1933-03-20

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Mr. GORDON:: I desire to lay on the table of the house certain orders in council passed pursuant to the relief legislation.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 53, to amend the criminal code (offensive weapons).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: This bill is introduced in response to a very large number of resolutions and requests that have come from public bodies throughout Canada, nearly all of them asking for legislation to prohibit the importation, manufacture and sale of pistols and revolvers. The house is aware that to grant a request of that kind would involve very serious constitutional questions as between the rights of the dominion and those of the provinces. As a matter of fact, upon inquiry, I find that there is no manufacture in Canada of pistols or revolvers. I also find that the importation of pistols and revolvers is already prohibited under the Customs Act except under permit from the Minister of National Revenue.
The remaining question is as to the sale of these articles. In the bill which I am introducing, I have endeavoured to provide further safeguards to restrict the sale, possession and carrying of pistols, revolvers and other offensive weapons. I have endeavoured to recast the provisions of the criminal code in respect to these matters and I think on the whole the present 'clauses have been very much strengthened.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NEW ZEALAND BUTTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton):: I should like to direct a question to the government. There is a rumour to the effect that several thousand boxes of New Zealand butter are on the high seas on their way to Canada. My question is: Can the government confirm that rumour and, if so, are any steps being taken in regard to the matter?


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: There is on the order paper question No. 3 couched in somewhat similar terms.
Assistance to Provinces

The government cannot indicate with any degree of certainty the number of pounds of butter that are on the ocean from New Zealand to Canada, but it has been advised that substantial quantities of New Zealand butter are on the ocean en route to this country. The government has, under the provisions of the trade agreement, taken appropriate action to deal with the situation.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: A sister nation's butter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman refers to sister nations. We have a contract and in its terms we had foresight enough to provide for this contingency. We have taken appropriate measures accordingly.


Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Referring to the Prime Minister's answer in regard to the importation of New Zealand butter, might I be bold enough to ask what is the natural and appropriate action which has been taken?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would refer my hon. friend most respectfully to the terms of the agreement itself, article IV.



ASSISTANCE TO PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):: As rumours are appearing in the press at the present time regarding the financial assistance that is being given by the Dominion government to the provincial governments, particularly of the west, may I ask the Prime Minister whether ihere have been any recent communications with the provincial governments regarding this matter and, if so, say since March 1, whether he would be prepared to lay any such communications on the table?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Communications have been had with the four western provinces. Letters were dispatched to the premiers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia with respect to their financial position. A reply was received this morning from Manitoba; a telegram was received indicating that a reply from British Columbia was in the mails, and a telephone communication revealed that in Saskatchewan the matter is under consideration. The situation in Alberta is, of course, somewhat different from that in the other provinces. When the replies have been received, the letters with the replies will be given to the house.



RADIO STATION CRBO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau), regarding a news item which appears on the first page of the Montreal Gazette of Saturday concerning the erection of a radio station by the radio commission? I notice that there will be four letters "CRBO." What would be the meaning of such letters, and is the last "O" a number or a letter?


Mr. SPEAKER:: In my opinion that is a frivolous question.



CANADIAN ANTHRACITE COAL COMPANY, LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. D. STANLEY (East Calgary) moved the second reading of Bill No. 47, respecting the Canadian Anthracite Coal Company, Limited.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. STANLEY:: The purpose of this bill
is to ratify an agreement that was made in connection with the Canadian Anthracite Coal Company, Limited, whose property is located at Canmore, Alberta. Thirty years ago the company were in some financial difficulties, and the shareholders, very small in number all told, made an arrangement for certain transfer of shares between themselves and the elimination of a certain amount of bonds. Some doubt has been cast upon the legality of the action that was taken thirty years ago, and the purpose of this bill is simply to ratify the agreement that was made between the shareholders at that time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



DEVONSHIRE JOCKEY CLUB

[Stage Direction]
Hon. RAYMOND D. MORAND (East Essex) moved the second reading of Bill No. 51, to incorporate Devonshire Jockey Club.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. MORAND:: This bill is made necessary because one of the existing jockey clubs has been operated under a receivership for some time, and in order to wind it up and convey the assets, special legislation is necessary because under the Bankruptcy Act only the physical assets can be conveyed, and not the right to race. This is not a new charter nor a new race track of any kind.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.

Questions



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. BARRETTE:: 1.	Is the contract dated December 10, 1908, respecting the leasing of the old Beauharnois -canal, to which the Minister of Railways and William Cassell McIntyre and Edmond Arthur Robert were parties, still in force?
2.	Was the contract transferred to some other party, and who holds the contract at the present time?
3.	Are the obligations arising out of this contract still in force, and if any modifications have been made, what are they?
4.	Are clauses 16 and 17 of the original contract respecting the transfer of the lease of the old Beauharnois canal still in force?
5.	If these clauses in the contract were cancelled, what reasons were adduced for their cancellation?
6.	Were similar clauses embodied in the agreement concluded between the federal government and the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company?
7.	Was a guarantee to the effect that this company will not amalgamate or merge or sell any of its shares to the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company inserted in the contract of the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company ?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer to this question was prepared a few days after it appeared -on the order paper, but there seems to be some doubt as to what the seventh question means, whether it refers to contracts which are solely under the control of the provincial authorities or to arrangements made with the dominion. It will perhaps be remembered that the province, and not the dominion, made the grant of the water power rights in the first instance. The question need not be dropped. If the hon. gentleman in the light of the explanation will indicate clearly what he means, the answer will be provided.


NEW ZEALAND BTJTTER IMPORTATIONS
Mr. REID:: 1.	Has the government been advised of expected importation of New Zealand butter, during the present month, to be followed by further shipments later on?
2.	If so, how many pounds are reported to be expected (a) this month; (b) by later importations ?
3.	What steps, if any, have been taken by the government to protect the interests of Canadian dairymen?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question has been
answered.


Mr. REID:: The information given by the Prime Minister is not what I was asking for. I was asking how many pounds of butter, as well as what steps. I understand that
certain steps have been taken, and the information in that regard has not been given to the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 1 said that we were not
in a position to indicate the number of pounds. That will be determined by the number of pounds that arrive. As to the last question I said that we had taken appropriate steps under the terms of the trade agreement, and the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) wished to know what that referred to, and I referred him to article IV of the agreement.


JAM PURCHASES
Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Have jams been purchased from J. Gobeil of La Patrie, county of Compton, Quebec, from August 7, 1930, to date, by (a) the government of Canada or one of its departments; (b) the Canadian Government Merchant Marine; (c) the Canadian National Railways; (d) the Canadian National Steamships; and (e) the parliamentary restaurant?
2.	If so, what quantity and what was the value of such purchase in each instance?


Mr. MANION:: The government has no
information with regard to the railways purchasing materials of this kind, and the railways in reply to our request for the information took the attitude that it is not in the interests of the public or in the interests of the railways that it should be given out.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Dropped.


MONTREAL HARBOUR BOARD EMPLOYEES
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many new employees have joined the staff of the Montreal harbour board since January 1, 1933?
2.	On what date was eaeh employee hired?
3.	What was the previous address of each such employee?
4.	By whom and to whom was each one recommended ?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The government has no
information, is the answer to the question. I need hardly do more than direct the attention of the house to the impossibility of even the harbour board being able to supply the previous address of each employee taken on in connection with a work of that character, whether taken on by day labour or otherwise.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The question should not have been put on the order paper. Dropped.


DOMINION TAX-FREE BONDS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Are there any more dominion tax free bonds held by certain persons?
Questions

2.	If so (a) what is the name of such persons; (b) the amount held by each one of them?


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Are there any more dominion tax free bonds held by certain persons?" That is rather a difficult question to answer. I am not able to understand exactly what it means. The second part of the question reads, "If so, (a) what is the name of such persons; (b) the amount held by each one of them"? It is clearly obvious that the government cannot answer such a question as that regarding a public sale of securities.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Dropped.


TUG OCEANEAGLE
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	Does the government own the steel tug Oceaneagle ?
2.	If so, when was it purchased?
3.	From whom was it purchased?
4.	Were any alterations or repairs made to this tug subsequent to its purchase?
5.	If so, what was the nature of these repairs and alterations?
6.	Who performed such alterations and repairs?
7.	What was the cost of same?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Yes.
2.	September, 1927.
3.	St. John Dry Dock Company, Saint John, N.B.
4 Yes.
5.	Framing at bow was strengthened and bow plates thickened for service in ice; smoke stack extended; wooden fenders replaced by steel plates; new propeller supplied as spare; towing machine installed.
6.	The Davie Ship Building and Repairing Company, Limited, Lauzon, Quebec.
7.	$18,600. Towing machine installed was purchased by the department from Corbet Foundry & Machine Company, Limited, Owen Sound, Ontario, at a cost of $3,032.


BACH PENINSULA STATION
Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	When was the Dominion government station at Bach Peninsula last visited by the Dominion government relief ship?
2.	How long has the present contingent of Dominion government officers at Bach Peninsula station been at that point without having been visited by the Dominion government relief ship?
3.	How many people were in the said contingent when it was first stationed at said point?
4.	Did the expedition under Major D. L. MeKeand in its last northern expedition reach the said Bach Peninsula?
(Mr. Pouliot.1
5.	If not, what was the reason therefor?
6.	Since the establishment of said Bach Peninsula station what is the longest period of time during which the said station has remained without being visited by the Dominion government relief ship?
7.	What was the total cost of the said expedition sent out in 1932?
8.	What was the cost of every (separately) such expeditions to Bach Peninsula station since its establishment?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	In 1931.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3 Three.
4.	No.
5.	Unfavourable ice conditions.
6.	Three years.
7.	$23,810.95.
8.	1926-27, $55,871.45; 1927-28, $67,270.39; 1928-29, $49,647,17; 1929-30, $50,945.50; 193031. $49,147.86; 1931-32, $49,301.55; 1932-33, $23,810.95.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. REID:: 1.	Has the elevator on the Fraser river been leased to any firm or company?
2.	If so (a) to whom has it been leased; (b) when was the lease signed; and (c) what are the terms of the lease?
3.	If it has been leased, was any money either by way of cash, bonds or cheques paid by the lessee to the New Westminster harbour board up to March 6, 1933; if so, what amounts were paid and on what dates were any such amounts paid?
4.	What amount of wheat, has been shipped out of this elevator from September 1, 1932, up to the present time?


DOMINION GOA'ERNMENT DEPUTY MINISTERS
Mr. BARRETTE:: 1.	What was the total number of deputy ministers in 1881 and 1882?
2.	How many were English-speaking?
3.	How many were French-speaking?
4.	How many were appointees from the province of Quebec?
5.	What are their names?


DEPARTMENTAL AND ROYAL COMMISSION REPORTS
Mr. BOURGEOIS:: 1.	What annual or special reports, or other official publications, were issued by each department of the government or by royal commissions since April 1, 1932?
2.	Which of the above were issued in the English and French languages?
3.	Which have been translated by the general translation branch of the House of Commons?
4.	Which have been translated in the departments?

Motions jor Papers



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. DUBOIS:: For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, petitions, reports, communications and other documents, respecting the renewal of the contract held by Mr. A. Perusse in connection with rural mail delivery on route No. 1 of Ste-Eulalie, county of Nicolet.



MR. VICTOR ROBILLARD

Mr. HURTUBISE (for Mr. Parent):: For a copy of all documents, letters, petitions, correspondence, and proceedings of inquiries, respecting the resignation of Mr. Victor Robillard, as postmaster of the town of Ste-Therese, county of Terrebonne, covering the year 1932 and the current year to date.



BILINGUAL CURRENCY

Mr. BOULANGER:: For a copy of all correspondence or petitions forwarded to the government or any member of the ministry, by any person or association, from August 7, 1930, to date, requesting the coinage of Dominion metallic currency and the printing of Dominion notes in the two official languages of the country.



DOMINION NOTES

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: For a copy of the last contract granted by the government of the Dominion of Canada for the printing of Dominion notes issued under chapter 41 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927.



TADOUSSAC-BAIE ST. CATHERINES SERVICE

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver) (for Mr. Casgrain):: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, documents and petitions, forwarded to the Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, from February 1, 1933, to date, respecting a twice-daily boat service between Tadoussac and St. Catherines Bay.



MISS RUTH EDWARDS

Mr. GAGNON:: For a copy of all letters, petitions, complaints, correspondence and other documents exchanged from 1925 to 1930, between the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa or any of its branches at Ottawa and the Civil Service Commission, or any branches of the said department in the various provinces of Canada or the various officials of the department at Ottawa, or elsewhere, respecting Miss Ruth Edwards, her work, conduct or transfer to Ottawa, Montreal, or elsewhere.



TRAC.ADIE LAZARETTO MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT

Mr. VENIOT:: For a copy of all correspondence received by the Department of Pensions and National Health from all sources, including reports and correspondence between the Department and
Civil Service Commission, with reference to the appointment of a medical superintendent of the lazaretto at Tracadie.



PETER VERIGIN

Mr. DUFF (for Mr. Ilsley) moved:: For a copy of all telegrams and letters to and from the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Immigration, or any official in the Department of Immigration, between January 28 and February 28, 1933, referring to Peter Verigin.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the motion is
adopted I desire to inform the house that communications sent from a minister to an official would be privileged and should not be brought down. The public documents, of course, will be.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Carried.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With that understanding.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Peter John Veniot: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, and other documents with relation to a change effecting rural route No. 2, Salisbury, New Brunswick, by which a change was brought about in the original contract, and showing the cause assigned for changing the hours at which the mail man should receive the delivery of mail matter on the arrival of trains from east and west (Moncton and Saint John).
I wish to withdraw this motion. I have been informed by the department that they have not the information at hand, but that it will be secured later.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Withdrawn.



HAYSPORT, B.C., POSTMASTERSHIP

Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: For a copy of all documents, requests, petitions. and correspondence, respecting the change in the postmastership at Haysport, British Columbia, from the time the change was contemplated until the present.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to the closing words of the motion, "from the time the change was contemplated until the present" I would suggest that if the hon. member would substitute the expression "during the years 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933" he would probably get the information he wants. It is difficult to say when a change was contemplated, or who did the contemplating.


Olof Hanson: I should like the information from 1929.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member substitutes the expression "from 1929 until the present." Shall the motion as amended
carry?
Motion as amended agreed to.
Relief Act, 1933



DOMINION NOTES

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: For specimen copies of Dominion notes issued and printed under chapter 41 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It seems to me this is an improper request. It means the mutilation of a bill and the accounting for it through the Department of Finance and the comptroller. The hon. gentleman is as familiar as everybody else with the notes of the country, and I submit this is not a proper request to put upon the order paper. Everybody has one in his pocket.


Ernest Lapointe: No, no.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Does the hon. gentleman suggest any amendment?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suggest the hon. member drop the motion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall it be dropped?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Yes.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Motion dropped.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 3, consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution-Mr. Gordon-Mr. Smith (Cumberland) 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.
Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I move
that the resolution be further amended by adding thereto the following words:
And _ that provision be made for accepting securities from the provinces for such loans, advances, guarantees, etc., as may be advanced by the government, and that provision also be made for the maintenance of peace, order and good government throughout Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith, Cumberland) :: The clerk informs me that the first
amendment was not carried. I shall read it:
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 day of March, 1934, shall not exceed the sum of twenty million dollars.
That was the first amendment. The question is on the first amendment.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Shall we dispose of it first?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Take them all together, if you wish.	*


Jean-François Pouliot: whole country, because a Cardinal is a Prince of the Catholic church. Bearing such a title, he has the same standing as a royal prince and has a right to the same honours. Since the government did not think it proper to address, officially, its congratulations to the Holy Father, I think that I am expressing the feelings of the members of the House, whatever be their religious belief, in expressing to the sovereign pontiff the gratitude of the whole of Canada, on the occasion of this excellent appointment to the Sacred College. Mgr. Villeneuve stated, in his letter dated Jan. 11, 1933 and published on January 12, in "l'Action Catholique."
The rural problem is one which affects everybody, it is the elementary problem of society. The fundamental formula which will solve it, is to make the land produce what the farmer requires for himself and the other classes of society.
And His Eminence Cardinal Villeneuve ends his letter as follows:
The fair and sincere co-operation of everybody, individuals and social bodies, with public authorities, the latter being conscious of their responsibility for the public welfare, that is the solution of the farming problem, and the golden rule for all social problems, even those of today.
I remain, sir, yours very devotedly in J.C. and M. I.,
J. M. Rodrique Villeneuve O.M.I.
Archbishop of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, another very important letter was written by Rev. Father Bonhomtne, a highly esteemed Oblate Father of Hull. He refers, in "l'Action Catholique" of January 20, 1933, to the excellent work which has been accomplished by "La Conference Saint-Vincent-de-Paul de Notre-Dame" of Hull, in connection with the back to land movement. I have not the time to read the whole letter, however, the Rev. Father Bonhomme insists that the settlers should be placed, when possible, on lands that have already been farmed and are not occupied, in old established parishes.
Still another most interesting letter was published in the same newspaper, on February IS, signed by the Rev. Father Alexandre Dugre, Provincial of the Jesuits in Canada. I shall read the following excerpt:
To ruralize society, means ruralizing many things, beginning, first, with the soil itself: have we not in Quebec 26,000,000 acres of fertile forest land which could be turned into farms, yet cannot be cleared? Enclosed within timber limits, they are tabooed, condemned to only grow spruce trees and ferns, thus held in bondage forever. Should we not take advantage of the trade de-
pression in lumber to free 2,000,000 acres, or 20,000 lots for colonization purposes, a territory equal to 100 new parishes?
One of the remarks I made on March 2, was as follows: First, lands should be classified. I do not think that any difficulty would be encountered in this respect. It is clear that lands should be classified and that there should be a difference established between timber lands and farming lands before placing settlers on them. My second remark was the following:	After the lands are classified, the
new settler should be selected accordingly.
The following is what his Lordship Mgr. Halle, Vicar Apostolic of northern Ontario, states, in "1'Aotion Catholique" of February 9, 1933:
We note, by a long experience, that the settlers must be well chosen by people who are familiar with their work, experts in colonization.
First, one must find out by what the future settlers say-or endeavour to conceal-whether they are men with determination, energy, and show a willingness to work.
Note that I state men and not young men because the latter left by themselves-with few exceptions-do not succeed; they become discouraged.
With the desire to work, the future settler must be attached to the land, if not through heredity, at least by training. Without such attachment, no great or difficult task can be accomplished. His wife must also have a liking for the land in order to help her husband and at times encourage him should he weaken.
A third very important qualification is an aptitude to learn all about farming. The lion. Minister of Agriculture is unceasingly pointing out the necessity of agricultural science to farmers. He is entirely right. The same applies to the new settler. Otherwise the work becomes a routine, and discouragement and failure follow.
Further on Mgr. Halle continues:
People who simply wish to change locality just for the sake of making a trip-and they are numerous-the people who wish to settle on new lands only to cut the pulpwood or other kinds of wood, the people who lack energy, show no aptitude and attachment for the land should not deceive themselves in thinking they are doing a great honour to settlements. They soon become a drag, an unbearable burden to the small communities which have no pecuniary means to support them.
In "l'Aotion Catholique" of December 17, 1932, I note the following:
446 families are settled on lots. A total of
2.876	people-Quebec sent a contingent of 1,204 -the service of a nurse.
Since September 1, 446 families, comprising
2.876	people have been settled on colonization lots. These figures are furnished by Mr. J. S. Marcotte, director of the back to the land scheme. The number is made up as follows:

Reliej Act, 1933
Cities-	Heads	DependentsQuebec	230	1,204Montreal	55	333Hull	43	216Three Rivers	56	337Sherbrooke	12	62Lachine	9	47Victoriaville	8	51St. Georges de Beauce.	20	126Ville St. Pierre	4	26Ville St. Rachel	1	5Levis	1	12Notre Dame de Ham. .	1	11Total	446	2,430
In a speech which the hon. Minister of Colonization, Mr. Laferte, delivered in the Quebec legislative assembly, he quoted certain excerpts from the reports which were made by the Rev. Mr. Bergeron, and by other colonization agents, and while the house still recall the wise suggestions made by Mgr. Halle, may I read what the report of the Rev. Mr. Sirois states:
I hasten to state-the Rev. Mr. Sirois says-* that the failings which I apprehended among last year's settlers did not appear. Will these settlers with an occupation not of their choosing, for many of them-
I lay stress on the words "occupation not of their choosing."

take really root! I am inclined to think so, at least to hope so, and the crisis, under the circumstances, will have been almost a blessing.
I do not think, sir, that it is a blessing to have settlers with an occupation not of their choosing because to keep a settler on the land, he must be greatly attached to the land and show a desire to farm it.
Another remark which I made, sir, and it was my third suggestion, was that colonization roads were required, it was necessary to build roads previous to granting lots. In the "Devoir" of January 21, 1933, I find a report of a lecture broadcast by the Rev. Mr. Georges M. Bilodeau, a colonization agent. In the third column I find the following:
Secondly, with these grants, roads must be constructed. It is by constructing roads that a settlement begins and I do not hesitate to state that it is the most economic method.
In fact he is quite right, however, he is only repeating what I told him when I met him on a train last December.
I mentioned in my speech, on March 2, the views expressed by Mgr. Ross. I had not with me at the time his letter, however, I have it here now; it will be interesting to hear what His Lordship, the Bishop of Gaspe, has to say in connection with the ruralizing of our society:
On the other hand, he states, in "l'Aetion Catholique" of January 14, 1933, there is a 53719-200
lack of control. This fact, in my opinion, is as indisputable and universally acknowledged as the other. In many problems which are closely wrapped up witli our national life-and the back to the land is one-wonderful views are expressed, laudable schemes are proposed, generous endeavours are made; there lacks, however, cooperation between these forces which are scattered, a strong hand to unite them, one mind to direct them in the light of a well conceived plan, having a clearly defined aim.
It therefore seems to me that present efforts should tend towards not so much convincing as organizing and bringing the movement to a happy goal.
Who will be the driving power of this movement? What strong hand will unite these forces and see that the necessary directions are followed out? That is, in my opinion, the practical side to which we must direct our attention.
This letter, sir, bears the signature of Mgr. Ross, Bishop of Gaspe.
Following this letter, may I read another which was sent to "l'Action Catholique" by my excellent friend and distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger), and published on January 18, 1933. The third paragraph states:
I wonder whether the farmers, especially in the Eastern part of Canada, do not form the class of citizens which are the most neglected and forsaken by public bodies, notwithstanding the laudable endeavours made on their behalf by the Quebec government.
The views, sir, of another great colonizing agemt, an eminent member of the clergy, are those of Monseigneur Lapointe who was for a long time Vicar General of the diocese of Chicoutimi.
The following is what he writes in "PAction Catholique" of January 24, 1933; in reply always, to the question: Must we ruralize oui society?
Yes, let us ruralize. That is first: let us colonize. But let us colonize in the way settlements should be carried out, to-day; let us have a policy which is well conceived, regulated, consistent and strictly adhered to. Leit us part with the old methods.
Have we ever had in our province a national policy on colonization? It is an undeniable historical fact-that seems a paradox-that for the past century at least, if not always, official public assistance, most of the time, has been too much delayed, has always followed the settler and never preceded him.
Thus colonization has always had the pace of a tortoise. And at the cost of what hardships!
I do not wish my words to be misinterpreted. The other day, at the Quebec Legislative Assembly, Mr. Barre, the member foi Rouville, stated, according to the following report, as published by "PAction Catholique" on March 10, 1933:
The hon. Mr. Laferte, at the outset of the sitting, yesterday afternoon, put things in their true lights with reference to a statement of Mr. Jeau-Francois Pouliot, at Ottawa. Mr. REVISED EDITION
Relief Act, 1933

Barre taking no notice of Mr. Laferte's statement, contended that the member for Ternis-couata was too much a liberal to exaggerate the abuses of the Quebec government.
I wish to thank Mr. Barre for the high regard in which he holds my liberalism, however, in my remarks I had no more the intention of attacking the Quebec government than I had of launching out to-day, in the house against the Minister of Labour. May I be allowed to discuss this important question from a non-political viewpoint-'that is nonpolitical in the generally accepted sense. This all important question is worthy of being fully studied without any prejudice, because the question is to find out whether the methods followed are the right ones or not. If they are let them so be proved, if not let them be changed.
There was a speech delivered by Mr. Au-thier, a member, probably of very little weight, who discussed the question of colonization, but from such a petty and narrow viewpoint, that I attach no weight to his opinion.
The hon. Mr. Laferte, Minister of Colonization. on the contrary, was courteous and I shall act accordingly towards him. In my opinion, it is the best way of applying the golden rule. According to "1'Evenement" of March 10, last.. Mr. Laferte, referring to the member for Temiscouata, at Ottawa, made the following statement:
He even went so far as to contend that in Temiscouata, the new settlers were reduced, last summer, to feed on grass and roots and that in another section of the province they were lodged in a shack where men, women and children mostly strangers to one another had to live together under most deplorable conditions.
I deem it a duty to defend my province and compatriots against such charges. I have no idea where Mr. Pouliot sought his information, however, I wish to state in this Chamber that they are not according to facts, that even if such was the case in few' isolated instances, we cannot be held responsible. The hon. member is free to comment as he pleases on public matters; personally I would not have referred to this incident, but unfortunately it was published by the Press, and the Ontario newspapers, among others, after such a statement, raised such a hailloo-bailoo, that the good name of our province has been questioned.
It is not a matter of the good name of Quebec being questioned. It is a question of remedying an evil, it is a case of being open minded enough to state the truth, and we earnestly believe, sir, that it is necessary and urgent that we should take this stand.
However, nothing can be done without proof, and this proof I have in a letter of the Rev. Mr. Bilodeau, himself, dated March 3, 1933, and published by "le Soleil" on March 6, 1933.

The settlers, in 1931, were located in the Auelair and Biencourt townships. . .
In the county of Temiscouata.
. . . in concentration camps while awaiting the completion of their own camps and the arrival of their families. These concentration camps were modelled on lumber camps and the settlers were well fed and eared for, at least as well as in the lumber camps. Never were whole families grouped together.
That is, the Rev. Mr. Bilodeau contends that never were whole families agglomerated in concentration camps in the Auelair and Biencourt townships. However, that is not the point. It is neither what I stated. What I said was that the settlers had been lodged in so-called hotels in Timiskaming or Abitibi in the north, at least-that whole families were living mixed together in a shameful way. And I had the proof. On the same train with the Rev. Mr. Bilodeau, were men, women and children, children so young that the Rev. Mr. Bilodeau, himself, gave one a ride on his knee. They were sent to take possession of lots that they obtained either by location tickets or letters patent; however, there were no roads leading to those lots and these people were obliged to take refuge in those so-called hotels until roads were built to reach their lots. At all events, it was admitted by the Rev. Mr. Bilodeau, himself, that the settlers were placed in so-called lumber camps before they could reach the lots which were to be conceded to them.
I have, sir, received a number of letters from settlers who inquire what chattels are exempt from seizure on their land, and whether, in case of a lawsuit they could be forced to give up all they possessed. I have here my replies to these letters, in which I had the article of the Civil Code Procedure and the articles of the act protecting settlers, transcribed, so as to inform them what chattels they could withhold if they became involved in a lawsuit. They certainly cannot be well to do settlers who have need of such information. In the second part of his remarks Mr. Laferte expresses himself as follows:
"I shall, on my behalf, quote the evidence set forth by the colonization missionary agents of Temiscouata, the Rev. Mr. Leo-Pierre Bernier, this evidence may be found in the report sent to my department, at page 126. Referring to the county of Temiscouata, the Rev. Mr. Bernier expresses himself as follows:" As a practical result, four new parishes, which have their own resident priest, were settled: Auelair, (St. Emile) , Biencourt. (La Nativite-de-Marie), Robins, (St. Jean de la Lande), St. Elzear de la Petite Rivihre Bleue; two missions: Lejeune et le Lac-des-Aigles and five older parishes were considerably enlarged: St. Benoit-Abbe, St. Eu-sebe, les Etroits, Squatic and St. Juste-du-Lac.
Such a development in so short a time is unheard of in the annals of the colonization of

Relief Act, 1933
our county and perhaps of the province, thanks to the excellent policy of back to the land that your department advocated; thanks to the assistance extended under various forms, especially by the opening of new roads, direct assistance, special bonus, help in the form of charity, the distribution of seed-grain and grants to ferry boats carrying on a service for the settlers who are located beyond lake Temis-couata."
May I reply to the statement made by the Rev. Mr. Bernier by the statement made by a parish priest of one of these new parishes, that of St. Jean de la Lande, the latter wrote to me on March 1, as follows:
St. Jean de la Lande, March 1, 1933. Mr. J. F. Pouliot,
Riviere du Loup.
Dear sir,-On behalf of all my parishioners, of St. Jean de la Lande, I am applying to you in order that you may use your good offices to obtain from the Minister of Railways a further increase of 10,000 sleepers of hard-wood in connection with the contract of Mr. Damase Lang, of Lake Baker. You are no doubt aware that we are living here under trying conditions; we have no soft wood, as all lumber required by trade was cut by the Fraser Company or destroyed by forest fires; there only remains hard wood upon which 95 families of settlers must depend for a livelihood; we receive direct assistance but in too small quantity to relieve all these people. Mr. Damase Lang has already been awarded a small contract for sleepers, but this contract was filled in a few days, and if no further increase is awarded to him. the entire population of this township will have to live on thin air, which you will agree, is not very nourishing.
It is still less nourishing than roots, leaves and grass.
Trusting that you may obtain for us this increase in the contract, which would accommodate everybody, believe me, sir,
Yours devoted in J. C.,
Leopold Desbiens, priest,
Parish priest of St. Jean de la Lande.
He forwarded by the same mail a petition addressed to the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) which is as follows:
Petition
To the
Hon. M. Manion, M.P..
Minister of Railways,
Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,
"We, the undersigned, settlers of St. Jean de la Lande. in the county of Temiscouata, province of Quebec, humbly request the hon. Minister of Railways to award Mr. Damase Lang, of Lake Baker, N.B. a contract:
Whereas St-Jean de la Lande is a new parish;
Whereas the whole settlement depends entirely on direct assistance;
Whereas this contract would be of precious help to us and would afford us work, we beg of you to kindly award said contract to Mr. Lang."
I have not the original copies with me, they are in the possession of the hon. Minister of Railways.
This, however, is not all. I could read dozens, hundreds of similar letters.
The following is a letter from a parish priest of another settlement in the county of Pontiac:
Belcourt, February 27, 1933.
Sir,
Allow me to forward to you this letter in order to interest you somewhat in the hardships with which my humble parish has to bear up. When to clothe ourselves we have to resort to fibre bags, there is no need of stating that the necessities of life are wanting. Nor is it necessary to mention that municipal taxes or church dues are not paid.
The church of Ste-Cecile-de-Courville is actually in a critical stage. Will it become bankrupt? The following is what Mgr. Louis Rheaume wrote to me: "While awaiting the settlement of the problem, write to the bondholders and inform them that the church wardens have no funds". The liabilities incurred for the construction of the church only amount to $10,000 but the settlers have not a cent. The direct assistance, the work afforded to unemployed provided barely enough to keep them alive, but did not enable them to pay taxes.
Are we to sell the lots in order to collect the taxes and church dues? It does not seem right that people who have cleared the land at great sacrifice should depend on government, federal and provincial.
I therefore appeal to you to help our church, and this on behalf of my worthy and courageous settlers. The smallest subscription would be greatly appreciated. May I place your name on the subscription list?
Kindly accept my heartfelt gratitude and sincere thanks, in anticipation.
Yours very truly,
A. Marion, Priest.
It is when we hear of such appeals, that we regret not being millionaires and able to subscribe generously.
I think I have answered the questions of the hon. Minister of Colonization by producing undeniable evidence of the facts which he can ascertain at any time and which prove that the situation is more critical than it is generally represented to him. I am anxious to see this speech translated in English, on Monday, in order that the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) may read it.
Before closing my remarks, sir, there is a point to which I wish to draw the attention of the house. It is sometimes difficult, owing to friendships or deference for such and such a person, to openly express our views on certain important problems which are submitted to us; however, may I, first, refer to a letter published in "le Soleil" on March
315S
Relief Act, 1933

6,	by the Rev. Mr. Bilodeau, a missionary agent of colonization, it is as follows:
The member for Temiseouata has just made in the House of Commons-if I am to believe the report published by "FEvenement"-a statement on the back-fto-theriland movement which is, at least, extraordinary. He contends that, in his county, settlers were reduced to eat *grass and were lodged like pigs.
Let me remind you, sir, that the parish priest of St-Jean-de-la Lande states that if the Minister of Railways does not come to the [DOT]rescue of the settlers by awarding a contract for 10,000 sleepers, they will be obliged to *exist on thin air.
The Gordon scheme of back-to-the-land was never applied to Temiscouata. 0:n this point, Mr. Pouliot is not well informed.
Mr. Bilodeau is still worse informed than I am, because I have never stated that the Gordon scheme had been applied to the county of Temiscouata. He continues:
The Gordon scheme of back-to-theJand was only applied in 1932 and almost exclusively in Timiskaming and Abitiibi. Heretofore those families never felt any hardships, notwithstanding whatever may be the opinion of the member for Temiseouiata. Future alone will disclose what will be the success of this back-to-the-land movement; however, for the moment it seems successful.
Future alone will disclose what will be the success of this back to the land movement! Why? Because there is no plan, no system.
That there should be discontent or some complaints among a few settlers, is but natural. No great movement is undertaken without displeasing some one. As a whole, people are satisfied.
The best move which Mr. Bilodeau could make, would be to retire.
I would prefer in this matter to accept the evidence produced by the parish priests of these settlements, and this evidence is far from being as pessimistic.
When so many other eminent clergymen publish letters stating that there is no system followed1 as regards colonization, should the views of Rev. Mr. Bilodeau, to the contrary, prevail? He prefers, he states, to accept in this matter, the evidence produced by the parish priests of these settlements, and which is far from being as pessimistic.
What must we think of the letter written by the parish priest of St. Jean-de-la-Lands who feels anxious for his people, his flock, who are in distress and cannot see their way out?
I am in no way opposed, states Mr. Bilodeau, to the colonization movement being placed in the hands of the Trappists Friars, Oblate Fathers or the Clercs de Saint-Viateur. However, may I point out to Mr. Pouliot that the little faith he reposes in the secular priests who

are connected with this work proves that he has no knowledge whatever of the self-sacrifice and self-denial ehotvn by the secular priests to foster colonization. Ever since the founding of New France, the secular priests were, especially, the agents of colonization. Does Mr. Pouliot contend that these priests were never equal to their task?
No, sir, and all what Mr. Bilodeau writes in le Soliel is disgraceful. I never denied1 the great service performed in this country by the secular clergy, from the very moment they set foot on this soil. We must also bear in mind the service rendered at the outset of the colony by the Recollet Friars and the Jesuit Fathers a number of whom have just been canonized. Why did the secular clergy render such service to the country? It was because these priests were not civil servants. If, to-day, Mr. Bilodeau insults me so openly it is because he is an employee before being a missionary. And the reason why the members of the secular and regular clergy did so much good, not only in Quebec but throughout Canada and as far as the Mississippi valley, it was because they were especially and above all missionaries, they sought the Kingdom of Heaven before the kingdom of the earth, and the sooner Mr. Bilodeau realizes this fact the better it will be for him.
As a last thought, he states:
I regret, in a general way, that one should attack a beneficial movement approved by the majority of our well-thinking men in order to serve political ends. When one has worked for a number of years in the interest of colonization and that one is aware under what conditions these settlements have always been undertaken, one cannot complain that, within the last two years, the new settlers had to undergo much hardships. However, if we persist in telling the settlers that they are being neglected, we shall greatly increase the protests of the less desirable element among our new recruits.
What I state to be disgraceful, sir, is that they were lodged in a shack-whether it is designated as an hotel, concentration camp or whatever one may call it-it was disgraceful to bring courageous settlers from the cities to these places when there were not even roads leading to these settlements. In his correspondence to le Soleil as well as in a letter addressed to me later, Mr. Bilodeau does not deny that there were no roads leading to these settlements. Moreover, he clearly admits himself that it was unfortunate to send settlers on lots before building roads.
As a last thought, he states:
I regret, in a general way, that one should attack a beneficial movement approved by the majority of our w'ell-thinking men in order to serve political ends.

Relief Act, 1933
There is mo question here of serving political ends, but it is one of the country's interests, and if sometimes I have to say things that hurt, it is because I have at heart to defend the rights of the people in the house, "Salus populi suprema lex esto."
When one has worked for a number of years in the interest of colonization and one is aware under what conditions these settlements have always been undertaken, one cannot complain that, within the last two years, the new settlers had to undergo much hardships.
From various settlements information has reached us that the settlers were in distress, suffering from hardships, exhaustion, and feeling unhappy, it is because they are exhausted and unhappy that I wish to espouse their cause, to-day. I am certain that public feelings in Quebec and Ontario, as the press has informed us, side with us in this respect.
However, if we persist in telling the settlers that they are being neglected we shall greatly increase the complaints of the less desirable element among our new recruits.
What we ask is system, because it does not exist.
I wrote to the Hon. Mr. Laferte, Minister of Colonization, to draw his attention to certain facts, I sent him by registered mail my speech and I received a letter from Mr. Laforce, Colonization agent, a full three page letter which I have mot yet read, but which must be very interesting. I read the first paragraph only. I replied as follows:
In reply to your letter of yesterday, may I state that in no way did I allude to you in the speech I delivered last Thursday on the back to the land movement. I was alluding to a provincial civil servant of whom I had requested the dismissal from the minister.
After Mr. Laforce was apprised that I had requested from the Quebec Minister of Colonization the dismissal of Mr. Bilodeau, I received the following letter from this Mr. Bilodeau:
I was handed the statement which you forwarded to me on my return from a mission trip where I probably had to undergo more hardships than you do in the house, as a member.
We have no hardships here because we work with a light heart, and he himself should have no hardships to undergo, if he travels in those settlements where hotels are so excellent; he should not feel more tired than the people who register at the Chateau Frontenac, Chateau Laurier or the Royal York hotel.
I had read the newspaper reports and was therefore posted. However, I could not believe that you could make such a vile abuse of a private conversation. You intended to abuse of my good faith, which is unworthy of a man in your position.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hackett) (Translation):: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, if the house will allow me five more minutes, I shall be able to complete my remarks, otherwise, I shall have to continue later.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What has the committee before it at the moment; are we dealing with the original amendment and nothing else?


John Thomas Hackett: The original amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are not discussing the amendment to the amendment; that will not come up until we have disposed of the first amendment?


John Thomas Hackett: If it is the wish of the committee, they might be consolidated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, no.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wish to thank the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) for his questions, which arrived in the nick of time and thus permits me to continue my remarks immediately.
Mr. Billodeau wrote to me on March 14, 1933. I shall continue reading his letter:
I had read the newspaper reports and was therefore posted. However, I could not believe that you could make such a vile abuse of a Private conversation. You intended to abuse my good faith which is unworthy of a man in your position.
This is what happened. On a Canadian Pacific train, I saw two cars filled with settlers-men, women and children. I inquired who was in charge of this convoy or trip; I was told that Mr. Bilodeau was in charge. I therefore went to him and asked him simply this question: It is a fact, I said, that there are no roads, at present, connecting with the lots where these people are to settle? His reply was-and I challenge him to deny it: "It is unfortunately too true that there are no roads built, at present, reaching these lots, however, we hope that they will be built next spring." That is word for word the reply of the Rev. Mr. Bilodeau. I never sought to make a vile abuse of it; does it seem unworthy of a man, in whatever position he may be, to protest against such a sad plight. He continues:
However, had you stated the truth; intentionally or not, your statement in the House of Commons, on March 2, is absolutely false.
Relief Act, 1933

But, sir, I have given proof to bear out my statement. It is proved by public documents, by the views, publicly expressed, of His Lordship the Bishop of Gaspe, Mgr. Lapointe, of Chicoutimi, and so many eminent and distinguished men; but, not only that, my statement is corroborated by the Rev. Mr. Bilodeau, himself. Further on he continues:
You completely distorted the meaning of the few words which I may have said when I was listening to the speech you were making to me; and you are fully aware that you evaded my explanation by leaving in a hurry after concluding your speech.
After ascertaining, sir, that the Rev. Mr. Bilodeau was bringing over there, into the forest, people from Three Rivers, that he was leading them into the bush where no means of communication existed, the information was sufficient, and from the moment he admitted the fact, I was no further interested in his conversation, there was no need to enter into a controversy with him. He adds:
It is unnecessary to inform you that I shall not resign on your order. And I trust that when you mention my name in the House of Commons, as the evil "Guide" of this group of settlers, you will produce this letter although it is of a confidential nature. I expect you will misinterpret it as you did in connection with the private conversation I had with you.
I do not, sir, take advantage of anybody; I would consider it unworthy to do so, in whatsoever manner, but here we have facts. He wishes me to read his letter: I read it'textu-ally. Not only have I read his letter but his article published in the "Soleil."
As the letter of the Rev. Mr. Bilodeau was a picture of the truth, my reply was brief. I sent him a picture of myself. As the one I have in my hand was too large, I had quite a small reproduction made and addressed it to him. I sent him something small so that it would be on a level with him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is Liberalism at its best.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you.


Ernest Lapointe: What is the point of the remark?


Jean-François Pouliot: He says it is because it is a good picture.
(Translation): On March 15, Mr. Bilodeau published the following letter:
Two weekly newspapers of Montreal absolutely want the settlers of Abitibi to endure hardships, in support of their contentions; they can always find lazy and discontented settlers to supply them the needed information.
At all events, I contend that they give a wrong impression to the people and by that fact, are doing harm.

I am in a position to state that all the settlers of Abitibi who wished to work this winter suffered no hardships. What is true for this year, is true for previous years.
The _ story as regards wolves existing in Abitibi is a pure invention. There are as many wolves on the streets of Montreal.
I am aware that such a denial will not prevent the newspapers referred to from carrying om this campaign; however, it will prove that their object is entirely detrimental to public welfare.
From this date, I shall entirely ignore them. One must only discuss with people that are in
earnest.
I remain,
Yours respectfully,
(Signed) Geo. Marie Bilodeau, priest, Missionary agent of colonization, Parliament Buildings, Quebec.
"'Parliament buildings" employee!
Mr. Chairman, when I note that an important commission has been appointed by Mr. Laferte, comprising the Reverend Messrs. Jean Bergeron and G. Bilodeau, and Mr. Mercier, to study the system at present in practice for the distribution of grants to settlers, I wonder how it is possible: I wonder how the Rev. Mr. Bilodeau can possibly judge of the work he has been performing since he fills this official post.
Money is granted to settlers. Colonization will not succeed1 by means of the mighty dollar, but will prove a success the moment an efficient system is adopted.
The president of l'Union Catholique des Cultivateurs, Mr. Albert Rioux wrote in the Devoir on February 28, 1933, as follows:
To colonize, is to sow. This sowing of people must be, at least, sifted just as much as the seeds are when sown.
No money should be expended to place a settler on the land without first being well acquainted with his past life, his ways, his willingness to work, his spirit of thrift and his readiness to make sacrifices.
The settler's wife must also show her willingness to share his life; she must be like a solid pillar (une bonne "colonne") on which the settler (le "colon") may rest. Often the wife is the first cause of his deserting the land.
Very few of the industrial unemployed dis->lay any further disposition for their previous arming occupation.
We must not depend too much on city folks for the back to the land movement to ruralize our province.
And we find in l'Action Catholique of March 11, 1933, under the signature of Pierre Dupont, the following:
In the back to the land movement, we must include the whole problem which pertains to the land, namely:
1.	The maintenance of farmers on the land.
2.	The settling of farmers' sons on the land.
3.	Back to the land of farmers who were once farmers.

Reliej Act, 1933
4.	The settling on the land of those who have been chosen among city unemployed, not including those who were farmers once.
To be methodical, we must proceed in the way we have just pointed out. To act differently would be irrational, would be to put the cart before the horse, or to fill a bottomless cask.
Before concluding my speech, I may say this to the committee. This gentleman said something about sincerity. He wrote me a letter which was a caricature, so that I could answer him only by sending him another caricature. If anyone has been sincere in the matter of colonization it is the member for Temis-eouata. I do not know whether hon. members know this, but I was once arrested for libel because I dared to defend my poor fellow citizens of the county of Temiscouata against a man who was compelled by the Prime Minister of Quebec to resign, although he was a Liberal. I have proved my sincerity, because I was not afraid to attack a man of influence when I knew he was doing wrong, and the Prime Minister of that province gave me credit for w'hat I had done by compelling that man to resign. After that I made other charges against him for which he had me arrested for libel. My case was transferred to Rimouski on a change of venue and I had to go there as a criminal and stand before a jury whom I had never seen before. The case was postponed and finally came on before a jury absolutely unknown to me; I had never seen any of them before. I was there in court in Rimouski and the jury, after listening to the evidence, acquitted me of the charge. Subsequently this man who had brought the charge of libel against me stood as a candidate against me in the county of Temiscouata in a by-efeetion and the ex-<Minister of Justice came there and expressed satisfaction in the fact that he had nothing to say against me. I was not the official nominee but I defeated this man by 3,500 and had a majority of 1,500 in my home town.


An hon. MEMBER:: The ex-Minister of Justice was against you.


Jean-François Pouliot: He said nothing against me; he was too gentlemanly for that. I was not the official nominee but I carried the election because I had fought the fight of the people, and I will do the same thing again if anyone does wrong, as was done in this instance. When we hear men who are highly paid by the provincial government saying that there is no suffering among the settlers in the townships we know it is false. These people are too far away to have their complaints heard. I submit that there should be a fair system of colonization. I have the greatest regard for
the clergy of Quebec, and I would not say anything offensive to those who are not employed by the government. But when a man is employed by the government he must be treated exactly the same as other government employees, and when I see any wrongdoing I regard it as my bounden duty to protest as strongly as I can against it at any risk, without fear or favour. In this case I say that this man should be dismissed at once, and those who are equally incompetent should be laid aside and replaced by men with experience in colonization work, such as the Oblate Fathers, The Trappist Friars and the Clercs de Saint-Yiateur.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to displease my friend the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), with whom I generally agree, however, I cannot allow some of his remarks to pass without protesting. I think I am better acquainted with the Rev. Mr. Bilodeau than he is. We were told a few moments ago that his acquaintance with the Rev. Mr. Bilodeau dated back to when he accidentally met him on board a train. Both Mr. Bilodeau and myself were born a few miles distant from one another, we lived in the same county. I also had the privilege of meeting him often, and I am aware of the work he has accomplished. I therefore deem it my duty, with all due deference and assurance to my hon. friend from Temiscouata, that I do so not to displease him; however, I deem it my duty, 1 9aid, to protest against the attacks and innuendoes of the hon. member for Temiscouata against a civil servant who fulfils his duties very well, to the satisfaction of both ibis civil and ecclesiastical superiors. Mr. Bilodeau has had a long experience in connection with colonization; he knows his work thoroughly. He iS very competent and performs his work, I repeat it, to the satisfaction of his superiors both civil and ecclesiastic. Mr. Bilodeau is very intelligent, honest and conscientious, and I have never heard a word said against him in connection with his work.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: You heard
some criticism this afternoon.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I think that the only crime that my hon. friend from Temiscouata can reproach the Rev. Mr. Bilodeau, is that the latter did not take him seriously-I beg pardon of the hon. member for Temiscouata for using this expression- but, as I stated, the Rev. Mr. Bilodeau, perhaps, did not look upon the charges made by the hon. member for Temiscouata, seriously. Who can blame Mr. Bilodeau? I fear that
Relief Act, 1933

my hon. friend from Temiscouata was a little too hasty. It is true that he asserted, in a general way, that a number of settlers had been reduced to feed on grass and roots, that in other sections of the province the settlers had been huddled together, men, women and children, in a house. That may be so. My hon. friend might have been more precise. I am quite willing to believe him, but he should have given the names of these settlers and further details. It seems hardly possible- and probably the Rev. Mr. Bilodeau thinks as I do-that in a civilized country like Canada, people are left to feed on grass and roots. I cannot believe it, and the Rev. Mr. Bilodeau is probably of the same opinion as I am, that in a civilized country like Canada men, women and children are huddled together in a house, out in the bush. Again I state it may be so, but I should have liked the hon. member for Temiscouata to give up proofs instead of simply making a general statement. It seems that this is the only crime with which he reproaches the Rev. Mr. Bilodeau. I have no intention to keep up this debate. The Rev. Mr. Bilodeau has no need of any one to take up his cause. He probably does not expect it. He has the feeling and satisfaction of having fulfilled his duty, and I think that this is sufficient; however, I am unwilling as representative of the constituency of Belleohasse, to allow, without an answer, an attack launched in this House against a citizen hailing from that county. Once more I state that the Rev. Mr. Bilodeau has the experience and competence requisite and that he does his work to the best of his abilities and conscience, as the hon. member for Temiscouata himself does.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to reply to my excellent friend the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger), for two reasons. First, ail that I intended to say, for the present, I stated, and the House is free to weigh the pro and con. Then, I prefer not replying to my excellent friend from Belleohasse because, when I came forward as a candidate in the byelection of 1924, he helped me to carry the county.


Mr. HANBURY:: When speaking on this
resolution on March 3, the Prime Minister made certain references to me, and I should like to take this opportunity of attempting to justify myself and to clear up the question. The basis of my present observations is a statement by the Prime Minister as reported on page 2671 of Hansard wherein he says in reference to me:

Mr. Bennett: If he is not ashamed of himself, he should be.
On that occasion, the basis of the remarks of the right hon. gentleman-and I wish he would correct me if I make any misstatement-was copies of correspondence which I was supposed to have exchanged with the late Sir Henry Thornton, then president of the Canadian National Railways.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And Mr. King, a former Minister of Public Works.


Wilfred Hanbury: The Prime Minister did not refer to that in his remarks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is part of the correspondence.


Wilfred Hanbury: For the purpose of clearing up this question, may I say that as the correspondence has been stolen from my files, naturally I have no access to it. The Prime Minister has not as yet tabled the correspondence and consequently I must depend upon my memory. With reference to the establishment of an executive officer in Vancouver for the Canadian National Railways as referred to on page 2860 of Hansard, I would call the attention of hon. members to the fact that at the time this correspondence took place I was not a member of parliament. Further, at that time the Canadian National Railways had a director in British Columbia, but that director was situated in Prince Rupert which is many hundreds of miles from Vancouver. The Canadian National Railways had no executive officer in Vancouver; the Canadian Pacific Railway had an executive officer and a director there. In the interests of the Canadian National Railways and of the citizens of Vancouver, I made representations to the late Sir Henry Thornton that an executive officer should be established in that city. After some correspondence and after personal interviews with Sir Henry Thornton, such a representative was appointed in the person of Colonel A. T. Hiam. Colonel Hiam's appointment was, as I say, in 1927 or 1928- I am not sure of the date.


Mr. McGIBBON:: At S25.000 a year and
no job.


Wilfred Hanbury: I have no information as to his salary. His appointment was made in 1927 or 1928 before I was a member of this house. If that is the action to which the Prime Minister referred when he suggested that I should be ashamed of myself, I would be prepared to let it stand on that basis because like any citizen of Vancouver or of any other city, for that matter, I wa3 endeavouring to do something for the benefit of my community and I would do so again. The Prime Minister

Relief Act, 1933
referred to correspondence in this connection having come before the committee. I think it was not the whole correspondence but one letter which the Minister of Railways filed with the committee on national railways and shipping, but the balance of the correspondence to which he has referred, has not to my knowledge ever been filed.
Another matter to which I wish to direct attention appears on page 2672 of Hansard. Again referring to myself, the Prime Minister made this statement:
A problem the hon. member did as much to assist in making as anyone I know, through the expenditure of public money in respect to the national railways.
An hon. Member: The Vancouver hotel?
Mr. Bennett: Yes, and protests were made because a contract was signed for $4,000,000 and it is now $11,000,000.
I wish to explain to the Prime Minister and to the members of the committee that I never at any time had any connection with any contract for the construction of a hotel at Vancouver. Before the fact was made public through the press, I did not have any knowledge that any increase in the contract was contemplated. The only connection I ever had with any discussion of the contract for the construction of the Canadian National hotel was after the defeat of what is known as the "shadow government," when the gentleman who had a contract for the construction of the hotel at that time came to me in connection with it. To the best of my knowledge the information that I gave to him was that unless he could establish before the courts a legal claim, he might as well forget that he had a contract. That is the only information I had at the time. As I say, I was not a member of parliament and I had nothing to do either directly or indirectly with any increase in the cost of construction of the hotel.
If there is anything incorrect, Mr. Chairman, in the remarks I have made it may be explained by the fact that the correspondence has been stolen from my file and I have no access to it. If what I have been stating is not in accordance with the facts, I should be very pleased to have the Prime Minister state the facts as he must know them because he has access to the correspondence. I would prefer that the correspondence be tabled, but if it is not, and the Prime Minister has no further explanation to make, I would suggest that it must then be for the members themselves to make up their own minds whether or not there is anything in the action I have described which would justify the Prime Minister in stating that if I am not ashamed of myself I should be.


Mr. BRADETTE:: I just wish to say a few words regarding the back to the land movement. I do not entirely agree with what the hon. member for Temiscouata said a few minutes ago because in my own section of the country there is quite a number of people who have come from the cities and are now working on the land, and the failures among them I find are the exception, and not the majority. I am absolutely in favour of encouraging the back to the land movement, but undoubtedly when you have a large number of people coming into the newer sections and taking up what is to them a new occupation there are bound to be some anomalies and injustices.
I made a point of presenting to the house a few weeks ago some of the matters which I thought should be remedied by either the federal or the provincial government. I state frankly that I find myself under a very serious handicap in answering a question asked of me by the Minister of Labour. He asked me if I realized that the matter about which I was asking was under provincial jurisdiction. But my contention is that as long as the federal government is voting large sums of money for schemes which are to some extent under the jurisdiction of the province, this parliament should have something to say in regard to the policies that are governing such a movement. This applies particularly in the case of the back to the land movement because after all it was inaugurated by the federal government. Back to the land was a slogan that was well received by every section of this country. I believe it was given to the country in the fall session of 1930, and it was well received by the people of Canada because they realized that that policy would help to alleviate the unemployment question so far as the city populations were concerned. I am pleased to be able to say that a real amount of good has been accomplished by that movement. I protested in the fall of 1930 and again in the session of 1931 against the government claiming that it was accomplishing a lot of good in placing on the land a number of people without the expenditure of any public funds. I maintained at that time, and I maintain now, that some money has to be spent to make the scheme a success. We all know the situation in regard to unemployment in the cities, and the same situation applies to a large extent in the rural sections, particularly in the newer settlements in northern Ontario, where there is a large amount of unemployment. We all know what is the primary crop in the timbered area of colonization. It is pulpwood, and for pulp-
Relief Act, 1938

wood we have had no market for the last three years. This winter some of our settlers are getting limited contracts for cutting pulp-wood at $2.75 a cord. I know something about farming and lumbering, and I realize that it is absolutely impossible for any man who has been living in Hamilton or Toronto or Ottawa to go back into the rural sections of Ontario and try to make a living cutting pulpwood at $2.75 a cord. That situation has been remedied to a large extent because, as the minister stated the other day there is paid under the back to the land scheme out of the federal, provincial and municipal treasuries the sum of $600 to those going back on the land, and if I understood him aright, that amount is contributed equally by the federal and provincial governments. In my section of the country many of the municipalities are not in a position to vote any money for that purpose, and so it comes back to what I said originally, that the federal government must have and should have at the present moment some voice in the policies controlling the back to the land movement.


George Gordon: May I interject that the
contribution is borne equally by the federal government, the provincial government and the municipality concerned.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Would that apply to
my section of the country and the section from which the Minister of Labour comes, in the unorganized districts where there are no municipalities?


George Gordon: So far as I know there
has been no effort made in the unorganized parts of northern Ontario to settle people on the land within those areas. Most of the settlers are there now. The people coming from the urban centres are settling mainly in the older parts of the province, and that applies in the province of Quebec and the other provinces.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: If my information is
correct, in the district of Ferguson, with which the minister is very well acquainted, in the northwestern section of my riding there is quite a number of settlers living in the township of Casgrain, for instance, under the back to the land scheme. There is a certain number of settlers in the township of Stock near the Porcupine district. There is no municipal organization there, and so I gather that any assistance which the federal government gives must be on a fifty-fifty basis with the province, or else that the federal government pays 33] per cent and the province the balance, because, as I say, it is an unorganized district without any municipal councils.

I have a letter in my hand regarding a man who came from Hamilton and is at present residing in Frederickhouse, which is not an organized district; it has no municipal council, and there is no possibility of the settlers there receiving any help from the municipality. I know that is only a matter of detail because I realize that the settlers who go on the land under the back to the land scheme receive the sum of $600, and if I understood the minister aright, 8500 of that is paid the first year, $100 being reserved for the second year in case of emergency.
Only a few weeks ago I stated in this house that the government should have a better follow-up of these settlers. There should be a way of keeping in close contact with them because a back to the land policy may mean a lot to the people of this country not only at the present time but in the years to come. So I believe that there should be a better follow-up system. While this parliament may say that that is not within the federal jurisdiction, I maintain that the responsibility originally rests with this administration. Only a few days ago I received a letter from a very respected citizen in my section of the country to the effect that these new settlers are limited to receiving the sum of $10 a month, that no matter how large a family a man might have, and how many dependents, he receives no more than that sum under the back to the land scheme. More than that, the relief commission deducts any amount of which the family is in receipt. I have a letter in my hand from a man who comes from the city of Hamilton, a very good citizen, whom I had the pleasure of meeting on his holding last fall. He has the stuff in him to make a good farmer. After being out of work in Hamilton for two years, he came to our section of the country and settled in Frederickhouse. He was primarily a farmer; that had been his occupation. He was told when he went there that he would receive the sum of $10 a month. The house will understand it is absolutely impossible to provide food, clothing or even shelter for a family of ten on the small sum of $10 a month. I should add that after a protest had been made the first amount had been increased to $15 a month. That however was not sufficient, and not even maintained. Two months ago he was cut down to $10, the relief commissioner giving him the right to work two days a month at $2 a day, bringing his total receipts up to $14 a month.
The committee will fully realize that it is absolutely impossible for a family of ten to keep body and soul together on that small

amount of money. I am not a sob sister, by a long Shot, and it is not pleasant for me to bring these matters before the house. However, I know the spirit in which they are given and will be received by the Minister of Labour and the committee. I know a tremendous amount of good is being accomplished through the back to the land movement. Some hon. members may object to the fact that I have availed myself of the opportunity to bring to their attention individual cases. I am convinced however that this is the place to speak concerning these matters, because it should remain within our jurisdiction to remedy the difficulties. The man to whom I have referred wants to play the game with the authorities, and also wants to play the game with his family and the country. However on the sum of $14 a month he is finding it impossible to continue. That is absolutely all he can get to-day. He has been told by the relief commissioner to go ahead and do some work for his neighbour, so that there may be an interchange of labour for food, vegetables and so on. But that man came under the back to the land movement only last fall. He has no garden, and his neighbour cannot give him work, because most of the settlers in northern Ontario are on direct relief. I am not trying to paint a ' picture worse than it is; I am stating facts, and I feel it my bounden duty to bring them to the attention of the house. I feel at least I should present them, because I am convinced the minister will do everything within his power to remedy the difficulties.
Probably there could be no objection if I were to read part of a letter written by the man in question. If the minister would like to know, I should be quite happy to give the name of the writer. He is a good citizen, originally from Hamilton, and now trying in our section of the country to make a living. However he finds the going very hard, because the amount of money he receives each month is altogether too small. In part his letter is as follows:
Now, it does not take a mathematician to figure it out that a family of ten cannot live on $14 per month which is $1.40 per person each month. I wonder how some of those who are governing the relief question would like to live on $1.40 for a month, and I have no garden to help out either.
I cannot get enough milk or butter for the children. If I order enough of that I am away short of other commodities. My children were the picture of health when they left the city. Shortly after arrival here I had a pair of twins taken sick with double penumonia and they nearly died. The whole family have lost considerable weight. My wife has been in ill health on account of worry. I can't give them enough to eat and I can't send them to school
Relief Act, 1983
as they have not sufficient clothing. What kind of a future generation does our government expect to have when they are undernourished during their childhood.
I read the letter so that the committee may realize the gravity of the circumstances. I would not go the limit to which the hon. member for Temiscouata went, so far as the back to the land movement is concerned, because, after studying the situation thoroughly I am positive, that in new centres the government is trying to play the game. However there are some cases in which we find evidence of misery. Really good Canadians are trying to gain a living against great odds. I believe it is not the intention of the government to allow those people to starve, but that it intends to give them the necessities of life. They want comforts, not luxuries, and ask merely for a chance to get along under their new occupations and surroundings.
I hope the committee will forgive me for speaking at such length, but I know hon. members will realize that these individual cases are of great and personal importance. Such cases may be the source of protests of which there would be no end. If the difficulty is met as soon as possible it may be possible to save criticism, and to save prejudice against the government. The back to the land movement means much to Canada as a whole. We have noticed that for the last fifteen years people from rural centres have been going to the larger centres of population. But, under present circumstances, owing to the fact that men cannot find useful employment in the cities, they are attempting to find ways and means of earning a livelihood away from the cities where they have lived for the last few years. Knowing the Minister of Labour, I feel that these matters will be attended to.
I know the movement has been well conducted in my section of the country, and that they have been given road and school accommodation. However that is not sufficient. There should be an inspector to see how those settlers are getting along, and to find individual cases of misery. There should be grading of the amounts of money paid by the government. Surely a family of ten on a holding, with no opportunity to grow a crop will require more help from the government than a single man or a family of only three or four. That is why I say that a follow-up process should be adopted whereby individual cases may have special consideration.
I have in mind a settlement of families from East York, in the southern section of the province of Ontario who moved to the third concession of the township of Stock. Those
Relief Act, 1931

people have complained that after doing lumbering and logging work they had to wait two and a half months for their pay. Anyone knows that those people who have left the city to get other employment have little or no money, and it is impossible for them to wait two and a half months for it. These are some of the anomalies to which I wish to direct the attention of the minister.
Again, I believe I am quite in order when I say I believe the back to the land scheme will go to the root of the matter, and at least to some extent will help to relieve the unemployment situation.


Mr. NEILL:: I presume the matter of unemployment insurance is sufficiently near that which we are now discussing to allow me to make a few remarks concerning it. Certainly unemployment insurance has a bearing on the matter, although perhaps in an indirect way, because if carried out it would relieve the demand of unemployment relief in this or in future years.
On April 29, 1931, the Prime Minister made two definite statements, one to the effect that before he left office he would bring down legislation along these lines. Then on behalf of the administration he made another definite statement, that at the earliest possible moment consistent with obtaining the necessary information they would prepare and submit to the house a measure embodying the views which he then expressed. Then, on November 22, 1932, he said he rose to reiterate and restate the statements I have just mentioned. He went a little farther than that, and wound up by saying:
I oannot promise that the legislation I mentioned jn my speech of April 29, 1931, will be forthcoming, but I can promise it will be no fault of ours if we do not meet with the provinces between now and January 30, next, and at least arrive at some conclusion -with respect to those controversial matters which must be settled before any appropriate action can be taken by this parliament.
The conference of course was held, and as far as I know no formal report was made of its proceedings. Rumours leaked out into the press, but we know they are not always accurate. On the 17th of February, on the orders of the day, I asked the right hon. Prime Minister if he was prepared to make a statement, in view of what I have already stated, in connection with the conference, and he replied that it was idle for me to ask w'ithout notice for a statement on a matter of that kind. I assumed, apparently wrongly, that he would make some such statement later on. Finding none was forthcoming I did the only thing I could, I put it in the

form of a definite question, which, of course, was limited in its scope, and asked:
Will the government be in a position at this session to bring down legislation dealing with unemployment insurance as referred to by the right hon.. the premier, in debate in this house on November 22nd last?
To which the right hon. Prime Minister made the cryptic reply, "No." That of course, was very definite, but I submit that we ought to have a statement from him as to what prospect he can hold out, and this I think would be a proper time to have it. If there was disagreement at the conference I think we are entitled to know, if some disagreed and others were favourable we and the country would like to know, it would be in line with the promises he made in November last if he would give us some general but definite statement, and I trust that before this debate ends he will do so.
As regards the general relief question I have very little to say. I had not intended to deal with it at all, except for one or two particular points that I want to bring up. After years of experience I regard it as absolutely hopeless to discuss this matter in the house with any expectation of definite results, the minister either cannot or will not appreciate the situation as it is revealed to him by the members from British Columbia; he replies either with courteous evasions or more or less pious truisms which while very nice are far from meeting the situation. When we find a minister of the crown who will stand up in this house as my hon. friend did on February 24, and say that it is a matter for congratulation to this country that the expenditure for relief has gone down from some $46,000,000 to S25,000,000, although in the same breath he admitted that the number of people on unemployment relief had increased, it is hopeless to argue. His remark was heralded throughout Canada with large headlines in many newspapers to the effect that the Minister of Labour saw the upturn of unemployment conditions, the statement being based on the fact that he had been able to reduce the outlay on relief, although the numbers receiving it had greatly increased, as we all know, and as he himself admitted. But he took pride in congratulating the people of Canada on that reduction as indicative of improved conditions, although of course it merely indicated that the people received less per capita. With such a point of view it is hopeless, it is a waste of time, to discuss the matter further.
I want to contradict one statement. I would not do it if he had not reiterated it last Friday. I do not need to quote his whole

Iteliej Act, 1933
statement, he was replying to an interrogation by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), and he laid down the conditions on which this government deals with the provinces. I will only quote this sentence:
No limit has ever been set by this government to tlie amount of relief which shall be granted to any applicant, this being constitutionally a matter wholly within the determination and judgment of the local authorities.
Then he goes on to amplify it. On the same occasion I asked him if he was not aware that when the municipalities apply to the provincial authority in British Columbia the invariable answer is: We cannot help you to any greater extent because the dominion will not contribute their share of any larger rate. If he really believes that the words of his which I have quoted represent the policy that he and the government have been following, then he is in some kind of mirage or dreamland, from which there will be a rude awakening some day. He must be like the kaiser who within forty-eight hours of his abdication was firmly convinced that his forces were sweeping on to ultimate victory. He is either deceiving himself or being deceived.
I can speak only of my own province, but let me tell him this, that British Columbia to-day is aflame against this government; that applies not only to the government, British Columbia politically sympathetic to this government as it is, and has every reason to be, but to the council of municipalities, representing a very large body, and also the ordinary common people. On the 11th of March the council of municipalities waited on the provincial government, they were alarmed at what they had heard were going to be reductions made in relief, and they wanted to know where they were going to get off; and the province told them they were unable to announce what changes had been ordered-note	that word-"ordered"-from
Ottawa. That was the provincial government's language. They said it had been given to them confidentially, and they were not in a position to tell what changes had been ordered from Ottawa; they were bound to secrecy. But it was unofficially learned that a recent federal ruling as to the administration of relief would materially affect the situation and probably take 2,500 men from dominion assistance and put them on the province, which would, of course, be a disastrous thing for the province. Then we find Vancouver city sending a resolution of protest to the Dominion government at the suggestion of the provincial finance minister, not going over his head, not complaining of him, but doing it at his suggestion. Then we find the council of municipalities contemplating making arrangements to send a delegation down here, aided by the provincial government, to try to straighten this thing out and see if they can get what they claim they are entitled to, and which they say is withheld due to the action of the Dominion government in refusing to grant them more than certain sums. That looks like a flat contradiction of the statement of the minister which implied very plainly, that the province could within reasonable bounds give any relief they liked and the jurisdiction and duty and practice of the dominion was to pay one-third. I say these statements that I have read, which are repeated in almost every paper in British Columbia, are indicative of a situation very different. If it is not so, why are they proposing to send a delegation, a joint delegation of the municipalities and the provincial government, down here?
Before I sit down I want to deal for a moment with the situation outlined by the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette) who preceded me. He was dealing with the question of farm relief in unorganized territory. As the minister knows, the arrangement was that $600 should be granted to a settler, that amount being deemed to be the minimum necessary; if a less sum would have sufficed we assume it would have been agreed on. Therefore we assume that to give a man an ordinary chance to make good on these lands $600 has to be forthcoming. It was arranged that the provision of this amount should be divided between the dominion, the province and the municipality, $200 each. As time went on, the hon. member who preceded me indicated that it was necessary, or advisable at any rate, to put some people on the land who were not living in cities and therefore did not have any city to back them up to the extent of $200. I find on inquiry that the arrangement is that the dominion will not grant more than the original $200, and the rest will have to be provided by some person or persons unknown. The province cannot provide more than $200 for the reason that they are very hard up. I have a letter in my hand from a settler, quoting a letter received from the British Columbia government relief land settlement committee. They say that while they have made a bargain with the dominion .as regards the unorganized district settlers, they say that they regret very much that they have no funds to carry it on. Where they have no funds to carry it on we may be quite sure that any money that they do have or can get will be devoted to helping those out of the city where they will have to pay only $200 instead of those from the unorganized districts, where they would have to pay $400.
Relief Act, 1933

I have two questions I would like to put to thd minister if I could get his attention. Apparently that is a courtesy not always displayed to this side of the house. Under direct relief the dominion pays one-third, the province one-third and the municipality one-third; in the case of relief granted in unorganized districts, the dominion pays one-half and the province one-half. There is no contribution from a municipality because there is no municipality. Would it not be fair and reasonable for the dominion to adopt the same system in connection with the land settlement scheme? That is, where a man was getting relief in an unorganized district, the dominion would pay one-half and the province one-half. This seems to me to be a reasonable argument to advance, and there is already a precedent.
'Secondly, it is well known that where a city finds itself unable to handle the relief situation, it gets assistance in the way of a loan from the province and where a province falls down, it in turn gets a loan from the dominion. In the case of British Columbia, the Dominion government has not only paid its share but sometimes it has loaned to British Columbia the amount of the provincial government's share. I should like to know if the minister would be willing to extend this same system to the land relief scheme. If a province has no money, then the scheme is useless and I should like to know if the minister would be willing to lend to British Columbia the provincial government's share of the $600 in order that they may function? If the minister can advise me on these two points, I would be much obliged.


George Gordon: I will have some observations to make later on in the debate.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Mr. Chairman, the committee does not need to be told that the unemployment situation in this dominion is getting exceedingly critical. On Friday last the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) asked a question of the minister on behalf of all the members from Vancouver. The situation in that city is exceedingly grave. I understand that on the fifteenth of this month a delegation of apartment house and rooming house landlords interviewed the city council and pointed out that unless certain rents were paid, nine hundred tenants with their families would be evicted. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill), the city finds itself in this difficulty: when they take the matter up with the provincial government they are informed that that government is [Mr. Neill.)
paying all they are allowed to pay by the Dominion government and when they take the matter up with the Dominion government, they are told to take the matter up with the provincial government. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre was prevented from reading a telegram which he had received from the mayor of the city of Vancouver on Friday last, but if it is in order I would like to read a similar telegram which I received. It reads:
Critical condition exists in Vancouver due to inadequacy of relief scale as allowed by provincial government to meet shelter. Wholesale evictions involving hundreds of families under ^ way resulting in increasing threatening condition. Repeated representations to provincial government unavailing as it states Ottawa refuses to increase British Columbia quota. Direct communications to Ottawa from the city always answered that issue should be taken up through provincial government. Vancouver already bearing staggering relief costs. City council recognizing that their continued efforts to stave off crisis will in the immediate future be unavailing calls upon you as Vancouver's representative to immediately bring this need for action to the attention of the proper authorities and asks that irregardless of party lines you cooperate in any move initiated to relieve the present emergent situation by supplementary government aid and in formulating a future scale of assistance that wifi prevent its recurrence. Full particulars already in possession of Premier Bennett and Hon. H. H. Stevens.
The minister will realize that this telegram outlines a very grave situation but it refers only to a small proportion of the 7,000 families who are on direct relief. The situation of those living in rooming or apartment houses is somewhat different from that of those living in houses. In the one case they can be evicted simply by the landlord locking the door, in the other, a court order is necessary. I understand that the allowance for rent, fuel and clothing is $5 per month for a family of two with an extra dollar per month for each child up to three. The landlords are demanding that $10 per month be paid for a family of two with a dollar for each child, and up to the present time the city has been paying the extra S5. I would like to ask the minister if the Dominion government would be willing to pay one-third of the difference between what the governments are now paying and the city is having to pay, that is, one-third of the additional $5? If that were done it would relieve this phase of the situation. But it will not relieve the whole unemployment situation; something permanent and adequate will have to be done very quickly, otherwise there will be trouble in the city of Vancouver.

Relief Act, 1933


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Mr. Chairman, I
have no desire to cover ground which has been gone over again and again in connection with this unemployment situation. However, I desire to say that I regret that this amendment has been introduced. It may theoretically be a good thing for a government to bring its plans before the house and that there should be a limit to the authority placed in its hands, but we must remember that we are facing a very serious situation. I regret that the government has seen fit to vote only a sum of $20,000,000 for this purpose. We have been told that although unemployment has materially increased during the past year, the grants for unemployment have decreased. I do not think that that can be considered as a satisfactory state of affairs. It may be possible that there have been savings in administration; so far so good, but I am afraid that in many cases the saving has been accomplished by cutting down the amounts given to unemployed families.


An hon. MEMBER:: By whom?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not very
much concerned as to who did it, I am concerned primarily in the results. The trouble is that under existing arrangements, this problem is. footballed back and forth between the municipalities, the provinces and the dominion. It is very easy to get tangled up on the question where precisely responsibility lies.


Mr. ARTHURS:: There is no question of
primary jurisdiction.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. member
says that there is no question of primary jurisdiction. The primary jurisdiction is with the dominion government; there is no doubt about that, and that was frankly acknowledged by the Prime Minister himself before the election.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Oh yes. He said
that under a national emergency this responsibility belonged to the dominion, and he is now receding from that position and adopting the position taken formerly by the official leader of the opposition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: An emergency can exist
only if it is national, under our institutions; and at least two of the provinces say that they will not permit us to take over the administration of what is their business.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If a matter becomes a national emergency I submit that two provinces cannot take responsibility away from
the dominion for acting under that emergency. If there were an earthquake in Vancouver that would be a national emergency and the dominion government would come to the relief. Now, there is a national emergency in my province, to my knowledge, and so there is in British Columbia. There is not the slightest doubt about that. We who come here are sometimes accused of being alarmists, but if this situation continues we shall before very long have most serious conditions in the west. The last issue of the Winnipeg Free Press just to hand points that out in very definite and unmistakable language. Under the circumstances therefore I cannot accept what the Prime Minister says, that because one or two provinces do not want to have any interference in their internal affairs, the emergency ceases to be national. It is a national emergency and the dominion must take the responsibility for it. So far as the west is concerned, we all know that a very large! number of municipalities are either bankrupt or on the verge of bankruptcy, having had to be assisted again and again. They are cutting down services in every direction and the financial situation is anything but satisfactory in the four western provinces. They cannot begin to cope with the unemployment situation that exists. Under these circumstances it is not primarily a question as to where theoretically the responsibility lies. Sooner or later this government will have to assume the responsibility and it would be well advised to assume it before a financial collapse forces definite action.
I regret, in view of these facts, that the house should limit the government. If this is a national emergency-and I think it is much more so than it was two or three years ago- I do not think that the amount of relief which is to be handed out should be limited as we propose to do at the present time. The sum of $20,000,000 is stated. We were told a few weeke ago by the Minister of Labour that there were over 1,300,000 unemployed men with their wives and dependents receiving unemployment relief.


George Gordon: Every time the hon. member comes around to this figure of 1,300,000 odd he has to be corrected. I corrected him on a former occasion when he made this statement and I now correct him again. The figure I gave of 1,300,000 odd refers to men, women and children on relief for varying periods.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite so; I do not think my statement was incorrect.


James Arthurs: You said unemployed.
Beliej Act, 1933


James Shaver Woodsworth: I said 1,300,000 unemployed men with their wives and families were receiving unemployment relief.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: At some time during the
year.


James Arthurs: You said 1,300,000 unemployed men with their wives.


James Shaver Woodsworth: With their wives and children.


James Arthurs: The hon. member should have said "including."


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will accept the word "including."


George Gordon: Why make it worse than it is?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have no intention of making it worse than it is. It is bad enough as it is, but the fact is that there are
1,357,000	people-that is the right figure I am told-in receipt of unemployment relief. Is that correct? Now, $20,000,000 means only a very few dollars in the course of the whole year, for each of these people, and even supposing the provinces were able to contribute one-third, which they are not able to do, and the municipalities one-third, which they too cannot do, that would be only $60,000,000 to take care of one million and a third of people for the whole year. The whole thing is preposterous; people cannot live on that low scale.


James Arthurs: They do not require unemployment relief for the whole year.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. member says they do not require unemployment relief for the whole year. I submit that they are altogether likely to require relief for the great part of this coming year.


James Arthurs: Great part is different.


James Shaver Woodsworth: For the greater part of this coming year they will require relief, because unemployment shows a steady increase, and there is nothing whatever on the horizon to suggest that there is going to be any letup. In fact, if you look at that aspect of the matter there is everything to suggest that conditions may be worse in the next twelve months than they have been during the past year.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh no.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, no one has so
far pointed out where they will improve.


Peter McGibbon: They are improving in Winnipeg; look at the car loadings this week.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The car loadings do not indicate that there is much improvement for the unemployed people in Winnipeg at the present time.


Peter McGibbon: It means something, the hon. member will admit.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My point is that $20,000,000 is altogether inadequate to take care of the situation that faces us to-day, and I think the house would be well advised not to press upon the government a limitation of this kind.


An hon. MEMBER:: We have never done so.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I understand that there was pressure from the Liberal party that some limitation should be placed.


Wilfred Hanbury: Just a stated amount.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, that means that some limitation should be placed on what should be spent. Theoretically that is perhaps desirable, but certainly it is not desirable to limit it to a comparatively small amount like $20,000,000, which might be taken by the government as the maximum that could be spent. I do think we face a very serious national emergency, and even at this late period we should take some very definite steps to make a survey of the whole situation with a view of dealing with it in a more adequate way than we have done in the past two or three years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I point out to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the limitation which the government is placing upon the amount to be spent for direct relief is a limitation that applies only to direct relief. The government does not place upon itself any restriction with respect to what it may do under the provisions of this legislation in other ways so far as grappling with unemployment is concerned. The statement made by the minister, that the government was intending to restrict unemployment relief to $20,000,000, has created a wrong impression throughout the country. It has created the impression that the government believes the situation is getting better and that, therefore, it is justified in limiting the total amount for unemployment relief, whereas all that the government is doing is limiting the outlay to $20,000,000 with respect to direct relief, in other words, the dole. So far as other forms of relief are concerned such, for example, as providing or assisting in providing work, the ministry has under this legislation unlimited powers.

Relief Act, 1933
May I point this out to my hon. friend. We, on this side, are not limiting the government, as he suggests, nor could we limit the government. We are agreeing to give them what they ask. The government can ask whatever amount it thinks necessary to meet the situation in any particular and all that is expected of it is to give substantial reasons to parliament therefor. It is not the duty of those who are not members of the government to say-how much money- is needed; it is the duty of the government to inform the House of Commons in that regard. Our responsibility lies in voting or refusing to vote what the government asks us to vote, but it is the government's responsibility to name the amount which it thinks is required. If the government is of the opinion that $20,000,000 is not sufficient for the purposes of the dole for next year and desires to ask for $40,000,000 or $100,000,000, they are at full liberty to ask for those amounts, it is then for those of us on this side of the house to consider whether we shall agree to support giving that amount. As I have all along said, if the government will indicate whatever sum it regards as necessary, so long as parliamentary control is maintained over a definite amount, we on this side will be prepared in existing circumstances to vote whatever amount is named if a substantial reason is given therefor. That was made quite clear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Might I say with
regard to the observations of the leader of the opposition that there is a definite amendment before us and that we must assume our responsibility in voting for or against it. If we vote in favour of it, we are taking the responsibility of limiting the amount. Under these conditions the only thing some of us can do is oppose the limitation involved in this amendment.
In regard to the other point, the government has brought forward no scheme for any works of any kind or any other means of relieving unemployment than by the dole. The hon. member for Southeast Grey suggests the sending of men to the farms. That would take care of only a few thousands at the best. Since there is no other scheme, we must for the moment take it for granted that this $20,000,000 will be the maximum or almost the maximum spent on relief.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not agree with my hon. friend in his statement that, because the government in this measure says that it wants the dole limited to $20,000,000, we are in any way restricting the government. The government may, as my hon. friend knows, come along with a supplementary 53719-201
estimate before the session is over and ask for a further amount. Therefore, by what we may do in this particular measure, we do not necessarily restrict the government. It has a free hand as long as parliament is in session. It has in addition under the provisions of this bill a blank cheque for relieving unemployment in other ways than by the dole.
It is important that, in everything the government asks for, it should give to the house the reasons for the amounts it requests. It must assume responsibility if it suggests too large or too small an amount; it cannot get rid of its responsibility any more than we can of ours in agreeing or not agreeing to support it. If I support the amendment, I am not supporting it with a view to restricting the amount of relief that should be given; I am supporting it because it is what the government requests for a definite purpose; it offers a certain control by parliament and is in accordance with the responsibility on the part of the ministry which should be exercised in this manner in connection with every appropriation of this House of Commons. That is fundamental.
May I say a further word in reference to what the Prime Minister said in interrupting or in speaking at the same time as my hon. friend. He states that, so far as the provinces were concerned, they would not allow us to interfere with their administration. Personally, I think what is said in this way is all beside the mark. Certainly the provinces are not going to allow us to interfere with the administration of their own business, but, if they want to secure the assistance of this parliament, they must be prepared to permit this parliament to do as it pleases with the money it votes. No province, if it is going to get federal money, can for a moment decline to accept the conditions which the federal parliament may wish to impose in connection with the grant.
May I say I agree wholly with the view, and it has been stated over and over again, that, with respect to present conditions we are in a state of emergency, a national emergency. The unemployment problem is a national emergency to-day. It has become the duty of the federal government to deal with that problem before all others. The federal government ought to face the problem of depression and emergency so far as it relates to unemployment in exactly the same way in which it would face war and war conditions. It should organize with the assistance of the provinces and the municipalities the whole distribution of relief on a nation-wide scale under national direction. That, as was ad-

Relief Act, 1933

vocated from this side, should have been done at the very outset. It was not done in the first year nor in the second, and now in the third and getting on to the fourth, it is more necessary than ever that this should be done. It is the only way in which the problem can be met. The Dominion government should say: We are taking this problem as a national one; we intend to deal W'ith it as a national emergency; we shall organize the country from coast to coast under a commission which will have direction of the moneys voted by parliament, and we shall ask parliament for what we need in order to meet the situation. It will not now suffice any longer to fall back on what comes within the jurisdiction of a municipality or a province. On this side we have always taken the view that when the municipalities and the provinces found that they could not deal with the situation, it then became a national one. It is all very well for the provinces to say that they wish to keep control over their own particular affairs so far as they have the right so to do, but it is an entirely different thing, to say that the provinces would not welcome with all their hearts a great national scheme which would be one of cooperation with them and the municipalities in dealing with this great problem.


Angus MacInnis: Speaking in connection with the amendment to the resolution, I may say that our objection to it is that it limits the expenditure of money in only one particular. The resolution itself and the bill that will be founded on it are extremely wide. They do not limit the government in the expenditure of money in any other direction than in that of direct relief. In view of the fact that the policy of the government is increasingly one of taking care of unemployment through direct relief, we do not see why they should be restricted in the amount to be spent in that particular direction. It is discrimination against those who are on direct relief.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I find myself in substantial agreement with the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South. The policy of the government since the special session of 1930 has been one of direct relief, and that alone. Now we find in this bill a limitation of $20,000,000 on the amount to be spent on direct relief. If the government continues its present policy, that will be practically a total limitation of $20,000,000 on all government expenditures, except as regards demands made by provinces. So this house is considering an amendment that under the
TMr. Mackenzie King.]
present policy of the government limits the expenditures to a total of $20,000,000.
I wish to identify myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the hon. member for Vancouver South in regard to the emergent situation in British Columbia and greater Vancouver. There is no question that the Prime Minister in 1930 in all his election promises and speeches told the Canadian people that he would deal with the unemployment situation as a national problem on a national basis. Further, I find when we met here in the special session of 1930 and when we were considering the appropriation of $20,000,000 for the relief of unemployment, the Prime Minister speaking in the house used these words:
We are asking this parliament by the measure now before it first of all to recognize the situation as one of a national character and secondly to agree to the appropriation of the sum of $20,000,000 to be applied (a) in useful works and undertakings authorized by this central government; (b) in assisting useful works and undertakings of municipalities and provinces; and (c) to assist such municipalities and provinces in granting relief where relief may be necessary or where employment may not be possible.
So that the idea which permeated every promise and pledge made by the right hon. gentleman in the election of 1930 was based on dealing with the unemployment situation on a national basis. I am making this suggestion this afternoon: If the problem in September, 1930, with 117,000 unemployed should, in the words of the Prime Minister speaking in the house, be recognized and considered as a national emergency, how much more should the problem to-day, with practically 800,000 people unemployed, with 1,357,562 receiving relief, with 252,000 heads of families receiving direct relief, be regarded as a national one. Surely this is the time when the problem must be considered on a national basis. I am just warning the administration, not in any critical way, that if conditions in Vancouver continue to progress as they are at the present time, they are going to be very grave. We have received representations from organized municipalities of British Columbia, from city councils of that province, and they are practically approaching a condition of despair in regard to the situation. They tried to approach the federal government through their members in this house, but according to the rules, we were adjudged out of order. They approached their provincial government.
The provincial government informs me that the blame lies with this administration. They approach my hon. friend the Minister of Labour and he informs them that they must

Relief Act, 1933
first of all come through the government of British Columbia before they can obtain redress. There can be only one consequence and one result of a policy such as that of refusing to accept final, ultimate and direct responsibility. It will be a policy of chaos and, I am afraid, of riot in our cities if we do not meet the situation in a constructive and non-partisan way. I appeal to the Minister of Labour himself-I know that his sympathies are with this problem-to confront the unemployment situation in a national wiay, not in this picayune way of raising technicalities and subtleties and saying that application must be made through the provincial government before the minister can deal with it, and the provincial government saying, "We cannot raise the scale of relief without federal sanction." I heard my hon. friend the Minister of Labour make the statement to the assembled members of this house that no unemployed man during the present winter would go without food, without clothing or without shelter. But what is the situation? In my own city of Vancouver there is a threat of nine hundred people being thrown out upon the streets to-day, with their families, without shelter. Why? Because a substantial degree of concurrence has not been obtained with regard to an adequate system of direct relief to be allocated for shelter purposes.


George Gordon: But they have not been
put on the streets yet.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And I
trust they never will be. Let us do all within our power to prevent such a thing happening. But my submission is this, that the threat was made in the city of Vancouver only last Wednesday that unless an additional scale of relief for shelter purposes is provided to take care of these unfortunate people who are unemployed through no fault of their own, they will be evicted and will be without any shelter in the city of Vancouver to-night. In view of the pledge given by the Minister of Labour himself so recently to the members of this house, and considering the emergent conditions that prevail in many of our Canadian cities, surely the time has arrived for the government of the day, in a large national and constructive way, to envision and comprehend this entire problem as a nation-wide problem, a Canadian problem, in its very essence, and as far as I personally am concerned, if the government deals with it as a national problem I shall be only too glad to render any assistance I can. It is a 53719-201J
national problem, Mr. Chairman, because our municipalities are practically all bankrupt. They are out of resources, and I am afraid that the policies of the administration during the last few years have very largely been driving them to that condition because they have been compelled to live beyond their resources to face the present emergent situation. So I am appealing to the Minister of Labour, particularly in view of the very grave conditions that exist in the province of British Columbia and all through the Canadian west, both in the industrial centres and on many of the farms in western Canada, to deal with this question in a national way, not in any piecemeal fashion, providing one scale of relief here and another there, not with the present lack of coordination and uniformity throughout the dominion; but let us have a large national constructive scheme with federal control and direction of the unemployment situation, and then with cooperation between all parties in this house who want to see real remedies applied and real relief obtained, I believe that we shall be able to do something to meet the unemployment situation in this dominion.


Mr. HEENAN:: 
Jean-François Pouliot: I shall not detain the
committee very long, but I wish to come back to the suggestion I have already made to the minister regarding a classification of the unemployed. Would it not be possible for the minister, with the assistance of Mr. Hereford and others of his staff, in association with the provincial heads of labour, to arrive at a certain classification of the unemployed. It is impossible to cure an evil until you know its extent, and the same is true of meeting the unemployment situation. Just as during the war some soldiers were wounded, others shellshocked and others gassed, and different treatment applied to each class of cases, so unemployment can be properly cured only if the appropriate treatment is applied to each different class of case. Such a classification could be made by the service organizations like the Salvation Army, the Red Cross and the St. Vincent de Paul society, better I think than by an3'- other means. I offer that suggestion once more in all earnestness to the minister, in the hope that it will be duly considered and that the department will be able to do something in that connection.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I just want to say a few words before this clause carries. The question of shelter for the unemployed is going to be a very important one. Indeed I believe it will be a critical problem in the very near future. The owners of property-and there is some merit in their contention-claim that owing to circumstances over which they have no control they are being compelled to provide shelter for the unemployed while at the same time they are being pressed for the necessary carrying charges on their houses, interest and taxation, and it is only a matter of time before they themselves will be in the same position as the men and women who are now out of work and in need of relief. It will be agreed that unless they derive some revenue from their properties they cannot meet the taxes, interest, and provide for reasonable depreciation. In the city from which I come I understand that in the very near future a drive is going to be made by owners of property for compensation for housing the unemployed who are paying them no rent because they are in the unfortunate position of not being able to do so. I understand that it is the intention of the owners bo put into operation eviction orders on a wholesale scale. I agree with what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has said. I believe that this bill in itself is an evidence of the bankruptcy of the government in its efforts to meet the unem-{Mr. Hcenan.]
ployment situation as it exists in this country to-day. Make no mistake about it; this kind of legislation cannot go on forever, otherwise you would wind up with nothing on eitheT side of the ledger. Some day some government in this country has to meet the unemployment problem in a constructive way. We cannot wait until the world situation clears up. There is some suggestion that the coming world economic conference is going to bring about the return to more normal times, but the happenings in Europe during the last few:	wreeks should have been sufficient
to dispel any idea of that character. I believe wre have to meet the difficulty in a national way. I have no objection to giving power to the government in this connection so long as the end in view is that of putting men and women to work. Under this legislation the government will have power to go to the rescue of banks and other corporations finding themselves in difficulties. There is no use putting the water into the cistern; we have to give it to the people to drink. We have to give them the work necessary for them to earn a living, and break down that division between production and consumption. We have to give men and women in agriculture and industry an opportunity to go to work and earn so as to obtain the necessities of daily life.
I believe the government should attack the problem from two angles, namely that of currency and mass production. If we wait until general world conditions right themselves we will have to wait too long; we cannot 'wait months or perhaps years for the present situation to rectify itself. In the city from which I come there are 35,000 people on relief. That, in itself, is a big problem, and the municipal authorities are at their wits' end to know what to do to meet it. In one year there is an overdraft of over a million dollars, and the relief department is the biggest spending department in the whole municipality. Then there is the further fact, that nothing of a constructive nature is being done in return for relief. We might as well put the money on wings. It is gone forever, with the exception that we have the satisfaction of providing people with the necessities of life.
I had hoped that this year the government would have some constructive unemployment measures. I do not care about the constitution; let us get the people to work. Give the government all the power it requires to put them to work. I do not care whether the

Reliej Act, 1988
solution comes from one of the two older parties, or from the group in this corner of the house, but there must be action and quick action to meet t'he serious unemployment problem confronting the industrial centres of Canada.


William Gilbert Weir: Mr. Chairman,
I am wondering if the government has taken into consideration the situation which is likely to arise in the province of Manitoba during the coming year. I refer to the possibility of calamity from destruction of crop by grasshoppers with which I have had some experience. I have seen a map prepared by department officials indicating the extent of possible damage from grasshoppers during the coming year. Unless very drastic action is taken and a great deal of money expended I am afraid the possible grasshopper menace will destroy the crop of practically half the province of Manitoba. I hope the government has not overlooked this possible situation.
There is another matter to which I should like to direct the attention of the minister. I refer to the amount of money paid out two years ago by way of wheat bonuses to growers of wheat in the western provinces. I believe the minister has placed on record figures showing the amount of money spent in each province by way of wheat bonuses to the growers of wheat. I am interested in the area which last year was affected by grasshoppers, and which may again be affected in the coming season. That section of the province grows chiefly durum wheat. In connection with the pool operations which the Dominion government for the past two years have been assisting, the durum wheat growers were not paid the full amount of money coming to them. I mean by that that durum wheat was received by the Manitoba pool at a less initial payment than was common wheat and was sold at a price higher than common wheat.
I have under my hand a statement which I think should be placed on record. The people in the area affected are very much concerned, and I believe they have a reasonably good claim. The letter before me, which I shall place before the committee, came from the committee of two which interviewed the government on two or three occasions and in making its report to the durum wheat growers of Manitoba, they say:
We, growers of durum wheat in the province of Manitoba in the crop year 1930-31, notwithstanding the statement made in the House of Commons on November 14, 1932, by the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, respectfully submit:
1.	That, being under contract with the Manitoba pool, we delivered collectively to the pool 3,520,675 bushels of durum wheat.
2.	That the initial payments of the pool on durum wheat were as follows:
43,827 bushels at 64 cents.
2,857,839 bushels at 54 cents.
276,161 bushels at 49 cents.
242,847 bushels at 49 cents.
3.	That the corresponding initial payments on No. 1 northern were: 70 cents, 60 cents, 55 cents and 50 cents.
4.	That these figures show that all durum wheat was delivered at initial payments below the corresponding payments for No. 1 northern.
5.	That all this durum wheat was sold by the central selling agency of the pools at an approximate average price of 67-69 cents per bushel.
6.	That the initial payment represents a differential amounting to approximately $199,078 in favour of the growers of durum wheat, which is still in possession of the central selling agency of the pools.
7.	That the selling price of durum wheat represents a further amount of approximately $300,000 received by the selling agency, and still held by them, making a total due the deliverers of durum wheat of approximately $500,000.
S. That this sum now held by the central selling agency of the pools of right belongs to the durum growers after deducting their fair share of the costs of the agency, and may not rightly be held as against the operations in connection with the sale of marquis or other bread wheat.
9.	That it is inequitable to use this money belonging to the growers of durum wheat to finance any operations in connection with the sale of other wheat.
10.	That this money cannot be released or paid to Manitoba -wheat pool, trustee of this wheat for the durum growers, without the special consent of the Dominion government which has assumed control of the finances and operations of the central selling agency.
We, therefore, respectfully repeat the request made to the Prime Minister in July, 1931, by (lie delegation appointed by and representing us. that the money now held by the central selling agency of the pool from the sale of durum wheat, be released by the government and paid to the shippers of durum wheat, to whom this money is imperatively necessary to enable them to carry on their farming operations.
I believe this matter should be taken into consideration. The area in which the durum wheat mentioned herein was grown is the same area which was so severely damaged last year, and is likely to be damaged again this year by the invasion of grasshoppers. For that reason I believe special consideration should be given to the request made by these people to have their fair share of money for the sale of durum wheat through the wheat pool. I am not at the moment suggesting that the full amount should be paid, but I think they are entitled to have their payments on durum wheat brought up to a basis equal to the payments made on common wheat.

Relief Act, 1933


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With regard to the amendment moved by the hon. Minister of Railways I assume on behalf of his colleague, that this resolution be further amended by adding thereto the following words:
And that provision be made for accepting securities from the provinces for such loans, advances, guarantees, etc., as may be advanced by the government, and that provision also be made for the maintenance of peace, order and good government throughout Canada.
I must rise to a point of order, as to whether or not the amendment is in order. The resolution 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.
If this amendment is adding anything substantially different to the Relief Act of 1932 it is introducing entirely new matter. This I think it is, especially when it embodies a provision for giving powers to the administration in the nature of a free hand to enact orders in council with respect to peace, order and good government. May I say that we on this side would certainly not at the outset have consented to support the motion to go into committee on the resolution if we had had any idea that in committee it was intended to move this particular amendment.
May I draw attention more particularly to standing order number 60:
If any motion be made in the house for any public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the house thinks fit to appoint; and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole house, before any resolution or vote of the house do pass thereupon.
One of the citations appearing in Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, number 548, from (May, is as follows:
Before clauses in a bill can be considered which apply the consolidated fund or money to be voted by parliament as a guarantee for sums to be raised, paid or borrowed for any purpose, such clauses must receive the preliminary authority of a committee resolution founded upon the recommendation of the crown.
And the first part of citation 549:
All bills providing for the payment of salaries or for any expenditure whatever out of the public funds of the dominion must be first considered as resolutions in committee of the whole. And all such resolutions necessary to the introduction of a bill must first obtain the recommendation of the governor general.
May I say that what is proposed by this amendment has not received the consent of His Excellency the Governor General, and has not been recommended to this house by the government as having received the approval

of His Excellency. The resolution as it is before us had been submitted to His Excellency, and we were informed had been approved by him and recommended to the house, but that resolution does not contain any clause with respect to peace, order and good government. I submit that the insertion of that clause places an extra charge upon the consolidated revenue of the countiy, and that it should be submitted in the form of a resolution in the first instance, as having been recommended by the crown and as having the approval of His Excellency.
That is the point of order I wish to raise. Perhaps in this connection the Prime Minister would let me say at this time that I am raising the point of order not for the purpose of opposing what the ministry may regard as necessary in the way of additional powers to meet a fiancial crisis. We are dealing here with the question of unemployment relief, and I want to urge at the moment, as I did when this question of peace, order and good government came up before, that I think it would be infinitely better in every way not to confuse these two great questions, relief, on the one hand, and on the other, the powers that the government may require to deal with an emergent condition. If the government feels-and I imagine it has reason to feel- that there may be some particulars in which it wishes to have additional powers, let it bring in a measure asking parliament for the additional powers it feels it needs, we will be prepared to judge the measure on its merits. I would suggest, unless there is a special reason for wishing to press the matter in this form, that advantage should be taken of the recess by the government to think over that aspect of it, and let us proceed with the relief measure as we have it before us. If the government needs additional powers, we on this side will be disposed to grant whatever is reasonable in that regard.
May I say further that I believe the powers that are being asked for now are to be found in large part in the measure already before us. 'Concerning the first part of the amendment, as to taking securities from the provinces for any loans, the bill we are being asked to reenact provides that:
The governor in council may. on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon, and notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law,-
(a)	enter into agreements with any of the provinces respecting relief measures therein;
(b)	grant financial assistance to any province by way of loan, advance, guarantee or otherwise;
(c)	take all such measures as in his discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to protect the credit and financial position of the dominion or any province thereof:
MARCH 20, 1933	317V
Relief Act, 1933
I should think those provisions were ample to meet the first part of the amendment proposed by the Minister of Railways on behalf of the Minister of Labour. And I am not at all sure that subsection (e) of section 2 which I have already quoted, which gives the governor in council power to take all such measures as in his discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to protect the credit and financial position of the dominion or any province thereof, does not give to the ministry practically all they need to deal with any situation that may arise.
I think it is best to put the whole case as I see it before my right hon. friend at the moment, I hope he will feel that I am doing so not in any contentious way but simply to present the difficulties that we see in accepting the amendment in the form in which it is presented.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point of order that
has been raised by the right hon. gentleman, is in my judgment untenable, for the simple reason that with respect to paragraph (a) the addition to the section as it was passed last year is merely technical. Power was given, as will be observed, to loan or advance money or guarantee the payment of money, or take all such measures as might be deemed necessary or advisable to protect the credit and financial position of the dominion or any province thereof; and a question was raised, a purely technical legal question, whether or not there should be in the act itself, provisions that would enable security to be taken in advance for guarantees given. The addition reads as follows:
And in respect of such loans, advances and guarantees, may accept such security, enter into such agreements, and generally do all such things as the governor in council may deem necessary and expedient in the public interest.
That is purely technical; it has been suggested by counsel for one of the banking institutions with regard to which a guarantee was given in respect of certain securities that were taken by the government to secure itself against any possible loss. It adds no additional burden to the body politic. An amendment that has just been moved restricts rather than adds to the public obligation.
With respect to the observations of the right hon. gentleman regarding peace, order and good government, the real reason we have proceeded an this way is that these words did appear in the statute of 1931, and I felt, in view of the statements made by the opposition last year and the year before, that if we were to ask for the emergency powers such as were granted during war time it would be
provocatory-I use that word deliberately- and in addition might leave a wrong impression on the public mind. So I thought it desirable under the circumstances to use the words that had been used in a former statute, and confine ourselves to those words, to maintain within the competence of parliament peace, order and good government throughout Canada and protect the credit and financial position of the dominion or any province thereof; those latter words, of course, were in the legislation of last year. I did before proceeding with the amendment to the resolution look into the authorities roughly, and asked the clerk at the table as to whether or not the amendment was a customary and usual one according to our parliamentary practice, rather than proceeding last week with either a new resolution or by other form of legislation. It was because of amendments which had been made according to precedent to resolutions in committee that the course I have indicated was pursued. I think it will be found that when proceeding in this way there will be less occasion for complaint than if we had undertaken to introduce a lengthy bill conferring upon the executive, the powers for instance, conferred under the War Measures Act. Rather than embarrass the opposition, desirous as it is to assist at this time in enabling government to be carried on properly, we came to the conclusion that we would, to use the words of a very distinguished author when writing to the Romans, give less occasion for offence if we proceeded in this way rather than in the other.


Ernest Lapointe: Does not my right hon. friend think that the leader of the opposition is right when he argued that this amendment should be submitted to his excellency foi approval?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. I tried to make
clear that the power to make this amendment to this resolution in committee is a power within the rules of the house. That is my understanding. After the adjournment of the debate upon this measure, the executive came to the conclusion that under the circumstances it was desirable to seek wider powers, and the question then arose as to whether or not that would imply, (a) a new resolution or (b) an amendment to the existing resolution now before the committee. After looking into the authorities and conferring with those who are in a position, to advise, it was found that it would be no departure from existing precedents to proceed in the manner I have indicated. That is why this course is being followed. I should like to assure the com-
Relief Act, 1933

mittee that in adopting this method the government is endeavouring to give as little cause for unnecessary criticism as possible and to leave upon the committee a sense of responsibility such as has been very properly-I trust the right hon. gentleman will not misunderstand me-indicated this afternoon by the leader of the opposition. To use the words used on a previous occasion, we thought we would be giving as little cause as possible for unnecessary criticism in extending the powers of the executive to the extent to which the War Measures Act had extended them. I shall be glad indeed to consider what has been said by the right hon. gentleman, but in view of what I have stated as to the reasons why we took this course, namely to accelerate the passing of the legislation and lessen so far as possible any occasion for criticism, and to meet the wishes of the opposition, especially in view of what has been said by the right hon. gentleman, I trust that the committee will accept the legislation in the form in which we have drafted it.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to the
point of order, I would say that the words "peace, order and good government" might readily be added after the resolution had gone out of committee. It would be competent on its second or third reading to add these words, which impose no charge on the treasury.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
sorry I was not in the house at six o'clock, but I understand that a point of order was raised as to the propriety of introducing this amendment to the resolution. I understand that the amendment to the amendment consists of two parts; in the first place it deals with the receiving of securities from the various provinces as against contingent advances to be made to the provinces; and an amendment is also to be added to the resolution with regard to peace, order and good government. I respectfully suggest that these two issues are both fundamental issues different from those raised in the bill before the house. The bill before the house was based on a resolution-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The bill is not here yet.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: -moved by the Minister of Labour, which resolution proposed the continuance for a year of the

terms of the relief act of 1932. Hon. members who recall what happened in this house last year will remember that in the first instance we had a bill to postpone from March 1 to May 1 the terms of the Unemployment Relief Act of 1931, and then there was a second bill, passed in the closing days of the session of 1932, and upon which the present resolution proposed by the Minister of Labour is based. That resolution was properly introduced and submitted to the house, and upon that resolution, and upon the amendment with respect to the $20,000,000 for direct relief, the house resolved itself into committee of the whole. After the house has gone into committee of the whole an amendment has been moved dealing with two very fundamental issues: in the first place, the power to take securities from the provincial authorities as against contingent advances to be made them, and in the second place dealing with the fundamental question of peace, order and good government, which was contained in the bill of 1931 but omitted from the act of last year, upon which the resolution of the Minister of Labour is based.
I suggest that this is a matter absolutely of fundamental policy. So fundamental was it considered a year ago that it entailed a debate of three weeks in this house as between the varying points of view of hon. gentlemen on all sides. Here we have a resolution introduced after the house has been notified that His Excellency the Governor General in Council has been advised of the contents of the said resolution. The house properly moves itself into committee of the whole on the resolution, and after we are an committee of the whole the Minister of Railways this afternoon, on behalf of the government, proposes an amendment dealing with the very principle which was abrogated in the legislation of a year ago but which was embodied in the legislation of 1931-a principle which is in direct conflict with the legislation of 1932, because it is a principle that caused so much acrimonious debate in this house.
I suggest with all respect to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways that this further amendment should have been introduced in the proper way, after the house had been warned, with the Speaker in the chair, that a minister of the crown intended after notice to move this concrete resolution by way of amendment to the resolution proposed by the Minister of Labour, or by way of addition thereto, because it is fundamentally different from the terms of the legislation of 1932.

Relief Act, 1933
I understand that the Prime Minister this afternoon suggested that the only alternative would be to introduce a resolution along the lines of the War Measures Act. That, I submit, is not so. The alternative to the procedure which has been followed to-day would be this. Notice should be given of a resolution amending the resolution moved several days ago by the Minister of Labour, and the house should be duly apprised of that resolution, duly notified that it would come up, and duly warned that His Excellency the Governor General in Council had been made aware of its contents and had given his consent thereto. Then, on a given date, the house having been properly advised of the contents of the resolution with regard to advances to the provinces, and also with regard to the provision for peace, order and good government, we could move into committee of the whole and discuss the measure with propriety.
The procedure now being followed takes, I submit, an unfair advantage of the committee of the whole house and is entirely contrary to rules 548 and 549 as well as to the opinion expressed by Bourinot at page 504. I think, Mr. Chairman, that if you will take the trouble to read Bourinot at page 504 you will find the practice specifically set out there. With respect to payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund or out of moneys to be provided by parliament, the clauses providing for such payments must first be considered in committee. There is an elaborate argument there in support of my contention and I suggest that the alternative is not to pass legislation in accordance with the terms of the War Measures Act. According to the terms of the rules, the alternative is to introduce a resolution with due notice given to the house. The resolution can be properly debated and then the house will go into committee of the whole and consider the amendment that is submitted.


John Thomas Hackett: The amendment in no way changes the financial features of the resolution and in no way adds to any appropriation of any part of the public revenue or to any tax or impost. I therefore hold that the amendment is in order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With your
decision, Mr. Chairman, which, I suppose, we must accept, the amendment is now before us. I wish at once to take very strong objection to its being passed by the house because I regard it as the negation of all government by parliament. There are on our statutes numerous laws with respect to peace, order and good government. If those laws
are in any way inadequate to meet any situation that may arise, we should be so informed by the ministry and given an opportunity to supplement them in any particulars that may be necessary. But to say that, notwithstanding all the legislation parliament has thus far enacted, the ministry of the day shall have powers, once parliament has prorogued, to pass by order in council any enactment that it pleases, to make any order in council which shall be the equivalent of any law, with respect to a subject as broad as peace, order and good government, is, as I say, simply to take away from parliament its fundamental rights in matters of this kind. I feel very strongly on this subject for the reason that I think we are at the moment living in a period of transition when the actions of governments are being closely scrutinized by the public generally. There appear to-day to be two tendencies one or the other of which is becoming uppermost in different countries, and each of which, it seems to me, is as bad as the other. One tendency is away from parliamentary government to a dictatorship. We have that situation in Italy, and we have it developing in Germany at the present time. The other tendency is in the direction of a form of socialism which is heading towards communism. It is not unlike the movement for a dictatorship in that it seeks to wrest power from the people's representatives as a whole and to give that power to a class. Both tendencies are subversive of all that the British constitution really stands for. The British people have found their security in times of trouble, not in dictators, not in the rule of one class over all, but in their House of Commons and their parliament which represents all the people and all classes in the state. Where emergencies have been so great that the ministry of the day has found it necessary to secure additional powers, the way in which those powers have been sought in Great Britain, the mother of parliaments, has been by summoning parliament itself and allowing the people's representatives to say what they thought was in the circumstances the wisest and best course.
I do not think advantage should be taken of the existing distress or of any present fears to rob parliament of its real purpose as the representative of the people in all matters pertaining to their affairs. Speaking to the point of order, I suggested that I thought it would be better, even in the interests of peace, order and good government, for the ministry not to confuse these two all-important questions, that of relief and that of meeting an emergency which may arise from
Relief Act, 1933

conditions of violence, if you will, on the one side, or something in the nature of a financial crisis or panic on the other; but to confine what relates to relief to a bill which will deal exclusively with that subject and the powers that are to be given to the ministry in respect thereto, and provide under a separate measure what may be required in the way of additional powers to cope with an emergent situation. I urged that very strongly when this step was first taken in 1931. In that year the Prime Minister asked that the minister should be given power to enforce peace, order and good government. As the house will remember, that power was obtained from parliament at the session of 1932 not as a result of free discussion carried on without pressure, but under closure; the instrument of closure had to be introduced in order at that time to obtain that power for the ministry. That again was in part a negation, I take it, of government by parliament. Having had those powers, and taken some action under them the ministry found, at the end of a year, that they could get along quite well with what the laws of the country generally provided, and the Prime Minister, at the conclusion of the next session in the bill providing for what was needed in the way of meeting conditions of distress and affording relief, omitted this objectionable provision from the measure. I thought at that time we wouldi be spared its reintroduction on any subsequent occasion. If conditions have arisen which make something of the kind necessary to-day, when they were not necessary a year ago, let us be told what these conditions are, and let us see if the law as it stands is not sufficient to meet them without going the length of giving the ministry what to all intents and purposes is absolute power.
When I spoke on the matter in 1931, I sought to make it quite clear that so far as the Liberal opposition was concerned, we believed, first of all, tha/t the government had all the power it needed to deal with any situation which might arise, but that if they had not that power, and would make clear to the house that they did not possess it, we would not oppose any reasonable measure necessary to meet any unforeseen situation which might develop. Let me read what I said at that time and, in doing so. say that I hold the same view to-day, and should like to repeat it to the ministry. This was what I said on July 29, 1931:
We have laws on the statute books at the present time for the maintenance of law, order and good government throughout the country. If those laws are not adequate and my right

hon. friend wishes to have additional powers to maintain law and order in Canada, let him ask for them in a separate measure. He is responsible for the administration, and if he says to this house that he has reason to believe that the powers that exist at the present time are not adequate to eo,pe with any possible situation with respect to the maintenance of law and order in Canada, I will accept his word and support him in any reasonable measure he may bring down for that purpose. But I do say that he should not confuse any question of the maintenance of law and order with the question of unemployment relief or farm relief.
I do not think it would be possible for any party in this House of Commons to make a fairer statement of what is due to the public by the parliament which represents it than what is given there. Again, a little later on:
I am going to ask my right hon. friend to eliminate that particular clause from his resolution. I would ask him to do it in the interest of the very subject that he mentions, namely, peace, order and good government in all parts of Canada. I do not think it will make for peace, order and good government to include that particular clause in a resolution dealing with unemployment relief. Let that particular clause be eliminated, and then if for reasons that he may have in his own mind, my right hon. friend, says, as I believe he sincerely thinks is the case, that there is need to give the governor in council additional power to deal with this question, let him bring in a measure for that purpose, and I think I can promise him the support of hon. members on this side.
That tvas our position in 1931, it was our position again in 1932, and it is our position at the present time. In no way do we wish to embarrass the ministry in any measures which it requires and which it can assure parliament are necessary, but we do feel that, after all, the ultimate security of the freedom of the people of this country lies in parliament, and in the control by parliament over all situations which may arise, and not in taking away that control from parliament and vesting it in the government of the day.
What were the reasons that caused the Prime Minister to ask for this power before? He may have other reasons to-day, and, if they are different, I hope he will give them to the house; but his reasons when he sought this power before were pretty well summed up in the remarks he made speaking in the house on March 23, 1932. I submit that, in examining carefully his remarks, one will see the strongest reason why parliament should not surrender to the ministry its control in the matter of legislation on peace, order and good government. The Prime Minister said then in part:
I would not ask this power from any parliament except reluctantly, and I so stated when I introduced the resolution the other day.

Relief Act, 1933
A little farther on he said:
We do not believe that this power will be called into play; nay, more, we sincerely and fervently hope that it will not be. But, sir, what is a man without a weapon in the midst of armed force? What is a man who has no instrument for his protection in the midst of the strife of brigands? Without this power we should be without a weapon that could be used except through a bill in parliament; and with the strange views that obtain in^ these days there is no assurance that the mind of the government would be sufficiently strong to secure consent for any measure it might introduce. And from what we know and have seen, we should certainly be opposed with respect to consent. Then the matter would go its weary way, for there is another chamber to be considered before legislation is enacted; and in the meantime the injury may be done.
What does that mean? It simply means that, dn the Prime Minister's opinion, there are powers which he may wish to exercise which he believes this parliament would not grant to him. That is the word there, that he doubts very much if, with the mind of the government what it is, he could get consent from parliament for what he wishes to do. Now I say that no such power should be given to any individual, no matter how wise he may be or how worthy his intentions. That statement alone, it seems to me, makes it necessary that parliament, if it is going to protect and maintain its own interests, decline to extend to the ministry powers so extensive, powers that enable the ministry to override its will. Recognizing that those powers were very extensive, though he had not exercised them except in part, the Prime Minister later, in 1932, withdrew his request for full powers with respect to peace, order and good government, and said to the house;
Instead of asking for the right to pass orders in council with respect to peace, order and good government after the first of May, we shall specify the statute with respect to which we believe it may be essential in a time of crisis to enact reasonable regulations or orders in council.
Mr. Lapointe: A slight improvement.
Mr. Bennett: It will be a very great improvement. As I have said in this house repeatedly, you cannot deal with emergent conditions on the basis on which you deal with everyday conditions.
The Prime Minister at that time felt it would be sufficient if he indicated the particular statute of which he might wish to take advantage in a time of crisis. I wish we could hear from the Prime Minister as to just what particular situation he thinks is likely to arise which will necessitate giving this new wide power to the governor in council. Parliament has a right to know what that situation is. I wish that, at the same time, he would point out to us wherein the existing statutes do not
contain provisions sufficient to meet any situation which may arise. We have statutes which relate to emergencies in the nature of unrest, violence and the like, even insurrection. The law in that particular is clear and comprehensive and sufficient for dealing with situations of the kind. Then in regard to a different class of conditions that may arise, something in the nature of a panic or a financial crisis, there are in the statutes at the present time provisions designed to enable the government to meet every such situation. But if those provisions are not adequate, let us be told what is needed by way of an addition to the statute as it stands, and give us an opportunity to consider and pass upon a measure of the kind before parting completely with what is the supreme function of parliament.
I may be mistaken, but I am inclined to think that the bill that is before us contains a provision that is broad enough to enable the government to do practically anything it needs to do in a time of crisis, apart altogether from the question of relief, though it is a provision in the relief measure. Let me read to the house section 2 of the bill:
The governor in council may, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon, and notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law,-	.
(a)	Enter into agreements with any of the provinces respecting relief measures therein;
(b)	Grant financial assistance to any province by way of loan, advance, guarantee or otherwise;	_
(c)	Take all such measures as in bis discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to protect tile credit and financial position of the dominion or any province thereof;
(d)	Loan or advance money to, or guarantee the payment of money by any public body, corporation or undertaking.
What more power does any administration need than is given in that section? I think the Prime Minister ought to tell us very definitely what additional power is needed, why it is needed, and whether it is to be exercised or not. Subsection (c) does seem to be as broad as language can make the provisions of a statute:
The governor in council may, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon, and notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law,-	.
(c) Take all such measures as in bis discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to protect the credit and financial position of the dominion or any province thereof.
In the light of what I have said, believing that the law as it stands is amply sufficient to give the governor in council all powers that are needed to deal with any situation that may possibly arise, and having in mind the fact that when these powers were sought before

Relief Act, 1933
from parliament they were obtained under closure, and having further in mind the dangerous tendencies which . we are witnessing in other countries of the world, resulting in the transfer of the powers of government from parliaments to the hands of dictators or to a class, which is another form of dictatorship, I submit that we in this parliament, and particularly in this country, which I believe, despite all its ills, is in a better condition than any other country in the world, ought to consider very carefully before we part with what after all is our pride and our security, namely the control which the parliament of Canada, representing the people of Canada, has over their affairs at all times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, since there was a parliament it has delegated its powers to governments. The very essence of parliamentary government is that to an executive body parliament at times delegates its powers. The extent to which -that delegation is made depends entirely upon the circumstances under which it is requested from parliament. I was amazed that the right hon. gentleman should have mentioned again the mother of parliaments in dealing with a matter of -this kind. I pointed out last year that not only had the mother of parliaments delegated the powers to which reference was made, but that the delegated authority exercised the powers while the imperial parliament was sitting.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was with reference to the control of expenditure, and the lessening of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They had to do not only with expenditures but with other matters as well.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Only for one month.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I beg your pardon?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Only for the period of one month.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. member has a question, would he be good enough just to ask it? When he breaks in in that way it does not do justice to him.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct, though.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman will just possess his soul in patience I will continue my observations. It was for a limited time only.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why? Because the circumstances were so pressing that the power

had to be exercised promptly. And while the imperial parliament was sitting the delegated authority during the next thirty days was exercising all the power of parliament, and more.
One step more. In 1931 this parliament was asked to confer upon the executive those powers with respect to peace, order and good government. This parliament did so, at the request of the government. We have recently witnessed a situation develop in the United States of America which none of us ever believed would arise, namely the closing of the banks ini -the great city of New York. Had it not been for the power conferred upon us by the statute of 1931 we could not have taken the action we did and have prevented a crisis.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: AVhat action?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It shows ho-w strikingly
unfamiliar with conditions some hon. members are. I have made an absolutely correct statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Of what; what action?


Richard Bedford Bennett: First of all, with respect
to the exportation of gold.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The exportation of gold, which is the one matter with respect to which the president sought help from congress.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was
not necessary at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it possible that at this day for purely party reasons gentlemen are unwilling to concede facts as they exist? Is it possible that that is so? In view of the observations made by the leader of the opposition I had thought perhaps this problem would be approached with a view to avoiding the necessity of enforcing closure, to which reference was made.
I ventured to point out that the mother of parliaments had exercised -this power. I point out that under the relief acts of 1930, 1931 and 1932 this parliament did confer certain powers upon th-e executive. In 1931 the executive was clothed with authority -to pass orders in council dealing with peace, order and good government. In 1932 we passed legislation dealing with the gold question and with the valuation -of insurance securities. Both those provisions, which had been covered by orders in council in 1931, were now properly embodied in the statute law of the country. Therefore the necessity for exercising them had passed. I will say this to the committee: If to-night

we could anticipate every contingency which might arise, and thus deal with it by parliamentary action, there would be no necessity for the request of this power. But because we have not the vision to foresee all that may take place, because no government is able to know all that may happen, because we know that in the richest country in the world on a Thursday afternoon assurance was given that there was not the slightest chance in the world of a condition arising which would necessitate the action of closing their great financial institutions, and yet at half past three on Saturday morning of the same week a decree was signed by the government of the state which closed those institutions-because of these circumstances we have to act. I merely mention this, because we cannot with any degree of certainty predict what conditions may be.
It has been suggested that in 1931 legislation was passed by the exercise of closure. So it was. But I do not think that those who are associated with the party opposite fifty years from now will turn up the debates of that session and look at them with any degree of pride. I venture that suggestion. I venture to say further that the voice of the people as expressed throughout the country during the progress of that long debate was sufficient to indicate the views they held.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: That is only the opinion of the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Closure is a very essential practice in the conduct of parliament. The mother of parliaments, to which reference has been made to-night as a sure and certain guide, has not only used closure, but the guillotine falls at a certain minute, at which time all discussion is automatically shut off. In England they took but a few days to discuss what we took two months to discuss last year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A different situation entirely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course the mother of
parliaments is a sure and certain guide, when it suits-but when it is adverse to us it is not a guide at all. In England closure has been enforced for sixty years or more. It has been in use in Canada for only a limited time. In this country its operation is different from what it is there. The Prime Minister simply rises in his place and states, "We will terminate the debate at twelve o'clock to-morrow." And at "twelve o'clock to-morrow" the guillotine falls; that is the end of it. He has complete control of the situation. In England there can be no such condition as we have here.
Relief Act, 1933
We did give notice of closure for the purpose of enacting legislation, and it was finally enacted.
I say again to this house that all hon. members have to do is to consult those vitally concerned, and they will find that it served its intended purpose and enabled this country to reach the very condition to which the hon. gentlemen referred so kindly to-night when he said Canada was better off than any other country in the world. I wonder if it would be possible to convince this committee that those who for the moment are charged with responsibility, those who for the moment have to direct their energies and the best efforts they can give to the problem of maintaining the integrity of this country in a moment of great difficulty, have no desire to seize power for the mere sake of power. So carefully has power been exercised, and so reluctant has the government been to use it, that sometimes, as in 1931, the complaint has been made it has been used too sparingly. I yield in nothing to any hon. gentleman in this house in my love of parliamentary institutions and my regard for law, order and liberty. But the sure and certain insurance that we have for the maintenance of our institutions is to prevent chaos and anarchy. And chaos and anarchy frequently arise because there is not adequate authority which can be promptly used to change the conditions upon wffiich anarchy and chaos are predicated.
Let us take England again-and I am sure the right hon. leader of the opposition must have forgotten this: At the very beginning of the war England passed the Defence of the Realm Act, familiarly known as Dora. And it not only remained in force in 1919, 1920, 1921 and 1922, but year after year men rose in their places in parliament and demanded that Dora should be repealed. But Dora remained on the statute book. And it will be recalled that a former Lord Chancellor, speaking in this city at a meeting of the Canadian Bar Association, gave an address in which he described the operation of that statute and the reason why, so many years after the war, it was permitted to remain, although the mother of parliaments has so long defended liberty and personal freedom. Why? Because it was uncertain, in the midst of a changing world, what changes might take place suddenly, and Dora, the Defence of the Realm Act, provided the authority whereby the government of the day could take the appropriate action.
I do suggest to hon. gentlemen opposite that if they will take the trouble to look at the statute; if they will go into vonder librarv
Relief Act, 1933

and look at the orders in council passed under it; if they will look at the substantive laws which came into being by reason of it, long years after the war had passed and ended, because extraordinary circumstances and changed conditions had made it imperative that immediate action be taken-and was taken- they will be convinced of its worth. The parliament of Great Britain, as we know, was sitting at the very time these regulations were passed and the executive was exercising the authority. So have we laws upon the statute books-the right hon. gentleman opposite refers to them-and I think it is fair to say to this committee that there is a law on the statute book of this country that permits us, in the event of a real or apprehended crisis, to publish a proclamation in the Gazette; and then there comes into being practically the War Measures Act, and the executive is clothed with full and complete authority to deal with all the matters therein provided for. But surely the very reason that this country has retained and maintained its position in the face of the difficulties we have had to meet is that we have calmly and patiently, and with, shall I say, much courage on the part of the people themeslves, borne difficulties without panic and without any indication that a condition of crisis existed in this country. Suppose for the sake of argument that this government to-night were to issue a proclamation and say that an apprehended crisis necessitated our passing this order in council and bringing into force all those provisions of the Finance Act and of the War Measures Act, what would be the effect upon the people of the country? One of the many reasons why the people of this country have retained their poise in the face of this world wide and unexampled depression has been that-if I might say it; I trust I shall not be misunderstood-there has never been any sign of panic on the part of the government of Canada. If there were loss of confidence in the institutions of the country as well as the country itself, the results would be such as no man would care to contemplate. In seeking this legislation the government desires only to place itself in such a position that it may be able to cope with difficulties that no man can foresee, which we hope will not arise, but which if they do arise we must be ready to meet. That is all. Without panic, without any sign of crisis or apprehended crisis, but in orderly and regular manner we must proceed with the business of the country, with the authority conferred upon the executive by parliament.

I will pot repeat the many arguments that I and my colleagues have endeavoured to adduce in preceding years with respect to this matter. The government is entirely in the hands of the committee. The government does not seek these powers for selfish purposes. They can only add to the burden, the alread}' great burden which the government bears. But the government must be true to their obligation to the country as a whole, and this they would not be if they did not anticipate all possible developments, seeing what they observe about them and what every hon. member of this house sees about him in all countries of the world, especially in the great republic to the south where for the first time in nearly a century the congress of the United States has enacted legislation to place in the hands of one man complete power with respect to the enumerated items in the bills that have recently passed congress. No one would have thought that possible a year ago, yet it is there; it is done. Are we to say that they are less careful of liberty than we, or that they have less regard for the maintenance of their institutions than we? To secure the power to enable the president to deal with the matter as he did, recourse had to be had to a statute passed in connection with the war in 1917. And so doubtful was its application, because of the absence of any general provision in their legislation, that the action taken had to be ratified and confirmed by the very statute that conferred the power upon the executive.
I agree with what has been said by the right hon. gentleman opposite, that there are tendencies in the world to lessen the base of authority. Democracy has not lived up to the prospectus. It has not been possible for thousands, by merely counting heads, to determine and dictate always what is best. In 'the very nature of things the thousands, or their delegates, have thought it desirable that the power which they possess and which they could mot quickly and usefully exercise, should be vested in one whom they select for that purpose. It is true that in Italy, as the right hon. gentleman has said, you have a dictatorship; there is evidence of' it in Germany, and on this continent you have power such as has never been known before vested in one man by the newly elected congress, fresh from the people, both the House of Representatives and the Senate. We do not ask that any such power be vested in any one man; we ask that authority shall rest in the government of the day, which means that there must be a majority who share a particular view before any suggestion made

Reliej Act, 1933
by any member of the cabinet could become law or have the force of law.
This in conclusion-for, as I say, I am not going to traverse the ground, again; possibly it would be unnecessarily provocative, besides merely threshing old straw and discussing again questions that have been thoroughly discussed in this house-I merely desire to say that it is my firm conviction that if the right hon. gentleman and his friends were to the right of the Speaker, and were confronted with the world conditions that now prevail, they would seek, as other governments have sought, both Liberal and Conservative and of other classes in every part of the world, authority to enable those who for the moment are charged with governmental responsibility to deal with any situation that might arise, and which can be provided for, not in the general terms of the statute in the sense that the right hon. gentleman mentioned, but in terms that refer to the constitution itself. There is no magic in the words "peace, order and good government," were it not for the fact that that they are the words that appear in the constitution conferring upon this parliament its jurisdiction and creating the very institution itself. For section 91 of the statute says:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces-[DOT]
An so on. The words "peace, order and good government" therefore have no magic meaning; they are the words that appear in the constitution itself. And in the exercise of the powers conferred upon this parliament we are asking parliament to confer such powers upon us; so that if any contingency should arise that i3 not amply covered by the specific terms of the measure to which the right hon. gentleman referred, we would be enabled in the plenitude of the authority thus conferred upon the executive to exercise those powers by order in council for the peace, order and good government of the country. That is the sole reason why these words appear in that form in the resolution that is now before the committee.
I cannot do more than ask each hon. gentleman to examine his own mind and conscience with respect to the conditions that exist in the world. When any hon. gentleman asks me to state to this committee all the conditions that I think might arise which might necessitate the operation of this statute, I say to him frankly that I cannot do so. If I could
there would be no necessity for asking for this legislation, for we could cover by express language all the contingencies that we think might arise. But because we do not know, and because I think no hon. member of this committee examining as I say his own mind and conscience with respect to the matter, could honestly say he believed he could cover every contingency, we ask the committee to pass this resolution, upon which may be founded a bill, not to confer autocratic or dictatorial powers upon the executive, but to enable the executive charged with responsibility fittingly to discharge those responsibilities as if and when occasion may demand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, I shall endeavour to follow the Prime Minister in two of the particulars of which he has made mention, first, in not seeking in any way to be provocative and, second, to avoid threshing over old issues at any length. However, I think that the question which we are discussing at the moment is of sufficient importance to merit some debate and certainly to make perfectly clear the reasons why those of us who take exception to the course the Prime Minister is advocating, take that exception. I have listened very carefully to all that the Prime Minister has said, and I think I may concede all that he has argued, and still say with truth that there is no necessity for the government having more powers given to it than those contained in the measure before us at the present time. If one runs over what the Prime Minister has said and, at the same time, examines the bill to see whether its provisions are broad enough to help to meet any situation such as has been mentioned, I am sure he will find that the legislation proposed is wholly adequate.
The Prime Minister discussed the matter from the point of view of what had taken place in Great Britain; he referred also to some developments that had occurred in Canada, and also to what has recently taken place in the United States. I shall run over the points I have in mind in the same order.
The Prime Minister's main reference in connection with Great Britain was to the Defence of the Realm Act. In answer to my right hon. friend, may I point out that the Defence of the Realm Act is not at the present time upon the statutes of Great Britain and has not been upon the statutes of that country for a long time. It was a measure which arose out of the war. Surely we do not need to enact measures at the moment which are related to war. If Great Britain with all the problems with which she has had to deal has not found it necessary to ask for her executive powers
Relief Act, 1933

enabling it to make by orders in council laws respecting peace, order and good government, surely, following the British example, we should not go that length in this dominion at this time. I think conditions in Canada are better than they are in Great Britain, and for that reason I deprecate our taking a step which goes to such great lengths in the way of arousing unnecessary fears and suspicions in the minds of the people. The Prime Minister has spoken of the significance to be attached to the words "peace, order and good government," and he drew attention to the fact that they are practically at the head of our constitution. Why are those words there? The words are there to indicate that the powers of the parliament of Canada are so comprehensive that it may pass laws with respect to peace, order and good government, which includes practically everything, and that if all the powers enumerated are not sufficient, then parliament has still the necessary powers to enact any other measure under this heading peace, order and good government. But the executive is not parliament. This power was meant for parliament only, it was never intended for the executive. Parliament is comprised of the people's representatives in the House of Commons, of hon. members of the Senate and of His Majesty's representative in this country. If it had ever been intended to confer at any time these wholesale or all embracing powers upon the executive, it would have been so stated in the constitution. If there is no necessity for anything of the kind in Great Britain, why should we in Canada take this step at this particular moment? As I have said, the Defence of the Realm Act has reference to war time and war conditions. I think it is important that we should relieve the minds of the people in this country and of the world of the thought that we in Canada believe that we are face to face with war conditions. We may have a great deal of distress -we have a great deal of distress-we may be facing something that is serious in many directions, but, surely, we do not contemplate a condition such as war. In the absence of anything as extreme as that, I think we should hesitate to enact measures which could only be justified in time of war, if indeed they would be justified even then. May I point out that, even in war time, this parliament never parted with its powers to the extent being asked for by the ministry to-day. Under the War Measures Act certain powers were given to the governor in council, but a great deal of power has been taken to itself by the present ministry which would never have been thought of, and which was never thought of, 
by the government of Sir Robert Borden which was in office during the period of the war. All that was needed for the purpose of carrying on the war was obtained from parliament and by coming to parliament. There was no unlimited executive action and no authority given the executive as broad as that derived from the provisions respecting peace, order and good government.
I come now to the references made by the Prime Minister to Canada. My right hon. friend said that without the special powers which the government had, they would not have been able to do what they did with respect to the export of gold. I think the example the Prime Minister himself cited really shows that in this particular, he was not correct. He admitted that there is in the statutes provision whereby the government may, without further enactment by parliament, take action with respect to any panic or crisis which may arise.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They had to make a proclamation saying that there was a crisis.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, that is
quite correct; the government would have to issue a proclamation saying that a crisis existed. But the position at present is not as inadequate, if one wishes to use that expression, as it was then. Since that time, this parliament has given to the executive-they have it to-day-the power to take all such measures as in the discretion of the governor in council may be deemed necessary or advisable to protect the credit and financial position of the dominion or any province thereof. Surely that power is sufficient to take care of the problem of the export of gold or to meet any similar situation.
I listened with care to hear if the Prime Minister would say what it was he feared. He spoke only of an apprehended crisis. I assume that what was in the mind of my right hon. friend was a banking or some financial crisis, but is not the power already held by the executive sufficient to meet a situation of that kind? The act reads:
The governor in council may, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon, and notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law,-
(e) Take all such measures as in his discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to protect the credit and financial position of the Dominion or any province thereof;
I submit that with that power there is no necessity of going further afield for authority to meet some situation which is wholly imaginary, or so imaginary that it cannot be named in this parliament.

Relief Act, 1933
The third reference of the Prime Minister was to the United States. He pointed out how congress had been called and how certain powers had been given to the executive. I wonder if this committee realizes the real significance of the action taken in the United States. First of all, it was congress, the people's representatives, which were hastily brought together to deal with the situation immediately after an appeal had been made to the people. The president of the United States called a special session, but that privilege also exists in this country. The Prime Minister himself set an example in that regard. Immediately after the general election in 1930, he called a special session to meet what he then termed an emergency. Surely a special session could be called at any time in the future to give the people's representatives a right to say what should be done to meet the situation. The point, however, I wish particularly to draw to the attention of hon. members is that the powers given to the president of the United States and which were referred to by my right hon. friend as very great powers were powers with respect to enumerated items. That is exactly what we in this parliament have given to the executive in the legislation which is before us at the present time. That is what we are prepared to give to any extent that may be necessary, provided the ministry can present a reasonable case, and that is what I am asking that they shall confine themselves to now. I am asking that they shall enumerate the items on which they want absolute authority, because I do not think they should be given absolute authority with respect to unenumerated matters, the necessity for which is wholly imaginary.
That goes to the very root of the difference between my right hon. friend and myself and those who support us respectively on either side. The United States has taken a step to meet an emergent condition, but it has taken good care to see that congress shall not place in the hands of the president any powers other than those enumerated and of which it had approved in such an enumerated list. Yet we are asked now, in addition to all the powers set forth in the enumerated list here, to give the governor in council further powers. My right hon. friend, I submit, is making a grave mistake in asking for these powers. I am glad he feels as I do about this being a period of transition during which democracy is to some extent on trial in relation to the question of government itself. May I point this out- and I do so having in mind particularly the situation in Canada. Let the pendulum swing in one direction very far, and the inevitable 53719-202
reaction will be that it will go as far in the other direction. If this parliament parts with the power of parliamentary control over legislation generally and places that power in the hands of the executive-and I hope my right hon. friend will not take offence if I say that this means very largely himself, for everyone in the country believes that, and I think the right hon. gentleman himself believes it too


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If that power is given to one individual, I say, we shall find very soon the contention being made in different parts of the country that if one individual or executive can exercise all the powers of government then a class can just as well do the same. We shall have our friends in the far corner, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, telling the people of the country that if they have to choose between two different types of dictatorships they had better choose a dictator that represents themselves, rather than one that represents an individual or a class to which they are opposed. I say that the only way to avoid such a situation is for parliament itself to retain control in the interests of all classes and all the people and not allow any individual or class to exercise autocratic powers in this country.


Angus MacInnis: I do not wish to say very much on this point seeing that possibly I am not as conversant with parliamentary procedure and parliamentary government as the two hon. gentlemen who have already spoken.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Angus MacInnis: I do not speak very often in this house, but I intend to speak whenever I have anything to say in the interests of those whom I represent. I was sent here to express their views and if any hon. gentleman does not care to hear me speak he need not listen. With regard to the provision for peace, order and good government, personally I do not think it is necessary because that is the first quality inherent in any government. The moment any government is unable to maintain peace, order and good government it ceases to be a government.
Of course, good government will always be defined from the point of view of the government in power, and therein lies any objection to this particular legislation. I am afraid that good government will not necessarily be defined as government in the interests of the people of the country as a whole but rather in the interests of a particular class.

Relief Act, 1933

The Prime Minister has referred to the decline of demoracy. As a matter of fact there has never been real democracy in any country. Expanding capitalism, that is to say, capitalism which was still growing and growing eon-tinously and afforded improvements in the condition of the people, made some measure of democracy possible; but with capitalism contracting to-day we find that democracy is being gradually curtailed in every country in the world, and this country is no exception. We hear very little disapproval of dictatorship where that dictatorship operates in the interests of the capitalist class. I do not think that this amendment is necessary, but if the government will use the power asked for for the purpose of improving the condition of the people who are in sore distress, then I see no reason why it should not be granted. If, however, as it seems, they want the power for other purposes then it should be opposed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was indeed surprised, when we inquired of the Prime Minister as to what benefits the dominion derived from the exercise of the power vested in -the administration under the legislation of 1931, to hear the right hon. gentleman instance first of all the export of gold and in the second place the valuation- of insurance securities. A year and a half ago the question of the export of gold was discussed in this house and he said thee that it was necessary, in order -to effect the prohibition of exportation of gold to the United States, to have a proclamation under the Finance Act in regard to emergency measures. I am sure the Minister of Finance knows very well that the preceding administration in 1929 effected the prohibition of the exportation of gold from this country to the United States without a proclamation under the Finance Act and without resorting to legislation with respect to peace, order and good government. It was accomplished through an understanding between the Minister of Finance at that time and the financial institutions of the country.
As regards the powers exercised under the legislation of 1931, which was sought to be revived in this house by the continuance measure from March 1 to May 1, 1932, and which was so bitterly contested by both sides of the house, if hon. members will recall the powers exercised under that legislation, under the same provisions as are sought -to-night, they will remember that those -powers related among other things to increasing the armed forces of the crown- without consulting the parliament of Canada-


Richard Bedford Bennett: To what is the hon. gentleman referring?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not an armed force of the crown; it is a police force.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are a contingent armed force of the crown.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are not; they are a police force.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My contention applies equally well. No administration has the right, without consulting the parliament of Canada, to increase police forces which are national without a direct vote of parliament. Take another power exercised under peace, order and good government. Two million railway ties were contracted for at a price of 65 cents. We were promised that we should get all the information-, either in this house or in the committee, with regard to this item of expenditure under this power exercised- in connection- with peace, order and good government, but when we asked for the details we were refused on the ground that it was a secret of the railways. We were not given any information except the bare price of 65 cents. Take the powers in relation to insurance companies and banks. I contend that the stand we took in 1931 and 1932 in this house has been abundantly justified. What does the right hon. gentleman do to-night? He mentioned England by way of example and adduced two illustrations from that country. First of all he referred to the Defence of the Realm Act, which was a war measure. I am not surprised at the similarity between these twin dictatorships. I have here a pamphlet entitled A Plan for Britain, by G. D. H. -Cole, from which I will quote the following:
We shall have, for example, to begin with a drastic measure of emergency powers similar to the Defence of the Realm Act passed in the early stages of the war.
We shall have to take power, in one brief comprehensive act of parliament, to bring under the eomjpletest public control any industry or service which it may be necessary for us to administer publicly in pursuance of our national economic plan.
So here we have the official socialist plan, a complete repudiation of parliamentary authority and responsibility, and here we have the Conservative plan which is likewise a complete repudiation of parliamentary authority and responsibility.

Relicj Act, 1933
Again, my hon. friend referred to the orders in council passed in the old country in 1931, He was referring to chapter 48 of the statutes of that year in Great Britain. The difference between that legislation and the measure now before the house is this: a national government was formed in 1931 in Great Britain under the leadership of the Right Hon. Ramsay MacDonald. The powers that were vested by way of order in council were for a period of only thirty days. Seven days after the orders in council were passed, a general election was called, and that national government went to the country immediately to get a mandate for those orders in council. In other words, the executive orders in council underwent the acid test of public opinion in that election. Is that the same situation as the one which the right hon. gentleman presents to this parliament? It is not. I say that in the legislation now before the house, without the amendment dealing with advances to provinces or the one dealing with peace, order and good government, the Prime Minister has within the four corners of the measure, ample authority to effect any emergency measures he may desire for preserving the security and solidarity of this dominion. This power in respect to peace, order and good government, which we opposed with all the force at our command in March, April and May of 1932, is a complete violation of the fundamental rights of parliament, an abrogation of parliamentary authority and responsibility. So far as I am concerned, whether the policy advanced be that of the socialists on the left in regard to the establishment of a socialist state in accordance with this pamphlet which I have before me in regard to the socialist platform in Great Britain, or the Tory policy of establishing a Tory autocracy, let us maintain the rights of parliament and we shall not go wrong.


Mr. KENNEDY (Peace River):: Did I
understand the hon. gentleman to say that he was quoting from a pamphlet written by G. D. H. Cole-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: -as the
platform of the group in this corner?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. It
is an outline of socialist policy in Great Britain. I am glad to learn that my hon. friend repudiates it.


William Duff: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: I hardly think that is in order.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I see one
or two difficulties in connection with this legislation. First, let me say that I agree absolutely with the statement made by both the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, in that I fail to see the necessity of reenacting the clause in regard to peace, order and good government. But if the government are determined to have that power-and I suppose as usual they will force their will upon parliament- then I cannot understand the necessity for the insertion of the amendments, first, for the vote of 820,000,000 and, second, for the purpose of taking securities from the provinces. The government appear to have all the necessary power to deal with the provinces in any matter that may arise in con-
Relief Act, 1933

nection with advancing assistance, taking care of their financing. Indeed, so far as we can learn, that is going on continuously, particularly with regard to the four western provinces.
One can, however, hardly understand the necessity at this stage for the extraordinary powers now asked for by the government. The Prime Minister takes a good deal of credit for the fact that we have had no financial panic in Canada. I have no recollection of his having had the Bank Act amended. The banks have been functioning under the same act. Indeed, so much confidence has he in our banking laws that he does not propose to amend them even at this session. Therefore the banks, in his opinion and in that of the government, must be stable and sound in every particular and I think Canada should be congratulated upon that fact. So far as the insurance companies are concerned, the Prime Minister has taken appropriate action to protect them with respect to the valuation of their securities. Contingencies may arise of which the government are aware, but which we do not know at the present moment, but it seems to me that at this stage, when any evidence of panic, if we may call it by that particular name, must be practically past, it is unnecessary to have this power, and if power is required, surely it is contained within the four walls of the statute of 1932. So far as I am concerned, I agree with the speakers on this side of the house that there is no reason for the reenactment of the clause giving the executive power in regard to peace, order and good government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is the amendment before us?


John Thomas Hackett: The
second amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We should
like to have a standing vote on it.
Amendment (Mr. Manion) agreed to: yeas, 60; nays, 23.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister was going to give us some information for which we asked when last we were discussing the resolution in committee, respecting the advances that have been made up to the present time to public bodies and corporations under the provisions of the Relief Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only advances in
cash were made to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and to the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the
Prime Minister indicate how much money has been advanced in each case?


George Gordon: I think I have already
spread upon the record the exact amounts advanced to the provinces and to the railway, but perhaps it would save time if I gave the figures over again.
Loans have been advanced to Manitoba amounting to $8,160,629.45; repayments $220,000. Loans to Saskatchewan $12,461,293.23; no repayments. Loans to Saskatchewan Relief 'Commission in connection with seed grain, S6,000,000, of which $410,000 has been repaid. Loans to Alberta, $5,982,000, none of which has been repaid. Loans to British Columbia $6,866,664.69, of which $3,169,915.19 has been repaid. To the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in connection with the keeping open of their various shops in 1931 there was loaned $1,447,222.71, and an additional loan of $1,000,000 has been authorized but is not payable until later on this spring.


Mr. POWER:: How much has been
advanced to the provinces for the purpose of carrying on the ordinary running expenses of the province, the payment of civil servants, and so -forth, and to which provinces have such advances been made?


George Gordon: There have been no loans to the provinces for that specific purpose. As to the purposes to which the provinces have devoted' the proceeds of the loans advanced, I do not think I have the figures.


Charles Gavan Power: I have not the orders in
council by me at the moment, but I have a recollection of having read at least one, probably two, under which advances were made, as I understood it, specifically for the purpose of enabling the province to carry on its ordinary business other than for unemployment relief purposes. If the minister will give me a chance I will get the orders in council.


George Gordon: There was nothing loaned to the province of British Columbia or to Alberta for ordinary governmental purposes. To Saskatchewan there was loaned for governmental purposes, $3,500,000.


Charles Gavan Power: How much of that has been repaid?


George Gordon: None of it.


Charles Gavan Power: Is it with respect to some
of these loans that a new order in council was passed a month or so ago in which it

Relief Act, 1933
was stated that the province could not pay its current interest, and that therefore the federal government would assume the interest in some form or another.


George Gordon: I think the hon. member
is right. They were unable to pay their interest and the interest was consolidated with the loan.


Charles Gavan Power: Then am I to take it that
we have advanced money to at least one province to carry on the ordinary affairs of government, and that when these moneys became due we, by order in council, arranged that the interest should not be paid; or was the interest added to the capital?


George Gordon: Yes, the interest was
added to the capital, under order in council 385 of March 4, 1933.


Charles Gavan Power: The next question is: Does the minister ever expect to be repaid, and how?


George Gordon: I have a great deal more faith in the probity and progressiveness-and I do not use the word politically-of the people of Saskatchewan than probably any hon. member from that province on the other side of the house.


Charles Gavan Power: That is hardly an answer to my question, because I do not come from that province. I have some faith in their probity, and more faith in their progressiveness politically, if this government remains in power very long. But I do ask the minister

and I believe we are entitled to a more serious answer than he has given-the following question : Does he think it is good business to lend money to a creditor, not for specific purposes, but simply to carry on his living expenses, so to speak. If he were a banker-and his government has become the banker of the bankrupt and semi-bankrupt provinces of this dominion-would he lend money to a borrower for living expenses, and when the borrower could not repay even the current interest, would he keep on adding to it by adding to the capital? I believe we have about reached the time in Canada when we should adopt a more definite policy with respect to the amount of credit the federal government is going to pour into the provinces, institutions and corporations. At the present time this government, in so far as it is able, is backing the banks, backing the insurance companies, backing Beauharnois, backing the wheat pool, backing the Canadian Pacific, paying deficits on the Canadian National and has at least four provinces on its hands. I suppose I will be accused of calling the credit of the dominion into question. Oh, I had
forgotten-we are backing Newfoundland. And I suppose if Malta, Tasmania or Timbuktu went broke, if we could get a little credit at the seat of empire we would probably, out of the generosity of our hearts, back them too. Only two or three days ago President Roosevelt said the time had come to speak out boldly and frankly, to tell the people just what the situation is and to take them into the confidence of congress. I believe the government of Canada should take our people into its confidence, state frankly what the situation is and how long they expect to pour the credit of all Canadian people into any particular section. There is nothing which will bring about a national or financial crisis quicker than the habit into which we have fallen of backing this province and that province, this institution and that institution. There must be a limit somewhere.
Before this legislation passes I believe the government should lay on the table of the house the correspondence they have had with the provinces. If they have told the provinces to set their houses in order, we should know it. That was promised. But we were promised that information within two or three weeks, at which time, in all probability, this legislation will have passed. I suggest that to-day the minister should tell us the advice he has given to the western provinces. I repeat, in all seriousness, that we should come to some definite conclusion whether or not we will continue carrying on in this way. If Saskatchewan or any other province-I am not speaking about any one particularly-finds after a year or two that it cannot meet its current obligations, that it cannot pay for the running of the province and cannot pay the current interest, then the sooner the province of Saskatchewan goes to its bondholders and undergoes a process of reorganization, like a private corporation, the better it will be.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask the minister if that statement is correct-that we are lending the province of Saskatchewan money for its ordinary revenues?


George Gordon: Yes, that is correct.


Charles A. Stewart: Surely to say that a provincial government is having its ordinary revenues supplied by the federal government is an astounding statement to make. We are going to extremes when interest payments are taken care of by the federal government to help a province out of a difficult situation in bad times, but it is an unheard of thing to be told that the government of Canada is providing the ordinary running revenues of the province.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is not the revenue.
Relief Act, 1933


Charles A. Stewart: The minister has just stated it is.


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: Only part of it.


Charles A. Stewart: Why any
part of it?


Walter Davy Cowan: What about Alberta?


Charles A. Stewart: I hope to heaven Alberta never gets into that position.


Walter Davy Cowan: Saskatchewan finances are better than those of Alberta. You don't know what you are talking about.


Charles A. Stewart: All I can say to the hon. member is that it is a sorry day when any province has to come to borrow its ordinary running revenues from the Dominion of Canada. If the banks of that province are not prepared to take care of it in times of difficulty, I say they are in a sorry position. I do not care what province they are in-


Walter Davy Cowan: We are in a mighty safe condition.


Charles A. Stewart: I believe I have the floor. I will give my hon. friend ample opportunity to say anything he has to say in defence of the government. I say it is an astounding condition when a minister has to make the statement to the House of Commons that out of federal funds-not out of the revenue, because undoubtedly he will have to borrow it-he is going to pay the running expenses of the province of Saskatchewan or any other province. Surely more drastic steps than have so far been taken will have to be taken to prevent such action. I do not know what authority there is for this government to lend money for such purposes.


Ernest Lapointe: Peace, order and good government.


Charles A. Stewart: But they have not got peace, order and good government. They have not that right at the present time. The statement made by the minister is the most astounding one I have ever heard in this House of Commons. He had said that the government of Canada has had to come to the rescue of a province in order that it may pay its ordinary running expenses.


Peter John Veniot: And we have to borrow money to do it.


Charles A. Stewart: It seems to me if the civil servants of that province cannot get their pay and the banks are not prepared to furnish the money-as they frequently do for provinces in reasonably decent

standing-and the federal government has always come to the rescue in connection with interest payments, then that is as far as it should go; indeed, I am bound to say it is farther than it should be called upon to go. Where is this thing going to end? How long is it going to take the government to ruin the credit of Canada, if it continues such practices? We cannot wonder, after hearing the statement just made by the minister, that the government want the extraordinary powers for which they are asking to-night. They will need those powers if we are to come to the rescue and pay the running expenses of various provinces.


Walter Davy Cowan: My hon. friend comes from Alberta. Alberta is as nice a province as any in the Dominion of Canada. I have no feeling of ill-will in respect to that province, but when the hon. member assails Saskatchewan as he has done to-night he is doing a very great disservice not only to Saskatchewan, but to the dominion as a whole. The province of Saskatchewan, whose legislature is now in session and whose budget was recently brought down, has balanced its budget as well as, if not better than, any other province of the dominion, and is paying her way just as well as any other province.


Charles A. Stewart: What does
she want with the money, then?


Walter Davy Cowan: If my hon.
friends over there had not thrown 400,000 foreigners into our province and compelled us to build schools for them and educate them and spend millions and millions every year we would be in a much better condition than we are to-day. We have had to spend millions through the blunders of hon. gentlemen opposite. In addition we had the misfortune of this drought, and my hon. friend does not seem to know that that drought was not peculiar to Saskatchewan, that down in the United States 1931 is known as the year of the great drought. He does not seem to know that in thirty-three states of the United States the crops were absolutely wiped out by that drought, and we got only the tail end of it. You could not stop those winds blowing from Arizona at the international boundary; you might as well try to stop hon. gentlemen opposite from speaking-it cannot be done. It burnt up our grain and everything else. We have had that for three years, but that is no reason why hon. gentlemen opposite should assail our credit and denounce our province. You have got millions and millions of dollars' worth of trade out of Saskatchewan and Manitoba and Alberta; we are glad you got

Reliej Act, 1933
it, and you will get it again-because we buy from Canadians, we do not buy from Yankees as do hon. gentlemen opposite. We have been of far more benefit to eastern Canada than we have ever got from her, and hon. gentlemen had better quit assailing the province of Saskatchewan. If they do not, some of us will turn one of these days, and they will wish they had never spoken.


Mr POWER:: In order that the committee may understand the purport of the questions which I was putting to the minister I should like to read into Hansard order in council P.C. 385:
Privy Council, Canada
Certified to be a true copy of a minute of a meeting of the committee of the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 4th March, 1933.
The committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 2nd March, 1933, from the Minister of Finance, submitting that there became due and payable by the province of Saskatchewan to the government of the Dominion of Canada interest on treasury bills submitted as security for loans made under authority of orders in council P.C. 2336, of 19th September, 1931, P.C. 767 of 6th April, 1932, P.C. 789 of 12th April, 1932, P.C. 922 of 25th April, 1932 and P.C. 974 of the 28th April, 1932, passed pursuant to the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931 and Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932, the interest on the said treasury bills being as follows:
Interest due, September 9, 1932; amount of treasury bills, $2,006,690; amount of interest, $45,000.
Interest due October 6, 1932; amount of treasury bills, $5,900,000; amount of interest, $148,635.61.
I will ask the minister now if that $5,900,000 is the amount which was advanced to the province .of Saskatchewan for what I call running expenses.


George Gordon: That sum would include
what has been spoken of as $3,500,000 for governmental purposes, and also moneys advanced the province of Saskatchewan to meet obligations in New York.


Charles Gavan Power: Anyway that $5,900,000 was partly expended by the province of Saskatchewan, and was granted to the province for the [DOT] purpose of carrying on its ordinary business?


George Gordon: Undoubtedly.


Charles Gavan Power: The interest on that was
$148,635.61. There was a still further loan due on October 27, 1932, $500,000, and the amount of interest was $13,750, making a total of interest, $207,385.61. I have not before me all the orders in council providing for the advance of money to the province of Saskatchewan, but I take it that since 1931
Saskatchewan has not been able to pay the interest on the loans made to it by the federal government. I make that statement subject to correction, but I take that to be the case. The order in council says:
The minister further submits that the provincial treasurer of the province of Saskatchewan has reported thaat it is impossible, under existing conditions, to pay this interest currently,-
That is, $207,385.
-and he has proposed that treasury bills of the province be accepted in respect of accrued interest.
The minister, therefore, recommends that under the authority of The Relief Act, 1932, the following loans be made to the province of Saskatchewan:
$45,000 on the security of treasury bill of the province dated 9th September, 1932, issued under due authority bearing interest at the rate of 5J per cent per annum payable halfyearly and maturing the 9th September, 1933.
$148,635.61 on the security of treasury bills of the province for $94,479.44 and $54,156.17, dated 6th October, 1932, issued under due authority bearing interest at the rate of 51 per cent per annum and maturing the 6th April, 1933.
$13,750 on the security of treasury bill of the province dated 27th October, 1932, issued under due authority bearing interest at the rate of 51 per cent per annum and maturing 27th April, 1933.
The minister further recommends that authority be granted to the Minister of Finance at his discretion at any time before redemption to assign all or any part of the said treasury bills.
The committee concur in the foregoing recommendations and submit the same for approval.
E. J. Lemaire,
Clerk of the Privy Council.
If this procedure is to be followed the treasury of Canada will be full of these treasury bills. I am not surprised that the Minister of Finance asked the right to assign before redemption, but heaven only knows who is going to take the assignment. I have here copies of other orders in council which appear to deal with the same subject, and I will put them on Hansard if I have occasion as the debate proceeds. The point is that other provinces have perhaps not been able, on account of their lack of revenue, to give the services which the province of Saskatchewan has been able to give to its people. They have perhaps over a period of years stinted themselves in social services and matters of that kind. I submit that since the people in these older provinces are not able out of their means to give these services to their people, they should not be called upon indirectly through their contributions to the federal government to pay for them for prov-
Relief Act, 1933

inces which have not as yet curtailed their expenditure, or which during the past have shown no signs of being willing to do so.


Ernest Lapointe: May I ask the minister whether advances have been made to other provinces that are in the same position for the purpose of meeting the payment of interest on previous advances?


George Gordon: There are no other provinces that had to call upon the Dominion government for loans for carrying on the services of government. I think the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) should bear in mind that Saskatchewan probably suffered a tragedy such as no other province in this country suffered in connection with its crops.


Charles Gavan Power: Did we not provide for that by direct relief?


George Gordon: If hon. members will come one at a time perhaps I can get along a little faster.
At one time this government, with some assistance from the government of Saskatchewan, were actually feeding more than 300,000 people who were absolutely without any crop of any kind. Such a condition in a province like Saskatchewan, with its scattered and comparatively sparse population, naturally reduced the tax-paying population, and unquestionably that brought about the condition which gave rise to the necessity of their receiving help from the federal treasury.
I think we can agree with what the hon. member for Quebec South has said with respect to the necessity for the most rigid control in connection with advances by way of loans to provinces, to other projects, to public corporations or anyone else. The responsibility is certainly upon this government and this parliament to see that the moneys of this country are administered to the best advantage. However, it is a very serious question to decide whether or not any one of the provinces of Canada should be allowed to go bankrupt because of the stress of present times. I think that is a debatable question and I would not care to subscribe to the rigid policy that at a time like this the provinces should not receive some help from the federal treasury to tide them over the present depressing period. These provinces, of their own prompting and of their own volition, have tried to reduce expenditures. I believe they are making very serious reductions in the cost of government and governmental services where that can be done without completely crippling the services. In some instances I believe they are finding that they can get along without services which they thought were indispensable.

Many conferences have been held between this government and those in charge of provincial affairs with a view to seeing if they cannot so fashion their affairs of government that they will bring themselves within their revenues. I do not need to tell the members of the committee how difficult it is for the Dominion of Canada to bring its revenue into equation with its tax collection.
I do not think we should utterly condemn the province of Saskatchewan because they are having to resort to this government for help in carrying on their public services. We must not forget the situation through which this province passed a year ago. No one anticipated anything like that and it has never happened before in western Canada. With respect to its tax-paying people and their capacity to pay, that province was placed in a very difficult position.
I do not think it is quite right for us in this parliament to assume that those in charge of municipalities and provinces throughout Canada are not just as earnest as we are and are not as seized of the necessity for economy. I think it is fair to say that those who have the responsibilities of municipal and provincial government are doing their very utmost. No doubt they will make mistakes, but they are doing their utmost to bring their expenditures within the range of their ability to collect taxes. The situation is not an easy one and I do not think we should utter wholesale condemnations of the provinces of Canada. It is my firm belief that every province, no matter under what form of government it may be, Tory, Grit or Progressive, is putting forth every effort to make its budget balance. Unfortunately in Saskatchewan they were not able to do that and we have helped them out.


Charles Gavan Power: May I say that I do not want my remarks to be interpreted as being aimed particularly at Saskatchewan. What I am objecting to is the policy of continuously-


Wilfred Hanbury: Of this government.


Charles Gavan Power: I will mot say even that. I am objecting to the policy of a great many people, adherents of this government and otherwise, who are endeavouring to support the national credit by giving assistance to the provinces. I will not go as far as my hon. friend on this side and refer distinctly to the policy of this government. I think the time has come when we should put a stop to this practice. We cannot go on giving money to our neighbours when we have not any ourselves. I do not know what deficit we will have to face, we will have to wait until tomorrow to know that. I assume it will be in

Relief Act, 193S
the neighbourhood of $60,000,000, $70,000,000, $80,000,000 or $100,000,000, if we are to believe the newspapers. I do not want to take advantage of the Minister of Finance. If he were to say "no" his answer might be interpreted in one way, and if he were to say "yes", it might be interpreted in another. He would be making a premature announcement of his budget. In any case we are in a position where we have no money, where we cannot pay our own debts. Charite bien ordonnee commence chez soi-let us start at home and put our own house in order. When that is done we may be able to hand out a little to our neighbours, to our good friends, to our children or whatever you may call them. We have been advancing considerable money to the wheat pools, to the banks backing the wheat pools, to enterprises such as Beauhar-nois, to railroads including the Canadian Pacific, and I do not know to what other enterprises. The time has come to tighten up the purse strings.
If it so happens that Saskatchewan has been the first to run short of money and has had to come to the federal government, I do not want my remarks to be taken as reflecting upon the policy of the present government in Saskatchewan or upon the lack of foresight of past administrations. However, I think we should tell them that they must stand upon their own feet. I do not know what their bond issue is, but if they cannot pay more than one per cent interest, they should say to their bondholders: You will get only one per cent interest. That is what every private corporation has had to do, and even the federal government may have to do this if we keep on lending money. With all these guarantees and assistances, we are simply gambling that the depression will be over before it catches up to us. If it is not over within a very few years, it will overtake even the dominion itself.


Mr. SPEAK MAN:: There are two or three points which the committee should keep in mind as they relate to facts which must be faced. Speaking of the three prairie provinces there are three facts which must be remembered. First, two of them at least, and to a large extent, Manitoba, are almost wholly dependent upon agriculture for their taxes. The two provinces have practically no source of taxation save agriculture. Indirectly they may tax other people, but the source of the production of wealth is agriculture. Second, any one who is familiar with farm conditions and farm prices must realize that the taxpaying power of the farmer is extremely
limited. Only a very small amount of taxes can be paid by the average farmer to-day with prices as they are now, leaving aside the question of crop failure.
The third point to remember is that of fixed capital charges, and as the hon. member for Quebec South has said, it is one which we shall have to face some day. While the farmers are limited to one class of commodities upon which taxation can be levied, their price levels have reached such a point as to limit very considerably their tax-paying powers. Throughout the country the balance between revenue and fixed charges is completely upset at the present time. We find this in the federal government, in the railways and in every business. While revenues are declining, fixed charges remain stationary. The fixed uncontrollable expenditures in the provinces will eat up the greater percentage of the possible taxation. These are facte that cannot be gainsaid, and we may have to consider the suggestion of the hon. member for Quebec South, whether in times like these we may not have to ask the bondholders to bear their share in the general distress. I can easily visualize the time when the total collection of taxes from the provinces wholly dependent on agriculture will barely meet the interest on bonds at the present rate of interest, and there will be a serious question throughout the country whether we shall not have to decide definitely that we cannot pay these rates of interest at a time when public and private revenues have so considerably diminished. During normal times there is a reasonable balance between the different factors that make up expenditures

in private business, between labour, management and capital costs, and in capital between bonds with fixed interest and capital invested in shares of stock. So long as there is a reasonable balance it works well, but in times like these when revenues fall fifty and seventy-five per cent the balance is completely upset if one form of vested capital must remain at a fixed level and must pay its full share, no matter how great the (percentage of that share becomes. I can easily see the time when we shall have to summon all our resources to ascertain the best way of meeting the situation in Canada as a whole, and we may have to consider doing what the hon. member for Quebec South has suggested. We must ask ourselves how long we can pay full interest rates when the revenues throughout the country have fallen from fifty to seventy-five per cent.
Relief Act, 1933


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Might I have a word to say on this rather sad subject we are discussing? The minister, in explaining the situation in Saskatchewan, rather left the impression that it was due almost wholly to the severity and extent of the drought in 1931, and that the consequent relief that had to be given in that year was the chief cause of Saskatchewan's present financial troubles.


George Gordon: Three successive crop years.


William Richard Motherwell: That was not the situation at all. The Liberal governments that preceded the one now out there gave more in the aggregate for relief purposes during their administration than the present Saskatchewan government ever did in their time. Mr. Gardiner, the former premier, has made that statement on more occasions than one, and it was never contradicted.


Mr. MacMILLAN:: That is absolute nonsense.


William Richard Motherwell: It is not. The real trouble was due largely to the vast orgy of road construction entered into by the present Saskatchewan government immediately after coming into power, in 1930 and 1981, with the result that they more than doubled the capital debt of that province. The capital debt when the Liberals left office was $63,000,000, in round figures and a considerable proportion of that debt was revenue producing. It represented money invested in the public telephone system and in the cooperative elevator system, both of which were paying their way.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: That puts a different complexion on it and my hon. friends do not like it. I want the committee to make a decided distinction between Saskatchewan as a province and the Saskatchewan government, because we have no more faith in the government there than we have in this one here. I want to set the committee right as to what caused the enormous expansion in the capital debt of Saskatchewan, with consequent loss of credit. It was due largely to the extravagant system of road construction. This admittedly was not confined to Saskatchewan alone nor to this country alone, but it was particularly in evidence in Saskatchewan in the years 1930 and 1931, with the result that instead of a debt of $63,000,000 they have now a debt of nearly $140,000,000. That, I say, puts a different complexion on the matter. The minister did not say anything that was not correct, but he left

the impression that the extra indebtedness of Saskatchewan was due almost entirely to the terrible drought of 1931.


Peter John Veniot: What was the amount of the last loan to the Canadian Pacific Railway, at what rate of interest was it made, and on what terms of payment?


George Gordon: The last loan authorized to the Canadian Pacific Railway was $1,000,000 on December 22, 1932, for the purpose of paying the wages of workmen in connection with shop operations in December, 1932, This loan was to be repaid without interest before any further dividends were declared or paid. Although authorized, the money has not yet been paid to the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Peter John Veniot: What was the rate of interest?


George Gordon: No interest.


Frank Roland MacMillan: I am surprised to-night at some of the remarks of hon. gentlemen opposite. I find myself in agreement to some extent with the hon. member for Quebec-South, but having listened in this house in the past year to members opposite from my province maligning this government and directing all sorts of scurrilous remarks to them because they did not spend more money in Saskatchewan in connection with the distressing conditions that have existed there, I am surprised to-night to hear them bewailing the fact that the government have spent as much as they have because they found such a condition of affairs in that province as required assistance to help them meet the interest on their bonded indebtedness. My hon. friend from Melville says that the previous provincial government spent more in relief there than the present government has done. Anyone who lives in the province of Saskatchewan-the hon. member will be confronted with his statement when he goes there-knows that what he says is the most ridiculous nonsense. No one knows better than he does that there was never a time in that province when agriculture has had to contend with the problems that have faced it in the past three years. There never was a time in any part of Canada when seventy-six rural municipalities had no crop for three years in succession. As my hon. friend down in the left corner has said, agricultural commodities command a very low price to-day. If you take that situation, coupled with the seventy-five municipalities that have been drought-stricken for three years, you will find

Relief Act, 1933
that the taxable capacity of the province is strained to the uttermost. I want to congratulate the government and the minister in that province for this year coming within SI,000,000 of balancing the budget. Having regard to the steps which they have taken, I am satisfied that they will balance their budget this year.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: With federal money. [DOT]


Frank Roland MacMillan: Federal money has
nothing to do with the question of balancing their budget. The federal government, however, I recall, handed out money when a great catastrophe took place in one of the eastern provinces, I think in St. John or Halifax. When a great explosion occurred there, the government handed out hundreds of thousands of dollars to help the people. Nevertheless hon. gentlemen opposite deny Saskatchewan, a new province populated with newcomers, as has been said here tonight, the right to ask parliament for assistance when it needs it so greatly. Is there an hon. member from Saskatchewan who will deny that province the right to ask the federal parliament for assistance? To do so would be grossly unfair. If hon. members opposite were to visit that province and give utterance there to some of the remarks that have been made here in connection with this matter, I do not think they would be very well received.


William Richard Motherwell: It is scarcely necessary for me to repeat what I said, but after what the hon. member for Saskatoon has stated, lest I may not have been quite understood, I shall repeat that part of it where I stated that the aggregate spent by previous Liberal governments in Saskatchewan, prior to this present Saskatchewan government coming into power, was more than the total that this government has spent even during 1931 when the expenditure was tremendous, I admit.	.


Mr. ROWE:: How many years?


William Richard Motherwell: Twenty-four years, but much of it was not called relief; it was called seed grain advances in many cases and relief road work in many others. But this government has charged everything up to relief, including seed grain advances. That is the reason they make the aggregate for this government very big and relatively small for previous Liberal administrations. My figures stand1 uncontradicted, and my hon. friend from Saskatoon can look them up and not trust to memory, particularly as he never
knew anything about the matter anyway. My statement is correct and I have no desire to aggravate the situation. I do not want the hon. member for Saskatoon to put us in the position of complaining about the money that has been spent there by the present government. I am only trying to correct the impression that the present serious financial situation in Saskatchewan is due to the enormous amount of relief necessary in 1931 and the year following. It was partly due to that, but the great difficulty was the vast sums spent on road work the first two years after the present provincial government came into power. I have already made an extenuating remark, that not only were they guilty of that but other provinces and other countries were as well. I think I went far enough to let the Saskatchewan government down a little in this respect-at any rate as far as I intend to go.


Frank Roland MacMillan: My hon. friend states
that previous governments have spent in Saskatchewan more in relief than has been spent by this government in that province or by that province in the past three years. If that is so, it is amazing that hon. gentlemen opposite now object to the government helping out the province, having regard to the situation in which it has found itself in the past three years. My hon. friend is bragging about the money that the Liberal government spent in past yeans. Now he is saying that this government, because it has lent that province a few million dollars to tide it over the present situation, should be criticized for doing so. My hon. friend also stated that the Saskatchewan government had been responsible for spending millions of dollars extravagantly. He mentioned roads. They spent $10,000,000 on roads in that province. That was on an all-weather highway. Prior to the time the present provincial government came in, that province had no allweather highway. Further, as my hon. friend well knows, the wheat pool in that province cost this government in the neighbourhood of $15,000,000. My hon. friend used to brag a great deal about the cooperative creameries in that province; indeed, I think he was their father and mother both. My hon. friend in his time established cooperative creameries, political creameries, all over that province, but they were closed up even during his own time. I would like to suggest that he be at least gracious enough to give us some credit on this side for endeavouring to help out Saskatchewan in the distressing situation which at present exists there.
Reliej Act, 1933


William Richard Motherwell: We shall have to
admit charitably that the hon. member for Saskatoon knows more about these questions than anybody else in Saskatchewan. Perhaps that will satisfy him.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am very much interested in this discussion, and I should like to remind the committee that western Canada is having difficulties to-day-


An hon. MEMBER:: So are we all.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: -but western Canada has been taxed by the customs tariff for twenty-five years for the support of industries in Ontario and Quebec, and it is shortsighted; policy to start now-


Mr. McPHEE:: The hon. member voted for that too.


Ernest Lapointe: When increases were made, the hon. member voted for them.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I did not.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member supported the government.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The present government at least has this to its credit, that it is trying to-day by these methods to equalize in some respects the burdens that have been placed upon the people as a result of tariffs. I do not agree with the high tariff policy of the present government, and I do not agree with the tariff policy of the Liberal party that went to the country promising low tariffs and did not give them. If tariff is good when it is working against the farmer, it is reasonable to say in this time of depression that agriculture and the agricultural provinces ought to be helped by direct grant. That is my point and the only one I wish to make. Whether we like the situation of not, whether it is just or not, we know it is generally admitted that the depression throughout the world has struck agriculture in a way that it has not touched other industries. I think it is agreed that agriculture has received the full force of the worldwide depression, and if the agricultural provinces go down, the rest will go down with them. The hon. member for Quebec South was speaking to-day about certain provincial industries and so forth that got financial support from the government, not being able to pay the interest. What about the port of Quebec? Did it ever get advances on which it did not pay interest? Did we complain about this?- We did not; at least I did not.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is the gateway of Canada.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am exceedingly glad that the government in office, while its policy is not in accordance with that of hon. gentleman to my right, has at least tried during these very difficult times to face the facts and to give these grants so as to . enable the western provinces, which have been so severely hit by the depression, to carry on. What is the condition of agriculture? Western agriculture is producing and selling products for fifty per cent of the cost of production.


Ernest Lapointe: The same situation exists in the east.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Not the extreme east, but Ontario and Quebec have been bonused by the customs tariff for the last forty or fifty years to a greater extent than the western provinces have been assisted by the Dominion government.


William Daum Euler: Nobody seems to be taking up the cudgels for the poor old province of Ontario, so I might say a word. As a matter of fact Ontario pays more taxes than any other province of this dominion, and we have not said anything about it. We said nothing when 850,000,000 was wasted on the Hudson Bay railway for the benefit of our western farmers. I imagine that the amount of money that has been lost in the construction of the Hudson Bay railway and in the construction and operation of branch lines in western Canada is a great deal more than was ever paid by our western friends in customs tariffs. So much for the province of Ontario.
I would like to support what my hon. friend from Quebec South has said. I believe he is on the right track; it is about time that we called a halt in more ways than one. The other day in the banking and commerce committee it was shown that the debt of the dominion, including the railway debt, is no less than .$3,700,000,000. The dominion is already carrying a pretty heavy load without carrying the load of the provinces. I was amazed, as was the hon. member for West Edmonton, when the minister stated that we are actually advancing to Saskatchewan moneys for the carrying on of the ordinary business of that province. I have a good deal of sympathy for the people of Saskatchewan. They are in the unfortunate position of getting very low prices for their products, but the same is true of Ontario and Quebec.

Relief Act, 1933
The farmers of Ontario are not getting anymore for their products than the farmers of western Canada; our manufacturers have their factories closed and their work people idle, and we have to support these people out of the taxes. It is a pretty heavy burden for Ontario without this province having to join in and help pay the ordinary running expenses of a western province.
I rose to make one suggestion which perhaps will not be received with any great deal of favour, but which I consider a very practical one. If these western provinces find it so difficult to get along and cannot raise the necessary revenues, would it not be a good idea if they cut out some of the cost of government by uniting the three prairie provinces into one, and have one government and one parliament.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is pretty evident to me that the government are so busy bailing out the ship that they have not the time to steer it. I want to make this very practical suggestion. Our present difficulties have been brought about by the fall in the price level, and unless you can bring the price level back to where it was in 1928 or 1929, you cannot continue to meet these enormous obligations. Make no mistake about that.


Mr. COWAN (Port Arthur):: How are you going to do it?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is your job. But in all fairness I can say this, that the child was not left on the doorstep of the government, they went out and brought it home. I believe that the contention of the hon. member for Quebec South is a sound one, and that the duty of the federal government is to see that no man, woman or child in this dominion suffers from the effects of this depression. Arising out of this discussion I would say that the sooner the government tackles the debt situation in this country in a practical way, the better it will be for the dominion. I believe that that is a far more important problem than any other that has come before this parliament since I have been here. Hon. members may laugh. They may have been here longer than I have, but probably they have not thought as much or seen as much. The sooner we tackle the debt question in this country and take action similar to what was taken in Australia and New Zealand, the better it will be for the country. Perhaps it might be better so far as the provinces are concerned, and: their
ordinary (Obligations, to let them go to the wall, if you wish.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Did they do that in Australia?


Humphrey Mitchell: No. I can tell you what they did in Australia.


James Dew Chaplin: You wanted us to do something similar to what they did in Australia.


Humphrey Mitchell: I said, unless you did what they did in Australia. The crux of the situation is this: I do not think that you can carry on the obligations of these provinces. I believe that we should adopt the very practical suggestion that was made by the recent preparatory commission of the League of Nations on the forthcoming monetary and economic conference. They recommended that the debt question should be dealt with first within our own boundaries, and we might get together the bondholders of the provinces which are in difficulty and get them to agree to a reduction in the interest rates. The capitalist system, if you like to call it that, works very well until you come to state debts, and in times of a depression the weak sisters are shaken off. Private industry may recapitalize and reorganize, but the state debt l'emains fixed, and you have to work out some technique for taking care of it. I am of the opinion that the price level is not coming back to where it was in 1928 and 1929, and I believe that this government should meet the debt situation along lines similar to those taken in Australia.


Peter Heenan: My hon. friends opposite have brought this discussion upon themselves. The hon. member for Long Lake tried to leave on the doorstep of the Liberal government the responsibility for present conditions because he said it had brought out too many immigrants. My hon. friend from Peace River laid most of the blame on the customs tariff. Everyone will remember that during the session of 1930 the Conservatives, then sitting on this side of the house told of the desperate condition in which they said this country was at that time. I want the hon. member for Long Lake to listen to what Premier Anderson of Saskatchewan was saying of the province of Saskatchewan at that time. He said:
The settling of our vacant farm lands and the development of industries are reacting favourably upon the growth of our urban centres. The population of some of our larger cities has increased fifty per cent in the last three years. Since January 1st of this year the total value of building permits issued for
Relief Act, 1933

construction work in the province amounted to $34,000,000 as compared with $20,000,000 for the year 1928.
The future progress of Saskatchewan rests upon the firm foundation of the productive effort of our people, aided by discriminating immigration policy. Capital from eastern Canada and the British Isles is increasingly available for the development of our natural resources. The achievements of the past have been considerable. We have merely scratched the surface of our vast resources, however, and there is every indication that the future holds in store tremendous possibilities for the people of Saskatchewan.
It was at the time that Premier Anderson was making that statement that the Conservatives, then sitting on this side of the house, were crying blue ruin in this country, and were ringing the deathknell of the western provinces and the rest of Canada.
As mention has been made of the three western provinces, it might be interesting to see what the premier of Manitoba said about the same time. Speaking on January 14, 1930, Premier John Bracken of Manitoba said:
It is a common belief that Manitoba is a purely agricultural province. It is true that agriculture is still her chief means of maintenance, but during recent years other industries have grown and prospered until to-day the annual value of their gross output closely rivals that of farm products. The year 1929 has seen substantial progress in that direction. During the past year thirty-six new manufacturing concerns have been established in Manitoba, while twenty-two others have extended their plants. It seems certain the total output will substantially exceed that of 1928, which was estimated at $159,252,000.
And then Premier Brownlee of Alberta issued the following statement on January 14, 1930:
At the end of another year the province of Alberta finds itself in a strong financial position. At the end of March, 1929, the fourth successive surplus was reported. The surpluses for the past four years have been as follows:
1925	 $	188,019 54
1920	 17,800 53
For the fifteen months ending March 31:
1928		 $	279,763 13
1929	 1,578,823 09
Therefore we face the end of the year in a
spirit of confident optimism, believing that the next few years, at least, will be years of continued development, both agriculturally and industrially.
Hon. members will note that the premier of Saskatchewan was lauding the fact that through the immigration policy of the1 then Liberal government the population in urban centres had been doubled, and that he had great hopes for the future. The premiers in the other two prairie provinces made similar statements. It ill behooves the hon. member

for Long' Lake or any other hon. member to decry a policy that the premier of Saskatchewan endorsed at that time.


George Gordon: The premier referred to a selective immigration policy.


Peter Heenan: No he did not.


George Gordon: Yes, I believe that is the language he used.


Peter Heenan: I did not read that; I said "discriminating".


George Gordon: No one complains about
that.


Peter Heenan: I am prepared to vote any sum for relief in Saskatchewan or any other province, but when an hon. member of the party which went out and made the promise in 1930 to blast its way into the markets of the world and to guarantee higher prices for produce, makes a complaint, I say to him that he is getting only his just due.


Walter Davy Cowan: The hon. member suggested that the premier of Saskatchewan had advocated a discriminating policy. I should like to ask the hon. member whether, when his party was in power, he considered he was developing a discriminating immigration policy when he was instrumental in importing thousands of Doukhobors, naked men and women who paraded up and down the concessions, raising Cain and doing all sorts of things. Is that the type of immigration policy the hon. member likes?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Pettit):: May I
remind hon. members that the speeches in committee of the whole must be strictly relevant to the matter under consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This resolution covers everything.


George Hamilton Pettit: It seems
to me hon. members have been wandering far afield, and I must ask them to confine their remarks more strictly to the resolution before us.


Charles Gavan Power: I was discussing orders in
council passed under relief legislation.


George Hamilton Pettit: A certain amount of latitude is permissible.


Ernest Lapointe: But no longitude.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have before us a resolution which gives the government a blank cheque, authority to spend any sum it wishes. If the amendment proposed

Reliej Act, 1933
this afternoon is adopted, the government will have authority to pass orders in council in connection with any matter. The discussion cannot be too wide, because the resolution covers everything.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, everything.


Mr. QUINN:: What about the fourteen
points?


Ernest Lapointe: Seventy-five points.


Peter Heenan: We should have wide
enough powers of discussion to cover the Doukhobors in Saskatchewan.	.


Charles Gavan Power: The night shirts.


Peter Heenan: I must tell the hon. member for Long Lake that not one Doukhobor came in at the time Premier Anderson made that statement.


Alan Webster Neill: At 4.45 this afternoon I asked the minister a couple of simple and practical questions, and in liis kindly graciousness he said he would answer me later on. That is six hours ago. I have waited with patience and faith, that faith that laughs at impossibilities, but have received no reply. I am quite sure the minister would not wish the resolution to pass without first having given me that information.


Felix Patrick Quinn: He has not had a chance
to get a word in.


George Hamilton Pettit: Shall the resolution carry?


Alan Webster Neill: No; I think in all fairness
the minister should reply to the questions to which he promised an answer six hours ago.


George Gordon: I have no recollection of
promising anything six hours ago.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is the policy of the
government not to remember promises.


George Gordon: What are the questions?
Would the hon. member ask them now?


Alan Webster Neill: I should be happy to do so. One was this: Whereas it has been the policy of the minister's department to pay one-third of the direct relief moneys, the provinces and the cities paying one third each, and in unorganized territories to pay one-half the amount, the province paying the other half, would he adopt the same policy in connection with the land settlement scheme where, in the present instance, covering people leaving a city, the dominion pays $200, the city $200
and the municipality $200, but in cases which are now beginning to be developed, where people not living in towns but in unorganized territories want to go on the land. In such cases would he apply the same principle of the dominion government paying one-half? There is the precedent I have quoted for that procedure, and I am wondering if he could see his way clear to do it.
My second question is: Whereas the Dominion government does come to the rescue of provinces when they are short of money, not only putting up the dominion's third, but also lending the province its third-when they cannot pay their share themselves-so far as British Columbia is concerned, would he adopt the same policy in connection with the land settlement scheme? This afternoon I quoted from a letter from a man in British Columbia living in an unorganized territory who had applied to the British Columbia land settlement scheme committee and had been told that all parties had agreed to the system being applied to unorganized territory but that they had no money to carry out their share. I ask the minister if under the circumstances he could not see his way clear to lend British Columbia its share, the same as he did in connection with direct relief.
While I am on my feet, and so that the minister will be able to cover the whole at once, I would remind him that I suggested this afternoon that the Prime Minister might give us a statement in regard to unemployment insurance, which certainly has a very direct bearing on this subject. As the Prime Minister is not present, perhaps the minister, in whose department it comes, might be able to give us a short statement as to the situation in that regard, having in mind what took place here last November, when we received a definite pledge that the utmost effort would be made to come to an agreement with the provinces. I am quite sure that the house and the country would like to know what the situation is in that regard, and what the prospects are, if any, of an unemployment insurance measure being brought down to this house either at this session or at a future session.


George Gordon: Probably I can deal with both questions at the same time. The policy of the Dominion government with respect to diverting some of the direct relief moneys to non-recoverable advances for settling people from the urban centres on the land, the open spaces of Canada, at no time was thought to be a complete solution for unemployment, as
Relief Act, 1033

I have often heal'd said by those who probably have never followed the subject. It is not sanity to think it. But some people, even in high places, sometimes say that, and then ridicule the government for so pale an effort in connection with unemployment. That was not the situation at all. The situation was simply this; in the fall of 1930 when I was charged with the responsibility of administering the Department of Immigration and Colonization, I could only apply to that department the experience I had had in private life and the observations I had made almost ever since I can remember with respect to what was being done in connection with immigration and colonization in Canada. I have no hesitation in telling hon. members of this house that, rightly or wrongly-I may be quite wrong-I never was in favour of the immigration policies of the past of this country. Others may take a different view-


An hon. MEMBER:: What about your
chief?


George Gordon: -but that always has been my view, and down through the years since I was a very young man I have often asked people who I thought could answer the question: Why did we project two or three transcontinental railways, with their ancillary branch lines and the rest? I am still asking the question and waiting for an answer, particularly in the light of what we are facing to-day and have been for some years past. This question of land settlement and colonization becomes a very important thing to-day, much more important than it has ever been in the history of Canada, for two outstanding reasons. The first is that because of the extension of railroad services in this country in the past by those who were sometimes called pioneers and nation-builders-I would call them something else; I always have-we find ourselves burdened with railroad services sufficient for our needs for probably fifty years to come. I do not think I am exaggerating. What did we do to try to keep up with that expansion? Successive governments since the early years of this century have gone to all lengths to take anybody from anywhere who would come to Canada, in order, I assume, to provide'revenues to pay for those railways. There was no selective immigration. If anyone cares to expand the subject I will meet him at any place at any time and I think I can show the kind of immigration we had. Do not misunderstand me; there are in Canada tens of thousands of splendid people from foreign lands, and they have my sympathy, on this ground if on no other, that by reason 
of the fact that there was no discrimination, no selection, their whole race is damned in the eyes of Canadians because of the extreme actions of a few.
What do we find? On the one hand, if we are ever going to overtake even a part of our railroad debt, we must of necessity have more people in our country. For my own part I would have been immensely happy if we had not had all those railroads. On one occasion the last words of Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin, then Prime Minister of Great Britain, when leaving this country, if I recollect aright, were "Canada, go slow." That is the position that confronts us. That is the position that confronted me in the fall of 1930. Right up to the 28th of July, 1930, there were at least three full trainloads of people a week on the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway, and other trainloads on the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Pacific, going into western Canada-59,000 in the four months prior to July 28, 1930. Those people were not settled on the land. We are feeding them to-day. I will hazard the opinion that we are feeding nine-tenths of them. And in the years before that the immigrants being brought in were not absorbed into agriculture. They were intended to be, but were they? Go to our lumber camps; go to the cities and the industries there, and see where our immigration went. That, combined with the attractions of industrial life, has caused the reversal of the ratio from 18 per cent urban forty-five years ago to 54 per cent urban to-day. That is the reason, or the main reason, for our present disproportionate city population.
Apart altogether from the money spent on soldier settlement and United Kingdom special settlement schemes, this country in its immigration department spent in the eleven years prior to 1930 over 833,000,000. Doing what? Administering the department with respect to people coming into Canada from other lands. It was my considered view in the fall of 1930 that this government had on its hands the job of starting to colonize at home; that if any money was to be devoted to colonization it should be devoted to replacing on the land our own people who had departed from the farms and found themselves without jobs in the cities. That policy was consistently followed, and it is being followed to-day. Almost
100,000	people have been induced, directed, guided and inspired to go back to the farms, under the schemes inaugurated by this government with the very valuable assistance of the provinces and the railway companies. I have heard in this house criticisms of the colonization schemes of the government of the province of Quebec, and while I have

Relief Act, 1933
the utmost respect for the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouldot) I do not think for one moment that he has a sound conception of the earnestness with which the government even in the province of Quebec are pursuing their colonization policy.


Ernest Lapointe: Why "even" in the province of Quebec? Why the word "even"?


George Gordon: If my recollection serves me correctly and my hearing is right, the hon. member for Temiscouata directed his barrage against the province of Quebec.


Ernest Lapointe: But why should the hon. gentleman say "even in the province of Quebec"?


George Gordon: I think I have a fair conception of my French Canadian fellow citizens. During all my business life I have lived with them and I am happy to say that my relationships have always been of the best and I think they will continue to be of the best. I know the former Minister of Justice was in my riding during the last election, he created a very favourable impression, nevertheless his compatriots voted for me.
We are pursuing that policy and we intend to pursue it. I will subscribe to a state-aided colonization plan' only as a last resort. It may be that we will have to do that in order to fill up our vacant places and get our people into some sort of security which will be founded upon a return to something more nearly approaching normal in price levels. I am not unmindful of the situation, but the policy which I have outlined will be pursued.
We have found that we have almost entirely exhausted the number of people who formerly had been on farms. In ninety-nine cases out of one hundred the success of a back to the land movement depends upon getting those who understand farming. There is no use in sending a lawyer out on a farm, although it is said that a lawyer can make a living almost anywhere. One hon. member referred to a newspaper reporter who had gone up to northern Ontario to farm, but that man should never have gone there. He should have gone to Norval school or some such place to take up some farm training, and then gone on a farm. That is not the way we approach this subject. We have committees set up throughout Canada for the purpose of making selections and seeing that family conditions are what they should be. These committees find out if the wives want to go back on the farm, if the men understand the problems to be tackled in going on the land, and such things. We reject many more than we approve, but we finally came to the time
when we had exhausted that class of person who had some money to go back on the land, often times to the old homestead, but who saw his savings dwindling in the city. The landlord had to be paid, taxes, water rates and electric light bills had to be met, and so on. These men were approached with the idea of getting them started without having a burden of debt to bear. Whether or not a man is a farmer, if he starts in a new business with a burden of debt he has to be very fortunate to get rid of that burden and place himself in the clear. I know that from my own business experience.
We went over the situation again with a view to endeavouring to assist people who were in the cities and in receipt of direct relief. We were considering those who were physically able, who had been on farms, who did not want to be upon direct relief and who were willing and ready to go back to farms if they were assisted. This proposition was put up to the provinces. We did not urge or ask them to accept it; we simply said: There are a number of people who will take advantage of this and perhaps it will be helpful in solving the general difficulty. Every person placed upon the land relieves an industrial worker who does not know anything about farming.
The reason for making the contribution three ways was adequately borne out by the subsequent experience. It got noised about that there was $600 of the government money ready for anyone who wanted to come and get it. We were simply swamped; everybody wanted to go and they wanted to start with $600. We did not suppose that that was going to happen, and we took a survey, if you like to call it that, of those who were on relief but who were able to go on the land and earn their own sustenance. We then capitalized what we felt we would have to pay in direct relief and made it a non-recoverable advance under the agreement. The various provinces and the municipalities who were also contributing to direct relief were invited to subscribe one-third each. If we were successful in placing these people permanently upon the land we were not one penny out. We would have had to pay it in direct relief anyway and we were just that much further ahead. That was the underlying principle. If the municipality was not asked to contribute anything it is quite likely that every one on direct relief in the municipality would be passed by the municipality in order to get away from its responsibility, whereas if the municipality has to bear its share of the burden with the chance that the person will become self-sustaining on a farm adjacent to or far away from the muni-

The Budget-Mr. Rhodes

cipality, it benefits in the end by not having to carry that person on direct relief for a longer period than $200 would cover.


Alan Webster Neill: But where there is no municipality.


George Gordon: I do not propose, at this time at least, to recommend that the provinces and municipalities subscribe to placing people who are already out in the open spaces of this country upon the land.


Alan Webster Neill: The dominion and the provinces?


George Gordon: I suppose the hon. member means that the dominion and the province shall share equally in the establishment of some person who is now out in an unorganized part of Canada?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes.


George Gordon: I would not care to embark at the present time upon a policy of that kind.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, March 21, 1933