the Canadian Pacific Railway and its employees probably knew better than anyone else could know where they could keep the men on and do the work that required to be done to the best advantage and for the benefit of the greatest number. I do not think the hon. member himself would suggest that the government should inject itself into the management of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I think we have had quite enough experience in the management of railways in the past.
53719-172i


Charles Benjamin Howard: Evidently the minister
has not read the proposed railway bill. I understand that 'this direct relief is handled by the Canadian Pacific Railway and not by the provinces.


George Gordon: No, this is a loan to the company.


Charles Benjamin Howard: But it has no connection with the provinces, so it must come directly under the control of the Minister of Labour.


George Gordon: That is not correct. The loan was made under the provisions of the aet which permits a transaction of this character with a corporation deemed to be a public corporation under the act. I do not think anyone would debate the point that the Canadian Pacific Railway is a public corporation within the meaning of the act.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Does the minister mean
to say he has no jurisdiction over what they do with a straight loan?


George Gordon: The orders in council provide that the money shall be devoted towards the payment of wages to the workmen in the shops of the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Then it is only fair thal
the workmen should be properly treated. 1 am not asking the government to pay relief money or give work to men who are not entitled to it, but, according to seniority, the men have exactly as much claim to assistance, and in fact a little more in some respects, if that is a government loan to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I would ask the minister to see to it that the Canadian Pacific Railway Quebec Central shops in Sherbrooke are given a square deal so long as other shops from coast to coast in Canada are assisted under this vote. I am not at the moment sanctioning the loan, nor am I criticizing it; I will give my opinion in that regard later on. But as the money has been taken'-the money of the taxpayers-and handed over to a private corporation without interest, on terms, I submit, and I am satisfied to stand by the judgment of the country in this, that it is not fair or just to leave 125 men out on the streets in Sherbrooke and to specify certain other places where this money may be used as the company deems fit.
The other question is very much more serious, due to the greater amount involved. Before we pass this resolution it is important to the taxpayers of Canada to know to what extent this government is obligated in actual dollars and cents in connection with guarantees to the banks. In view of the statements made this afternoon I would go further. The Prime
Relief Act, 1933

Minister this afternoon asked whether any man would dare to get up and say that we should not have guaranteed the provincial bank of Manitoba. That is not the situation. The Prime Minister refused to guarantee the provincial bank of Manitoba but he guaranteed the chartered banks in Canada when they took over the assets of the provincial bank of Manitoba.


George Gordon: That statement cannot go '[DOT]unchallenged. The situation was as explained by the Prime Minister with respect to what is Iknown as the provincial savings offices in Manitoba. There is no doubt that the premier of that province and his colleagues had of necessity to do something with somebody in order to render it possible for the depositors, numbering some 43,000 in Manitoba, to have the right to withdraw their moneys from provincial institutions set up by the province, and if help was not forthcoming from some quarter they could not have done so. So far as this government is concerned, the guarantee certainly was given to the banks and they took over the liabilities. For my part, I do not see how anyone could have done otherwise, and I think it would have been quite a serious matter, perhaps more serious than we sometimes think, if the provincial savings office of Manitoba had been permitted to go to the wall and it had been proclaimed in this country that a province had set up such an institution and had failed to take the necessary steps to enable the institution to protect depositors. This the province did, and the dominion guaranteed the banks against loss.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I understood from the
Prime Minister's own statement this afternoon that he had guaranteed the bank of Manitoba, or their depositors, to save their money.


George Gordon: He did not say that.


Charles Benjamin Howard: He guaranteed the chartered banks and they took over the assets of the bank of Manitoba. Well, those guarantees should be added in. I am quite willing to give all the help I can to the government and to cooperate with them in any way I can. But if they do not do some of the things which I think they should do under present conditions, I intend to criticize them, and if they do those things I am prepared to give them one hundred per cent of cooperation. This country is in an extraordinary condition to-day and if the government does not place fairly and openly before parliament, the people's representatives, the exact state of affairs and inform the people precisely where we are, I do not think it is playing fair; it is not the proper course to follow.

The minister this afternoon estimated that it would require $20,000,000 to carry on his direct relief. I have no criticism to offer in that regard, but I suggest that the government at some stated time, as of January 31, December 31 or March 1, any day they choose, should indicate to the people to what extent the country is obligated in connection with guarantees in the marketing of wheat. I had a peculiar experience this week. A gentleman came to my office and asked me whether I could ascertain for him how many million bushels of wheat the government controlled in western Canada. I failed to see at the moment what he was driving at but I told him I would try to get the information for him. He said: "I know how many bushels are in the hands of the western farmers and how many million bushels are held by private elevator companies, and I have a good idea of what the market demand is in foreign countries. Now I am a speculator in the wheat market and have been all my life, but I do not know what to do, nor does anybody know what to do, so long as the government of Canada interferes with the natural course of business". That shed a new light on the subject for me. I had not known so much about it before but then I realized the seriousness of it. In other words, if he thought that there was to be a rise he would buy wheat; but he does not dare to do so because the Canadian government, with the taxpayers' money, is interfering with legitimate trade, preventing either a rise or a fall, so that people do not know whether the trend is going to be upwards or downwards under general conditions. Ordinarily the law of supply and demand regulates the prices of commodities in any line, but in this instance the government interferes with commodity prices and I think we have a right to know to what extent we are obligated at the present time under the guarantee. We have a right to know that before we pass this resolution.
I have been surprised that the Prime Minister of Canada has become so pessimistic. I am not pessimistic, even though conditions are tough, but I do think that speeches such as those the Prime Minister delivered in Hamilton, in Toronto and before the railway men of Canada will not help the situation. He knows, as well as everyone else, that after that speech Canadian Pacific Railway stock dropped from five to ten points in foreign countries-France, England and Germany unloaded Canadian securities right and left. Now. if there is one country in the world that is solvent to-day it is Canada, for we have

Relief Act, 1933
more assets per capita than any other country. In spite of these hard times our situation is better than that of any other country and we ought to stand together and be optimistic and use good judgment in an effort to meet the situation.


An hon. MEMBER:: That sounds good.


Charles Benjamin Howard: You bet, and I feel that way. The hon. member for East Lambton quoted figures in regard to agricultural products, and the other night the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi made a speech, and sent out to the eastern townships hundreds of copies of it, which did not give the facts. I wish to give the facts. I asked the dominion statistician to give me figures, and I do not think that hon. members will dispute them. I usually quote figures from the market in my own constituency and from the Montreal market, but here are figures from the dominion statistician. The question has been asked, "Are w'e Canadian farmers not satisfied when our commodities in Canada are the highest of any place in the world to-day?" That is what the hon. member for East Lambton said a moment ago; that is what the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi said, and that is what the hon. member for Compton repeated. Here are the real figures, and if it is desired that they should be put on Hansard in tabulated form I shall be glad to give them. The tabulation given is for Montreal, No. 1 pasteurized eastern butter and New York creamery extra butter, so there can be no question that the figures given are upon the same basis. In January, 1932, the price at Montreal was 20-9 cents as against 23-7 cents in New York. Yet we are told that the prices are higher in Canada than in the United States. In February the price at Montreal was 18-3 and at New York 22-6. In November the prices were 20-8 cents and 23-2 cents respectively. The last figures given are for December, the last price obtainable from the bureau, just three months ago, and they are 21-5 cents and 23-9 cents respectively. Unfortunately we are getting less for our products than is being obtained in the United States. Using the figures given in another way, we find that in January 1928 the price at Montreal was 35-5 cents per pound as against 20-9 cents in 1932; in February, 36-5 cents as against 18-3 cents; in November, 39-9 cents as against 20-8 cents, and in December, 40-6 cents as against 21-5 cents.


Mr. SHAVER:: Will the hon. member
quote the spread in prices between Montreal and New York for 1928?


Charles Benjamin Howard: 35-5 and 48-9; 36-5 and
46-5; 39-9 and 50-7 and 40-6 and 50-8.


Frank Thomas Shaver: The spread was four times as great four years ago.


John Thomas Sproule: The hon. member for
Willow Bunch was not quoting to-day's prices, and the hon. member is now quoting prices for one or two years back. We were talking of to-day's prices.


John Livingstone Brown: The hon. member gave you to-day's prices on beef.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Let us take the spread in 1930. In January the prices were 37-6 for Montreal and 36-1 for New York; in February, 36-2 and 35-5; in November 29-4 and 36-1 and in December, 28-8 and 32-0. I will give the committee the prices on pork for 1932 as quoted in Montreal and New York. For January the prices were 816.50 in Montreal and S17 -125 in New York. These prices are per barrel of two hundred pounds. In February the prices were $16.50 and $16-719; in November, $16 and $16-450, and in December, S16 and $14-750. The beef prices also showed a difference between Montreal and New York. For January, 1932, they were 11-3 cents per pound in Montreal and 14-5 cents per pound in New York; in February, 11-3 and 13-0; in November, 8-0 and 15-0 and in December, 8-3 in Canada, and 13-5 in the United States.


John Thomas Sproule: I quoted Chicago prices, and that is where the bulk of this stuff goes.


Charles Benjamin Howard: In January, 1932, the price of fish in Halifax was $8 per barrel of 205 pounds as against $13.12 in New York; in February, the prices were $8 and $12.30; in November, $4.75 and $11.48, and in December, $4.75 and $12.30.


John Thomas Sproule: I quoted Chicago and I defy the hon. member to quote anything different.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Order.


Martin James Maloney: I must say to the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Sproule) that the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) has the floor.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I think it is only fair that these figures should be placed upon Hansard. I regret that the prices for our products are a3 low as they are and I am willing to give all the cooperation I can to the government to help raise the prices of our products. I say that in all sincerity and I think the minister knows I am sincere. However, I think the truth should be told and that we should not try to bluff the people.
Relief Act, 1933


John Thomas Sproule: I ask the hon. member to withdraw. I never quoted anything but 'Chicago and I defy him to change that.


Mr. ORROWN:: You did not quote any prices.
An bon. MEMBER: Chicago versus New York.


An hon. MEMBER:: The Maroons win.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Going back to government loans, there is just one more thing I should like to say. If the government is going to lend money to corporations and the Canadian Pacific Railway should be included, I ask that it be stipulated that they treat the employees in one of their shops, according to their seniority rights, in exactly the same way as they treat the employees in other shops in Canada-give Sherbrooke the same treatment as Vancouver.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Chairman, I want to say just a few words about the general presentation which the minister made in introducing the resolution and deal with one or two matters in connection with which I presume the minister will be prepared to give information when the committee next considers this resolution.
In the first place may I say with all due deference that it was exceedingly hard for members of the house and the committee to get any intelligent and general idea of the broad outlines of the scheme which the minister was presenting. We had the idea that this government had started out with direct relief accompanied by a certain amount of relief works. We have heard subsequently, and it is always emphasized, that due to the opinion expressed by the provincial governments at the conference, the matter of public works has been abandoned. I submit that it has been very difficult to extract anything definite from the minister's statement the other day as to what the policy of this government is with regard to relief. The government is supposed to have been doing its best for the last three years to make good its election promises, or if not to make good its election promises at least to give some relief in the meantime. In spite of this we find the minister coming down with a hodgepodge, if I may so call it, or a patchwork in the shape of a policy consisting of a variety of disjointed and spasmodic spurts. All that has been done and all that has been proposed by this government is that we put an unlimited amount of money at the dis-

posal of the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Labour and that when somebody comes up for this or that thing, a hand will be dipped in the bag and1 the money handed out.
Let me give some idea of the variety of projects towards which this money has been devoted. According to the minister's statement the other night, the first thing he always mentions in making up his accounts against the provinces is the advances for the federal government's share of relief work. I submit that that item should not be in there at all because the federal government's share of relief work should not be charged to the provinces; it should be by way of a direct grant. Hon. members will remember that the other night the minister solemnly went through the formality of quoting about five or six cases. On the one side he charged up to the provinces the advance for the federal government's share of the relief works and on the other side he credited the expenditure which the federal government should make, and the net result was nothing.
One of the next items that he mentions in his charges against the provincial governments is the loans for the provincial governments' share of the public works. Those are the items which give a good deal of concern. The minister makes up his totals in two or three ways. In one breath he says:	Last
year we paid out for direct relief something like $7,000,000. Then he says the total to date of accounts paid and credits against advances amounts to $11,207,874.72; and then he says that the total expenditure for federal relief will not exceed $25,000,000. But as was pointed out this afternoon, he does not include in that loans to provinces.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: He never said that he did.


James Layton Ralston: It is something we have to consider when we are finding out what is done under this act, because what is proposed under this resolution is that a bill which will be founded on it will extend the full provisions of the act as regards not only paying direct relief but making loans as well. Therefore we should have some sort of succinct statement showing the amount of these loans. My figures are only very rough, but I am giving them in order that there may be on Hansard a statement bringing together all the figures given by the minister in this regard. I took them down as the minister made his speech and, while they are subject to some correction, they give roughly

Relief Act, 1933
the totals of the net amounts loaned or granted to the different provinces. They are in round figures:
Prince Edward Island	 $	14,630
Nova Scotia	 213,000
New Brunswick	 38,000
Quebec	 1,389,000
Ontario	 2,633,000
Manitoba	 8,000,000
Saskatchewan	 20,900,000
Alberta	 6,178,000
British Columbia	 5,800,000
In addition .to that there are the figures for the wheat bonus:
Manitoba	 $1,100,000
Saskatchewan	 5,000,000
Alberta	 5,857,000
In putting these on record, I do so with the statement that they were noted just roughly as the minister was speaking, and they may be subject to very substantial corrections, although I think the figures so far as I understand them represent in round numbers the amounts of money which have been advanced to the different provinces under the act by way of loan or advance.
This gives us a picture so far as the provinces are concerned. Now let us return to the different projects for which this money was paid. The minister says that direct relief was the headliner and the main avenue through which unemployment was to be assisted. As regards direct relief, he says in his speech that we spent something like $7,851,000. But, as he said, there were many other projects besides that, and he elaborated at great length the back to the land movement which had been inaugurated. If I am correct, the total amount spent on the back to the land .movement for all the families that had been put back on the land and assuming that they are all settled properly, is less than half a million dollars in comparison with advances, loans and everything else amounting to something like $55,000,000.
Another item that he spoke on was the Banff-Jasper highway, the total amount for it being $367,000. Then there was flood prevention on the Assiniboine river, $5,000, and a small sum, only $3,000, through the Department of Agriculture for fitting up boats in connection with the export of cattle. The total amount for a much heralded scheme by the Department of National Defence for the building of airways across Canada was some $93,000. Therefore when one comes to look at the whole picture the direct relief item is the big one. Summing up the projects, big and little, in this confused policy: there is the land settlement of which I have already spoken; advances for homeless and single
men; the Saskatchewan relief commission, area "A" and area "B," the amount for which is included in the sum I mentioned for Saskatchewan; amounts for seed grain; for New York commitments, which means advances to make up deficiencies of exchange on provincial commitments payable in the United States-these are all under the unemployment relief act which he proposes to extend this year-wheat bonus; relief camps; Banff-Jasper highway, which I mentioned a minute ago; Manitoba dykes, the airways, and items called non-recoverable advances. They are all under the relief act, and they justify what I said a minute ago that whenever money was wanted for some particular purpose the thing to do was to go to the government and the government reached into the bag provided by parliament and handed out the money under the act called the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act. There was also something like $200,000 for moving Nova Scotia coal and a small amount for repatriation.


Mr. HANSON (YTork-Sunbury):: Does the
hon. member oppose the item for moving Nova Scotia coal?


James Layton Ralston: I am not opposing any
of these items; I am simply trying to get before the country in intelligible fashion the expenditures which have been made and the objects to which they have been devoted, in order to show that this is a somewhat important bill and that the committee is entitled to all the information it can get with regard to the classification of expenditures which are to be made.


Mr. STEVENS:: May I interrupt my hon. friend for a moment? Was the item of the wheat bonus, which was quite considerable, not under separate legislation? Just as a matter of accuracy, I think it is.


James Layton Ralston: AH I am saying is that
the Minister of Labour referred to it in his speech, and I took it to be under this legislation.


George Gordon: I think it is under separate legislation, but I referred to it in passing.


James Layton Ralston: I took it to be that the
amount had been spent under this measure.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Under separate legislation.


James Layton Ralston: Then there are other
matters. The hon. member for Sherbrooke mentioned one of them. Quite a number of things have been done under the power given the government by this act. One is the advances to the Canadian Pacific Railway. I presume the guarantees which have been
Relief Act, 1933

given in connection with the Beauharnois project have been made under this legislation. The committee has a right to find out what has been done in connection with that. There is also the matter of the "flyer" which was taken by the government in wheat futures and which has been referred to by the hon. member for Sherbrooke. Provincial highway construction has also played some part in connection with unemployment relief work. These are matters in connection with which the minister should be prepared to give us information.
I want to say a word with regard to the attitude the minister took this afternoon as to the request of the hon. member for St. Boniface. The minister technically is quite right in stating that he administers the matter through the provincial government and then through the municipalities. But I submit to him-and I submit it to him perhaps more forcibly because I have in my own constituency some cases which are in somewhat the same position as that in the constituency of the hon. member for St. Boniface-his pledge to the people of Canada was that this government would see that the people would not go without food, shelter or clothing. That was a pledge made by the federal government. There was nothing in that which indicated that one would have to apply to the municipality, the municipality to the province and then the province to the federal government. If a situation arises where a province falls down or a municipality does not do the proper thing by its people, my hon. friend in carrying out the obligation he has assumed must see to it that direct relief is furnished if necessary. He has not done his full duty by saying: Why do you not go to the provincial government or to the municipality? The people are starving; they need this food, shelter and clothing which was promised them, and he has no right, particularly when he knows the provincial situation which was brought to his attention by the hon. member for St. Boniface, to ask them to wait until some time in the future and after application is made to the Manitoba government. I have the same condition in my constituency. Individuals there, not groups, are writing me from time to time. I just happen to have a letter here which I brought with me to the committee, written on February 13, complaining bitterly with regard to conditions in the district of Shag Harbour, Shelburne county. My correspondent is a man by the name of Waybret, who says:
What the poor people want to know or if they have made any allowance what a poor person should have for a month's food. That is. a person that has nothing. We have poor 
people here who have nothing, not so much as clothes. But the poor pepole are not particular what variety of food they have as long as they can get enough to keep from starving till they can go to fishing again.
I shall be glad to read the whole letter to the committee, but the important part is this:
Just imagine what you can get for your dinner for two cents and a quarter, three-quarters of a loaf of bread for twenty-four hours, what it amounts to, and the people can't no way live on it, and there is lots of people going hungry for want of food.
He encloses a list of eight people, giving their names, who he says cannot live on seven cents a day.


George Gordon: I have never yet heard
since I have been in the Labour department of any place in Canada where the municipality or the province has a schedule as low, or anything like as low, as seven or four cents a day.


James Layton Ralston: I do not know about the schedules in other places, and I did not know about this schedule until I got this letter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Do you
know if it is correct?


James Layton Ralston: This letter is from a
reliable chap down there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I bet it
is not correct. I make you a sporting offer.


James Layton Ralston: I am giving it to the
committee. My hon. friend may know about his own constituency, but I think I know about mine. That is the scale that is given, according to this letter, and I am bringing it to the attention of the minister for the purpose of emphasizing this: I do not think the minister ought simply to say they should go to the municipality, and the municipality to the province.


George Gordon: Would my hon. friend
suggest that the Dominion government should go down to Yarmouth or any place and individually administer relief?


James Layton Ralston: I am saying that if it is
necessary my hon. friend will have to do that if he carries out his pledge.


George Gordon: I did not pledge anything.


James Layton Ralston: I know exactly what my hon. friend pledged. He said the Dominion government would see to it, as I understood him, and he will correct me if I am wrong, that no one in the Dominion of Canada would go without food, clothing or shelter.


George Gordon: Yes, but surely, Mr. Chairman, when I made the statement in

Relief Act, 1033
substance that every available dollar in the federal treasury would be devoted, if necessary, towards seeing that our people shall not suffer this winter on account of lack of food or clothing or fuel or shelter, I had a right to assume that the provinces were governed by decent, respectable Canadians, and I have no reason to think that they are not.


James Layton Ralston: That does not answer anything at all. My hon. friend was not assuming and did not suggest that he was assuming anything. He was giving that pledge to the people of the Dominion of Canada, and that is why I am saying to my hon. friend that I do not think he is treating the situation quite fairly when he refers the hon. member for St. Boniface to the municipality. This is an emergency. My hon. friend has bitten it off and has taken the responsibility, and he ought at least to investigate, and not simply sit back and say:	"We have not any reports
from the provincial government," because a good many people can go hungry before a municipality or a province moves in connection with the matter. That is the point I am making, and my hon. friend should not stand on ceremony, as apparently he is doing in connection with some of these matters. It is all very well to say that it is a municipal or provincial charge. The good old constitution is serving its purpose with my hon. friend just now. But he has taken that responsibility, and I submit that he should do whatever is necessary to see that relief reaches these people.
Just to open the matter of the advances with regard to what I may call wheat futures, I do not think the orders in council which were passed in connection with that matter have yet been put on the records of this house. They have been referred to by the public press, and the Prime Minister some time ago made a statement in the house, but the orders in council have not yet been put on record. I do not want to take up the time or the space in Hansard to read them through; all I want to do, if I can, is at least to begin to summarize them.
The first one-I think this is the first-is P.C. 2238, passed on September 12, 1931. It recites a report from the Minister of Finance under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931, and of an undertaking-hon. members will note this

*-of an undertaking .on behalf of the government, made before the session of parliament at which the said act was passed, to implement by legislation-
A certain recommendation, which was that certain chartered banks, namely, the Bank
of Montreal, the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Bank of Toronto, the Canadian Bank of Commerce, the Royal Bank of Canada, the Dominion Bank, and the Imperial Bank of Canada, should be guaranteed the amounts of money advanced by them to an association or company known as the Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited:
-hereinafter called "Wheat Producers," and interest thereon until repayment as agreed between the said banks and Wheat Producers in connection with and incidental to the marketing of the wheat and other grains grown in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta in the year 1930 and delivered to or in process of delivery to Wheat Producers, and including advances for purchases of wheat or other grains deemed necessary by Wheat Producers to secure the advantageous sale of such grains already delivered to or to be delivered to Wheat Producers.
That clause beginning with the words "and including" is of particular importance in connection with ithe transactions which subsequently took place.
There is a recommendation in the order in council that the guarantee should become operative and payment should be made out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada when all or practically all of such wheat has bqen sold or realized upon, less expenses.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, March 6, 1933