1933-03-23

Mr. GORDON:: I desire to lay on the table of the bouse orders in council passed pursuant to the Relief Act.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. TOTZKE:: 1.	When was Mr. W. J. McLeod retired as warden of the penitentiary at Prince Albert?
2.	Has any department of government sold an electric refrigerator and an electric range to the said Mr. McLeod; if so, when and at what prices?
3.	Have any other articles of merchandise been sold to the said Mr. McLeod; if so, what articles, when and at what prices?
4.	Is it a general practice of any department of government to sell merchandise to retired employees?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	January 1, 1933.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	On several occasions the government contracts supervision committee has sold -merchandise to retired employees with the distinct understanding that it was for their own use and not for resale.


COMMERCIAL ATTACHE-MEXICO
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Is Mr. Jose Maria Davila accredited or known to the government as commercial attache of the Republic of Mexico?
2.	Is Canada represented in Mexico by any official and under what title?

Questions


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Mr. Jose Maria Davila is not accredited or known to the government as commercial attache of the Republic of Mexico.
2.	Canada is represented in Mexico by the Canadian government trade commissioner and the protection of Canadian interests in Mexico, is, diplomatically, in the hands of the British minister.


MILITIA ACCOUNTS OFFICERS
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	What were the travelling expenses, including transportation by rail and water, of Major E. G. Edwards, district paymaster, M.D. 11, from first of April, 1930, to first of March, 1931?
2.	What were the travelling expenses, including transportation by rail and water, of Mr. J. E. Houghton, district accountant, M.D. 11, from first of April 1932, to first of March, 1933?
3.	Is it customary to have an official who is not a member of the active militia, and who did not have any overseas service to inspect the books of the non-permanent active militia?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	$71.69.
2.	$195.95.
3.	Several district accountants who were appointed by the Civil Service Commission and are employees of the Department of Finance carry out such duties at the direction of district officers commanding.


SOREL, QUEBEC, WHARF
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, on page 2983 of
Hansard of March 14, will ibe found the record of a question addressed to the Minister of Public Works, which reads as follows:
Hon. P. J. A. Cardin (Richelieu): In view of an item I read this morning in the Montreal Gazette, repeating statements made on many occasions by persons connected with the harbour commission of Montreal regarding the port of Sorel, may I ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) if it is true that the government spent $2,000,000 for building the rvharf on which the present privately owned elevator is erected at Sorel, and if in fact that wharf was not in existence many years before the elevator was built?
To which I replied as follows:
As the hon. gentleman gave me no notice of this question I am not prepared to give the answer. I have not the information with me. I suggest it stand as a notice of motion.
I now desire to make a comprehensive statement, which I trust furnishes the information desired by the hon. member.
The construction at Sorel of what is known as the Grand Quai was commenced in 1902. The area involved is 240,000 square feet.
In 1929 improvements were undertaken in this area, including wharf improvements and provision for the construction of a grain elevator. An additional expenditure was then made for elevator foundations on the Grand Quai and for wharfage adjoining the elevator in the Lanctot basin. A fair apportionment of the cost of these improvements chargeable to the elevator would appear to be as follows: Proportion of cost of original
structure 63,000 x $1.13	$	71,190 00
Cost of land occupied (lot 11)
45,675 sq. ft. at 46 cents	 21,010 5C
Cost of land occupied (lot 10)
17,325 sq. ft.	at 30.5 cents.. ..	5,301	45Cost of foundation	
168,724	85
Cost of 225 ft. of improvements

225 x $245	
55,125	00Trackage area	
7,467	20Total	$ 328,819 00
An order in council, P.C. 609 was passed on April 10, 1929, on the recommendation of the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. P. J. A. Cardin) authorizing a lease to the Engineering Projects Limited of Toronto of a_ site for a grain elevator on the following terms and conditions:
(a)	that a twenty-one year lease of the area marked "A" on the plan attached hereto be granted at an annual rental of $6,000. This lease to be renewable for two further like periods at an annual rental of not less than $6,000 to be agreed upon, provided that the government may at the expiration of any- 21 year period acquire the elevator at a price to be determined by arbitration.
(b)	that the applicants be given a five year
option for a	lease	under terms	to	be agreedupon of the	area	marked "B"	on	the plan
attached hereto: and
(c)	that the applicants be given a ten year
option for a	lease	under terms	to	be agreedupon of the	area	marked "C"	on	the plan
attached hereto.
Area "A" comprises 63,000 sq. ft.
Area "B" comprises 57,680 sq. ft., and
Area '"C" comprises 57,680 6q. ft.
This lease was subsequently assigned to the North American Elevators Limited, on April 24, 1929.
The total expenditure for harbour improvements at Sorel since confederation including all construction, dredging and repairs is $2,460,574.42.



REDISTRIBUTION BILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Yesterday in giving
Western Grain Rates

an indication of the business before the house he said:
The redistribution bill will be proceeded with, and I think every reasonable effort is being made to expedite the work of that committee, at least that is my advice in that regard.
As I am advised, the representative of the opposition from the province of Quebec on that committee has not yet received any plan or proposal with regard to the province, in fact no work has been done at all as far as the province of Quebec is concerned. As the committee was appointed in November, and we are to-day on the 23rd of March, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he would not see to it that the work is expedited as far as the province of Quebec is concerned.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will.


Ernest Lapointe: Thank you.



WESTERN GRAIN RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) if he will be kind enough to use his influence to compel or induce the railway companies to put into effect the low rate on grain to British Columbia? The agreement is only for a year, and five weeks have gone, and I get letters from British Columbia dated five days ago to say that the rate is not available to them now.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways) :: The hon. gentleman was good enough to mention this to me this morning, and I made inquiry. I am advised that the rate has been in effect since March 10, and that it is effective until March 9, next year. This statement is given to me by the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Alan Webster Neill: This letter is dated the 18th, and they say they can get no rate.


Robert James Manion: I will make further inquiry.



PENSIONERS IN MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: I
should like to inquire of the government if representations have been received by the Department of Pensions and National Health with regard to alleged conditions of starvation among the underpaid or low rate pensioners in Montreal and with regard to their eviction from their homes. If such representations have been received what action does the government propose to take?
(Mr. Lapointe.]


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: I regret
very much that my hon. friend spoke in such a way that I .could not catch the full effect of what he was saying. I think perhaps the question had better stand until to-anorrow so that I may read it in Hansard, unless the hon. member wishes to repeat his question.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would
prefer to give the minister time to gather ithe facts, so I will allow the question to stand as notice.



VISITING COMMONWEALTH FORCES

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 6, consideration in committee of Bill No. 40, respecting visiting forces of His Majesty, and the exercise of command, discipline and attachments of commonwealth forces when serving together-Mr. Bennett-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, this bill
was partly proceeded with at the last sitting, during which the right hon. leader of the opposition raised certain questions which I indicated I would investigate in order to be in a position to answer at the next sitting. I have discussed these questions with the legal adviser of the Department of External Affairs in the interval. The only copy of the British bill in our possession is the one in the files, which I will now hand to the right hon. gentleman so that he may look it over. My information is that this bill has been passed, and that a bill in similar terms has been passed in South Africa as well. I observe from the debates in the British house that Sir Boyd Merriman, solicitor general, declined to make certain changes suggested because he said the bill had been agreed upon and had been enacted already in South Africa. In the House of Lords certain objections were taken as to the effect of the legislation being to deprive the British courts of jurisdiction which they had always asserted, but the House of Lords did not feel disposed to make the amendment suggested, and dt stands in the form in which it appears in this bill.
I think the observations made by the right hon. gentleman the other day as to the preamble are not wholly without some merit, and in order that there may be no misapprehension I propose to move in amendment that the title be struck out and that the title of the bill be:
An act to make provision with respect to forces of His Majesty from other parts of the British commonwealth or from a colony when visiting the Dominion of Canada; and with respect to the exercise of command and

Visiting Commonwealth Forces
discipline when forces of His Majesty from different parts of the commonwealth are serving together; and with respect to the attachment of members of one such force to another such force, and with respect to deserters from such forces.
I propose that this be made the long title of the bill, there being a short title within the statute itself, and that the preamble be eliminated.


Ernest Lapointe: What will be the short
title?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The short title is contained in section 1 of the bill; The Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, 1933. I think that meets the difficulty in that regard. Perhaps I might refer to the objections which were taken before we go on to consider them in detail. I think the objection taken as to the minister being the authority to take action is well founded; I believe that in a country such as this it is desirable that the governor in council rather than the minister should assume the responsibility, so I propose to move an amendment in that sense to the various sections of t'he bill in which the word occurs. Of course the next amendment that would take place would insert the words "His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada enacts as follows:"
Mr. LAPOINTE; I am sorry I was not here when the matter was discussed previously, but would the Prime Minister say whether there is any change in the situation as it previously existed except that instead of being governed by an Imperial statute the matter will be dealt with by a Canadian statute? Will it be the same thing in effect as a result of this legislation or are there changes in the situation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are a few minor
changes, with respect to visiting forces, dealing with points that were not adequately covered by any existing legislation, but the general principles of discipline, which as the hon. gentleman knows the provisions of the Army Act extended to every part of the empire, are adopted. This bill makes no change except that it makes clear beyond peradventure that the courts of this country would be the courts to which application for habeas corpus would be made in the event of any action being taken in consequence of a military decision. That position was challenged in the House of Lords, as I have said, and a discussion took place between Lord Hailsham, Lord Buckmaster and others, but in the end the section stood in the form in which it now appears.
There is one other matter to which I think attention should be directed. It was thought by the right hon. leader of the opposition the other day that possibly the last section effected some change in existing conditions. That is not intended, and I think in fact no change has been made. It became clear that the provisions of the act of 1911, which was passed by the Imperial parliament after the 1911 conference in connection with the government of naval forces, extended to every part of the empire, but of course it is competent for the parliament of any dominion to enact its own code. Until that is done, however, this act saves that power and makes it clear that there is no interference with the provisions of the statute as it stands.
I think those were the points to which attention was directed, and I would make the motion as to the cutting out of the preamble and making it part of the title of the bill, rather than an operative part of the act.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hanson, York-Sun-bury):: I would direct the right hon. gentleman's attention to rule 76, which provides that any change in the title of a bill must be taken up last.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know, but this merely substitutes the preamble for the title.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING; I cannot see just what difference the change is going to make in,the actual effect of the bill. It seems to me that all the Prime Minister is doing is to give the bill the preamble as a name, and strike out the preamble.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is all.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: So that we are really not changing the provisions in any particular.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the effect is considerable.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I want to make it clear that as to the actual provisions of the bill they will not be affected one way or the other.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister has indicated that he thinks it would be advisable to substitute "the governor in council" for "the Minister of Defence" with respect to certain powers given particularly, I believe, under section 6 of the bill. As I previously said, I believe that is a desirable change and I am glad the Prime Minister is of that view.

Visiting Commonwealth Forces


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is subsection 2 of section 6.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. May I return now to the point I raised at the outset, which in effect was this. I gathered at the time the bill was introduced that the Prime Minister was of the opinion that it related solely to forces from other parts of the empire visiting Canada, and what should be done with respect to command and control while they were here. I pointed out at the time that I believed the bill went further and that it had relation as well to forces from Canada which might be in Great Britain and might be sought for service together with the forces of Great Britain or those of other parts of the empire, at a time of war; in other words, that the measure was a war as well as a peace measure. I still entertain that view. The difference at the moment is that whereas under the act as it now reads the Minister of National Defence in Canada would have power to place certain forces under a single command in Great Britain, if he so desired, that power, when the Prime Minister's amendment is accepted, will reside in the governor in council. I still think there is some slight risk being run in leaving that power even with the governor in council unless it is very clearly understood that the policy with respect to having forces of Canada serve abroad will be that they shall be placed for service abrpad only after this parliament has sanctioned their going abroad for the purpose of service. There is nothing in the law as it stands to-day which says that parliament must be convened in the first instance, but I think the Prime Minister made it clear that so far as he is concerned he would feel that parliament should be called in the first instance. There is nothing in this legislation, however, to necessitate that.
May I point out by way of a concrete instance exactly what I have in mind. In 1922 the government of this country was asked by the British government whether we would send a contingent to participate with the British forces in the near east in an effort to withstand aggression of the Turks upon Europe. The Liberal government of the day took the view that parliament should be called in the first instance and that its consent would have to be obtained before any forces should be permitted to go abroad to serve in conjunction with other military forces. We were criticized in some quarters for taking that view. We were told that instead of replying that parliament should be called in

the first instance and give its consent, we should have said "Ready, aye, ready" and placed our forces immediately at the disposition of the British government along with other British forces. If that "Ready, aye, ready" view were accepted there would be power under the legislation we are now enacting for the governor in council to place Canadian forces at the disposition of His Majesty's government in Great Britain and under a single command in Great Britain before the parliament of Canada might have any say in the matter at all.
That is the feature which I wished if possible to guard against, and to guard against in this legislation. There is apparently no difference of view between the Prime Minister and myself as to the desirability of calling parliament in the first instance, but I think it would strengthen the position with relation to subsequent parliaments if we made quite clear that parliament itself should decide in the first instance upon the disposition of Canadian forces, where that involves their being placed under single command for service in other parts of the empire or of the world.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I asked the legal adviser of the Department of External Affairs, without reference to myself, to prepare a statement of what he conceived to be the correct position of the matter from the point of view of a lawyer, after he had looked through the discussion at the last sitting, and perhaps the right hon. gentleman will let me read these words:
Mr. King was evidently under the impression that this clause enabled the Minister of National Defence to send a detachment from Canada in case of war. without the authority either of council or of parliament. The object of the clause is solely to make possible the interchange of officers and other ranks that has been the practice for many years. Legally, it would not authorize the sending of a detachment, and it would not authorize the sending of individuals to become a detachment or unit after they had gone to the other part of the commonwealth. The object of the clause, together with the following subsection is to enable an officer from the United Kingdom, when on temporary service in Canada, to carry on his duties. Without this section, it would be necessary to recommission him; otherwise, if he gave an order to a subordinate officer or other rank, there -would be no legal obligation to obey the order.
It is quite clear that you would have to send a number of individuals, sufficient to constitute a detachment to be attached to the force abroad, to meet the case which the right hon. gentleman suggests. This statute is prepared for one purpose -and one purpose only; that is, to enable individuals that are

Visiting Commonwealth Forces
attached to the forces of the United Kingdom or of one of the other dominions to be properly governed without being re-commissioned. That was the understanding I had of the matter, but I felt there might be some doubt and I asked for a memorandum. I make this statement to the right hon. gentleman as frankly as possible because the legal adviser was of the opinion that it would not be possible for them to become a detachment after they had gone. He says:
It would not authorize the sending of individuals to become a detachment or unit after they had gone to the other part of the commonwealth.
Further, he makes this statement:
In one sense it is true to say that the provision would govern war conditions. When forces are cooperating in time of war, it is necessary to make temporary attachments occasionally. For example, I remember when I was serving in France, an English officer was attached for instructional purposes to our battery. Without such a provision, it would be legally impossible for an officer in his position to carry on during his temporary period of attachment.
I think that is reasonably clear. If the statute were one not agreed upon there might be some reason why the language might be clarified, were there any doubt about it. But I put this to the right hon. gentleman. It is quite clear that under no circumstances, as the law now stands, could we dispatch from this country any substantial number of men if we desired to do so because, as I have said, the statute now calls for parliament to meet in fifteen days after the country is at war, and I certainly agree that it would be impossible to send from this country any substantial number of troops under the appropriations as we now have them, without a governor general's warrant; and I cannot conceive of a government asking for a warrant and calling parliament together, as it must, within fifteen days from the date of hostilities or declaration of war. So that I do not think there is the slightest danger of any difficulty arising from the passing of this statute or in connection with its provisions. But in view of our commitments in 1929, followed by the resolutions of 1930 and the agreement arrived at with respect to the statute in the present form, I can only say that in my opinion we are in honour bound to enact the measure as they have done in South Africa and the United Kingdom. If there is the slightest likelihood of any difficulty, such as that to which the right hon. genleman has alluded, we can take the appropriate steps to provide against it. I would hesitate to accept the responsibility of making any substantial amendment to what has been agreed upon.
The reasons are so apparent that it is almost unnecessary to state them. Sir Boyd Merri-man made it clear in the British House of Commons that he could not take the responsibility of making an amendment to what had been agreed upon and enacted by one of the commonwealth parliaments, namely, that of South Africa. I regret that there is not a copy of the South African bill available. The only bill I have is the one I have just handed to the right hon. gentleman which is similar in terms, subject to the changes which had to be made as compared with the provisions governing the United Kingdom.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What the
Prime Minister has said serves to meet ir large part what I have in mind. I have nc desire to embarrass the administration with respect to any obligation they may have with any other government of the empire, but I do want to safeguard against any unforeseen contingency which may arise sometime hence.
I have in mind the Chanak incident which arose in 1922 when New Zealand and Australia were asked if they would place their naval sendees at the disposition of the empire in the near east. Before we in Canada even received the invitation from the government of Great Britain to participate in that particular matter, it was announced that the governments of New Zealand and Australia, either or both, I don't remember which, had placed their naval services at the disposition of the British government. Had we agreed to do the same, who can say what might have resulted? Canada's action steadied the situation. My feeling is that under this legislation power will be vested in the governor in council to place, for example, our naval services at the disposition of the British government and that for sometime before parliament can meet. It might well be that a regiment such as the Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry could be dispatched and sent overseas to be placed under a single command in Britain or in some other part of the empire before parliament could meet. From what the Prime Minister has said and from the legal opinion he has quoted, I know that such is not the object of this legislation, but nevertheless, this statute might provide the means whereby at some future time in a moment of excitement an object of that kind could be served. Having brought out this point, and having received such an emphatic and clear declaration from the Prime Minister as to the purpose of the bill, I need, perhaps, not say anything further.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of the observations made by the right hon. gentleman,
Visiting Commonwealth Forces

perhaps it might be desirable after the enactment of this legislation that I should communicate through the appropriate channels with the authorities in the other commonwealths and suggest that we desire to add to our bill at another session the following words:
Nothing in this bill contained shall be taken or construed as authorizing the dispatch of any forces from Canada in time of war otherwise than is provided by the laws of the dominion.
If the hon. gentleman thinks it desirable, I shall be glad to take up the matter with the proper authorities.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it would be most proper if the right hon. gentleman would do that and though it would not alter the provisions of the act, having in mind what he has said apart therefrom, I thank him for making the suggestion. I am sure it will meet with approval from all sides.


Olof Hanson: I desire to call the attention of the
committee to the fact that sections 1, 3, 4, 5 and / have been passed. We are now on section 2.
On section 2-Definitions.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: I would direct the attention of the Prime Minister to the words ' order in council" which appears in his bill. This is more or less of a military bill and I think the words "general order" should be used. In every other bill of a military character the words "general order" are used instead of "order in council," both having the same force.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I quite appreciate the
point raised by the hon. gentleman but this is a civilian bill. The governor in council, that is, the government of the day, is the authority and the bill refers to a civil order in council and not a general order by the military arm of government. While I am on my feet I think I should say to the right hon. gentleman that the rules of government with respect to naval and military forces are entirely different. He will recall the provisions of the Imperial statute of 1911 which, until we have formulated our own regulations, . makes entirely different the government of the naval and military arms.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Application of section.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to move
that subsection 2 of section 6 be amended by striking out all the words after the word "the" in the first line of the subsection and sub-
stituting therefor the words "governor in council."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to move
that subsection 5 of section 6 be amended by striking out the words "Minister of National Defence" in the fourth line of the subsection and substituting therefor the words "governor in council."


Eugène Fiset: That is the paragraph I had in mind. I think the words "general order" should appear instead of "order in council."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under this section we
are taking power away from the Minister of National Defence and putting it in the hands of the governor in council.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Do the words "may be prescribed by regulations made by His Majesty" mean His Majesty as advised by the government of Great Britain, by the government of Canada or by the government in the part' of the empire in which the forces may be?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That means His Majesty's government in the dominion that may be affected. I felt fairly certain about it the other evening, but I consulted the authorities and it seems to be quite clear. Perhaps I will state it again: As His Majesty's advisers in several dominions are affected, they must agree in order that any action may be taken. Hence it is not His Majesty in Canada or in Australia, but His Majesty who is common sovereign of all the commonwealths affected.
Section as amended agreed to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 8 has not yet been passed.
On section 8-Saving for other enactments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the meaning of the words:
Shall be deemed to be in addition to and not in derogation of such of the provisions of any act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The other day I endeavoured to explain that the statute of 1911 passed by the Imperial parliament, which was a statute with respect to the navies of all the commonwealths, agreed to after the Imperial conference of that year, lays down certain rules for the government of those navies. This measure may be taken to modify to some extent that statute and the rules under it, so that it is to be taken in addition to

Reliej Act, 1933-Mr. Mackenzie King
that statute and not in derogation of anything therein contained, that is contained in the act of 1911.
With respect to the point raised by the hon. member for Rimouski, I desire to point out that the memorandum which I secured from the legal advisers of the department, and which is in accordance with my view with respect to the matter, reads as follows:
Willi regard to the suggestion concerning the use of the term "His Majesty" in clause (b) and in subsection (5), it is necessary to point out that, as a result of the resolutions of the Imperial conference in 1926, His Majesty will not act in a matter that concerns Canada, without the advice of his Canadian ministers. This matter concerns two or more parts of the British Empire, and the section compels the cooperating governments to agree in the advice given to the crown for the purpose of appointing the commander.
Therefore it is His Majesty as the common sovereign of all.
Sir EUGENE FI3ET: The only reason I called attention to the matter is that the Prime Minister has used those words at the end of section 2, paragraph (h):	" His
Majesty's government in Canada."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course it is His
Majesty's government in Canada in that instance, but in the other it is the co-ordinating governments that are concerned; that is the government of the country to which the visitors came as well as the government of the country from which they had gone. His Majesty must act with the united advice of his advisers from both countries, so that you have a double check as to the question of there being unanimity of opinion as to any action that thus may be taken.


Eugène Fiset: I thought it was an error.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be necessary to revert to the preamble.


Olof Hanson: There is an amendment that the bill be amended by striking out the long title thereof and substituting therefor the part which is the preamble to the present bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reason that was done was rather because of the suggestion made by the right hon. gentleman opposite. His colleague sitting beside him will at once inform him that as a matter of law there is a difference between putting certain words into the title and having them in the preamble of the bill. We are taking them out of the preamble,
lest they be taken to have some force of enactment, and making them part of the title of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is the further amendment by striking out the words of the preamble of the said bill and substituting therefor the following:
His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, enacts as follows:


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Preamble as amended agreed to.
Bill as amended reported.
Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall said bill be read the third time?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not expect to have to object in any way to the third reading, but I should like before third reading to look over this British act.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Next sitting of the house.



EXCHEQUER COURT ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the third reading of Bill No. 44, to amend the Exchequer Court Act (exclusive jurisdiction).
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W.A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 55, respecting relief measures. '
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the house has discussed the provisions of this measure at such length on the resolution that preceded it that I shall not take up more than a few minutes in restating our position with respect to the principle involved as we are considering it on the second reading. In a word1, we are opposed to the measure now before us because in our opinion it is the negation of government by parliament. It is that in its two outstanding particulars. In the first place, it gives to the administration a blank cheque, the right to draw out of the consolidated fund of Canada unlimited amounts of money for any purpose whatever so long as the purpose may be said to be that of assisting in the relief of unemployment. As to how widely that power may be used, we

Relief Act, 1933-Mr. Mackenzie King
had evidence yesterday after the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) in listening to the interpretation placed by the administration upon the provisions of this bill in reference thereto. In introducing his budget, the Minister of Finance stated that there was to be created a stabilization fund in connection with certain agricultural products. It really is in the nature of a provision to subsidize the export of certain commodities from Canada to Great Britain. One would have felt that if such were the policy of the administration, the government, proceeding in the regular manner, would have brought in a bill for that purpose and made provision therefor, but we were told that the provision for that particular purpose was to be found in mone3rs that were being voted for purposes of unemployment relief. That certainly is not in accordance with parliamentary practice, nor is it constitutionally right. I do not see how we can approve the principle of a measure which permits a government to go that length. If a step of that kind can be taken with respect to subsidies, in matters of trade, it can be taken for almost any purpose for which the government may wish to use it. It will be seen that in such cases there is no control by parliament in any way over expenditure.
It has been shown also that when the government had this power before, it placed orders for a million and some odd dollars worth of railway ties which were not required by -the railways, and that this amount was charged up to the relief of the unemployed, although as a matter of fact the unemployed came in for a very small proportion of the money spent in that way. To give to the government that unlimited* power jn the use of public moneys is simply to help create debts which it will take years and years for this country to meet. I think people have discovered by the proposals brought down in yesterday's budget that they are going to have to pay pretty heavily for expenditures being made at this time. The increased taxes are going to hit the average citizen throughout Canada fairly hard. That is something which the people at the moment are feeling very keenly. But they should realize that every time this parliament parts with its control over expenditures and gives the government the right to draw whatever moneys it pleases out of the exchequer on blanket authority, they are only helping to place a greater burden upon themselves with respect to taxation. In our desire to limit taxation as much as possible, we feel that we should very strongly maintain the control which ordinary parliamentary procedure would 
demand in these matters, and oppose whatever destroys that control.
In saying what I do may I again make perfectly clear that we on this side are prepared, as we have been all along, to vote for purposes of unemployment relief whatever moneys the ministry may decide to be necessary, so long as those amounts are named, their purposes specified and some substantial reason for what is proposed given to the house. So our objection to the second reading is in no way based on a desire not to do all that may be possible to cooperate with the government in a regular manner in providing what funds may be necessary for unemployment relief.
Our second objection to the measure, and it is one that has arisen since the resolution was originally introduced, comes out of the amendment made when the resolution was before the house in committee, the amendment giving to the government of the day power by order in council to legislate with respect to peace, order and good government. As has been stated over and over again, an authority as broad as that enables the government to legislate simply by act of the governor in council on almost anything at all upon which it may wish to legislate. When the British North America Act was passed, the power to legislate was placed not in the executive nor in the judiciary, but in parliament as represented1 by this House of Commons and the Senate and His Majesty's representative in this country, and we cannot for one minute countenance the transference of that power from parliament to the governor in council as is proposed to be done under this measure.
May I add that, in the light of the discussion that has taken place on the measure, there is a further reason why we should not countenance it. It has been stated from this side, and I think hon. members of the house as a whole believe, that the government has under the statutes as they exist to-day all the power that it needs to deal with any situation that may arise. The provisions in this bill itself are very broad. They give to the government all the power that is needed certainly to deal wuth any questions of unemployment; they give all the power that is necessary to deal with any emergency in the nature of a financial crisis or panic, or even an insurrection, and that being so we see no reason why the government should seek this further authority of the right to enact notwithstanding all existing legislation, whatever measures it pleases by order in council so long as that legislation may be designated

Relief Act, 1933-Division
as coming under the heading of peace, order and good government.
Objecting to the measure on both those scores, the blank cheque, on the one hand, and the blanket authority to legislate, on the other, we feel that this measure, as I have said, is the negation of government by parliament, and as such we are strongly opposed to the second reading of the bill.


Mr. SMOKE:: 1 was paired with the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Cayley). Had I voted, I would have voted for the second reading.


Mr. SHORT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan). Had I voted, I would have voted for the second reading.


Mr. GAGNON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger). Had I voted, I would have voted for the second reading.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor). Had J voted, I would have voted for the second reading.


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted, I would have voted for the second reading.


Mr. SPOTTON:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn). Had I voted, I would have voted for the second reading.


Mr. ROWE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). Had I voted, I would have voted for the second reading. ,


Mr. EMBURY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell). Had I voted, I would have voted for the second reading.


Mr. PETTIT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard). Had I voted, I would have voted for the second reading.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I was paired with the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan). Had I voted, I would have voted against the second reading.


Mr. MARCIL:: I was paired with the hon. member /or Argenteuil (Sir George Perley). Had I voted, I would have voted against the second reading.


Mr. HOWARD:: I was paired with ,the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Cassel-man). Had I voted, I would have voted against the second reading.


Mr. PERRAS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Had I voted, I would have voted against the second reading.


Mr. BRASSET:: I was paired with the /ion. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted, I would have voted against the second reading.	,


Mr. JEAN:: I was,paired with the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Thompson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the second reading.


Olof Hanson: I was paired with the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Bowman).
Had I voted, I would have voted against the second reading.


Mr. THAUVETTE (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Matane (Mr. Larue). Had I voted, I would have voted against the second reading.


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Bertbier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette). Had I voted, I would have voted against the second reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. POULIOT:: The hon. Minister of
Labour (Mr. Gordon) professed to be surprised the other day about certain facts that I submitted to the house. I quoted opinions expressed by His Excellency Monseigneur Ross, Bishop of Gaspe, by His Excellency Monseigneur Lapointe, honorary vicar-general of Chicoutimi, and by leaders of the church and state. What I said was what has also been said by many people. They were humble suggestions offered to the house and to the country with regard to colonization. The hon. gentleman told me that I had made an impeachment against my own province, the province of Quebec, which I love, and my hon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) asked me for more details. I have given ample notice and warning of what I intend to do. I did so on March 2 when I spoke of generalities. I did so last Monday, going a little more thoroughly into the matter, but to-day at the request of the Minister of Labour and my hon. friend from Bellechasse I will give more precise details. I will ask my hon. friend the Minister of Labour to listen to what I am going to say, and I am very sorry that the hon. Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mac-Laren) is not in the house at the present time. I will tell you something about la Riviere Solitaire-and mark you, Mr. Chairman, I am not speaking against my own province, I am speaking on behalf of my own province and on behalf of my own fellow citizens who are there in the midst of the wilderness and whom 1 wish to defend in this house. I do not oare about the insinu-

Reliej Act, 1933
ations that may be made against me concerning it by any one in this house.
This week there appeared in Le Devoir, of Montreal, an article signed by Mr. Rioux, the president of the Catholic Union of Farmers of the province of Quebec, mentioning the fact that the Riviere Solitaire is twenty miles from the railway. And may I take this opportunity to thank the press of my country, and all the dailies and weeklies, especially the great and well-known daily of Montreal, La Presse, which published an excellent three column report of my speech of Monday last. The attention of the public should be drawn to a subject which is of the utmost importance for all this country. My hon. friend the Minister of Labour should know more about Riviere Solitaire because it is hundreds of miles from Riviere du Loup but only about eighty miles northeast of Haileybury. It is on the Perrault highway, a good road in the summer time but in winter time inaccessible. Since September last 2,800 settlers, I mean men, women and children, have been living there. Some have settled along the highways; others are some distance from the highways with no roads leading to their camps. They must travel over stumps and through the trees and bush, and many of those people have no means of locomotion. They receive $600 in all, $200 from the federal government, $200 from the provincial government and $200 from the municipality. In most cases that amount has been nearly all spent for travelling expenses and for the construction of camps and so on; almost nothing is left now. These people are wondering how they are to live when this $600 is all gone.
These families are about twenty miles from Rouyn. In that town there are some doctors who are employed by the mining companies, but in this settlement there is no doctor and only one nurse, a young woman. She is full of heroism and devotion to the people; she looks after them as best she can in that vast area. It is very hard there for a young woman; in the winter time she has to travel in a covered wagon in which there is a stove, and she must go many miles in order to help those who are in need. There has been an epidemic of itch. The heads of those families in the main are young people of from twenty-five to forty, and there is the question of children. I believe some sixty or eighty babies are expected by the middle of April, and who is to take care of them? No doctor from Rouyn can go there, so it all depends on one young girl. I am sorry to see that the minister is laughing. I am not laughing at all; I am very serious. The minister has
a good heart; he knows that I am not making these remarks for any personal reason. I am interested in the health and welfare of these people. This settlement is not far from where the minister lives, and he can verify what I say.
These families are away in the midst of a wilderness, and I say it would have been much more sensible if they had been placed on the farms which are for sale in the old parishes. In the second place I submit that a medical attendant should be sent there at once. If a man takes the risk of a long aeroplane journey and loses his way the papers are full of it and no government refuses to spend hundreds and perhaps thousands of dollars to search for him. Only one human life is concerned in that case, but here we are considering hundreds of human lives that are endangered. Those camps are surrounded now by snow and in the spring there will be slush and mud, and these people will not be able to leave the camps. The melting snow and ice and mud surrounding them will be a source of contamination and disease, and when that has dried up they will be exposed to forest fires. If there should be a fire after the snow goes, those men, women and children would all be burned to death just as those poor girls were burned in Hull some days ago. I do not wish to cast any slur upon anyone; I am discussing this matter because I want someone to go at once to the rescue of those people. They are entitled to medical attention. Certainly if the Minister of Labour has listened to my remarks, if the Minister of Health reads Hansard to-morrow and if the Minister of Colonization of Quebec sees what I have said they must agree that a government that can spend so much money to look after those who take the risk of long aeroplane trips can afford to spend a tew hundred dollars each month in order that these people may receive the medical attention and care to which they are entitled. I say it is a mistake that this has not been done. If the work had been in charge of a private organization that organization would have provided a doctor to look after that large number of people. That is done by the lumber companies, who employ only men, but here we have a situation much more serious because it involves women and children as well. I think it is time something was done in this regard. I hope the minister will take what I have said into consideration and that he will not dare suggest that my remarks in this house on behalf of my own people are an impeachment against my own province.
Relief Act, 1933


George Gordon: I am sure the committee now understands that the administration and the selection of the locations where these colonists are settled is entirely under the control of the province. There is a committee upon which the Canadian National Railways, in the section to which reference has been made, is represented by Mr. Laforce, who acts under Doctor W. J. Black. I do know very well the section of country to which the hon. member for Temiscouata has made reference; I do not say this by way of complaint, but I am sure the hon. member has never been anywhere near that district or he could not have made the statements he has made.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would say that I know
it better than the minister does.


George Gordon: Perhaps so, but my hon.
friend would have to know it very well indeed. In order that the observations of the hon. member for Temiscouata may not go abroad unchallenged and bring about fears and anxieties which I do not think should result from the efforts that have been made I must take the time of the committee to read the report made by Mr. Laforce on this very locality to which reference has been made. I will hurry through this report as rapidly as possible. It is directed to Doctor W. J. Black, Canadian National Railways, Montreal, under date of March 10, 1933, and is as follows:
As requested, I am giving you a summary report of the activities of the back to the land movement in the province of Quebec during the year 1932. During the year 523 families were accepted by the committee, and have been established mostly in Temiskaming and Abitibi listricts. The selection of these families was eonducted with as much care as was possible. After interviewing the future settlers, recommendations were requested from parish priests, religious ministers, aldermen of the wards in which the settlers resided, and from charitable institutions or associations which were assisting them.	'
This information was then submitted to the municipal council and afterwards to the back to the land committee. A few errors may have been made, but very few.
Each group of settlers was accompanied in order that they might not meet with difficulty. The family heads-
Rememlber tlhat the heads of families, the fathers, preceded the women and children.
-who went to Abitibi, for example, upon reaching Amos-
Amos is on the Canadian National Railways in Quebec.
-were received by Mr. V. Villeneuve, escorted to an "accommodation house" where they spent the night, and the following morning were conducted to the settlement where they chose their lots. Generally about two days after their
[Mr. It nil lot. j
arrival they were starting to build a temporary shelter which permitted them to remain on the lots whilst putting up their camp. These camps were mostly budt of logs, squared inside.
To hon. gentlemen who have no experience of pioneer colonization in this part of northern Canada I may explain that a house of logs is the first bouse which the settler invariably builds where timber is so plentiful.
It was understood that the floors were to be made of planed planks, tongued and grooved. The house was te be fitted with windows in order that it may be well lighted, and was to be one and one-half stories high, with room in the top part. The necessary lumber for floors and roof was brought to a central place where a general store also was put up, the operation of which is under the effective supervision of the government.
That is the Quebec government.
After the houses or camps were constructed, and then only, the families left for their new homes. Special cars (colonists) were placed at the disposal of these families. These cars were well ventilated, and all precautions were taken to see that the families met with the least possible difficulties. Each group was accompanied. On their arrival in Abitibi the families would get off the Canadian National Railway train and get on another train made of small houses on sleighs which were drawn by a tractor. Eighty persons could sit in two of these houses and be comfortable. On a third sleigh was the baggage, and then this new train left for the colony. These houses on sleighs were well lighted, supplied with fresh water, hammocks had been set up to permit the babies to sleep, and even a toilet room had been fitted out.
As you see the persons were treated with care. Land of the highest quality was selected for them in districts where the clearing is rather easy, not far from the railroad; another advantage offered in the districts where settlers were established in Abitibi is their proximity to the mining centres. The demands from these enterprises will supply the settlers w-ith a ready market for all they are able to grow.
One of the factors that contributed most to the success of the back to the land movement in Quebec in 1932 was that in each of the colonies a minister of the religion actively occupied himself to assist the settlers, to encourage them, and direct them.
To demonstrate how well satisfied the settlers are, permit me to give you below extracts from some of the letters we have received from new settlers of the district.
Perhaps it is unwise to give the names of these people settled on these lands, but I presume that those who write these letters would not object. I may add that these people are settled in communities and not scattered here and there through the wilderness.
Mr. Joseph Pichette, for example, who has selected a lot in the Villemontel township, writing to his brother, states:	"If X have
delayed writing to you it is because we have had much work to do. We have built our

Relief Act, 1933
camp, and everything goes well. I have a very nice piece of land, good soil, easy to clear. I am happy and satisfied with my lot, and so are the others."
Mrs. Paquin (a widow) writes to her daughter in the following terms: "Here everything goes smoothly. We are 'well treated, but we must take care not to squander, and work with intelligence. We cannot ask for anything better. Those who are criticizing would like us to be treated as though we were rich, and doing nothing. We have everything we need."
Another, Mr. Wilfrid Richard, who settled at LaMotte, writes us as follows: "I assure you that we are happy. My camp is 24 x 25 inside, with 7 rooms, li storeys high. While I am writing you my son is making a cupboard. We have put up a little stable 12 feet square, temporarily for this winter. My son in law, Raoul Robidoux (another back to the lander) is living with us. He is well satisfied and much encouraged."
Mr. Ephrem Larivieres, located in the Ville-montel township, states: "I have a very fine lot and am satisfied with my present situation. We have been well treated and those who, through newspapers or elsewhere are complaining. are wrong." He adds: "They are shamelessly lying."
Mrs. Jean Gaumont, of Villemontel. writing to a relative, expresses herself as follows: "I am very happy. I have made a beautiful trip; we made a joyous voyage, and still more happy to be here. You should see how nice it is. My husband has a good lot. He has put up a log camp, the joints of which have been packed with straw and moss.
That is the usual method of ehinking-up a log cabin.
These things are so new to me that I spend my time laughing. I like it so much that I would not return to Montreal."
Mr. Joseph Bellemare. who in the name of a group of fourteen families who have selected the district of Authier to establish themselves, writes to us under date of December 28, stating: "I wish to thank you most sincerely in my own name and that of the group, for sending us to such a good country."
Another settler of Villemontel, Mr. Joseph Dulude, writes:	"I have had all the time
necessity to look over the district and take information. From my little inquest I have come to the conclusion that in my case, and the experience I have with things of the land, being a farmer's son, I have every reason to believe that here I will succeed."
Mr. Joseph Lamothe, on January 29, writes: "I am writing these few words to let you know how we are, as well as my father in law, Mr. Ed. MeCrea (another back to the lander). I want to tell you that we are all very satisfied to be in Abitibi. . . ."
Mr. Joseph Lambert, on December 12, wrote the following: "Just a few lines to let you know we are getting settled in our new home fine, with which my wife and I are very much satisfied. Both my wife and I sincerely thank you for your trouble in getting us settled on a good farm on the highway, which we believe in a few years will mean good to us."
From the same place, Mr. Euge Therrien, veteran, writes:	"To my knowledge all the
settlers in the double range VI-VII are in perfect health and everyone has completed his 53719-210
camp, and to my information are all well satisfied with their lots, and as to myself I thank you gratefully."
Mr. Joseph Gingras writes: "We are very happy to be here, nobody is lonesome, and I can assure you, as far as I am concerned, it is the best move I have made in coming here. I have a very nice lot, half made, fire burnt everything.
He means the bush fires.
I have about twenty-five acres cleared around my camp, ready for seeding in the spring. I built a good camp. We call it a camp, but it is more like a house. I built 25 feet long by 22 feet wide, with a pointed roof, which makes two storeys. I made four rooms upstairs and two downstairs. We are better lodged than we were in Montreal. I dug a cellar, deep enough to walk in. I am two miles from the general store, it is not far, and when the church is constructed it will be near there. The road to the mines also passes that point. I am very confident that within a short while, without being very rich, we will be in a position to live without anxiety for the future."
Mr. Auguste Barbotin on the 18th of January writes: "We are all well satisfied with being here. We have had our first mission service this morning in front of my camp. It was very impressing." This Mr. Barbotin also wrote to the Travellers' Association, expressing his satisfaction, which letter waa published in the newspaper "Le Devoir."
From another district where families were established, Belcourt, Mr. Ferdinand Lupien declares, in a letter, that he is much pleased with his present situation. Other settlers from the same district also wrote to us thanking us for what we did for them.
Mr. A. Gagnon, from Uniacke, wrote us on the. 18th of January: "I left Montreal on the 3rd of October to come to Uniacke to establish myself on a colonization lot as settler, and with the idea of remaining here. I cannot let this occasion go by that presents itself to me to-day without taking advantage of it, and from the bottom of my heart offer you my sincere thanks, feeling that if I am here to-day I must be thankful to you. . .
Mr. Joseph Camirand, of Villemontel also, wrote to the St. Vincent de Paul Society to thank them, in which letter he says: ". . . have arrived safely and have put up my camp. I am very much satisfied with my lot and hope it will never' be necessary for me to go back to the city of Montreal."
Everyone of these persons left during last fall to settle in Abitibi and declare they are satisfied, not only with the manner in which they have been treated by the C.N.R., but also of the way in which they have been treated since settlement, because they have been given first class land, and care was taken for their establishment in a good district.
J. E. Laforce,
General Agent.
These reports are indicative of those we have received from the committee and the other agencies which are working, not to solve unemployment but to offer an opportunity to people who are ready, willing and able to place themselves or be placed in a position where they may be self-sustaining.
r.EVISFD EDITION
Relief Act, 1933

Hon. members will recall that not so many years ago Mr. David Lloyd George stated that the land was not playing the part it should at that time, and not so many days ago the President of the United States made reference to the same thing. I feel sure that the hon. member for Temiscouata has not made the investigation he should of the work carried on under the joint auspices of the agencies to which I have referred. I do not charge him for one moment with making statements which he knows are not founded upon fact but I feel sure that he has obtained his information from sources which might be almost looked upon with anxiety.


Jean-François Pouliot: The letters which the minister read came mostly from people on the double range, those who have settled on highways. But the case is entirely different with those who have been placed away in the wilderness. I notice that most of the letters read were written just after these people had left the Canadian National agents.


George Gordon: The letters were written in January and February of this year and the people writing them had been upon the land since last fall.


Jean-François Pouliot: How many letters did the minister read?


George Gordon: I should say I read twenty.


Jean-François Pouliot: Were those letters written by people upon the highways, the double range, or by those who have settled in the midst of the forest?


George Gordon: The descriptions they gave of their locations would indicate that they are from both sections. Being twenty miles from a railway is not an impossible situation for a settler. I know of settlers who opened up the Timiskaming district in Ontario who are to-day prosperous farmers and iff full ownership of their locations. Many of these settlers had to carry their provisions upon their backs for over thirty miles, and they did it without complaining. In spite of present conditions these men are very prosperous. With respect to the reference made to women having to ride in covered sleighs containing a stove, I may say that I have done that hundreds of times and I found it quite comfortable. In fact, I have ridden in open sleighs when it was fifty below zero, and I did not freeze to death.


Jean-François Pouliot: I submit that reports received from the employees of the government should be received with a grain of salt. The employees in the colonization departments of

the Canadian Pacific or Canadian National have to show results in order to retain their jobs when reductions in staff are made. I think the minister should be careful in accepting the statements of such employees. They have to show results and those results are not based upon the selecting of settlers but rather upon the number of settlers placed upon the land, whether or not they possess the necessary qualifications. I have no ulterior motive in bringing up this matter, I did it because I thought it to be my duty. Unpleasant things may be said to me but I do not care. I am doing what my conscience tells me I should do and what I have done has been done as a representative of the people of Canada. Should similar circumstances arise in the future I shall follow a similar course.


Mr. YENIOT:: The minister will remember that last year I took .objection to the methods adopted in the spending of federal money for unemployment relief in the province of New Brunswick. I instanced a case where the federal government had been committed to an expenditure of some $57,000 for the construction of a power line. I claimed that that was a revenue producing enterprise controlled by the power commission of the province, and therefore the Dominion government money should not be used. Not only was it a revenue producing enterprise, it was a profit producing enterprise. The province of New Brunswick was well able to build the line under the direction of the power commission and thus provide employment for the unemployed.
I have another complaint to register this year, and I should like the minister to give his strict attention. I think it was in 1928 that the legislature of the province of New Brunswick passed an act granting a bonus to farmers who cleared more acres of lancl than they had previously under cultivation. I think the bonus amounted to $8 or $10 per acre but it did not go to the settlers or colonizers under the old colonization scheme of the province who did not have a title to their lands, it was paid to farmers who had been established a long time and who had from 35 to 125 acres of land already under cultivation. In 1928, 1929 and 1930, the farmers entitled to this bonus received it direct from the provincial government. This scheme was not intended to assist unemployment as there was no unemployment at that time among the farmers. I am informed that the records brought down in the legislature of New Brunswick show that last year some
841,000	was paid out in these bonuses, and that fifty per cent of that amount was paid

Relief Act, 1933
by the Dominion government. Last year I complained that the federal government was not paying sufficient attention to the methods adopted by the provincial government in the expenditure of relief money, and I make the same complaint to-day. Money paid to the farmers by the province of New Brunswick for clearing extra land should never come out of the relief fund voted by the federal parlia-memlt, because those farmers are not unemployed, and this money is not given to them in the way of unemployment relief. They have already large quantities of land under cultivation; they have their crops, their cattle, their horses and their means of living without being helped from the unemployment relief fund. The sum of $20,000 given to the province of New Brunswick to help it to meet its ordinary expenditures should have been expended by it in assisting 'the unemployed to greater extent. I do not know whether that amount has been paid or not, but I know the information submitted to the provincial legislature only a couple of weeks ago was that they expected to get about $20,000 from the federal government under the Unemployment Relief Act. I protest against this, because the money is going to men who do not deserve it. They are not unemployed; they have every means whereby they can live and live comfortably and we have no right in the federal parliament to vote money that will go to men of that class. I would ask the minister, before that sum is paid to the provincial treasury of New Brunswick, to investigate the matter carefully and I am sure he will find that the statement I make here to-day will be borne out by such an inquiry.


George Gordon: If the money has not been paid, I shall be glad to investigate the matter. That was two years ago, I believe, under the 1931 legislation.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Yes.


George Gordon: If the money has not been paid I shall be glad to look into the matter.


Mr. VENIOT:: Let me go a point further; If that money has been paid and it is discovered that it has not been given out to deserving parties, I would ask the minister to have it returned to the federal treasury.


George Gordon: Of course, if it is disclosed that any money which was paid to any province, was not utilized by it in accordance with the act, the government would, as it has in a number of other instances, ask for the refund of the money. In certain cases such moneys have been refunded.
53719-210^


Mr. HOWDEN:: Regarding the back to the land movement which has received a good deal of consideration by the hon. member for Temiscouata, I should like to say a word. There appears to have been a good deal of difference of opinion as to the value of this movement in Canada at the present time. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that the back to the land movement is the only permanent step that the government has taken so far towards the relief of unemployment and to end the present depression. Inasmuch as I was one of those who early advocated this policy and on the floor of the house entreated the Minister of Labour to extend some consideration to the city of Winnipeg and province of Manitoba in the matter, I am happy to say that in my province to-day we have been able to place around 400 families on the land with entire satisfaction and success. In that number of placements, there have been only two failures, and I think that is a pretty good record. I believe the government is to be commended and congratulated upon the action it took in' uniting with the provincial governments to place these families back on the land. I sincerely hope the movement will be continued, because I believe we have room for many thousands of families on the land. If they go upon the land, they can feed themselves. They do not need to take up farms. Considerably smaller plots than have been taken up in the past would, I think, be decidedly more advisable. I sincerely hope the federal government will see its way clear to continue this work and we shall be able to place many more families on the land.


Alan Webster Neill: It is not usual to discuss the details of a bill on the title, but if that suits the minister, I suppose it is all right.


George Gordon: It suits me.


Alan Webster Neill: I should like to ask my hon. friend a question. This morning I sent him a copy of a wire I had received from the board of trade of the town of Port Alberni. I shall quote one or two sentences from it so that the minister and the committee may understand the situation. It reads in part, as follows:
Board of trade has wired Premier urging prompt and effective Dominion government action to avert crisis imminent due to decision of all municipalities this province to withdraw all relief as means of forcing issue of respon sibility. We believe full responsibility rests now and always on Ottawa. Municipalities and provincial government obviously financially unable continue relief finance. If relief stops, looting sure to occur here. Merchants cannot
Relief Act, 1933

finance essential food shipments without relief funds and stocks on island good only for few days. Majority of unemployed loyal and decent but certain proportion await first excuse to institute violent action. We anxiously await assurance that relief payments already too small null not cease even for short time.
What I should like to ask the minister is this: In view of the very definite statement made there and indicated at least in recent dispatches from British Columbia, that the municipalities are proposing, as a means of forcing the issue of responsibility, to withdraw all relief, has he information of that character from any other municipality than the one to which I have referred?


George Gordon: I have no information from any municipality indicating the condition outlined. Even if I had, we obviously, as has been stated and restated, can and will act only upon the recommendation of the provincial authorities. If we did otherwise, endless confusion would result and of course I do not think we have any authority to go into a province and take over these matters.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has the minister received any information as regards the situation in Vancouver about which I spoke in the house last Friday?


George Gordon: Nothing.


Alan Webster Neill: While I admit, on the face of the matter, so to speak, the party with which the Dominion government deals is the province, I do not think that is a sufficient argument in every possible contingency. Is the minister going to sit down under a very definite statement that looting is imminent in British Columbia, saying that he is going to wait until it happens? I would not like to be offensive, so I will put the matter in this way: He has some idea of the irresponsibility of the provincial government at the present moment and the way in which it has acted in the past in that regard. I understand this matter originates to some extent in a side issue. What has happened is this: the provincial government is practically bankrupt and it issued a budget by which it takes $650,000 away from the municipal revenues. The council of the whole body of municipalities, not merely this isolated one, got together and threatened-and this appears to be a development of the threat-that they could not go on financing owing to the lack of those funds. They took the attitude: If you are going to so seriously reduce our revenue we will force the issue by stopping relief, and we will put the responsibility for relief up to the province. I suggest that as

the minister is informed that there is danger of a situation like that arising, it might be well for him to wire the province and find out from people in whom he has confidence what the situation is.
I have this one further point to make. It may be suggested that it will be time enough to do something by and by.	But these
people who are now on relief in British Columbia are getting very small sums. It cannot be denied' that a single man getting six dollars a month certainly has no reserve left, and that has been going on for a year or two. If these cities are suddenly compelled to stop giving relief, what are -these single men to do? As this wire says, there is a certain section of the unemployed who are fomenting trouble. Their ideas are those of the communists, and they are always at the ears and at the elbows of the unemployed men, saying, Why don't you help yourself? The result may be that these really decent men, Canadian citizens, confronted by their wives and children going hungry, will listen to the voice of -the communists and go and help themselves. I shudder to think of them taking action of that kind, while- the minister takes refuge in the statement that he will wait till it happens and then put the- responsibility on the province. A situation did- arise some years ago in Victoria which, without going into details, resulted in looting and cost far more in a couple of hours than the whole matter at issue on that occasion. It ran up to hundreds of thousands of dollars for which the city was responsible. Would it not be better for the minister to take steps to inform himself what the situation is? I do not ask him to take my statement, but this wire comes from a reputable board of trade, and it would not be difficult for the minister to inform himself what the situation is, instead of waiting until the troubles happen.


Mr. STEVENS:: I think, Mr. Chairman,
that perhaps the hon. member is not fair to the Minister of Labour in presenting the case as he has done. The fact is that for many years, under t'he ordinary system followed in British Columbia, the provincial government has made certain grants out of provincial taxes to municipalities-grants to hospitals, grants towards education and matters of that kind. In more recent years, since government control of liquor has come in, there has been a share of the profits from liquor distributed amongst the municipalities upon the basis of the amount of liquor sold within the municipality, and other matters of that kind. But what this committee must bear in mind is

Relief Act, 1933
that that is purely a local, ordinary situation, and has nothing to do with relief. It has no relation to relief whatever.
It is quite true that British Columbia, in common with other provinces, the western provinces perhaps more so than parts of eastern Canada, has been confronted with difficult problems in connection with relief. No one questions that at all, and no one other than a person who was completely indifferent to local conditions could do otherwise than feel more or less perturbed about this problem. But it is not fair to say that the province of British Columbia is bankrupt or that the government of British Columbia is wholly indifferent. It is neither fair nor correct to make statements of that kind. The province of British Columbia is not bankrupt. At the same time unquestionably, like many other governments, the government of British Columbia is finding it very difficult to make ends meet with its depleted revenues, and this is not to be wondered at in a province like British Columbia where in years gone by one of the main sources of revenue was the returns from the timber trade, royalties on timber and so forth. Those royalties have fallen off as well as royalties on every other natural resource, and there is no question that the revenues of the province have been very seriously depleted. Nor would I or anyone else hesitate to say that., in the past, in British Columbia, as in all other places, the present government and other governments, have been perhaps unduly extravagant, or to put it in the kindest way, have been perhaps overoptimistic, and expenditures have run into very large figures. But that does not concern this committee dealing with a relief bill. What this committee is concerned about is this:	In its administration of the Relief Act
is this government dealing reasonably fair with the province of British Columbia as compared with other provinces? That I think is a fair subject for debate. I am quite certain from what I have bean able to gather from the Department of Labour and the minister that British Columbia has been equitably and reasonably well treated in the matter of relief.
May I take this opportunity of pointing out to 'the committee this fact, and I do it with great earnestness because personally I feel very much perturbed over it. It is this, that there is altogether too much tendency for our people in Canada, starting with the individual and going on up to the municipality and then the province, to lean too heavily upon governments. It is not necessary to blame people or denounce them for that, but the fact is there. Over a period of time we have grown
into the habit of leaning upon governments. The individual in the smaller localities has been looking for the municipality to provide all the relief he requires, without perhaps making that degree of individual effort which would contribute measurably towards his own relief; and the municipality has the tendency to lean entirely upon the provincial authorities, and so with the provincial authorities the tendency has been to pass the responsibility to Ottawa. That is something for which we cannot blame this man or that man; it is very common. But it is the duty of the Minister of Labour, as the minister responsible and charged with this very, very difficult task, to resist in a measure at least simply passing the responsibility up to him. What he has done, and I think done admirably, in the last three years of very trying times, has 'been so to direct the appropriations for relief from this government that there will be a maximum of returns. I think that he and the rest of us who are associated with him would be quite ready to admit that in handling this new situation which was thrust upon us errors have been made. I have no doubt that if we were to start all over again, faced with the situation of three years ago, we would find things that we might have done better. But that is only human, and hon. gentlemen .opposite, while quite within their rights and within their duty in criticizing the government, I am quite certain would at least recognize that necessarily there must have been some errors made. But I do submit, and I am speaking now about British Columbia about which I know a good deal, that the minister and his department have treated that province with very, very great consideration, and he and the rest of us who assist him from time to time in studying these matters, are pretty well alive to the needs. At the same time it would be mere folly for him to give way at once when any municipality wires or writes in, as they do frequently to myself, as the minister representing that province, seeking direct contaots. It would be very foolish to give way to appeals of that kind.
I do not apprehend any very serious disturbances from this new situation which has arisen in the province. As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has said, there are certain persons, commonly known as the red element, who work amongst the unemployed and those ,on relief, capitalizing their distress and urging them on to deeds of violence. While we know there is a certain amount of that, I have sufficient knowledge of the sound common sense of the bulk of the people of British Columbia, unemployed or
Relief Act, 1933

employed, on relief or not on relief, to be confident that there will be no very great difficulty in that regard. There may be, is bound to be some, I presume; there has been in the past. But I notice that these disturbances that are foretold with great foreboding often do not amount to anything very serious. This we can say with confidence, that the members of the provincial government having to do with this matter-Hon. Mr. Bruhn, Hon. Mr. Jones, Hon. Mr. MacKenzie and others- are making strenuous efforts to deal with their local problem. Undoubtedly they are meeting with difficulties, but they are doing a great deal more in the way of effective work than I think is generally realized. I know from my own personal contacts with the Minister of Labour here, that the federal department responds to the appeals that are constantly being made-not immediately giving what is asked, because that would be sheer folly; but making a generous response in the way of funds, taking a sympathetic attitude toward the problems involved, and seeking by combined effort and joint knowledge of the situation to work out their solution. I would say to my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni that the minister would be ill-advised to take up appeals from individual municipalities. If he does that; if he abandons the principle we have followed of dealing with this matter through the provincial authorities, he will be called upon to establish duplicate organizations here and there throughout British Columbia; and if he did it there he would have to do it elsewhere. And I am reminded that the act itself, and all our powers hitherto asked for, provide only for dealing with provinces. I submit in all earnestness that it would be shear folly for this house to authorize the minister to deal with municipalities, cities or localities; it would entail the erection of an organization that would simply duplicate that of the provinces. I suggest to the hon. gentleman who put this forward, and to other hon. gentlemen speaking for British Columbia, that we should endeavour as far as we can to impress upon those in authority in the municipalities, as well as upon private citizens, that they must bear a larger share, not so much of the cost but of the effort to solve the problems with which we are from time to time confronted. I feel very strongly that if the people of Canada-we were speaking of British Columbia, but it can be made general-would realize that, and give a larger measure of personal effort to a solution of the difficulties, much better progress would be made.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister has suggested
that I was asking the Minister of Labour to take up the problem of an individual municipality, that which I mentioned or some other. Nothing was further from my mind. What I said was that he should take cognizance of the situation that has been at least suggested, and that it would cost very little for him to inform himself of the actual facts and of the day to day features of the danger of suggested looting that I have referred to.
He has also said that in his opinion-and he says he is in a position to judge-the Dominion government have treated the province of British Columbia, I think he said, very well. All I can say is that that is not the expressed opinion of the government of British Columbia nor of the council of municipalities, a very large and important body; they have expressed themselves very definitely to the contrary. I would just say this: some years ago I was in-well, in fact, in the bar of an hotel-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alan Webster Neill: -and a man ran in and said: "Neill, your house is on fire." I did not stop to ask that man his name and age and station and pedigree, nor did I say:	" I
recognized my wife as the mistress of that house, and until you get authority from her I cannot take cognizance of your declaration that my house is on fire." No; I took immediate steps to deal with the situation. I did not even ask him to prove that the house was on fire, but I got a move on. The minister, however, refuses to credit that the house is on fire or in danger of becoming so.
The minister also says that he trusts to the common sense of the people, the unemployed, not to go too far. That is all right; I appreciate the fact that that will go a long way, but there is a limit. There is a point where common sense ceases and the dictates of despair take control, and that is what I am afraid of. All I ask is that the minister make use of his sources of information and find out if the situation in British Columbia, either present or threatening, is as bad as I have suggested. In addition to this telegram the press bears out the situation, because I read a few days ago that the council of municipalities were to have a meeting to decide whether they would throw up their hands, refuse all relief and put the blame on the province.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I congratulate my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) for his remarkable change of heart since 1930. I have

Relief Act, 1933
in my room upstairs an extract from an address my hon. friend made, and while I do not want to introduce the slightest suggestion of partisanship into this debate-on the contrary I want to assure the Minister of Labour that as far as we who come from British Columbia are concerned we are prepared to cooperate to the utmost with him in anything he can do to alleviate the situation-at that time the hon. minister said that it was not a case of provincial or municipal responsibility but the whole fault lay with the inherent policies of the King administration. It was very refreshing to see the evolution of political sagacity evidenced on the part of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That may have been true then.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By that one observation my hon. friend has ruined all the good he did by his constructive remarks a little while ago.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You must give us a little latitude for humour.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce *quite missed the point raised by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi. It is not a case of one municipality; we have the organized union of British Columbia municipalities deciding in the last two weeks to send a representative to Ottawa to bring before the government this situation that is affecting all the municipalities. We also had the other day the mayor of the city of Vancouver using language similar to that used in the board of trade telegram read this afternoon by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. All we desire to know is, if there is an emergent situation in British Columbia, if the municipalities are not able, and I believe they are not, to cope with the present situation, having been deprived this year of $640,000 revenue which they had last year; if the local authorities are unable to meet the situation, is the Minister of Labour going to wait until he gets official representation from the provincial government before dealing with the question? I am vastly surprised that the government of British Columbia, if the representations I have received from Vancouver are true, and I believe they are, have not acted upon those representations, being in touch with the situation, and made direct representation to the minister, in order if possible that by some supplementary grant or otherwise we may relieve what may be a very serious condition. If the members from British Columbia on this side of the house can be of the slightest assistance to the
Minister of Labour, our services are absolutely at his command. We do not want to treat this matter as a partisan issue. The situation in British Columbia two years ago was damned by that. The auditing committee investigated the accounts of British Columbia. He knows that Mr. MoGeough, who has been a Dominion government inspector assisting Mr. Hereford, asked the lieutenant governor of British Columbia for a royal commission to investigate the misappropriation of funds in the province-


George Gordon: He intimated to me also that if he did not get a job he was going to do that very thing.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That may be quite true, but these things never have been thoroughly gone into, and I think it is only fair to the minister himself as well as to the provincial government and the public of British Columbia that there should be an impartial investigation into the charges which have been made. During the session of 1930, when the first appropriation of $20,000,000 was made for unemployment relief, we on this side of the house asked for a national audit, but our request was refused. What has happened? We find that quite recently the government adopted the very suggestion we made at that time; according to my information they have been conducting an investigation into the situation in British Columbia.


George Gordon: That was started last year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Exactly, and we asked for it in 1930. My hon. friend was not Minister of Labour at that time, but the Prime Minister refused to give us a national audit of the expenditures of public moneys in the different provinces of Canada. The Prime Minister said at that time that this government accepted responsibility for the expenditure of every single cent of public funds, but two years after this scheme of unemployment relief was put in operation the very thing we requested was conceded. The minister has not yet told the house what has been the result of that investigation into the expenditure of unemployment relief funds in the province of British Columbia.


George Gordon: The Auditor General's report will show.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, and I will be very glad to see it.


George Gordon: We have not received i<t
yet.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
quite prepared to accept the minister's state-
Relief Act, 1933

ment in that regard, but we have a duty to perform. We are getting these wires day after day from responsible officials, municipal and provincial, and if there should be any trouble or any outbreaks we must accept part of the responsibility. This is a national crisis, a national duty, as the Prime Minister told us in 1930 in Montreal, in Winnipeg and in Vancouver. He stated in this very House of Commons on the 17th day of September, 1930, that this was a national responsibility. I do not say that the Minister of Labour is seeking to do so, but I suggest in the strongest possible way that he cannot evade or escape the responsibility which is his as a minister of the crown of meeting any situation which may develop in British Columbia in a national way. That responsibility belongs to him and to this government, because they told us this was a national question and a national responsibility; they made that statement both on the hustings and in this house.
I wish to conclude my remarks by assuring the minister that we will do everything we can in any way to cooperate with him in meeting the very serious situation which exists in British Columbia.


George Gordon: I thank the hon. member
for the attitude he has assumed in offering his assistance, because I really believe he means what he says. But in order that the position may be made very plain let me remind the committee that rightly or wrongly the government has hitherto placed no limit upon what shall be spent in any province of this dominion for direct relief. We promptly pay the bills, after looking them over to see so far as possible that the moneys are not spent improperly, and that applies to British Columbia as well as to every other province. I receive communications from various provinces in regard to the situation in various districts and consideration is given to all submissions that are made. This also applies equally to British Columbia. I have heard a good deal about the possible looting of stores in certain sections of Canada, but on inquiry of the provincial authorities I have found that they had the matter in hand. I am not going to urge upon a province that they have not the matter in hand, that they should do this or do that within their legislative competence; I do not think any member of the committee would suggest that I should do so.
Let me say, however, that as these matters arise I am aware that there is an acute situation here or there within Canada, and if it is a question of providing funds we do confer with the provinces and take such action as is necessary to relieve such situations. But I

cannot too strongly urge that there is an agitation-I do not know how great it is in this country-absolutely to refuse to do any useful work. Some people seem to have made it their objective in life to wreck everything, and the refusal to do anything is one method of accomplishing that end. That is a difficult class of people to handle. Fortunately I believe it is a very small class, but there are many people in this country who are trying their utmost to improve their position. If we were to lay down a rule that in a certain province we would give so much per month to a family of two, so much to a family of three, and so on, in my view that would not be a proper course to adopt. It is human nature not to persist in trying to go upstream; it is such a comfortable thing to go down with the current. If people are taught to believe that the rather indefinable institution called the- state can take up the slack, no matter how great it may be, which may come about by reason of misadventure or the desire of the individual not to exert himself, then things will have come to a pretty pass indeed. It is part of my duty as Minister of Labour administering this act to see on the one hand that injustice and suffering shall hot prevail and on the other hand that the malingerer is not permitted to follow that course if measures can be adopted that will prevent him. This is not an easy act to administer, but I can assure the members of the committee that so far as it is humanly possible the course I have ind;-^ cated is being followed. I am sure hon. members know from their personal interviews with me in connection with matters in their particular ridings that the department is doing everything possible to endeavour to make the position of the worthy Canadian as easy as possible until better times come.


Mr. REID:: I should like to stress just one point in view of what the minister has just said with regard to those people who are determined to do as little work as possible. I would point out that one cause of this discontent is the fact that I think in nearly all the camps we had men who were not working and who were not asked to work, but who were provided with food, clothing and shelter. Nearby there were municipalities which required men on relief to work for the relief afforded them, and naturally they pointed to the men in the camps who did not have to work. I think that policy should be changed; I think able-bodied men should be made to do a little work for their food and clothing. Many of the men in those camps

Relief Act, 1933
were quite willing to work and there was useful work to be done, but they were not asked to do anything. I believe this did cause some discontent in many districts, and I think that policy should be changed.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I think it would be most unfortunate indeed if any word of the minister's should lead the general public to believe that a large proportion of the unemployed in this country desire simply to drift along and depend upon the state, being merely malingerers. I have heard that word malingerer half a dozen times from the lips of the minister. I have no doubt there is an occasional man who will not work, but anyone who knows intimately the unemployed in this country will admit that the great majority of them have done useful work in Canada and are prepared to do useful work again as soon as it can be provided. But there is no use expecting the poor individual workingman to be able to discover work when there are
750,000	like himself who cannot get it, and when the state itself cannot find it. It seems to me almost a cruel way to talk; it is not a fair way of putting the situation of the unemployed worker.
The state, for three years under this government, has had all its agencies at work in an endeavour to find work, to make work. The state has not been able to do this with all its resources and now, when it has failed, it looks to me as if the minister and the government generally are trying to escape responsibility by turning round and .calling the unemployed workman names, malingerer and so on. I say it is not fair. I do not see how the government can possibly evade responsibility for the situation. I am not speaking now in any narrow political sense because I would say the same whatever government might be in power. Within limits the minister has been carrying out the act, and I am not complaining in respect to details; but I am protesting against the general attitude of the government, which seems to be that we should get by as easily as possible in a matter of this kind. The whole policy is predicated on the idea that this is a very temporary emergency. The government has taken that point of view for the last three years. We have been told again and again about the prosperity which is coming to us but which has not yet come, and we are still exhorted to wait patiently .a few weeks or a few months longer, when the promised prosperity will come. There is no indication immediately in sight of anything of the kind and it is not unreasonable therefore for us to ask the government to face this question fairly with regard to the continuance
in considerable part of this unemployment situation. This they are not doing at the present time.
The minister told us the other night that one of the reasons why it was not wise for the state to do anything was that possibly the springs of charity might dry up. That is a ridiculous position to take; that is all I can say. It is absolutely absurd for a minister to take that position in view of the tremendous responsibility that rests upon the government. Undoubtedly the springs of charity are drying up, but it is not because men are becoming harder hearted. Among the poor at least there never was a time when they were so willing to share what they had with one another. It is not, I say, because the springs of charity in the human heart are drying up but because the resources of the people are becoming so depleted that they cannot give to charity as they have done in the past.
The whole problem has become so vast in its extent .that the ordinary private charities which might handle a few individuals or a few score of individuals in normal times are no longer sufficient to meet what is properly termed a great national emergency. When we remember that anywhere from twenty-five to fifty per cent of the population of a great many of our communities are unemployed, it is ridiculous to think that ordinary private charity can take care of these unfortunate people. It 'cannot be done. Yet the Minister of Trade and Commerce suggested that if the ordinary people of the country should pay a little more attention to this phase of the matter they would solve the problem. Yes; I suppose that if a great drive were put on by the Rotary club a few more men could get work carrying out ashes and doing odd jobs in the way of cleaning up backyards. I had sympathy with that kind of thing five or six years ago when unemployment was relatively a small matter and we thought it would be over in a few weeks. A few odd jobs provided at that time would, it was thought, see the situation through. But it is extraordinary that this government, having been in office for three years and having recognized the necessity for putting on big schemes of public works, and after spending tens of millions of dollars in this way, and with the number of unemployed steadily growing, should come to us now and suggest that we should let the individuals exert themselves a little more. We are further told that we should allow the local community to exert itself more and things .would be looked after better. It does not seem to me that this position is worthy of a government.
Relief Act, 1933

I have not taken very much time in this debate because, frankly, it seems to me that in the last few years I have said everything there was to say again and again; but I cannot let this opportunity go by without once more pleading with the government to take action. It may be that some of us are taking a gloomy view of the matter; it may be that there may not be riots. Undoubtedly there is a great deal of common sense and good judgment among the masses of our people, but I do think that the people have been wonderfully patient during these years. I have often wondered how most of us would behave if for weeks and months and years we had to live as hundreds of thousands of our fellow Canadians have been living. If we do get by without serious riots-and the very fact that the government is taking extraordinary powers would indicate that it is itself not at all sure that we shall-we shall still have to face the very serious deterioration that is taking place in the homes of the hundreds of thousands of people affected. I had word from the part of the country I represent in which someone says, "I can hardly keep from being bitter when I consider the needless suffering and demoralization of the people in this district." Surely we cannot ignore such facts.
People will put up with things for a little time when there is hope for the future; but when they realize that their little earnings are slipping away if they have not already disappeared; when they see their clothing getting shabby and they cannot replace it; when their bedding and household utensils are worn out; when they have not the wherewithal to pay their rent and are months behind; when they see no hope for their children, and there must be thousands whose children, after getting through high school, have nothing to do but roam the streets- when we think of all this, I say the situation becomes wellnigh desperate and we have the right to look to someone for a lead. Yet the minister gets up again and again and says, ''There is the province." But the provinces, as I myself have said so often, and especially the western provinces as everyone knows, are on the verge of bankruptcy and cannot act. Indeed, some of them are bankrupt, just as the municipalities are. Well, what is to be done? We look to the minister to take action, but he shifts ground and says, "We cannot afford it." I urge that so long as there is as much wealth in the dominion as there is to-day, so long as there are large numbers of people drawing enormous revenues from our bonded indebtedness and rMr. Woodswortli.]
from other sources, then we have no right to state that there is no money in Canada to do things. We have no right to say so. If there were war, we could carry on that war and the money would be forthcoming. In his budget speech delivered the other day, the Minister of Finance referred to the great variety of natural resources in this country. He referred also to the resourcefulness of the Canadian people. Our Canadian people are resourceful. They have been so in the past, but the fact is that to-day they have not the opportunities which were to be found in the past. It is not possible for them to do as the pioneers did, and there is no use in our fooling ourselves by going back fifty or seventy-five years and saying -that the people of to-day can fend for themselves just as well as the people of that day. They cannot. The fact remains that to-day they are facing a serious situation.
I am not urging what has sometimes been called direct action; I am not urging violence, *but I must confess that I hardly ever address a meeting either in eastern or western Canada at which the people do not get up afterwards and ask:	What are you going
to do? What can we do about it? When such a question is asked, my mind comes back to this house and to the thought that month after month and year after year we have played this game back and forth and no action has resulted. I confess that I have hardly the courage to continue to speak about these things in the house because of a sense of the futility of it all. Can I go back ' to my friends in my own- constituency in the city of Winnipeg and say to those who have been out of work for several years and who are desperate over it all: " Oh, well, you must wait for another two or three years, there will be an election and perhaps we will put Mr. Bennett and his crowd out and there may be seme improvement in the situation." Is that all we can do? Regardless of what government may be in power or what particular party they may represent, it seems to me that we as the elected representatives of the people have a right to demand that the government should help to solve such a great national problem as unemployment. They turn to us and say:	What alternative
have you to offer or what do you propose? It is not for us to propose the details. We have stated some of the principles on which we believe policies should be based. Both in this country and in the old country the erection of public works has been suggested as a means of increasing the purchasing power of the people. We suggested that here and the government replied:	We cannot

Reliej Act, 1033
afford it. We are supposed to swallow that reply, and the people can continue to suffer. We are told that certain works have been carried on because they could be carried on as relief works where ordinary wages do not have to be paid. Such a course has resulted in the gradual lowering of the standard of living of great sections of our people.
Is not any government elected for the purpose of administering affairs in such a way as to provide a decent living for the people?
I do not want particularly to rub it in, but if ever a government was elected with a mandate to do that, it was this government. After being three years in power we find them receding from their position and simply saying to these poor people:	A lot of you are
malingerers; if the local communities would only get out and rustle, things would go better; you must not load everything upon the state. That is not the way to handle this problem. I do not believe that we can expect that the people will continue much longer to be patient; they should not be patient.	They see their homes going to
pieces and their families degenerating, and yet they know that if there was an efficient government, the situation would be altered.
We are told that we cannot do anything before the world economic conference. All that conference will do will be to pass resolutions and if those resolutions are to mean anything, they will have to be implemented by the people at home. The implementing of these resolutions by Canada would mean a complete reversal of the policy which has been advocated by this government for the last two or three years. Is that likely?
Even at this late stage of the session, I think there should be a reconsideration of this whole matter by the government. We ought not to be asked to go back and tell our people that the government refuses to accept responsibility, that it merely talks about questions of jurisdiction while knowing perfectly well that the provinces and the municipalities are not capable of taking care of the situation. The most unkindest cut of all is when the minister accuses people who are so unfortunate as to be out of work of being malingerers and not desirous of taking a job when they have it placed before them. I do hope that the government will take action even at this late stage.


Mr. HEAPS:: Mr. Chairman, there is a word or two I should like to say in connection with this problem of unemployment. This problem has two aspects; first, there is the question of giving direct relief to those who find themselves out of work, and, second, there is the matter of deciding what we are
going to do with the number of people who are out of work. The depression first came upon us in the fall of 1929 and since that time the unemployment situation has been gradually going from bad to worse. As I have often said in this house, I do not accuse either the present or the past governments for being entirely responsible for the situation. They were the victims of economic circumstances over which they had no control. But that does not absolve the powers that be from the responsibility of taking care of the situation. The present government has done a great deal to alleviate the sufferings of many people here in Canada. According to the figures submitted by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), the government has been feeding about one and one-third millions of people in the Dominion of Canada. That is a staggering figure; it gives some idea of the magnitude of the poverty and unemployment which exists in this country.
I think it can be said without fear of contradiction that at this time there are in the neighbourhood of 800,000 people out of work. Figuring each unemployed as representing three persons this gives approximately twenty-five per cent of the population of Canada. I believe the figure is much higher, but if twenty-five per cent of our population is suffering from unemployment, we ought to have some other method of meeting the situation than that of giving relief. The average person, I do not care who he happens to be, would prefer work to being the recipient of direct relief. I think the average person, not only in Canada but in other parts of the world, would prefer to give some service in helping to build up what we might term the state.
The question arises: What are we going to do with these 800,000 people who are out of work? What is going to happen to these people? Let us assume for the sake of argument that conditions will improve in the next six or twelve months, that there is a revival of trade. Even though this does happen, there are hundreds of thousands of men and women who are out of work at the present time who will never be reabsorbed into industry. Hundreds of thosuands of our people are faced with the situation of being permanently out of work. We must find some means of dealing with such a serious situation. A man may be able to stand being out of work for three months, or perhaps six, but ultimately demoralization sets in. Those people who have been unemployed for six, twelve, eighteen months or two years, become unemployable as a result of conditions over which they have
Reliej Act, 1933

no control. I know the minister has taken the question of relief seriously, but what I want him and the government to do is to try to find some means of providing useful work for the hundreds of thousands erf people who are at present unemployed.
The government appointed a commission to investigate the railway problem. Now we are going to -have another commission appointed by the government to investigate the banking situation. Some time ago when I suggested that we might have a commission to investigate the unemployment situation, the government thought that was hardly deserving of consideration. In my opinion the unemployment situation is far more serious than either the banking or the railway problem. Further, I am trying to distinguish between the question of relief and that of a permanent solution of the problem of unemployment. Unless the government can do something in the latter respect, we are building a generation of unemployables and I hate to think what will become of these people in the years to come. Many of these young people who through no fault of their own are unable to secure employment on leaving school at eighteen or twenty years of age and become useful citizens are driven to a life of crime. Our gaols and penitentiaries are filled to overflowing as a result of our unemployment situation. We wish to do away with such a condition, and the only body before which the people of this dominion can place their claims is the federal parliament. When the unemployed in our cities come to the provincial government, the reply is: We have no money. The provincial governments pass the buck to the federal authorities and the federal government in turn says that this is a provincial matter. The unemployment problem is neither municipal nor provincial; it is federal, and if it is a federal problem, it ought to be a federal responsibility. When I speak of its being a federal responsibility, I do so with the idea of dealing not with the question of relief but with the problem of what we are going to do with the vast number who are at present out of work. I know when we come to deal with the more important aspects of the case, we may be told that the federal government has no jurisdiction. But the government has been gathering a vast amount of statistics from the census of 1931 in regard to the wealth and industries of the country.
I feel, as I have stated in the house on many previous occasions, that if we are going to deal with the problem of unemployment- and I want to see it dealt with by the house -we must do away almost entirely with the idea of giving relief to these men and women (Mr. Heaps.]
who are out of work, because I believe by giving them relief, we are in no way even beginning to solve the problem. The only way in which we can do so is by attacking it at its very foundation.
I pointed out . yesterday that within the next few days our two main railways are going to amalgamate certain services. Some hon. members may prefer to call this cooperation, but the first result of this amalgamation of services will be that hundreds, if not thousands, will be thrown out of work. Surely that is no way of dealing with the unemployment problem. If we are to deal with it properly, the first thing we must do is to try to fit in the men who are available to perform useful services in society and to find out what services they can perform. That means making a survey of the whole of the national life of Canada. We have not as yet done that; there has been no attempt to do so, even though we may have a research council. This will mean a great amount of planning by the government, but I think it ought to undertake that planning so that people who have been out of work for years may have some hope; at present they have none.
We have been told in the past few days that we have natural resources, wealth in abundance, all of which is quite true. We have in this country enough wealth, actual and potential, more than to satisfy the needs of the entire population; yet our resources are lying idle and men by the hundreds of thousands are walking the streets who would be only too anxious to render useful service if they were given the opportunity of doing so. I would impress upon the minister, whose heart I know is as big as that of anyone in the house, the need of doing something to deal fundamentally with the hundreds of thousands who are out of work, the main body of whom are and want to be good citizens.
The unemployment problem practically began in 1929 and when it became a little more severe in 1930 some hope was held out that by certain legislation the problem would be solved. But in 1931 it became worse, it was still worse in 1932, and now in 1933, when it is becoming even more acute, very little encouragement is being given to men out of work. About three months ago we were told there were 800.000 people in receipt of relief, and a few weeks ago we were informed that this number had increased to 1,350,000. This gives some indication of the seriousness of the situation with which we are confronted. I hope when we meet after the recess to-night the Minister of Labour will tell the house, the unemployed and the people of Canada

Relief Act, 1933
generally, that the government has a method of dealing with the question that will hold out to our people at present unemployed some hope of having their condition relieved in order that they may become useful citizens.


Mr. POWER:: Just before six o'clock I
should like to ask the minister a question to which perhaps he will have an answer for me after the dinner recess. I have endeavoured to get from the orders in council which have been published a statement of the amount of money which has been lent to the different provinces. I know that is published somewhere, but I have not been able to get it in the form in which I think it would be most intelligible, at least to me. I have compiled a kind of table which I shall send over to the minister, but which is not for use in Hansard, and I would ask him if he would have it corrected by his officers in order that I may be able to put it on Hansard in corrected form later during the course of the debate.


George Gordon: It would be difficult
between now and eight o'clock to have that done, but I shall have it done just as rapidly
as possible.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Ross):: Shall
clause 1 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Agreements with provinces.
Abraham Albert Heaps: Has the minister the figures for the province of Manitoba for last winter?


George Gordon: Those figures have been
put on Hansard.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If they are on Hansard I
will not ask the minister to give them again. Has there been any request that the Dominion government Should contribute more than 33i per cent of the cost of relief?


George Gordon: I have no specific request
for an increased percentage. The matter was discussed with representatives of the province some time ago but no specific request was made. It was more in the nature of a general discussion as to the position in Manitoba.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In regard to the other western provinces as well, has not the question been raised that the federal contribution should be more than 331 per cent?


George Gordon: The matter came up some months ago, and as a result the Dominion government has assumed 100 per cent of the cost of taking care of single 'homeless men and women. That is as far as the matter has progressed.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will the government consider, particularly in regard to the western provinces, where the burden of maintaining the unemployed bears heavily on the funds of the municipalities and provinces contributing a larger percentage than the 33^ per cent-raising that say to 50 per cent?


George Gordon: A matter of that kind
would of necessity be a matter for negotiation after this legislation passes the house. The western provinces have problems that are probably a little different from those of the eastern provinces, but at the same time I have already drawn the attention of the house to the fact that in the city of Winnipeg about two or three months ago jobs on farms in Manitoba at current wages were offered to upwards of eight hundred men, and those jobs could not be filled. The same thing applied to Saskatchewan. We are confronted with problems of that kind. It is most difficult getting a certain class out to work. However, with respect to what the hon. member h^s said, after this legislation passes the house, if it is made to appear to the satisfaction of this government that the three western provinces or four, or any other provinces, acknowledge their inability to carry on their legislative functions, that matter will have to be reviewed, of course, by this government and some conclusion arrived at.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In reference to the jobs
which the minister claims were waiting for individuals who would not accept them at the going rate of pay in Manitoba, as I understand the administration of unemployment relief in Manitoba persons who are not willing to accept at the going rate of pay jobs that are offered them are cut off from relief.


George Gordon: They should be, but it is most difficult to cut them off because there is in that province and elsewhere in Canada a studied effort to consolidate that state of affairs and raise difficulty and trouble. It is a difficult problem to handle.


Mr. DONNELLY:: What has the back to the land or back to the farm movement cost the government during the past year or since this government took office?
Relief Act, 1933


George Gordon: In the province of Saskatchewan, accounts have been received for $19,000, which have been paid.


James J. Donnelly: I am not surprised that the minister and some of the members on that side of the house are rather optimistic about this back to the farm movement. In every back to the farm movement in this or any other country the experience has always been the same. For the first two or three years everybody would be optimistic about it. For example, the soldier settlement scheme in this country was hailed for two or three years as a great success, but even in good times soldiers settled on the land have not been able to make a success of it in western Canada.


George Gordon: All of them?


James J. Donnelly: Practically all of them.


George Gordon: No.


James J. Donnelly: The large majority of them have been unable to make their payments and have had them written down two or three times, and the settlers generally are in great distress and difficulty at the present time. I do not know how it is in eastern Canada, but the chances of these soldier settlers in western Canada being able to make their payments under present conditions are very slight. They have had difficulty iir doing so even in the best years. With farm conditions what they are, how any government can expect to take people out of the city, transplant them on the farm, and make them successful farmers overnight, is more than I can understand. It is all very well for professional men, for lawyers, to talk of taking people out of the city and making successful farmers of them, but the farmers know that to-day it is absolutely impossible. Why, in western Canada to-day the municipalities do not even sell the land for taxes because they cannot get any bidders. They go out and seize the crop for taxes, but they do not attempt to sell the land because it would not raise the price of the taxes. But this government imagine that they can take this land that has been sold for taxes, on which some other farmer has not been able to make his payments and so has had to let it go, and settle on it a man from the city and make him a successful farmer. To my way of thinking such a procedure is bound to fail. No doubt the man will take the $500 and go on the farm; he will go to the backwoods and stay there a year or so until the $500 is spent, and then he will come back to the city. I do not blame him; he has to live somewhere.

But how the government can expect to establish men from the city on these farms- they have to buy horses and machinery and live a year or so until they get a crop-I do not know; certainly it cannot be done in western Canada.
There is another scheme that might be successful in some sections of the country. You might go twTo or three miles outside some of our cities, for example Ottawa, buy five or ten acres of land, take a man from the city, who may be a plumber or a painter or a carpenter, put him on that land, and let him have a little home there, keep in touch with city affairs, and supplement his earnings in the city with what he can produce on the farm. He could have a little garden, a cow, a pig, a few chickens, and in that way make a living. But it is useless to put him away out in the country two or three hundred miles from civilization-and in western Canada he will have to go out from the centres of population; you cannot pick up farms within five miles of Regina. We had people coming from Europe a few years ago expecting that they could get a homestead within a mile of the city hall in Regina. But the homesteads were all taken up within forty or fifty miles of the railroad


An hon. MEMBER:: They were not sold
for taxes then.


James J. Donnelly: No, but they are not
being sold now because no one can be found to buy them. Only the municipalities were buying, and cannot do it now. I know people in my district who are anxious to get out, but they cannot get any help from the municipalities, because the municipalities are broke. We are keeping our schools open by having the teachers board from house to house and take notes for their pay. The municipalities cannot put up their one-third to send these people out; our province is broke. It may be able to borrow money from this government to pay its third, but it does seem to me that people in that district should get some help from the government if they wish to get out into other districts. This scheme of taking people from the oity and sending them long distances into the country is bound to be a failure. The Canadian Pacific Railway had an irrigation scheme some years ago, and those who were in the agriculture and colonization committee heard Mr. Beatty say it was an absolute failure. We know that the same was true of the soldier settlement scheme, and it is bound to happen to this. It appears to me that the idea of this back to

Relief Act, 1933
the land movement is simply to get the people away from the towns-get them out of sight. They imagine that anybody can be a farmer who oanniot do anything else. That is wrong; farming to-day is just as much a skilled occupation as carpentering or plumbing or any other. Only those who have been brought up to it can make a success on ithe farm, and even they are not able to make anything today. No occupation in the dominion is as hard hit by present conditions as farming.


Mr. HEENAN:: Mr. Chairman, section 2 provides for agreements with the provinces, "upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon," I was wondering if there was any uniformity in these agreements. The act contemplates that the province shall take the initiative in presenting its case to the Dominion government. Last year I drew the attention of the minister to the fact that the Minister of Lands and Forests for Ontario had gone to the town of Ivenora and there made the statement that the only direct relief that would be given by the Ontario government would be dollar for dollar of contributions made by private individuals. Last summer I was home and I found that it was carried out in that way. The population of the town of Ivenora is composed chiefly of working men. We have no people there who can contribute large amounts; they are chiefly railroad and paper mill and flour mill workers working part time. The business of the railroads is very slack, and the railroad men have given up a large proportion of their mileage so as to divide it up, therefore they have nothing to contribute. When some of the unemployed went to the town office they were told there was nothing in the fund because the provincial government or the federal government had not made any contribution, no fund having been raised by the citizens. I was wondering if the minister would not consider arranging that in the event of the province not complying with the provisions of the act, the town council or some local body could apply to the federal government for relief.


George Gordon: The same policy is pursued with respect to Ivenora as in the case of other towns.


Olof Hanson: Some time ago I had a communication from Prince Rupert, British Columbia, saying that they had been unable to meet the payment on their bonds owing to the fact that the provincial government was unable to come through with the relief money, and the city had been obliged to use the money to meet the relief demands in the city. I wonder if the minister knows
anything about it, or if any representation has been made to him, and if the difficulty has been settled by now. As the previous speaker said, if the province is unable to meet such demands there should be some way by which the municipality could approach the federal government directly.


George Gordon: As far as the Dominion government is concerned, the accounts that come in are reviewed, audited as far as they can be, and paid promptly. With respect to the municipal bonds the Dominion government of course knows nothing.


Olof Hanson: I realize that, but as it was presented to me, Prince Rupert was unable to meet this bond interest payment because1 the bank refused any further advance and the money had been used for relief purposes while awaiting relief funds promised by either the federal or the provincial government and which failed to come through.


George Gordon: I can only reiterate what I have said, that as far as our contribution under the arrangement is concerned, it has always been made promptly to the province. We have no intimation concerning the subject matter of the hon. member's observations.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Mr. Speaker, it came to my notice last week that the Ontario legislature voted only $3,000,000 for the northern development branch. I say "only" purposely, because it is the first time since the inception of that department that such a small amount was voted by the Ontario government. In other years the minimum sum has been $5,000,000; in fact in 1930 the Ontario government voted $10,000,000 for that purpose. In my section of the country the people are asking why the provincial government is curtailing the amount of money voted for the northern development branch; there is more unemployment now and more work is needed this year than ever before. Of course the only answer that can be given is that the Ontaro government is loading some of its responsibilities on the federal government under this act, and that they expect the federal government to spend more money in northern Ontario in unemployment relief than was spent in previous years. I do not think this is a proper attitude for the provincial government to adopt, and I say that because I believe the two governments work closely together. Some of the higher officials of the northern development branch are even handling the relief in that part of the country at the present time.
Reliej Act, 1933

This brings me to the question of the trans-Canada highway. I am sure that this sum of $3,000,000 will not be sufficient to provide necessary roads in the north, which may affect some of the men placed on the land under the back to the land movement, and there is the other fact that it will be impossible to continue work on the trans-Canada highway. This is a matter of great importance in northern Ontario. I should like to ask the minister if he would be kind enough to say what is the intention of the federal government with regard to making up the difference between the usual vote of $5,000,000 and the vote this year of $3,000,000 for the northern development branch. Then I should like to know what amount of money has been spent in connection with the construction of the trans-Canada highway. Only a few days ago here in Ottawa one of the engineers of the northern development branch said that a good deal of work had been done along the north shore of lake Superior, but in my section of the country, which is the most logical route for the trans-Canada highway, there has not been a bit of work done in the last two years. The Minister of Labour was most emphatic in his statement with regard to the trans-Canada highway during the last election campaign.


George Gordon: Surely the hon. member does not mean that not a cent has been spent; surely he knows that many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on what is known as the Ferguson highway. Why, one bridge alone that was built last year cost over $100,000.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: If nvy information is correct, the bridge that was built at Engle-hart was paid for by the northern development branch and not by money voted by the federal government.


George Gordon: Quite so.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: But I understand there is an agreement between the federal and provincial governments that the cost of the trans-Canada highway is to be divided equally. We have no grudge against any other section of the country, but in the Ottawa valley section, from Mattawa to North Bay, a great deal of employment has been given to a number of young men during the last two years. I have no quarrel with that, but I think the same thing should be done in my part of the country'. I am told also that thousands of men have found employment in the construction of the trans-Canada highway along the north shore of lake Superior. We

maintain that the only logical route for the trans-Canada highway is over the Ferguson highway, and if that route were followed a tremendous amount of money would be saved. The minister does not seem to agree with me, though we agreed during the last election campaign; even my opponent said that the trans-Canada highway should go over the Ferguson highway. We are not parochial in our ideas; we realize that the southern section of the northern part of the province is entitled to connection with the trans-Canada highway, but we think our case should be considered also. This work should be started now. Two roads will converge some place west of Hearst, south of lake Nipigon, and work should be proceeding now, but I am sorry to tell the house that not a bit of work has been carried on with funds provided by this government so far as the trans-Canada highway is concerned in my section of the province.
I wonder if the minister would be good enough to let me know, if he has the documents before him, what amount of money was spent last year and the year before on the construction of the trans-Canada highway in Ontario.


George Gordon: 
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I appreciate some of
the information given by the minister, but I cannot allow a personal1 attack upon myself to pass without offering some defence. The minister said that in this house I voted against a certain resolution with respect to the trans-Canada highway. I challenge any 53719-211
member of this house to prove that such a resolution has at any time been introduced in this house while I have been a member. It is true that on one occasion a resolution was brought forward but it had no reference to a trans-Canada highway; there was no mention whatever in that resolution about such a highway. I am referring to the Kellner resolution. The resolution in question was simply one asking the federal government to grant certain sums of money to the provincial government for the building of roads. I repeat, because this is important, that there was no mention either directly or indirectly, of a trans-Canada highway so far as that resolution was concerned. I can assure the minister that had there been any proposal with regard to the trans-Canada highway in that resolution I would have voted for it; I would have raised both hands for it. I do not want Statements of this kind, a statement such as the Minister of Railways also made two years ago, to go unchallenged, for I certainly never did vote against such a resolution. I have always been in favour of that road and I do not think it is fair for the minister to make such a statement. In the year 1926 no resolution was brought forward dealing with the trans-Canada highway or I would certainly have supported it.
May I point out that the Minister of Labour was as strongly in favour of a trans-Canada highway passing through his section of the country when he took part in the last general election; he was for it as much as I have ever been, or as much as my opponent or any Conservative candidate in that part of the country at that time. He cannot get away from that responsibility now. I hope that as a minister he has been using his influence with the cabinet to have the highway routed through that section, but the federal government is now shifting the responsibility on to the provincial government. We have the statement of Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Henry that in the last three years there have been parties of surveyors working west of Hearst and south of lake Nipigon, and it would have been just as easy for those parties during that period to investigate the route through my section as to investigate the route along the north shore of lake Superior and make a definite report.
I am sure the minister wishes to be fair to me and to the house, but I must tell him once more that there never was a measure, introduced in this house which had anything to do with the trans-Canada highway and which I voted against. I challenge any hon. member who has been in this house during the

Relief Act, 1933

last six years to prove that I have ever voted against a proposal of that kind. As regards expenditures voted in connection with the northern development branch, let me say that while I hold no brief for the present Liberal leader in Ontario, I certainly do know that he has never decried any money spent in northern Ontario. He did urge the curtailing of certain governmental expenditures but he never said a word against any moneys spent in connection with the northern development branch. I want to have that also clearly understood, because it is not fair for *the minister to insinuate that it was due to the influence of the present Liberal leader in Ontario that the expenditures for the northern development branch were reduced by $2,000,000.


George Gordon: It is $3,000,000.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The reduction is from $5,000,000 to $3,000,000. The vote is now $3,000,000. The minister implies that this reduction came about through the influence of the present Liberal leader in the province.


George Gordon: I did not mean to imply that.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Anyone who listened to the hon. gentleman will have inferred just what he meant. He seemed to me to imply that the responsibility rests entirely with the Ontario government, and I must take issue with that statement. I sincerely hope that the minister will find it possible to be as determined in his advocacy of the routing of the trans-Canada highway through that section, now that he is in the cabinet, as he was during the last general election. For my part, I am as much in favour of it to-day as I was ten years ago.


Peter Heenan: I had not intended1 to
discuss this matter until the minister mentioned the Liberal leader in Ontario.


An hon. MEMBER:: Which one?


Peter Heenan: Mr. Mitchell Hepburn,
who will be Prime Minister of Ontario after the next election.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: What will Mr. Sinclair be?


Peter Heenan: I have been on the platform with Mr. Hepburn as much as any other man in Ontario and I hope to be with him until we get the Tories cleaned out of the province.


Mr. McINTOSH:: That will not be long.


Peter Heenan: I have never heard him
say that he proposed to cut down the expenditures in northern Ontario. The statement

I have heard him make over and over again is this, that he proposes that the money that will be spent in northern Ontario shall be spent in the interests of the people instead of building up a dirty, rotten Tory organization. These are his words and I second the motion. With respect to the highway, I recall that I was in the maritimes when the Prime Minister promised1 a highway to be paid for entirely out of the federal exchequer. More than that, I have in my room a copy of the Halifax Herald, dated between the 10th and the 15th of July, 1930, in which there appears a letter which 'he actually wrote to the people of the maritimes, declaring that if elected on the 28th of July he would begin the immediate construction of a highway to be paid for entirely out of the federal treasury. So that I do not think the minister is doing himself justice in trying now to shift the responsibility to the province.
We all know what difficulties there are in relation to the question of jurisdiction, but I suggest that when a gentleman appears before the public, especially a gentleman aspiring to the office of Prime Minister of Canada, and gives a definite pledge, he ought to keep that pledge; he should regard it as sacred. I recall another thing he said in the maritimes. He said, "I here and now ask every member elected in the maritimes to vote against me in the House of Commons if I do not carry out these pledges."


An hon. MEMBER:: How about reforming the Senate?


Peter Heenan: 
George Gordon: I venture the opinion that whatever it is, the hon. member blames it upon this government.


Peter Heenan: There is no one else but this government to blame. When my hon. friends went through the country in 1930 there were 117,000 unemployed and they claimed that that unemployment existed because of the fiscal policies of the Liberal party. The number of unemployed to-day is nearer to 800,000 than it is to 100,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: How about giving up your engine ?


Peter Heenan: If my hon. friend is
ashamed to put on overalls, I am not.
What did my hon. friends promise during the last elections? They said that if they were elected they would end unemployment or perish in the attempt. They made the specific promise that they would take over the question of unemployment as a national obligation. They said if they were elected they would bring the boys and girls back home. The boys and girls are back home, but what are we going to do for them? Are we going to send them up into the northern Ontario camps and pay them S5 per month and their board?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Peter Heenan: That is about the only thing a Tory can do, cast ridicule upon the unemployed and their misery.


An hon. MEMBER:: Rot.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I never knew a Tory that did it.
53719-211J


Peter Heenan: They put into effect tariff policies which cut the trade of this country by more than fifty per cent, they throw thousands of railway men out of work and then offer a policy of unemployment relief. When one of us on this side refers to the misery which exists in his own particular riding, he gets nothing but the usual "ha! ha! " from the Tory ranks. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that if some of the hon. members to your right would prefer to laugh and snort and sneer, they would be better in the smoking room where they belong. Last night we asked some civil questions of the minister and after a great deal of trouble we obtained some of the information we required but not all.


Leslie Gordon Bell: They ought to be
intelligent questions.


Peter Heenan: When we mentioned unemployment insurance the minister did something which I did not think any minister of the crown would attempt to do. He read a [DOT] letter which I had written in connection with unemployment, and then took another letter from another file dealing with unemployment relief. He then said:	"That is what the
former minister said with regard to unemployment." I have files in my office which will show that the former government petitioned or canvassed the provinces in connection with a scheme for unemployment insurance. This file shows also that some of the provinces were willing to join any federal scheme in this connection. It does not do the minister any good to adopt such tactics. Whether I am in or out of this house, I do not intend that the Minister of Labour or any hon. member on the other side shall misrepresent the position taken by myself or by the government of which I was a member.


Leslie Gordon Bell: In or out, it will not make any difference.


Peter Heenan: It would be better if some people were out.


Leslie Gordon Bell: You are the first; start it.


Peter Heenan: I say to the hon. member; it won't be long now.


Leslie Gordon Bell: You are right,
why not go now?


Peter Heenan: If the government cannot give more encouragement than they have given to the unemployed, they ought to resign like men and go to the country and let a government be elected which would do something.
Relief Act, 1933


An hon. MEMBER:: Not a five cent piece.


Peter Heenan: If you divide the money you are voting by the number of unemployed you will find you are not giving even a five cent piece, you are giving about four and one half cents. The minister says that we are on the upturn and it is encouraging to know rifihat we are pulling down the cost of unemployment relief from $46,000,000 to $20,000,'000. Rut he admits in the same breath that the number of unemployed is increasing. .Apparently we all should be tickled to death at the fact that while the number of unemployed are increasing, the government is spending less upon them. But that is the usual Tory policy.
We always have unemployment when a Tory government is in power. I advise my hon. friends who are sneering and laughing to call another convention to meet in the city of Winnipeg and change tiheir name from the Liberal-Conservative association to the hard time party of Canada. I recall a member of the government standing up in 1921 and saying: "Mr. Speaker, why have we unemployment in this country? We have unemployment because the labouring men will not give a fair day's work for a fair day's pay." He said that the men were malingering in the industries, the same words as used to-day by the Minister of Labour.


George Gordon: I never said any such
thing.


Peter Heenan: The minister used the word "malingerer." If I had stood up in my place while I was Minister of Labour and used that word as the present minister has been using it, I do not know what would have been said about me. In 1924 a member of the government said that these men -were malingering in the industries of the country which were going bankrupt because the men were not giving a fair day's work. He said that it took such a period as was then being faced by the *country to bring the men to their senses and Induce them to give a fair day's work. That was said in 1921, and I do not think the Tory psychology has changed since.
We ought to have the required information from the minister. We ought to know whether or not the government are going to build the trans-Canada highway, which the Prime Minister promised to do, not only in his speeches but in letters written to the newspapers. If they are not going to do it, or if they are going to postpone it, we ought to know something about the matter, but at least we ought to know what their intentions are.

As under section 2 there is provision for making agreements with the provinces, I should like to ask the minister this question: Will the agreement contemplate that private organizations shall disburse money and then be reimbursed by the province and the dominion? For instance, take the air force, branches of the Canadian Legion, sailors' unions, labour organizations and so on. Would they have the right under the agreement made with the provinces, to disburse their money through their membership, and then be reimbursed by the province and the dominion?


George Gordon: I will read the arrangement with respect to the matter to which reference has just been made. It is contained in the instructions to the Auditor General, P.C. 2163:
And that, further, the commissioner of unemployment relief and the Auditor General be authorized to accept accounts from the provinces under clause one of the agreements entered into under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931,-rAnd this continues and applies to the present legislation.
-and to pass for payment the accounts for the dominion contribution to the expenditures reported by the provinces as having been made by the municipality, including in such municipal expenditures amounts voluntarily contributed by individuals, business firms, or associations, to the municipality, providing that such amounts have been utilized solely for relief purposes, and have been expended under the jurisdiction of the municipal authorities, and provided that such funds have not been raised by arbitrary deductions from wages payable to those engaged on relief work.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I should like to find out from the minister whether organizations mentioned in section 2 will have to secure their payments through the agency of the province or directly from the federal government.


George Gordon: Section 2 of the bill contemplates that the federal government shall enter into agreements with the provinces and, as in the past, payments will be made to them. We of course could not pay bo the municipalities because, if we did, the task would become hopeless.


Charles A. Stewart: The clause to which I refer reads:
Upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon,-enter into agreements with any of the provinces respecting relief measures therein; grant financial assistance to any province by way of loan, advance, guarantee or otherwise; loan or advance money to or guarantee the payment of money by any public body, corporation or undertaking.

Relief Act, 1933
I note the remainder of paragraph (a) gives the government power to do anything. But my question is this: Would the payment to such body or corporation as is mentioned in the section have to be made through the agency of the province?


George Gordon: No.


Charles A. Stewart: Then the government, in addition to guaranteeing as provided for in paragraph (a), undertakes to deal with anyone in or out of the province. Is that the interpretation?


George Gordon: The paragraph is exactly the same as the one in last year's legislation.


Peter Heenan: The question I wanted to ask the minister is this: Under P.C. 1423 of June 20, 1932, there were paid out for direct relief some moneys which had been disbursed by the Navy League of Ontario. At the moment I am not objecting to this, but will the minister recognize payment of moneys through the heads of 'the labour unions or the air force or the returned soldiers' organizations? Is that what is contemplated under this legislation?


George Gordon: I am afraid I do not just follow the hon. member.


Peter Heenan: I will send the minister a copy of the order in council.


George Gordon: I see now the hon. gentleman's point. A payment of that character would be made through the province.


Peter Heenan: I know that. That money is disbursed by the Navy League of Ontario, which is a Toronto organization, to unemployed sailors and ex-sailors and their dependents. Then the provincial government no doubt gives the navy league the money and the Dominion government reimburses the province to the extent of one-third. Is it contemplated that the same thing would be permitted through other organizations, that is trade unions, branches of the Canadian Legion, the air force, or any similar organization that has a body of unemployed persons in its membership?


George Gordon: If a province made representations to us along the lines suggested, and if the need were apparent, I would be preoared to give the matter very serious consideration. because it might easily be that that agency to which the hon. member has referred might be the best and most efficient one to disburse such money. But at the moment I cannot say that that would be the general policy.


Peter Heenan: When I noticed the order in council, I thought-and I see the minister agrees-that one of the best methods of looking after unemployed workmen might be through their unions.


George Gordon: It might be; that is a matter which might be considered.


Peter Heenan: In many countries there are similar schemes whereby the government contributes through the labour unions. When I saw that order in council, it gave me encouragement to think the minister might adopt the scheme in a more general way instead of just through one particular organization.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I know some of the organizations that have been in receipt of the grants just mentioned and I know they have been doing very good work for the money received. Is the minister in a position to give the committee information as to the private organizations that have been in receipt of such relief as a result of grants from the federal treasury? Would the minister also give the amount expended up to date through private organizations?


George Gordon: I have not the information before me. There have not been many such organizations. Whatever disbursement has been made, has been made through the provinces, but I think some of the provinces have adopted certain organizations which have a structure set up in the municipalities and which help to take care of needy people within their boundaries. Some of- the provinces have used such organizations for the purpose of disbursing unemployment relief to families.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If I understood the minister correctly, the government have no objection to such services being given by private organizations under the jurisdiction of the local authorities?


George Gordon: I think that is a fair way of putting it. If the local authorities consider that the organization has an efficient staff accustomed to taking care of these cases, and that its services can be utilized for the purpose, I cannot at present see any reason why those services should not be enlisted in order that the system of distributing relief may be more easily carried on, and probably at less expense.


Thomas Reid: We have an organization in the municipality of Burnaby named the Army of Common Good, eight or nine hundred strong, composed of people who have gone out to
Relief Act, 1933

help themselves, and I do not suppose there is a finer organization in the whole of Canada. They have gone out cultivated vacant parcels of ground, cut wood, et cetera, which they sell for firewood. Last year they comprised with their dependents some 3,000 altogether. They have not been dependent entirely on relief, but they require a little wharf or float on which to land their wood. This is an organization that should be helped. Would they have any chance of getting assistance from this government in view of the fact that they have gone out to help themselves?


George Gordon: I am glad that the hon. member is able to report an organization of that character doing so well. I think their effort is to be very highly commended. If during the course of their work, and until they can get into some more paying vocation they should fall on misadventure I think the attention of the proper provincial authorities should be called to the organization and what they are doing so that if the organization needs any assistance in carrying on its work, it can be given consideration.


Thomas Reid: They have, I believe, drawn the attention of the provincial government to their need for this wharf, but up to now they have not received any help at all. I repeat, these people are not on direct relief; they are out to assist themselves, and I do not believe there is another organization in the w'hole of Canada that has accomplished and endeavoured to do what this one has done. Their whole object is to maintain themselves and to keep away from relief, and so they are cultivating gardens and sawing firewood, doing any kind of work to help support themselves. In view of the fact that they are in need of and have asked the provincial government for a wharf and been refused, I am now asking would they receive consideration from the federal Department of Labour?


George Gordon: Again I have to reiterate
that I could not make or recommend any payment directly to that association, although I may say that I have heard of the work of these people to whom the hon. member refers, and in my view it is a fine illustration of what people can do if they set their minds to it. If they do fall on misadventure and cannot carry on or are unable after this work is finished to get into some other activity, I would urge them again to present their case to the provincial government, because I feel

that their case should be given every consideration and that they are entitled to commendation for what they have done.


Thomas Reid: They are not asking for
financial help, but for a wharf or float on Burrard inlet so that they can land the wood which they cut and deliver to the homes of people purchasing it. They have not the money to pay for it themselves. Such an undertaking I understand is a dominion responsibility, and I would ask the minister if these people will receive consideration in the matter of this wharf.


George Gordon: So far as I am aware there has been no request for a work of that character. Now that the circumstances have been explained to me a little more fully I would think that that work could probably be undertaken by the federal government, although we might be criticized, and perhaps justly so, for having invaded the time-honoured procedure of providing for the work without placing a vote in the estimates. But if it is made to appear that this wharf is very closely associated with relief work-


Thomas Reid: Yes, it is.


George Gordon: If the wharf is necessary
in order to make that work a success which these eight or nine hundred people are carrying on in order to sustain themselves, I think at the risk of doing violence to that time-honoured procedure I might consider torturing it a bit.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Listening to the minister read the order in council a moment ago, I thought I heard him say that it applied not only to corporations and organizations but to individuals; that any individual who had made a contribution for relief purposes might have his money paid back to him.


George Gordon: No, that is not the construction.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It said something about individuals.


George Gordon: The	clause contemplates
that where individuals have contributed voluntarily to the coffers of the municipality for the purposes of relief-because there are a few cases in Canada where the municipality as such has been unable through its regular tax collections to take care of its obligations with respect to unemployed and needy or indigent persons within its boundaries-we

Relief Act, 1933
have treated that as a contribution by the municipality, thereby enabling the province and the dominion to contribute their share.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is making
the community contribution synonymous with a municipal grant?


George Gordon: Yes.


Mr. MALCOLM:: Might I ask just what
is meant by the word "corporation" in section 2? Does that mean an industrial firm?


George Gordon: I would say that it did.
While "corporation" is a very broad term when used as such, yet a public corporation to which this government would be justified in subscribing moneys must not in my view be such that its failure would have a widespread effect upon the general business of the country, I do not think this government would be at all justified in making indescri-minate grants to corporations. At least I would not subscribe to it.


James Malcolm: My reason for asking
the question is that it would appear that under clause (d), section 2, which permits the government to lend or advance money to corporations, a province might very well subsidize the pay-roll of an industry within its borders. If that were done, would the minister make a contribution towards subsidizing the pay-roll in order to lessen unemployment in the community? Or has the minister any knowledge as to whether that practice has ever been followed in any of the provinces, other than the grant made to the Canadian Pacific Railway?


George Gordon: I have no knowledge of
its having been done; in fact I am sure it has not been done in any instance. The only exception in the past under the other relief act was the first advance of about $1,400,000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and then the $1,000,000 which has been authorized but not yet paid.


James Malcolm: Has the minister any
knowledge, or can he deny, that advances have been made by a province to industrial firms to subsidize pay-rolls?


George Gordon: I am not in a position
to state whether or not a province has done that, but I know we have not contributed to it.


James Malcolm: I would submit to the
minister that subsidizing the pay-roll of an
industry in order to relieve unemployment within a municipality might have very far-reaching and disastrous effects on competition in another province. Inasmuch as it has been suggested-I can find no proof of it; nevertheless it causes some anxiety-that in some cases the provincial government has actually subsidized the pay-roll of an industry in order to keep men employed rather than have them go on relief, it seems to me the minister should have some control over a practice of that kind. If not, he is putting industry in other provinces at a very unfair disadvantage compared with the industry to which such treatment is given.


George Gordon: I think I can assure the members of the committee that this government would not be a party, and certainly has not been in the past, to any contribution for the purpose suggested. I can readily see that it would result in exactly what the hon. member has pointed out.


Mr. EULER:: If such a practice were indulged in by one province, would the minister's department necessarily know about it, and has he any check upon it?


George Gordon: We would not know unless we were asked to contribute. But if application were made to the government to contribute we would immediately inquire into all the ramifications of that industry, and I can assure the committee that this government would not make a contribution that would result in the situation suggested by the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). Of course we do in effect subsidize some industries in this country, like the coal industry, but that is covered by legislation.


William Daum Euler: That is statutory; we understand it.


James Malcolm: I have no objection to the statutory subsidy to which the minister refers. But I would like to ask the minister if he can secure information from the provinces as to whether or not they have through their own treasuries subsidized the pay-rolls of any industry.


George Gordon: I am afraid I will have to answer by saying that I have enough trouble on my hands without going on a prospecting trip to find what the provinces are doing.


William Daum Euler: Following that a step further, may I ask whether, if the provinces did enter upon that practice of subsidizing industries, it necessarily follows that they specify all the
Relief Act, 1933

expenditures they make when they apply to the federal government for its share of the cost? Does the dominion know exactly what the money is being expended for?


George Gordon: Yes. The department
knows what the money is being devoted to. The information that accompanies the certificate of expenditure from the province discloses the purpose for which the money is asked. And of course the Auditor General again checks the expenditure to see that it falls within the agreement and the statute. This part of the legislation referring to corporations I can well understand must be given the most careful attention, and it would be with great reluctance that advances would be made to public corporations, such as the advance to the wage earners on the Canadian Pacific Railway. It would have to be a very special case. The danger that has been pointed out by the hon. member for North Bruce would be one of the first questions that would have to be looked into, because undoubtedly if such a practice were adopted, in even one instance, it might easily result in very unfair competition, and dislocation of industry, which would be regrettable, and for which, of course, this government would be held directly responsible.


James Malcolm: I am very glad the minister has made that statement. Inasmuch as this relief money is voted jointly by the federal and the provincial governments, there should be some understanding between the federal and provincial authorities that such a practice shall not obtain. The fact that one province might subsidize an industry within its borders by granting it so much money towards its pay-roll would simply mean that that industry would be enabled to cut prices to the disadvantage of like industries in other provinces. It is a practice from which no good could come, but only strife, both for the wage earners and the manufacturers in other provinces. As the federal and provincial governments are carrying on this relief work jointly, I think the minister should have an understanding that no such unfair practice can possibly be allowed in the future, even though it may not have taken place in the past. I base my remarks on rumours that are current that such a practice has obtained. I do not confirm them; I know nothing of their truth, nevertheless such rumours are current.


Mr. MacLEAN:: Although a great many figures have been quoted by the minister in this debate, it is difficult to find from those

figures the amount that has been advanced to the different provinces under all the different schemes. I think it would be only fair for the minister to give the house, before the bill goes through, a tabulated statement setting forth in detail: first, the amount given for direct relief; second, the amount that has been expended under unemployment relief for public works; third, the amount of money loaned to farmers and farmers' organizations; fourth, money loaned to the provinces; and fifth, money loaned to corporations; also the total of all payments, with the percentages in relation to population for the different provinces. I know that the minister has been very patient and has given a great many figures, but I defy anyone to find out what has been contributed to any one province under all these different heads. If the minister has not the information here to-night I shall be glad to put my question on the order paper, but I think we should have, in percentage to population, the full amount contributed under the different schemes in the different provinces.


George Gordon: The information sought
by the hon. member was given to the house by me on February 24 of this year. I regret that the hon. member has had difficulty in identifying the amounts with respect to the various provinces, but to avoid the necessity of going over the whole picture from coast to coast I should be very glad, if it will suit his purpose, to have a statement prepared showing just what the hon. member has asked, and furnish it to him.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I should be very pleased
to have it in any form at all, because I believe we should have the per capita figures for the different provinces, and I do not think any percentages according to population have been given.


George Gordon: Just what does the hon.
member mean by percentages? Does he mean the per capita expenditure in each province?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Certainly.


George Gordon: I think that could be
worked out easily. The hon. member means the per capita expenditure under each item indicated?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Quite so.
Mr. GORDON; I will have a schedule worked' out and furnished to the hon. gentleman.

Relief Act, 1933


Charles Gavan Power: In connection with section
2, which provides that notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law the governor in council may loan or advance money to or guarantee the payment of money by any public body, corporation or undertaking, may I ask the minister if any such loans or advances or guarantees have been made to private corporations or to undertakings, whatever that may mean, since January 1, 1932, except the advance made to the Canadian Pacific Railway?


George Gordon: As has been indicated
already, there was a payment made to the Canadian Pacific Railway. There was also a guarantee given which has been referred to and explained in the house in connection with the Manitoba savings office. So far as my recollection serves me, no other guarantees or advances have been made to corporations.
I think my recollection is correct in that.


Charles Gavan Power: Then may I ask the minister if the government is committed to any other guarantees, and I use the word "committed advisedly. I intend to come back to this under section 7, because on reading over certain orders in council which have been produced I find that with reference to the first Canadian Pacific loan of $1,147,221.71 the government entered into an agreement with that company under the terms of which the Canadian Pacific was to keep its shops open from the 17th day of November, 1931, until the 31st day of December, 1931. Parliament was in session, I think, from about February 10, 1932, until well into the month of June, if. my memory serves me aright, and during all that time we were not informed of this agreement between the administration and the Canadian Pacific. As a matter of fact the order in council was passed only on September 30, 1932, whereas the agreement or guarantee was given almost a year before, and the money was actually expended. I submit that it is bad enough to have the government take all the powers given to it under this act, by means of which parliament is absolutely ignored and the government is permitted, notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law, to do anything they think should be done; at least there is some kind of implied obligation to tell this house what has been done, and I submit that arrangements made verbally or over the long distance telephone between the minister and any corporation at once should be put in writing and placed before parliament. It is useless for us to have in this act section 7 which says:
All orders in council and regulations made under the provisions of this act shall be laid before the House of Commons forthwith after the making thereof if parliament is then sitting, or if not, said orders in council or regulations or an abstract thereof disclosing their essential provisions shall be published in the next following issue of the Canada Gazette.
We may as well remove that section if the government can deal in millions of dollars without informing parliament. As a matter of fact I am informed that in the Beauharnois case it was months after the arrangement was made to guarantee the bonds that anything was placed in writing; everything was done by telephone. I have great respect for all the members of the government and for the Prime Minister but I submit that it is not fair to the contracting parties or to the government that at least some memorandum binding the government should not be made. No private business in the world would be carried on in that way, particularly when dealing with millions of dollars.
While I am on my feet I might as well refer to another order in council dealing with wheat, which I think I have in my desk. In the very preamble of the first order in council, dated November 15, 1932, providing for the guarantee to the banks to cover the gambling operations of the wheat pool, it is stated:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated llith September, 1931, from the Minister of Finance, recommending that, in pursuance of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, and of an undertaking on behalf of the government, made before the session of parliament at which said act was passed, to implement by legislation the recommendation hereinafter set out, the governor in council guarantee repayment to the chartered banks hereinafter mentioned:
The reason I asked the minister if anything had been ddne by way of a commitment is that we might be sitting here, and in fact we were sitting here, for months without being informed of undertakings, obligations, guarantees or contracts made by the government. So I say the section in question is absolutely useless; we might as well take it out of the act altogether unless we add something making it apply when agreements are made or decisions arrived at or legislation passed, because each order in council has the force and effect of an act of this house. Unless we have some assurance from the government that some such action will be taken I believe this section of the act might just as well be taken out. Having given the minister my reasons for the question, I now ask whether the government is committed in any way to
Relief Act, 1933

any private corporation, to any province or to any private person for the expenditure of money or the guaranteeing of any expenditure of money in any way other than in the orders in council which have been produced in this house within the last few months.


George Gordon: I do not believe that any guarantees have been made under this part of the section other than the ones with which the committee has dealt, namely, to the Canadian Pacific Railway, the guarantee against loss in connection with Beauharnois- I am not sure whether that was dealt with under the Relief Act-


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, it was.


George Gordon: -that with respect to the wheat pools, and the Manitoba savings office; and the Dominion government is not obligated to any provincial government, corporation or individual in connection with any guarantee under the provisions of the act still in force. With respect to the Canadian Pacific Railway and the fact that the assurance was given in the fall of 1931, and the order in council was not in fact passed until the following year, the circumstances in connection with this matter were explained by the Prime Minister. The situation was this. The Canadian Pacific Railway approached the Dominion government and outlined the difficulties which they were in, and the government was also approached by the head of the labour unions. After the matter had received consideration the assurance was given in the fall of 1931 that, for the period of time indicated by the hon. member, the advance would be made to the Canadian Pacific Railway to pay the wages of these men, and of course the advance would be made only after the wages had been earned. Proof of the payment of the wages was not received by the government until the following year, and of course the order in council was not passed until the proof that the wages had been paid and that the men had been employed was furnished to the government. That is the reason the order in council was delayed after the assurance had been given in the fall. That was the situation with respeot to the Canadian Pacific Railway guarantee.


William Daum Euler: I understand there were two loans to the Canadian Pacific Railway.


George Gordon: The first was a guarantee of wages of SI.400.000 odd, and there was authorization of a further $1,000,000 to be paid
fMr. Power.]
to the Canadian Pacific Railway when the wages were earned. That money has not yet been paid.


William Daum Euler: The loan has really been made in two parts. I believe the first loan was made without interest, and it was not to be repaid until such time as the railway again paid in excess of five per cent in dividends. Was the second loan made under the same terms and conditions, and if not what were the terms and conditions?


George Gordon: There were two orders in council. The first one dealt with a loan of $1,447,222.71 and was a loan to the Canadian Pacific Railway repayable without interest when the earnings of the company enabled it to resume payments of dividends at not more than five per cent per annum. The second, passed on December 22, 1932, is to be paid back to the government without interest before any further dividends on any stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway are declared or paid.


Mr. DUFF:: Listening to the ex-Minister of Labour, I was astounded when he made the statement that this government had advanced a certain amount of money to the Navy League of Ontario. Before dealing with that matter, however, there is a more pleasing duty to perform, Mr. Chairman (Mr. Spotton) and that is to wish you, sir, many happy returns of the day, and may your shadow never grow less. I preface my remarks with that compliment so that you will not call me to order in the course of what I have to say.
I can understand that under this subsection (a) of section 2 of the bill before us, very wide powers are given, and it seems that under this clause almost any person can ask the provincial or the federal government for money and get it.


Mr. COTNAM:: Glad to hear it.


William Duff: My hon. friend gets some wisdom listening to me. lit seems to me that "Navy League of Ontario" is rather a misnomer; I do not understand how that body can apply to this government or to the provincial government for relief. I could understand, so far as the province of Ontario is concerned, that there might be an application from the egg circle of West York, if it spent money for relief purposes and wanted assistance from the province or the dominion, or an application from the potato growers' association of Lambton county, or from the organization known as the Grange, or even from

Relief Act, 1933
the Ku Klux Klan or the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I could understand it if the application came from any of these organizations. It seems to me however that there is something wrong in the distribution of relief by this government and the province when they allow an organization known as the Navy League of Ontario to distribute moneys and expect the taxpayers to pay for it. Again, I could understand that from any of the cities of Vancouver, Halifax, Montreal and Quebec an application might come and the navy league in any of these places might have something to do with the distribution of relief, under agreement with this government or with the province interested. But if the yachtsmen of Toronto and places on lake Ontario want to put crn a little swank and, instead of calling their organization the yacht club of Toronto, they decide to call it the Navy League of Ontario, that is no good reason why the federal or the provincial government should allow them to spend money and then ask the taxpayers of the country to foot the bill. If that is the way the money is being distributed, then it is high time a halt was called. I should like to have a detailed statement from the minister in connection with the $2,174.12 which was distributed by the navy league under order in council passed on June 20, 1932. I realize there are certain organizations which are doing good work in the distribution of relief money but it seems to me that it is going too far when an organization on lake Ontario or in the city of Toronto known as the navy league is permitted to distribute money. I should like to know how this money was distributed and who received it.


Leslie Gordon Bell: A Lunenburg navy would be much better, wouldn't it?


William Duff: Yes, much better.


George Gordon: The money was not paid by this government to the Ontario navy league; it was disbursed by the navy league and the province of Ontario paid a portion of the cost while the Dominion government contributed its percentage. I have not before me the details of the actual expenditures and the names of the persons to whom relief was granted, but if it is not in the department I am sure it can be obtained from the Ontario government. I shall obtain it and give it to the hon. member, if he so desires.


William Duff: Do I understand that when the government receives a request from an organization like this navy league of Toronto it
pays the money out without knowing what it is to be used for, who is to receive it and so on? I can understand that in a city like Toronto there must be many people who are receiving relief, but surely the different churches, the different labour unions and other organizations are better qualified to do this work than a little two by four, freshwater organization which comes and asks for money from the dominion treasury.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Duff: Although my hon. friends may laugh, I am serious about this. There must be something loose in the organization looking after this relief when a so-called organization known as the navy league must step into the breach in the great province of Ontario and the great city of Toronto. There must be hundreds of organizations looking after relief in that city, and I do not think the government should countenance an organization like the navy league coming in and getting money from this dominion. I hope the minister will note my remarks and will see that relief is given through sources other than the navy league.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: I should
like to refer to the latter part of subsection (a) of section 2 of this bill and ask the minister if I am right in assuming that from now on no notes will be taken from people in the province of Saskatchewan who are recipients of relief.


George Gordon: The taking of notes in
the province of Saskatchewan has been the subject of discussion upon a number of occasions. I believe it is clear in the minds of hon. members that these notes were taken because the people themselves did not want charity. I assume there were some who in their extremity were not very anxious to repay, but a great number of the people did want to pay back and are paying back. Therefore, the Saskatchewan relief commission took notes from them all. Our future course will have to depend upon the situation existing in each individual instance. It is remotely possible that a situation may arise similar to that which arose in Saskatchewan where the people were destitute because of the total failure of their crops. Those people were not without assets but the assets they had could not be converted into money. I would not care to give the assurance that in a similar instance a similar course would not be adopted. I am sure the hon. member will recognize that many of the people in the
Relief Act, 1933

dried out areas of Saskatchewan have an earnest desire to pay back the amounts advanced to them. As the statement which I spread upon the records discloses, they are paying them back.


Robert McKenzie: There
are a great many people throughout the province of Saskatchewan who, like myself, have wondered just why it was 'that the recipients of relief in that province were called upon to give notes for the relief they received. We have been wondering this because of the statement made by the Prime Minister on July 29, 1931. At that time the Prime Minister said:
During the last few days I have received telegrams from the province of Saskatchewan suggesting that it was not desirable that direct relief which might be regarded as charity should be accorded to those hardy settlers who have lost their all for the third, and in some instances the fourth succeeding year, but rather that they would like to execute some document which would indicate that they regarded the help given as an obligation which they might sometime be able to pay. I would say to my good friend from South Huron (Mr. McMillan) that that indicates at least the attitude of most of those who at the present time are without crops and who have had the third succeeding crop failure.
In view of that statement, I asked for a return of all the correspondence which had been received from people in the province of Saskatchewan in connection with the giving of notes by farmers in that district. My request was placed upon the order paper early in the session of 1932 and was passed by the house on March 23, 1932. On May 4 the return had not come down and I asked why it had not been brought down. At that time the Prime Minister said that he thought it had been brought down. I made an inquiry some weeks after and I was then told it would be brought down before the end of the session. On May 23, the Prime Minister made this statement:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie) has asked me a question on several occasions. I thought he had misread what I said on the 29th July, 1931, I find on looking up the record that I then said:
"During the last few days I have received telegrams from the province of Saskatchewan suggesting that it was not desirable that direct relief which might be regarded as charity should be accorded to those hardy settlers who have lost their all for the third, and in some instances the fourth succeeding year, but rather that they would like to execute some document which would indicate that they regarded the help given as an obligation which they might sometime be able to pay. I would say to my good friend from South Huron (Mr. McMillan) that that indicates at least the attitude of most 
of those who at the present time are without crops and who have had the third succeeding crop failure."
I observe the hon. gentleman read my remarks as indicating that I had received communications from the province of Saskatchewan, and he was seeking information as to what member of the provincial government had communicated with me. It will be observed that my language did not mean that I had received communications from the provincial government, but from persons residing within the province. While some of the communications were marked "personal," the one that gave me the most information was from a loan company manager, who, I knew, had travelled over the territory and found a disposition on the part of the settlers not to take charity but to make a contribution in the sense indicated.
That was not by any means a satisfactory reply. I never at any time indicated that I thought the communication came from a member of the provincial government; that was not in my mind at all. But people in Saskatchewan are still asking who it was that was so much concerned about the business as to telegraph to the Prime Minister that they should be allowed to give notes for the relief they received. We are still wondering who it was, and I think, in fairness to the many other managers of loan companies in Saskatchewan, the Prime Minister should tell us who this particular gentleman was who knows so much about the farmers. I have discussed the matter with many farmers and they say that they would like to know who it was, because they are sure that no farmer in Saskatchewan requested permission to give a note for the relief he received. If there are any such farmers, we would like to know who they are and who this loan manager was. We would like to know who it was that was so busy as to send these requests to the Prime Minister that the farmers dhould give notes for their relief. Can we have an answer to this?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman knows quite well it would be impossible for me to make any statement as to names,^although my memory is fairly good. I looked up the matter at the time and gave an answer before the end of last session for the very reason that the hon. gentleman asked for the information and I endeavoured to supply it. The telegrams were marked "personal." The gentleman was a manager of a loan company who had just completed travelling over the territory. I had stopped at Regina and discussed the matter at that time. When we were sitting around the table it was said that a number of the farmers desired to give notes, and as a matter of fact the commission did prepare notes which were signed by those who received relief.

That a number of farmers would ask about the matter seems passing strange in view of Ihe fact that they gave notes in large numbers. All that received relief gave notes for the relief they got and I did not think anything more about the matter. The hon. gentleman asked for the correspondence. Perhaps he is not aware that between August 7, 1931 and February of 1932, according to the file clerks, as many file boxes were filled as during the term of office of my predecessor, so it is a little difficult to carry all these things in mind. I did at the time endeavour to give an answer to the hon. gentleman. I do not now recall the name of the gentleman, but he said that he had just completed a tour and his statement only confirmed what had been told ro me at the meeting held in Regina where we were all sitting round the board together and discussing these matters. While we did not arrange the notes, they were given by the farmers and I understood, although not until after my explanation in the house, that they were taken in favour of the crown in right of the dominion, which wras not our understanding of the matter at the time. That, however, was done. The Premier of Saskatchewan was reported as saying that some $400,000 had been returned of loans that had been made for relief purposes. That was with respect to seed, as I understand the matter. That the farmers gave notes, there is no doubt in the world. That they agreed to give notes, was, as I understood the situation, a matter of arrangement. From what was said to me at the time of my visit to Regina as well as from the communications to which I referred when I looked them up something like a year ago now, it will be apparent that the farmers who were receiving relief desired to return it. Moreover, I received many communications stating that it was highly desirable that that should be done, because nothing was worse than that relief should be distributed without any idea of its ever being repaid. A number of citizens speaking from an organization standpoint said that if we desired to prevent the evil consequences that might flow from giving direct relief, every man who received it should sign for it, indicating not only the receipt of it but a willingness to repay it if he ever were in a position to do so.


Robert McKenzie: I think the farmers were not averse to giving notes for the seed grain that they received, but they feel there was an injustice because they were compelled to sign for every pound of tea and everything else they got and give a note for them, whereas in the cities that was not done
Relief Act, 1933
until very much later. It looks as if the farmers were not given a square deal in having to sign notes for everything they got in the way of relief.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is only well that the hon. member should bear in mind that the provinces had control of the distribution of relief in the cities and that the dominion undertook full responsibility only with respect to those seventy odd municipalities in which there had been a complete loss of crop for three succeeding years. Even then a commission was appointed by the province at the request of the Dominion government, and the Dominion government dealt with the province.
I might say to the hon. member for Antigo-nish-Guysborough that there was no dealing with any navy league or any other organization by the Dominion government; it dealt only with the provinces and the provinces made the arrangements, because, as I read the constitution-and I may be entirely in error-the dominion does not deal with organizations or communities except through the province. The province alone is the medium of communication and contact between those who receive relief and the Dominion government.


William Duff: But the fact remains that this government and the people generally had to pay this money which, as the Prime Minister said, was paid out under the arrangement made by the province with the navy league. When that request to pay this money came in from the province, the federal government should have turned down the request and not paid the money. There are navy leagues in different parts of the country and their officials go out and collect private subscriptions to look after sailors who are not able to take care of themselves. I object to the federal government paying this money. It seems to me that if other sums are paid by the government in the same way, it is time we had a royal commission to investigate the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman,
despite his prejudice, does not desire to be unfair. May I say to him that the province of Ontario selected the navy league as an instrument to distribute relief amounting in the aggregate to $2,000. The distribution having been made and the vouchers for the payments having been obtained in accordance with the agreement with the province, the Dominion government repaid to the province
Relief Act, 1933

the share which under the agreement the dominion was liable to pay for relief distributed to needy persons through the instrumentality selected by the province.


William Duff: I oan assure the Prime Minister that I have no prejudice. All I am endeavouring to show him-and I am sure in his heart he must agree with me-is that if relief is necessary in the city of Toronto or on the great lakes, there certainly must be other methods of arranging it and distributing the money than through the so-called Navy League of Ontario. When the Prime Minister admits and the record shows that only some $2,000 have been distributed by this organization, that completely proves my point that it was absolutely unnecessary for this organization to distribute the money, or for either the province or the dominion to repay it. There were other means of looking after distressed sailors, and there was no need for this small organization, the Navy League of Ontario, to spend $2,000 and then go back to the province and the dominion and ask for the money. I say this, that the officials of the navy league in Toronto ought to have had pride enough either to put their hands into their own pockets and pay this small amount, or get subscriptions from the white-duck trousered men who belong to the organization.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire to make one
further observation to the hon. gentleman. If he will look at the votes and proceedings, page 314, he will note a reference to the tabling of the seoond order in council, dated March 15, 1933, authorizing payment to the province of Ontario of the sum of $75,056.19 for direct relief distributed in the municipalities, in unorganized districts and by the Ontario Navy League. The second order in council covered payments to the province for direct relief not only in unorganized districts but by the Ontario Navy League. The first order in council covered a payment of $2,200, to which the hon. gentleman directed attention a little while ago.
That raises a very nice question. I put it to the hon. gentleman and to the committee, if a province in the exercise of its discretion and as an autonomous unit responsible for the distribution of relief selects an instrument for that purpose, and the distribution of relief is made and the vouchers produced, is it competent or is it within the spirit of the act that the dominion Should say that the instrument chosen was an unfit instrument? The hon. gentleman's complaint is that the instrument chosen by the province was an unfit instru-

ment to distribute relief. I am bound to say from what I know of the Navy League of Ontario, that it is composed of men with a high sense of public duty anxious to assist in times of stress and strain, and their contributions in the past-I am not speaking about this particular matter now-have been very generous. But whether or not the dominion should say that the instrument thus chosen was a fit one is a question that has been discussed in this committee from time to time. My opinion up to this moment has been that when a province charged with responsibility to its citizenry makes payments and selects its own instrument to make distribution, we, having bound ourselves by agreements to repay the portion of the money so distributed or expended, cannot be too critical of the instrument dhosen and allege it to be an improper one, provided always that the audit discloses that there has been a distribution of moneys in accordance with the representations made by the province in connection with the expenditures in question.


William Duff: I am sure the Prime Minister does not want to misquote me. I do not think I said that this organization was unfit to distribute this money. What I said or meant to say, and think I did say, was that the organization was unnecessary; and I repeat that. With all the organizations in the great city of Toronto, the charitable organizations, church organizations, labour unions and everything else, I think this organization was unnecessary particularly when the amount was so small. If the Navy League of Ontario was a great organization and had distressed sailors coming in every night to be looked after, I could understand why it might be necessary under the broad clause in this act that both the province and the dominion should pay money to this organization. But surely the Prime Minister must agree with me that when the amount is only $2,000, divided between the organization itself, the province, and the dominion, the money, spent for distressed sailors I presume, might very well have been spent by some other organization.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire only to say that the navy league itself did pay 33J per cent of the sum expended.


William Duff: I said that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Coming back to the question of the notes, I understand that quite a large sum has been paid back on account of notes given by recipients of public relief.-

Reliej Act, 1933


Richard Bedford Bennett: Seed groin, I said I believed it was. That is my information.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I understand 'that those also who have been receiving public relief have paid back some of the moneys that were handed to them for relief. If such is the case, the funds which enabled them to receive relief were funds granted by the federal authorities. If the municipalities and the provinces are collecting money from those who in the past have received relief, I should like to know if any of that money has been returned to the federal authorities.


George Gordon: With respect to the notes, a comparatively small amount, 810,016.78, has been paid back. With respect to seed grain loans, 8410,000 has been returned. I believe that more has been paid back in connection with relief notes not yet reported but which we expect will in due course be reported.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Could the minister tell us which of the provinces have paid back that
810,000	odd?


George Gordon: The province of Saskatchewan.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is the only one?


George Gordon: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Nothing from Manitoba,
Alberta or any other province?


George Gordon: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before this clause carries, Mr. Chairman, I think it ought to be read into the record so that anyone interested in perusing this discussion later on will see exactly what it is we have been discussing. I am inclined to think that this section will acquire a certain historical interest before very long. I would ask the chairman if he will please read the section.


George Spotton: Section 2 reads:
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law the governor in council may,-
(a) Upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon,-enter into agreements with any of the provinces respecting relief measures therein; grant financial assistance to any province by way of loan, advance, guarantee or [DOT] otherwise; loan or advance money to or guarantee the payment of money by any public body, corporation or undertaking; 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.
(b) Take all such measures as in his discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to maintain, within the competence of parliament, peace, order and good government throughout Canada, and to protect the credit and financial position of the dominion or any province thereof.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I noticed that some hon. gentlemen opposite thought it very amusing that I should ask that this section be read. I hope they did not think that I was referring particularly to them when I said that it might be well to have it on the record in order that persons reading the record later on might be made fully aware of what the section as it appears in the bill is. I assumed that hon. gentlemen opposite had some idea of what we were discussing, but the reader of Hansard a year hence may have some difficulty possibly in appreciating the full significance of some of the references to this particular section, if the section itself does not appear on the record.
May I make doubly clear what does appear in this section, and what I think will be of increasing interest and concern to the people of Canada as they are asked in budget after budget to pay out more in the way of taxation? When the public understands that the section we are now passing gives the government of the day the right to difp into the treasury to any extent it pleases with respect to meeting obligations of all kinds which the government may incur, and to loan the funds of Canada in a dozen and one directions, they will begin to think that perhaps there is something in this section worth having on record and paying some attention to. In order that some of my hon. friends opposite may appreciate something of the extent of what in the way of parliamentary control they are so ready to part with, may I direct their attention to just what the section says:
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law the governor in council mayfa) ... loan or advance money to or guarantee the payment of money by any public body, corporation or undertaking; and in respect of such loans, advances, and guarantees, may . . . generally do all such things as the governor in council may deem necessary and expedient in the public interest.
If that is not an. authority that ought to give this house occasion to pause before it is granted, I would like to know what words in a proposed statute could possibly occasion hesitation.
Let me read the next section:
(b) Take all such measures as in his discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to maintain, within the competence of
Relief Act, 1933

parliament, peace, order and good government throughout Canada, and to protect the credit and financial position of the dominion or any province thereof.
In other words this section is the means taken by this government to set tip a dictatorship in Canada, A few years ago we saw how a dictatorship originated in Italy. Those who have seen this evening's papers have seen how a dictatorship within the past two days has been set up in Germany. Some day, students of political developments in Canada may be interested to see where, in a British country, dictatorships first got their ruse. They will find it in the section I have just read to this house.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: How about Roosevelt?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Roosevelt has not anything like the powers given here. And let me say to my hon. friend that I prefer to take my examples in matters of government from Britain and British institutions rather than from the United States. May I point out further what my hon. friend apparently does not know, [DOT] that in the United States the president is the executive and has autocratic powers that it has never been assumed in any British country would be given to any executive. In this and in other self-governing British countries, parliament controls the executive.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Isn't it a British country?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; if my hon. friend does not know, I will tell him.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: You were over there long enough to know.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Probably it
would have been a good thing for my hon. friend if he had had some knowledge of any community outside of the one in which he has spent most of his life. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get into an unnecessary discussion with back-benchers on the other side, and perhaps my hon. friend who is so fond of interrupting, will just mind his own business for a few minutes.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: That got under your skin. Your skin is pretty thin.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I notice some hon. gentlemen in the back seats who had great difficulty in getting into them. Now, Mr. Chairman, if I may have order-


Thomas Reid: If they are sick why don't they go outside?


Mr. ILSLEY:: If they are shot why don't they disappear?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it may be of interest to those following political developments in this country to see the sort of example which is being set by the Conservative party to those members in the far comer, whom they are continually condemning because of their desire to set up a cooperative commonwealth federation in this country which will control all the natural resources and the socially necessary means of production. If the day ever comes when these gentlemen in the far comer should have occasion to ask themselves or should be asked how they propose to do it, I do not think they will have to go further for their answer than to refer to section 2 of bill 55, the one which is now before us, which shows how a government may take to itself absolute authority for any purpose. Let me substitute the words of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) the other day for some of the words which appear in this section. It would then read:
Notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law the governor in council may generally do all such things as the governor in council may deem necessary and expedient in the public interest, take all such measures as in his discretion may be deemed advisable to maintain, within the competence of parliament, peace, order and good government throughout Canada, and to set up a cooperative commonwealth which shall control all the natural resources and socially necessary means of production to be used in the interests of the people and not for the benefit of the few.
You have the whole situation there. The Conservative party by this section shows the country how a dictatorship may be established with the governor in council in the role of dictator. Hon. gentlemen in the far comer advocate a dictatorship not of an individual but of a class. Both are carried out in exactly the same way, the way set forth in this section. I say it is an astounding thing that the parliament of Canada, of all countries in the world, should have been the first British community to set a precedent for a possible future government of that character.


Peter Heenan: Before the clause is carried I want to point out to the minister that when we first entered into these relief agreements we had the assurance of the Prime Minister and the government that the money would be administered in a non-partisan way. I am not going into all that has taken place in northern Ontario; that has been dealt with to some extent. But I have in my hand the public accounts of the province of Ontario, and I will give just one example of what is going on. In the town of Kenora, which is not a large town but is a very important one, there are two hardware stores.

Relief Act, 1933
One is an old established firm kept by a family that has been Liberal for many years. The other one, not very long established, is conducted by the president of a Conservative association. In 1931-32 the public accounts show that there was spent in the last mentioned hardware store by the province of Ontario, from moneys which we contributed here, approximately $30,000, and in the other store, the Liberal store, $125. I know it is difficult for the minister to do business with the Ontario government and make them toe the mark; I have been trying to do it for the last fifteen years and have not succeeded. But I think he should insist that the pledge given by the Prime Minister of Canada and the government of Canada that these moneys would be expended in a fair and equitable way should be carried out.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Reference was made to the government coming to the assistance of the Navy League of Canada, Ontario branch. I know many other organizations carrying on work of a like nature, for example the Typographical Union in the city from which I come. Not one member of that organization, notwithstanding that many of them have been out of work for a long time, has yet applied for relief of any description. The organization has carried those men by weekly assessments on the pay of the members. I do not think distinction should be made between one organization and another. I know other labour organizations which are carrying on work of a like character. If it is good policy for the government to come to the assistance of one organization-and I am not finding fault with the policy at the moment-it is just as logical that they should come to the assistance of these labour organizations. I would like to know what is the attitude of the government, should an application be made by one of these labour organizations for the same measure of assistance as has been rendered to the navy league.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Apparently the hon.
gentleman entirely misunderstood what has taken place. The navy league distributed relief, one-third of which they themselves provided; another third was provided by the province of Ontario and the remaining third by the dominion. If the organization to which the hon. gentleman refers is distributing relief-and he says it is not-'then it would come within the rule that was adopted in this case. There has been no suggestion of discrimination; a public body desiring to afford assistance in a time of stress and strain to a number of people, the public, who sought 53719-212
relief, has distributed that relief as the instrumentality selected by the province, not by this government. Under its agreement the province was entitled to secure from the dominion one-third of the cost of such relief, the other two-thirds being provided by the province and the organization itself.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not suggest that there was any discrimination; I want that thoroughly understood. I think the Prime Minister must have misunderstood me. I did not listen to the remarks of the right hon. gentleman; I based my observations on the remarks of the Minister of Labour. Nevertheless I am glad the Prime Minister made his statement in this connection; I take it that this organization will be entitled to the same measure of relief if they act as this other organization has acted. This is relief; it is money raised by the members themselves by an assessment on the wages earned by those who are employed. I am glad that policy has the blessing of the Prime Minister and I understand that provided they adopt the practice followed by this other organization they will be entitled to the same measure of assistance from the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Among others the following organizations have been selected by the provinces to distribute relief: the Ontario Navy League, the Red Cross Society, the St. Vincent de Paul Society, the Jewish Federation of Charities and the Protestant Relief Committee. I merely name these because it happened that the navy league was one of the agencies selected by the province. I doubt whether, on the statement now made by the hon. gentleman, the organization to which he refers could be selected as an instrument of government to make a general distribution of relief in the community.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I believe in some cases the municipalities have endorsed organizations which have been given the assistance which was given the organization mentioned by the Prime Minister. Would not a union, carrying out work of a charitable nature among its members, come within that category?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would say not.


Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to say just a word, Mr. Chairman; I have checked a few notes I made with regard to the agreements entered into with the provinces. On March 3, Rev. Father Bilodeau wrote a letter which appeared in Le Soleil, and the date and location mentioned in that letter are



IUSVISED EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Reliej Act, 1933
[Stage Direction]
very important. On March 8 Mr. LaforCe of the colonization department of the Canadian National Railways wrote me a letter, which I answered on March 9. Then on March 10 he wrote a letter to Doctor Black- in which he quotes fifteen other letters from settlers. Two of those letters bear neither date nor location; three bear no location; eight bear no date, and only two have a date and a location. I want to place those facts on record, Mr. Chairman, to show that directly after my speech of March 2 Father Bilodeau wrote me from Quebec. Then on March 14, eleven days later, he wrote again, and translated into English, the first paragraph reads:
I have received the declarations which were sent me after coming back from the mission, where I probably was more fatigued than you are as a member of the House of Commons.
The French is as follows:
J'ai l'ecu les declarations que vous m'avez envoyees a un retour de mission ou j'ai eu probablement plus de fatigue que vous en avez a la Chambre comme depute.
To conclude, the facts were placed before the house on March 2, and on March 3, Father Bilodeau was in Quebec. Then he left for places unknown, and on March 14, he was back in Quebec saying he had visited those colonization regions. It took him eleven days; he said he was very tired. I aim not positive, of course, but I wonder if he did not go to collect the letters which were sent to Laforce and afterwards to Doctor Black, most of them without location or date. At this time of year I cannot leave my sessional duties and go to that district, but I will surely go there this summer to see conditions for myself.
Section agreed to on division.
On section 3-Further powers of governor in council.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Subsection (b) reads:
Without restricting the generality of the terms of the nest preceding section hereof and not withstanding the provisions of any statute ' or law, the governor in council may,-
(b) assist in defraying the cost of the sale and distribution of the products of field, farm, forest, sea, river and mine.
We were told yesterday that advantage would be taken of this section to provide whatever may be required for the agricultural stabilization fund mentioned by the Minister of Finance in the budget speech. Can the minister give an estimate of what amount he thinks will be required in that regard?
fMr. Pouliot.]


George Gordon: I would not care to estimate the amount that may be required. In the judgment of the government the step outlined in the budget speech was very desirable from the standpoint of agriculturists and others named in this section. I do not think the right hon. gentleman will disagree with me when I say that it is very desirable that the course outlined in the budget speech should be adopted, because we believe-and I doubt if many hon. members of this committee will disagree-that the assistance which will be rendered these primary producers will go a long way towards stimulating trade and enabling them to get their products on the markets particularly of the United Kingdom. It would be quite impossible for me to estimate the amount of money that may be necessary to meet the requirements of that fund.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Surely in preparing the budget the government must have had some idea of what amounts of money would be required for different purposes. My hon. friend as Minister of Labour must surely have some idea, in a general way, of what will be required in connection with the expenditures under this act. Can he not give us some sort of estimate?


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: The press gave an estimate of about $6,000,000, and I was wondering whether they had received information from an official source that confirmed the basis of that estimate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the leader of the opposition will undoubtedly realize that the amount desired will depend entirely upon the value of the pound. This is a relief measure which expires on March 31, 1934, and the volume of business that we would transact would of course be the first determining factor, the second factor being the fluctuating value of the pound sterling on exchange. If the pound increases in value, then obviously, with the volume of business increasing, the amount payable would be smaller than would be the case were there a wider margin. The figure of $6,000,000 mentioned is a figure which I have not seen, but which the hon. gentleman says appears in the press. My own estimate would be higher than that, but I would put it at less than $10,000,000 as a maximum, assuming that there were a very much larger volume of business than there is now, and that the pound sterling in exchange value were less than it is at present.

Relief Act, 1933


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the Prime Minister this question. He estimates that $10,000,000 will be spent-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; I said that would be the maximum.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, in the
nature of a bonus on exports; that is what it is, and exports, I presume, by persons who must be employed or they would not be able to export their commodities. How does my right hon. friend justify having this amount provided for in an act which is intended to relieve those who have no employment?


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I notice that the section relates not merely to certain classes of agricultural products, for it speaks of assisting in defraying the cost of sale and distribution of the products of field, farm, forest, sea, river and mine. Is the Prime Minister making similar provision with respect 53719-2125
to the exports of minerals and other products of mines, so as to assist those who are working in the mines? Is he making similar provision for the assistance of fishermen', with respect to the products of sea and river, also with respect to the products of the men working in the forests, in the export of lumber, which is a large and important industry, and ini connection with the field also, the export of grain, the most important of any of our exports, cattle, and apples, which are also very important?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought that would be mentioned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are all these to receive assistance through funds similar to this one? If not, why not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps this is the appropriate place to discuss this matter. So far as products of the sea are concerned, I fancy they are covered by the word fish used by the Minister of Finance on Tuesday last.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Cod liver oil and whale oil as well.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Fish and fish products, I believe, were the words used.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Fresh fish and canned fish.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. Each case has thus far, since these words were in the statute, been determined upon its own merits. For instance, if you used the word grain, it would cover all forms of grain; but when parliament two years ago voted five cents a bushel for wheat, that covered one specific kind of grain only, and the result was that $12,500,000 was expended at a time that was most opportune in assisting in the payment of taxes and for other obligations which the farmers had to meet. iSo far as the products of the forest are concerned, that is a matter which has not engaged the attention of the government; nor was lumber included in the items mentioned yesterday, for reasons which I fancy commend themselves to the house at once. There are other avenues of effort through which we think we can attain the end, by some means other than the means indicated by the statute. With respect to mines, there has been no suggestion that the government should take any further action at the moment in this regard, except in connection with coal, and that has been dealt with in another way, by provisions of statutes that have been passed by this house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I recall,
the United Kingdom-Canada agreement contained a clause about not subsidizing exports from one part of the empire to another. There was something which referred to subsidized imports.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was a resolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has my right
hon. friend received an assurance from the British government that what he is granting in the way of bonus or subsidy in these cases will in no way affect the terms of the agreement as understood in Great Britain?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the government has
not received any such assurance from the British government and so far has not asked them about it. It is not believed that this will in any sense contravene the provisions of the resolution. It must be remembered that that was not part of the agreement; it was one of the resolutions adopted by all the countries-Great Britain, Australia, South Africa, Canada and New Zealand. We do not believe that the steps we have taken as a relief measure to deal with this situation will be regarded by any of the governments as a violation or a contravention in any sense of the terms and provisions of the agreements. It will be recalled that the United Kingdom-Canada agreement provides for a domestic price for wheat and also for quotas with respect to many other commodities, and that principle is being extended. That is a purely domestic matter which could hardly be regarded as a subsidy or a bounty. It is our considered view that there is no likelihood of the British government regarding unfavourably this relief measure which has been upon our statutes in terms for two years but which we thought desirable to mention specifically in the course of the budget the other day in order that it might not be said that the house had not been apprised of our intentions.
It was suggested the other day that we should be able to anticipate any contingency

which might arise. At that time I expressed grave doubt that any government would be able to anticipate what might happen upon this continent or in any other part of the world even twenty-four or thiirty-six hours ahead. I gave an illustration predicated upon the experience of some of the leading men in the city of New York gained in the space of thirty hours. Availing ourselves of the provisions of this statute, we thought it desirable that we should make known to the house in the budget the intentions of the government in connection with relief measures to deal with a situation which confronted our agricultural production.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Most of the
products, the export of which are likely to be assisted, will be dairy products. As I recall the United Kingdom-Canada agreement, the preference given to dairy products in the British market is for only three years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Three years certain.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. The
British government has reserved to itself the right to revise the terms upon which dairy products will be admitted to Great Britain after that time. May I ask the Prime Minister if he 'has considered if the effect of this subsidizing of dairy products for export purposes may not increase the protectionist sentiment in Great Britain in so far as it concerns agricultural interests in that country and in the long run result in the probability of our dairy products being pretty effectively shut out of the British market?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman is quite correct in assuming that there is a provision in the agreement to give dairy products a preference for three years certain, but he will recall that it was not a question of the loss of preference, it was only a question of the method by which the preference would be granted, that is, the preference might be by quotas or by percentages of duties payable by the foreigner. It might be decided whether there should be an allocation of quotas to Canada or a continuance of the preference with respect to dairy products.
One of the risks which all governments must take is that attendant upon conclusions that a certain line of action will enure to the benefit of the people of the country in question. Weighing the situation from the standpoint of advantages and disadvantages to be derived and having regard to existing conditions in agriculture in this and other countries, we believe that the results to be derived from the exercise of the powers contained in
Relief Act. 1933
this relief measure will be of benefit to agriculture and all its various ramifications. I claim no omnipotence or omniscience with respect to matters of this kind. As I have said, we know of the difficulties of foreseeing in a world such as this what will happen within twenty-four hours. We know that tonight in some great cities with populations as great as this there is but one bank functioning. These things could not have been foreseen by any human judgment a month ago. Weighing the advantages and disadvantages with the best judgment we have and applying the principle which I fancy has governed all governments desiring to do what is best for their own populations consistent with their obligations, contractual and otherwise, we have arrived at the conclusion I have indicated. We thought it desirable that these matters should be mentioned in this way in order that we might make known to the house everything upon which we believe that action should be taken. That does not indicate in any sense that conditions will not arise which may necessitate in the very nature of things action of a like character being taken in connection with other matters not now mentioned.


Mr. LUCAS:: Will any provision be made in regard to the stabilization fund to ensure that the producer derives the benefit rather than the exporter?


James Malcolm: I listened with some
interest to the observations of the Prime Minister in the course of which he stated that the relief granted by paying the difference between the existing rate of exchange on the pound sterling and $4.60 was to be treated as a relief measure. It strikes me that the very limitation of the list which the Minister of Finance gave in his budget condemns the scheme entirely. I quite appreciate the fact that had Canada followed the course of Australia and gone off the gold standard with Great Britain so that the dollar would be on a parity with the pound, Canadian agriculture would not be at the disadvantage it is with regard to the export of dairy produce or of wool, a commodity which was promised all sorts of protection by my hon. friends opposite and which is not to have even the advantage of the assistance of the difference in exchange. The question was asked a moment ago by somebody as to what this would cost. The minister did not seem to be able to give a very definite answer. The trade returns, I might say, show on the list of commodities-given by the Minister of Finance that the volume of trade in the past year was a little


James Lorimer Ilsley: Has the order in council been passed extending the benefits of the agricultural stabilization fund to the thirteen products?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is it anticipated that it will be passed in the near future?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That depends upon the action of the house.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The government has power, under the present relief legislation, to pass it, has it not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Inasmuch as the present act expires on March 31 of this year, it is hoped that this bill may be enacted before that date. If it is, then we would have the power.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But the government has it under the present act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have not done it
under the present act.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The same clause is in the present legislation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, there is no change in that. The power is there, but as the present act expires on March 31 and this is the 23rd, eight days from now the act would expire and it is hardly desirable to pass an order in council in respect to stabilization fund for that short time.


Alfred Speakman: Would the order in council expire the moment the act did?


James Lorimer Ilsley: If there arise in other industries conditions that make it advisable in the opinion of the government to extend to them similar relief, would other orders in council be passed from time to time covering other commodities than the thirteen mentioned by the Minister of Finance on Tuesday last?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was trying to say to the committee that the government did reserve to itself the power to deal with a situation as it might arise, but that as regards a relief measure it was thought desirable that the house should be made acquainted with the view of the government with respect to those commodities mentioned as being the ones which the government felt, with the best information at its disposal, were entitled to the benefit of such relief.


James Lorimer Ilsley: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: There was one question asked the Prime Minister and I do not know whether he heard it, but it seems important: it was Whether the government had provided any means or guarantee whereby the 'benefit of the proceeds of this agricultural stabilization fund will go to the producers and not to the exporters?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is obvious that the
benefits will first of all accrue normally to the importer, whose invoices will be the determining factor with respect to the matter, but unless the benefits are reflected in better prices for the producer, we realize we shall not have accomplished the object we desire to attain. Under the legislation now under consideration there will be ample power in the government to deal with that situation; but I think it is clear we did succeed in seeing that the benefits in connection with the bonus on wheat went directly to the producer.


James Malcolm: Not on canned fruit.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Or canned fish.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman may be able to speak with authority on the subject, but we believe the benefits can be made appreciable to the producer, and that is the object of this legislation. When we have endeavoured with all our power, such as it is, to bring the benefit to the producer, we have usually managed to succeed.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, March 24, 1933