1934-04-10

Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current) moved:: That the petition of Naomi William Lyman Robertson praying for a bill of divorce from John Morris Henry Robertson together with the report and the petition thereon be referred to the select standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing orders 92, 93 (3) a and 93c in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: I desire to lay on the table the documents asked for in the motions made by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). There are four copies and the correspondence covers the language of both motions except with respect to plans and specifications, which after their approval were sent to Tokyo and have not been returned. It was because of the hope that they would be returned here sooner that the return was not filed earlier. It is now filed without the plans and specifications.
Newfoundland Report



NEWFOUNDLAND REPORT

Richard Bedford Bennett: I mentioned yesterday that the report of the royal commission on Newfoundland was a document over which we had no jurisdiction. It was printed in England, in fact, but after the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) had made some observations in the early part of the session steps were taken to procure a few extra copies. I now table one copy, with a memorandum issued by the lords of the treasury. There are also being deposited in the library of parliament as many as perhaps twenty copies, and there are also a few copies available at the office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and if any hon. member is particularly interested in securing a copy they will be furnished as long as they last. In the meantime this copy is being tabled for the edification of the hon. member for Temiscouata.



TARIFF BOARD


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was a slight amendment made in the order in council passed with reference to the question submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the interpretation of certain sections of the Tariff Board Act. The description of the statute was incorrect, and it has been amended. As I laid on the table the original order in council, I now deposit a copy of this one.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver)
On the orders of the day:


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question
of privilege. I am sorry the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) is not in his seat. On the sixteenth of March while the house was in committee of supply I asked the minister this question:
It is in connection with the sale of the rifle range on Lulu island in British Columbia. Has the range been sold and, if so, was it sold by tender?
Hon. Donald M. Sutherland (Minister of National Defence): No, it has not been sold.
Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver): Have tenders been called for the sale of the range?
Mr. Sutherland: No.
I hold in my hand a notice calling for tenders for the sale of this rifle range. I am

sure the minister must have made his reply inadvertently, and perhaps he will take this as a notice to explain why the answer to my question was given as it was.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. MUNN On the orders of the day:


Mr. A. E. MUNN (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce which will be found at page 1933 of Hansard, in connection with the Sutherland report and in answer to my question the minister immediately said "No, it is not a fact." Then after several minutes, and after a discussion of other matters, tlhe hon. minister modified his answer, but I find it printed in Hansard in one paragraph with his original answer. I would like to know if that is the usual custom.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: If the hon. member is
implying that I in any way suggested to Hansard what it should do I can tell him that I did not do anything of the sort. As a matter of fact I never change Hansard.


Albert Edward Munn: I was not accusing the minister of changing Hansard. I asked if that was the usual custom.
HAMILTON POST OFFICE BUILDING On the orders of the day:


Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: Recently in a speech in the city of Hamilton the Prime Minister intimated that the government would build a post office there under the construction program of the dominion government. The sun is now shining on both sides of the fence, and I wonder if the Prime Minister could indicate to the house how soon we may expect an announcement of government policy in connection with this building program.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In due course the information will be supplied.
B. C. SALMON FISHERY On the orders of the day:


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: On March 13 I asked a question of the Minister of Fisheries regarding the orders in council which had been passed allowing seines to operate in the mouth of the Fraser river. I asked if the minister would consider the advisability of having those orders in council and other matters pertaining to fisheries

Relief Act, 1934
placed before the fisheries committee. The minister replied on March 13 that he would be pleased to discuss this matter with his colleagues and inform me whether it was considered advisable or not. I ask him now whether he has considered that question.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: No final decision has been arrived at as yet.



BONUSING OF PURE BRED STOCK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) if it is the intention of his department to adopt a policy of bonusing pure bred sires. .


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture):: We have a number of policies for
the encouragement of improvement in live stock and I should like the hon. member to be a little bit more specific.


Peter John Veniot: My information is that on
April 1 a bonus will be effective for pure bred bulls in Ontario and Quebec. If this is the case, I should like the minister to make this bonus applicable to New Brunswick.


Robert Weir: If New Brunswick
or any other province asks the government to cooperate upon the same terms as we have with Ontario and Quebec, we shall be glad to do so.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, April 9, consideration in committee of Bill No. 42, respecting relief measures.-Mr. Gordon.- Mr. Lennox in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Lennox):: The question is on the amendment.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The amendment now before the committee is a relatively minor one and at the time it was introduced I said that I did not think we would take specific exception to it. I see no reason why it should not be passed. I could then put before the committee an amendment which really embodies that to which we are taking the strongest exception. Will the chairman please read the amendment?


Thomas Herbert Lennox: The amendment is that section 2 (a) be amended by adding after the word "province" in the fourth line thereof the following words, "and to Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to move the following amendment:
That the section be amended by striking out the words "to 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."
This is an amendment to subsection (b) of section 2 and is seconded by Mr. Stewart (Edmonton). I would point out that the original section contains the words "notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law the governor in council may" do the things which are mentioned in the amendment. I am proposing by the amendment that this power should not be given to the governor in council particularly as other powers to be given the governor in council which will remain in the section are ample to cope with every conceivable situation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How will the section read then?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the amendment is agreed to the section will read as follows:
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 and to Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited by way of loan, advance, guarantee or otherwise; and in respect of such loans, advances and guarantees, may accept such security, enter into such agreements and generally do all such acts and things as the governor in council may deem necessary and expedient in the public interest;
(b)	When parliament is not in session to take all such measures as in his discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to protect and maintain the credit and financial position of the dominion or any province thereof.
I feel certain the section, if left in that form, will be more than ample to meet any emergent condition which the Prime Minister or the government may ever be called upon to meet. I think these powers go much too far.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We cannot accept that amendment. It may be possible to meet one of the difficulties pointed out yesterday as to the meaning to be attached to the words
Relief Act, 1934

"notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law." I have spoken to my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), as to whether instead of the word "notwithstanding" we could insert the words "in addition to the powers conferred by any statute or law" dealing with matters affecting peace, order and good government in the country. There is some force to be attached to the criticism urged yesterday as to the meaning which might be put upon the word "notwithstanding." I do not think there would be a great difference as a matter of law but as that point was urged so strongly yesterday and if it clarifies in any sense the meaning of the section, we would be glad to change it. The amendment now proposed which provides for the elimination of any provision on the part of the executive to deal with matters affecting peace, order and good government, we cannot accept, for the reasons given yesterday. I thought at first that the amendment meant that these words would be retained but that the meaning would be modified in connection with the word "notwithstanding" but the right hon. gentleman proposes to eliminate these words entirely and we cannot accept his amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I had hoped that the amendment would carry but if the Prime Minister takes the view he does, I assume it will not. I trust the Prime Minister will nevertheless make the modification which he has suggested and alter the words "notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law" to read "in addition to the provisions of any statute or law." It would make only a slight difference; the clause would still be objectionable, but what is proposed would be a modification.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will prepare an
amendment along those lines. As the right hon. gentleman will observe, it will be necessary to retain these words in the first part of the section as there are statutes which do operate with respect to matters not concerned with peace, order and good government. These statutes refer to matters mentioned in that part of the section and the power to make agreements with the provinces to deal with those matters must be "notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law." If the committee will permit this section to stand, the Minister of Justice and I will prepare an amendment which will eliminate the word "notwithstanding" in connection with peace, order and good government. If a meaning was to be given to this word, which I do not

attach to it, it would mean the conferring of power far beyond that which is intended. It is intended that the power to be conferred shall be conferred under the construction given by the privy council to the words "peace, order and good government." For the benefit of the committee I may say that that power by the executive is somewhat restricted when parliament is not in session. But if you interpret the words, as the right hon. gentleman did yesterday, in the light of "notwithstanding", it would be open to the construction of conferring upon the executive powers entirely beyond any statutes that now exist, and notwithstanding them. We will remedy that, and the Minister of Justice will prepare an amendment to meet it. But the first part of it, namely, the power of making arrangements with the provinces, and matters of that kind, must be notwithstanding any other provision that may exist elsewhere; these specifically named provisions must be the overriding provisions in connection with the arrangements made between the dominion and the provinces, and the amendment which we will prepare will, I think, meet the difficulty to which attention has been directed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That amendment may help to meet the one particular point mentioned, but there will remain the all-important question whether the power to pass orders in council with respect to peace, order and good government when parliament is not in session, in addition to any existing statute or law, should remain. I would suggest therefore that we continue the discussion on the main question rather than allow the section to stand. If, when it is disposed of, the other amendment is not ready, the section could then stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is quite satisfactory.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I desire to
make a slight explanation in view of what was said last night. In discussing the expenditures made for relief purposes during the years 1920-1930 I stated that the total expenditure had amounted to $10,000,000. I should have said that the total expenditure in that period amounted to some $2,000,000, and I should like to give to the house the exact expenditures, because it is an all-important point with respect to the auditing of the accounts for that period as contrasted with the significance of the auditing of the larger amounts which have been paid out since.

Relief Act, 1934
The following amounts were paid out in the years mentioned for relief purposes:
Year-	Amount
1920-	21	$343,036	551921-	22	
500,000	001922-	23	
924,025	291923-	24	
4,273	831924-	25	
199 <1-96
1926- 27!		 77,684 66
1927-	28	
1928-	29	
1929-	30	
The total contributions by the federal government to unemployment relief during the years 1920-1930 inclusive was Sl,849,020.33. May I say to the committee that after speaking last night I noticed that I had made that error, and in going over the Hansard notes, I made the correction, so that it would read that the total expenditure had not exceeded $2,000,000, which was the figure I ought to have used.
To touch upon another matter I would point out that the Minister of Labour yesterday cited from an order in council, the whole of which, he said, I had not given. He said he thought that I had omitted-quite unintentionally, he added-indicating that there had been audits prior to the passing of the item I was quoting from, namely, the order of March 12 of this year, being P.C. 222. I do not think the minister could have remembered or seen what I said during the previous discussion. Two or three times I referred to this order in council but I did not on each occasion go through the whole of it. I made clear the fact that there had been other audits on the occasion of my first reference. I have before me the discussion of March 22, 1934, from which I may read what I then quoted. I said on that occasion:
Let me read two clauses from the order in council:
"And whereas the audits and investigations which have been made and reported upon by the auditor general, in pursuance of the directions hereinbefore recited, have disclosed the necessity for a more extended audit of the accounts relating to relief expenditures if the interests of the dominion treasury are to be adequately safeguarded; . . . Now therefore His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour, is pleased in the exercise of the powers so conferred by the Relief Act, 1933, to order and doth hereby order and direct the auditor general to conduct such audit of provincial and municipal accounts in connection with unemployment relief expenditures as he deems essential to safeguard the interests of the dominion treasury."
In other words, I had that very circumstance in mind when I referred to the order in council, 74726-126
namely, not in any way to mislead the committee as to previous audits. But subsequently in the discussion, when dealing more hurriedly with other points, I did not refer again to the first part of the order in council. I thank the minister for saying that he felt at the time, in reference to what I had quoted, that he did not think I had intentionally sought to mislead the house.


Charles Edward Bothwell: What is the amount of the lien notes outstanding in Saskatchewan for direct relief, and what justification is there for holding these notes, when direct relief was administered in other provinces without the taking of notes?
.Mr. GORDON:	Any notes taken in Saskatchewan were taken by the provincial government. I do not know the amount of the notes, but I have taken up with the provincial government the question of any adjustment that will be made if these notes are paid. The hon. member is however quite right; so far as I am aware, notes were not taken in the other provinces in the way in which they were taken in Saskatchewan. I am advised that in many instances, particularly in the southern part of the province, or the so-called drought area, where people were not bankrupt in the sense that they had no liquid assets, but had merely fallen upon misadventure by reason of crop failures, they requested that the relief granted be treated as an advance and tendered their notes for the assistance given. I have not the total amount of these notes, but the province will make an adjustment with the dominion government as and when any of them are paid.


Charles Edward Bothwell: A part of these notes
will be payable to the dominion government. Is it the intention of the dominion to accept that money or to refund it to the people who have executed the notes?


Mr. GORDON:: If any of the notes are
paid the total sum will be paid to the province of Saskatchewan and then an adjustment will be made as to any dominion portion of the notes, and that money will be refunded and will go into the consolidated revenue fund.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Do I understand the
minister to say that it will be refunded?


George Gordon: Yes.


Charles Edward Bothwell: To the persons who
pay the money?

Relief Act, 1934


George Gordon: Oh no; I am afraid I
have not made myself clear. The money, if paid at all, will be paid by the person who was assisted through the agency of the dominion government and the government of the province of Saskatchewan. If and when any of these moneys are repaid then an adjustment will be made between the two governments and any other contributors concerned, such as the municipalities.


Charles Edward Bothwell: That does not answer
the question. The position is this. The dominion has contributed a share of the moneys that went for direct relief in various provinces. In Saskatchewan the recipients of that direct relief in the rural areas were required to give notes. These notes were given to secure not only moneys advanced by the province but also moneys advanced by the dominion. When the recipient pays the note, the dominion government is entitled to an adjustment from the province and will get a part of the money. What justification can there be for the dominion holding thait money from the individual in Saskatchewan, while the government receives nothing from the individual in any other province?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. gentleman is confusing two things as he did the other evening in connection with wheat and never withdrew his statement. The truth is that when the dominion paid the whole amount as it did in 1930 and 1931 in the territory that was completely devastated, the people living there, having property that had once been very valuable, suggested that they give notes. Why I do not know, but they did. That information was communicated to us and they did give notes. Latterly they have not been giving notes for direct relief. The extent of my knowledge-this is before the present minister took office-is that it was only in the territory in which the crop was completely destroyed that they gave notes. If they make payments of the notes, .the money will be dealt with as may be thought desirable, but I do not think the hon. gentleman can make very much political capital out of it yet.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I am not trying to
nake political capital out of it; I will satisfy die Prime Minister on that score, but I find in the auditor general's report that relief granted in Saskatchawan and secured by lien notes of relief applicants amounts to $216,065.78.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What year was that?


Charles Edward Bothwell: The period covered by the test audit was from October 10, 1930, to April 30, 1932. I do not know whether any lien notes have been taken since then and apparently the minister does not know. I asked him in the first place what the total amount of outstanding notes was and he says he does not know. Under that same item in the auditor general's report there is this:
Recoveries. Cash received from cash sales and from repayments by relief applicants, $8,129.59.
Apparently some of those relief applicants have paid back the money they received by way of direct relief. What I want to know is why direct relief recipients in Saskatchewan in a devastated area such as we have there should be called upon to repay this direct relief assistance that they got, whereas relief recipients in any other part of Canada were not required to do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer, as I said
to the hon. gentleman, is very simple. The dominion was paying the whole amount in the devastated area; there was no contribution by municipalities nor by the province and the entire obligation having been assumed by the dominion, it was indicated that some of the people desired to give notes. The number is apparently not very large because according to the report which the hon. gentleman has just read the sum between September, 1930, and the spring of 1932 was about $216,000. I thought the amount was larger. The sum of $8,000 has been repaid. To answer the question categorically, the only reason that notes were taken was that a desire was expressed to give them in that devastated area where the people still had their land that at one time had been worth a great deal of money. There was a feeling among many of them that they did not desire to regard themselves as being persons receiving relief or dharity, but rather getting a loan which they wished to pay back. The fact that some $8,000 have been repaid indicates that some persons desire to keep the faith they had in themselves by making this return of the money. In the other provinces in the other cases there was a threefold contribution by the municipalities, the province and the dominion. The dominion did not take notes nor was it suggested that it should. The dominion had nothing to do with the administration of the relief. The only place in which the dominion government has administered relief in this country since the depression came was in the devastated areas of Saskatchewan and for the reasons I have

Reliej Act, 1984
indicated a number of the people there gave notes at their own request and some have paid them off. In the other parts of the country the contribution was made by the dominion government to assist the provinces in the discharge of their duty and in every province at least in the west where they supplied seed grain, it will perhaps be recalled by the hon. gentleman that the statutes were amended to secure a lien with respect to seed that was supplied.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Just one more question. I am not speaking on behalf of any of those who received relief by way of seed grain; I am inquiring in connection with those who received this direct relief for food, clothing and shelter. I gather from the Prime Minister's remarks that this sum of around $216,000 would represent money that was advanced in toto by the federal government and not contributed to in any way by the province. Apparently if these notes are collected, whether by the province or not, the money will belong to the dominion. I have still to receive an answer as to what will be done with it. While some may have requested that they should have the opportunity of giving notes there were numbers who were not too anxious to do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have not paid.


Charles Edward Bothwell: The notes are still outstanding against them as a liability and they see no way of paying them.
While dealing with this particular section in regard to entering into agreements with the provinces respecting relief measures, may I say that we have had in Canada great difficulty in finding markets for our wheat. In . that same area of Saskatchewan, I may call it the drought area, the farmers are finding great difficulty in getting seed and particularly feed for this year's operations. A few lines from a letter indicates just about what the situation is. This gentleman says:
This season we have the additional labour of this grasshopper campaign so that the commission's allowance is about one-third of enough.
That is the commission's allowance for feed. Then he says:
I threshed less wheat than I seeded last year.
Then he makes this suggestion:
In our district there is enough low grade wheat of last year's crop in elevators to relieve the feed situation and the danger of it again finding its way into market could be overcome by grinding before delivery to farmers.
In other parts of his letter he suggests that the farmers in the district in which he lives 74726-126J
will be happy to sign notes again if they can get feed to carry on their operations again this spring. He makes the suggestion that this low grade wheat of which the elevators there are full, might be used for the purpose of providing the required feed. I want to draw this matter to the minister's attention when we are considering granting relief to Saskatchewan.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I would like to direct a question to either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour. During the time from 1930 to 1932, that the federal government was giving the entire relief, did all those who received relief give expression to the idea that they would like to pay it back and, if not, what percentage expressed the wish to pay it back?


George Gordon: The department has not the records which would disclose the information asked for by the hon. gentleman. I do not know whether everyone expressed a desire to pay back the money granted to assist the people. I would be surprised if they did. But I would be pleased if the major portion of them did. The notes were taken by the province, as has been explained, and if the money is repaid there will be a refund to the dominion.


John Vallance: From what source did the government get the information that the individuals receiving relief desired to pay it back? If the federal government, as stated by the Prime Minister, was paying 100 per cent, surely by reason of that fact the federal government would be in touch with the situation. Therefore I ask where they got the information that the individuals receiving the relief were desirous of paying it back. '


George Gordon: My recollection is that I
was so informed by the Saskatchewan relief commission, who were administering the relief.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it may well be
asked why we should take up time going over all this again. It has been gone over at least four times in this house, year after year, to my certain knowledge. I have not the papers with me, the minister has not, the matter was closed and ended twice, three times, four times; now we are at it again. I said that I sat at a conference in the government buildings at Regina. Certain representations were made, I do not carry the names of the people in my head but I think if hon. members will turn up Hansard they will find perhaps that I was then able to remember the names. It was a conference held with the government and certain repre-
Relief Act, 1934

sentatives of those who lived in the devastated areas, and the suggestion was made that they thought it highly desirable that they should have opportunity to treat it not as charity but as a loan; and I said, Very well. After that it was so treated in some eases, not in all. Since then some $8,000 has been repaid, I was not aware of the figure until it was mentioned.


John Vallance: In view of what has
happened since 1932, and the desire of these people to pay back that which they got for relief, and in view also of the fact that in no other province were notes or any promise given to pay back that which they got as relief, will the government now consider the suggestion made by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) that these notes be cancelled? Because, as I know, those people are in no position, nor will they be for many years to come, to pay those notes. I was rather surprised to learn that even $8,000 had been paid back. I think it would be a very nice gesture, if nothing else, on the part of this government to cancel these notes. I might remind the Prime Minister of this: On the first occasion when this matter was drawn to his attention, he will find, if he looks back over Hansard, that even he had no intimation or knowledge that they were giving notes at that time. In view of that and in view of what has happened since this relief was given and in view of the fact that the other provinces have all got the relief without promise to pay back, I ask the government now that these notes be cancelled.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I would not bother taking up further time were it not for the fact that the hon. gentleman's statement is hardly correct. Saskatchewan was the only province in which the dominion paid the whole of the relief within a limited area. I may say that the question as to what should happen with respect to any moneys received in repayment, has engaged the attention of the government on more than one occasion, but the sum received was so small that no action was taken. I am not sure whether or not in the last discussion that took place with the treasurer of Saskatchewan it was intimated that it might be desirable to cancel the notes; at any rate the question has been under discussion on several occasions. The situation in that area is entirely different from any other, that being the only part of Canada in which the relief was paid wholly by the dominion government, and no one has yet been able to say

that those who gave these notes have now made up their minds that they desire to have the relief given treated as charity and not as a loan.
I can say at any rate that there is no intention on the part of the government to take any steps to enforce payment of notes. I say that to the hon. gentlemen. That was stated to the Saskatchewan government, I am not sure whether it was stated in this house or not, but both the hon. gentlemen can rest assured that no steps will be taken by the government to endeavour to collect the amounts. But the hon. gentleman must get it clear in his own mind that this is the only case of its kind that there is in Canada. It is the only part of Canada in which the dominion government assumed the total responsibility. Perhaps it will be recalled that on a certain day in July I intimated that a national disaster had occurred by reason of the destruction of the crops in that area, and we treated it as such. I do not know that any further assurance need be given that no one would think for a moment of taking any action to enforce payment, but in view of the difference of opinion entertained by some who received the benefits it would be a little difficult to make the statement that the hon. gentleman suggests should be made.


John Vallance: I spent a few days in Saskatchewan within the last two weeks, and I know, and I think the Prime Minister realizes just as well as I do, the difficulty the farmers there-and in fact in all western Canada-are having to-day. If assurance were given by the government that these notes would not be collected I think many who now owe this money to the government or to the relief commission might find it easier to finance the putting in of their crop this year. I can assure the Prime Minister that it is not for any political reasons that we say what we are saying to-day, it is merely in the interests of those in the province who are attempting to carry on.


Mr. HEAPS:: Could the minister inform
the committee to whom the notes are made payable?


George Gordon: I am inclined to think
that the notes are payable to the relief commission. That was a commission set up by the province of Saskatchewan at the request of the dominion government to supervise the carrying on of relief in that area that had suffered successive crop failures. The notes are payable either to the province or to that commission.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Have the dominion government themselves insisted on these notes being made in favour of the Saskatchewan relief commission or any other body? And do the government ask for a refund of their portion of any money collected by any of these public bodies that was paid out for relief?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman I
think has still an erroneous understanding of the situation. No notes were given after the first year, as far as I have been able to ascertain; that is, by the end of 1931, outside of seed grain notes, none were given. The giving of the notes that were given came about in the way I have indicated. Relief is administered in Saskatchewan through the provincial administration by means of money received from the dominion, just as in all the other provinces, except in the devastated area during the first year, or down I think to 1931-perhaps the hon. gentlemen who have all these matters before them will be able to give me the accurate date. But the report of the auditor general refers only to the period in which certain moneys were received, namely, in 1932. I speak subject to correction but I believe that the only case in which notes were given with respect to relief were in the wholly devastated area, where the dominion government assumed the whole responsibility; and the reasons they were given are those which I have indicated. There is still a sense of pride among some of the recipients, to the extent that they have paid $8,000 to this government on account of the relief then received. My memory is that the notes weTe taken either in the name of the province or in the name of the relief commission, which of course was administering dominion relief. In order that it might be a proper commission we asked the province to appoint it, as we have no power to interfere with provincial matters, they appointed the commission at our instance and it has continued to function since then for the province with respect to provincial relief.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If I may continue along that line for a moment, my inquiry was a little wider than the answer given by the Prime Minister. I know that in some parts of the country notes were given by recipients of relief at the instigation of the municipal authorities.
Some 'hon. MEMBERS: No.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Saskatchewan is not the
whole of Canada; there are other parts of the country as well. I know that in Winnipeg
Relief Act, 1934
notes were given by these recipients of relief, and perhaps in some instances some money was returned by them after they had received a certain amount of relief from the local authorities. It was in respect of that form of relief that I was asking whether the dominion government was a party to the request that the recipients of relief should sign notes so that some day they might have to pay back what they had received by way of assistance. I know that in Winnipeg these notes were signed to a very large extent, and there was a great deal of complaint in regard to that practice. I presume, and indeed I am fairly sure, that the attention of the Minister of Labour was directed to this fact during the course of the discussion either last year or the year before. I feel that when a person is in a position to repay the money he has received, that is a very nice thing, but I think in ninety-five per cent of the cases the signing of notes simply means an added burden upon people who probably never will be able to pay back what they have received. I want to know if the dominion government was a party to the request that these notes be signed by those receiving public relief outside of certain areas in Saskatchewan, and whether the government has obtained any funds as a result of these notes having been signed.


George Gordon: Mr. Chairman, the answer is no.


John Vallance: It is rather regrettable that we should get these things all mixed up. We were dealing with the province of Saskatchewan. In reply to what the Prime Minister has said may I say that I hold in my hand the appendix to the report, dated June 27, 1932, and headed Investigation of Saskatchewan Relief Commission. I turn over the page and I find a copy of the application for relief made to the Saskatchewan relief commission, at the foot of which I find the note which the applicant is required to sign. The note reads as follows:
I,	 the above named applicant, hereby
faithfully promise and agree to pay to the Saskatchewan relief commission on behalf of His Majesty the King in the right of the Dominion of Canada,-
I think this proves conclusively that this government has absolute control as to what should be done with these notes, which are payable .to the commission on behalf of His Majesty the King in the right of the Dominion of Canada.
-on or before the first day of November, A.D. 1933, the full value of all relief now or subsequently obtained by me from the Saskatchewan relief commission at the values or prices stated by the said commission.
Relief Act, 1934

I think my question was quite in order. Now that these notes are payable to the Saskatchewan relief commission on behalf of His Majesty the King in the right of the Dominion of Canada, I believe this government has the power to say now what it proposes to do with these notes. And might I tell the government again, most emphatically, that we are not attempting to play any politics in this matter; just as much credit will go to the government as will go to those of us who are pressing for this action. If it were not that we are so well aware of the condition that exists out there to-day I do not think we would be pressing this matter, because we are in agreement with what the Prime Minister has said. There are many in western Canada who want to pay back one hundred cents on the dollar, in spite of what may be the opinion in eastern Canada. But in view of the fact that in some other portions of Canada those receiving relief have not been compelled-I will not say compelled -or asked to sign notes I think it would be a very fine gesture on the part of the government if they would now state that these notes will not be collected, so that these farmers may put in their crops this year without fear.


Mr. BAKER:: May I ask the hon. member this question: If some of these borrowers have the desire to pay back what they have received, does he not think they Should be permitted to do so? There are certain people who like to pay back what they borrow, and they should not be deprived of that right.


John Vallance: I do not wish to enter
into any discussion with those who are not responsible for putting through this measure, but I will say to the hon. member that when these people said they would like to pay back this money they 'had some hope of being able to do so, because of the promises that were made by the Prime Minister previous to the last election. As a result of those promises they hoped that at some time during the administration of this government they would be able to pay back these amounts, but now they find themselves in a worse plight than they were when the promises were made. For these reasons I suggest that the government take this action.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The observations of the hon. gentleman are so wholly non-political and so disarming that I hasten to assure him that the government will give every possible consideration to what has been said. There is no intention of instituting any proceedings,

he can tell his friends, to recover these amounts, but at the moment I am not going to make any statement in regard to cancelling these notes. Some of these people do not desire that they should be cancelled, and in addition some of them have sent in payments on account, without being asked to do so. So far as I know no person has been asked to pay a cent on these notes. What the hon. gentleman said a moment ago is quite correct; I was not aware that this action had been taken until I was informed that these notes had been given in this form. It came about as I have indicated, but it must not be forgotten that relief is given by municipalities, this being the only case in which the dominion has afforded all the relief. Notes are being taken by municipalities, as the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) has stated, and some of these municipalities might be embarrassed if we took the action suggested by the hon. gentleman. The matter has been discussed by the Saskatchewan government; I think the hon. gentleman knows what has transpired in that regard. My memory is-I still speak subject to correction, because I have so many things to think of-that an assurance was given that no proceedings would be taken to collect these notes. I give that assurance to the hon. gentleman and to the house at the present moment, so [DOT] that his friends need not fear, in putting in their crops, that if they succeed in getting a crop any proceedings will be taken to deplete their assets in regard to the notes which have been given. As a matter of fact they are not negotiable securities in their present form, and I think the assurance we have given the house to-day will have the desired effect in regard to those concerned.


Mr. HANBURY:: When dealing with the
provision in regard to peace, order and good government yesterday the Prime Minister referred particularly to the necessity of maintaining this particular clause because of certain actions that had been taken by certain provinces, particularly the province of British Columbia. His words in that connection were:
These developments have created a situation far different from that we have had to meet at any time previously in this house.
Later I directed a question to the Prime Minister which he did not see fit to answer, the question being as to what action any provincial government could take, even under the enlarged powers which they have taken to themselves, that could in any way inter-

Relief Act, 193/t
fere with any federal statute. As I have said, the Prime Minister did not answer that question. Now I should like to direct it to the Minister of Labour, and ask him to give me that information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A question of opinion is always a matter that is in no sense settled by the expression of one's views as against the views of somebody else. It need hardly be said to anyone who is familiar with the working of our constitution and the decisions under it that if the executive of the province is capable of exercising all the powers that the legislature can exercise under section 92 of the British North America Act, and can issue ordinances which have the effect of law, then the desirability of the dominion being in a position to take steps that may protect the federal interests goes without saying, and to legislate for peace, order and good government might conceivably be the only way in which it could be done. That is my view. That is the position which I present to the house as one of the not unimportant reasons why this legislation is sought. I merely mention it in passing as indicating a condition that was entirely different from the condition that prevailed a year ago. That provincial legislation, if in excess of provincial powers, may affect federal laws goes without saying because the books are full of cases in which that has happened. It happened in connection with a statute passed by the legislature of British Columbia regarding the sale of milk, and it was held by the privy council that the statute passed by the legislature was invalid because it encroached upon the federal power and was ultra vires of the provincial legislature. That was a statute that was published and was known to the federal authorities as a statute. If the province in the exercise of the power conferred upon the executive promulgates ordinances, this well may be the only way in which the federal power can be exercised because the ordinances, not being statutes, cannot be disallowed, and the only appropriate action would be under peace, order and good government.


Wilfred Hanbury: The Prime Minister says that the federal government would be unable to disallow the ordinances, but it could of *course disallow the whole Special Powers Act. The Prime Minister has given reasons with which I am not going to disagree altogether why it is perhaps advisable not to do that. The point I have in mind particularly is this. I cannot see what action the provincial government can take within the powers given to the province by confederation that would in
any way interfere with the powers of the federal body. I think that is something that should be very clearly defined because it is quite evident from the actions of some of the provincial governments that they do not know it.
The Prime Minister, referring to-day to the amendment which he was prepared to consider, says that he wishes to retain the phrase "notwithstanding" and so forth, in connection with the relations of the federal government and the provinces. In that connection would it be reasonable to assume that notwithstanding any arrangements that have been made to subsidize provincial governments, under this legislation the government might change or alter in any way the amount of the subsidy now being received by a province?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is an imperial
statute, as perhaps the hon. gentleman knows. In addition to that, there has been a sanctity surrounding subsidies which has prevented the dominion from declining to pay provincial subsidies for the purpose of enabling debts due the dominion by the province to be liquidated. I suppose the hon. gentleman knows that that situation did once exist. The point I desire to make, and I am trying to make it as clear as I can, although it is a lawyer's point, is that the provincial executive in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it by that statute passed by the province does not pass statutes but promulgates ordinances, and such ordinances not being subject to disallowance under the provisions of the British North America Act might conceivably, as many provincial acts have, infringe upon the federal power, and in order that the federal power might be able to deal with that situation promptly-a particular case that I shall not mention is well in my mind-having no power of disallowance of an ordinance the use of this power might become imperative in the national interests. It might be very desirable to act quickly. But that is purely a legal point. I do not put it forward as a matter that should be seriously considered because I hope that none of the provinces would even attempt to exercise the power in such a way as to set at naught the whole system of the constitution. But one never knows what might happen in view of the statements that have been made, especially by the attorney general of the province, when inviting the federal government to disallow the statute. If the papers correctly reported his speech it is quite obvious that some power must be placed with the federal authority in order that it may maintain its position having regard to the fact that the maintenance of our national
Relief Act, 1934

credit is a matter that is very important in the minds of all those who know anything of our business; and our efforts to do that when the province conceivably might, to put it that way, be aiming to prevent us doing it, makes the position one of great difficulty. I am not going to enlarge upon that situation. There it is. I have discussed with my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) the seriousness of the legal aspect of it. This is merely to take care of a contingency that may arise. I mention it now as I mentioned it yesterday as an illustration of one of the difficulties that has arisen.


Wilfred Hanbury: So that there may be no doubt in my mind, would the Prime Minister consider this point? Conceivably an ordinance of a provincial government might involve some act that would be inconsistent wtih the powers granted to the province under the act of confederation. Am I correct in that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the point I was endeavouring to make. Assume they pass an ordinance of the type or character of the Milk Act which was declared to be ultra vires; we would have no way of dealing with that under the constitution except under peace, order and good government, because it it not a statute; it is an ordinance which is not subject to disallowance like a statute is subject to disallowance within a certain period of time, after having been certified by the Secretary of State and gone forward to the Minister of Justice who makes a report upon it, and the statute is then disallowed or left to its operation, as we say. But having no power to disallow an ordinance, if there is not a clear understanding by the province of the limitations imposed by the constitution upon the exercise of the power, the executive might enact ordinances that not only were not within section 92 of the British North America Act, but which contravened section 91. It would not be the first time that has been done by legislatures. Almost every province at one time or another has passed a statute which the courts of the country have declared to be invalid. I am putting a case in which to await the decision of the courts might bring about a very grave disaster. It is a lawyer's point and one which unfortunately I cannot perhaps make very clear to my colleagues who are not of the legal profession. I am only pointing out a contingency which might arise, and which we are endeavouring to meet before it happens.


Mr. NEILL:: The Milk Act to which the Prime Minister referred was not disallowed by the federal government but was allowed to go in the natural course to meet its Waterloo in the privy council. Could not that be allowed to happen with these possible ordinances?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, but the distinction between the statute and an ordinance is at the basis of the whole argument I have made. In the one instance there is the exercise of powers conferred exclusively upon the provincial legislatures under section 92 of the British North America Act and the other case is that in which the legislature has delegated to the cabinet or the executive all the powers which the legislative assembly has and as the result of the orders in council being termed ordinances to leave them to the operation of the law. If they went as far as they conceivably could, my view of the statements ' that have been made would be that you should not wait that long to take the appropriate measures by the federal authority to deal with them. That is all I desire to say. I do not say that it will arise but I say that we desire to be placed in that position. I am not expecting that when they sit down and calmly consider the matter they will pass ordinances so at variance wdth constitutional practice, but if they do so, I should like to be in a position to correct the difficulty.


Wilfred Hanbury: Would it be correct to say that the present provincial government in British Columbia had greater powers through their ability to promulgate ordinances than their parliament, which can act only through statutes?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to say no
to that question, but I should like to say this, and I do not say it in any offensive way. Does the hon. gentleman not think it is highly desirable to protect this parliament in the exercise of its powers from usurpation by a delegated authority especially in the light of the fact that it has seen fit to disregard constitutional practices with respect to veto and matters of that kind by delegating-it is no longer delegation-by substituting for the assembly itself? Where any legislature confers these powers upon an executive that desires to take them, the federal authorities should place themselves in position where they can meet any difficulty that might arise. I have tried to make clear that I do not suggest that the government will do it, I only say that if it does I am going to be forearmed. That is the all-important thing. I have not suggested that legally the executive has greater powers

Relief Act, 1934
than it has as a legislature. In my poor judgment and for what it may be worth a statute which confers these powers is illegal and the exercise of powers under an illegal statute might well be illegal. I must be able to protect the functions of this federal parliament from usurpation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A sort of competitive arming.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Would it
not be the logical thing for my hon. friend to disallow?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The British North
America Act says that the statute may not reach us for one year and within that time all this harm may be done. Undoubtedly it would be logical to disallow a statute of that kind but ever since the days of Mr. Blake, parliament has declared time after time that the question of the validity or invalidity of a provincial statute should be left to the operation of the courts. I think that has been the rule with but two exceptions. One was the instance dealt with by my right hon. friend in connection with the gypsum lands in Cape Breton, in which case the provincial statute was disallowed, I think under the advice of Mr. Lapointe, as.Minister of Justice. The other was in connection with a provision of the Companies Act, in which I think the advice was tendered by Sir Allen Aylesworth. The matter will have to be considered in due course when the statute is received, but it need not be received for a year. It has to be transmitted and that is an act over which we have no control.
An illustration used quite often is in connection with the Florence Mining Company. This was an Ontario statute and Sir Allen Aylesworth left it to its own operation and did not disallow. In that case a mining claim claimed by one man was declared by statute to be the property of another and it was provided that the one man should have no recourse to the courts. The case went to the privy council and although the committee may not be at all interested I might state that Sir Robert Finlay told me that he was doubtful as to the soundness of the decision. The decision was that the statute was within the legislative competence of the legislature, and its validity was upheld. The result was that by an act of the legislature of Ontario a mining claim was taken from one person and declared to be the property of another and as a result of that legislation he was declared to be unable to go into the courts for the
purpose of asserting his claim. That legislation was held to be valid and the then Minister of Justice, Sir Allen Aylesworth, did not disallow it. He left it to the operation of the law although my memory is that he made a report which indicated that he thought it was very unsound. But he did not substitute his views for those of the legislature which had validly exercised its powers.
I could give the committee other instances but I hope I have indicated to hon. gentlemen some of the thoughts which are in our minds with relation to a matter of such serious moment as that to which I have directed attention.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A moment ago I made an interjection which I am not quite sure the P-;me Minister heard. In connection with a discussion which was then taking place between the right hon. gentleman and an hon. member on this side, I stated that it might be competitive arming for legislative and executive powers. I should like to point out the force of that remark as it indicates where we can get to in matters of government once executives begin to take autocratic powers to themselves. The federal government at Ottawa has had this power to legislate with respect to peace, order and good government when parliament is not in session, and apparently that power has alarmed the provincial government. The provincial government has said: If we are going to have to bargain, we must have equally strong autocratic powers and be free to do what we wish. Notwithstanding all the laws and statutes, they took to themselves the power, when their legislature is not in session, to deal with such matters as the lieutenant governor in council deems best. Another province does the same thing, then another and another. Then the Prime Minister comes along and says to this house: Now that the provincial governments have taken these powers, I must be doubly sure of having authority to act with respect to peace, order and good1 government in case- I have to disallow some of this legislation or if there is a dispute, to be able to meet it. It is a sort of competitive arming with respect to legislative and executive power. This is where we find ourselves when we depart from what parliament stands for, namely, a forum where matters can be settled, not as the result of an appeal to power, whether legislative or any other kind, but as the result of an appeal to reason. I think that is as strong an argument as can be put forward against the adoption of these powers which, when parliament is not in session, override the function which parliament itself is expected to perform.
Relief Act, 1934


Wilfred Hanbury: I should like to ask the minister a question in connection with a situation existing at the present time in British Columbia. A number of men in the lumbering industry are on strike and many are being maintained on unemployment relief. An effort is being made through the promulgation of fair wages, hours and conditions of labour to bring about a minimum wage bill. If a minimum wage bill is adopted in the province and there are some who will not accept work when it is offered, I should like to know whether this government will furnish part of the funds necessary to maintain such men on relief.


George Gordon: It is difficult for anyone
to prophesy what might be done if certain events occurred, but I may say that in the situation outlined by the hon. member I would be a party to a contribution with a great deal of reluctance. If fair and proper wages are offered to a workman under proper conditions and such workman, able to work, refuses to do so, I should need a very great deal of persuasion before I would expend any of the taxpayers' money keeping him.


Wilfred Hanbury: I should like to have
a little more assurance from the minister than he has already given. The premise of my statement was that the conditions were to be fair, while men continued to refuse to work and were being maintained by the state in that condition. The particular reason why something is necessary not only in British Columbia but throughout Canada is in my opinion that at the present time there is in Canada a very large body of agitators whose business it is to see that men do not work, regardless of conditions. I think there are men in Canada to-day going among the labouring men, and if these men had ideal conditions they would still be urged not to work, and the agitators would still stir up strife. I will not say that is the condition in British Columbia at the present time, but I do say that we should have from the minister a definite assurance that if necessary the conditions in British Columbia should be investigated and if those conditions are found to be fair then a definite statement should be made that no relief would be given these striking men.


George Gordon: Let me answer the question this way. Relief might be given to men who would not work under the conditions the hon. member has outlined, but so far as this government is concerned, if the

wages and conditions are reasonable and fair and a man who is able to work refuses, this government will certainly not contribute to his upkeep.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I am rather surprised
that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury) should try to force the Minister of Labour to give an answer to a hypothetical question of that kind. There are difficulties as to who will be the final arbitrator on the question whether wages and conditions are fair or not. That is the difficulty in the British Columbia camps at the present time. The strikers have asked for a certain wage which they believe to be fair, but the logging operators are opposed to this. The question resolves itself into this:	Who
will be the final arbitrator as to whether the wages offered and the conditions that exist are fair or not? So long as we are under a system of private enterprise those who are going to have the final say in the matter will have to side with the private interests or they will have to side with those who must sell their labour. This is where the difficulty comes in, and I am not prepared to leave it even to the Minister of Labour to say whether the conditions are fair or not. I think the workers in industry have just as much right to have the case decided in their favour as to whether the conditions they ask for are fair or not in the premises. Do you not understand that in a class society you cannot have fairness and reasonableness except the reasonableness of the dominating class in that particular society?


Wilfred Hanbury: I might undertake to
act as Minister of Labour for the moment in answering the hon. gentleman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Coming events cast their shadows behind.


Wilfred Hanbury: I would point out to the hon. member for Vancouver South that we have a Department of Labour in British Columbia. That department hear representations from employees and employers, and on the representations made to them they decide what in their opinion are fair wages and conditions. That is tlhe basis which I suggest to the Minister of Labour is the proper one on which to formulate a policy with reference to the giving of unemployment relief. In connection with the unemployment situation, has the government been giving consideration to the housing problem in the various cities and towns in Canada ?


George Gordon: The government has given a great deal of consideration to housing construction and matters of that kind, but it

Relief Act, 1984
will be borne in mind that the building of houses and works of that sort are purely provincial and municipal. There was of course in force at one time-and it might be regarded as in force again-what was known as the Housing Act of 1919. The experience of the various municipalities under that act, even when times were normal, was not altogether a happy one; I am not unacquainted with its provisions and also with the methods employed to get the money over to the builder of the houses, and so on. Yes, the government has given a great deal of consideration to that matter, not only here but in conjunction with representatives of the provinces. Nothing along that line has materialized, and I am not in a position to say that it will.


Wilfred Hanbury: Probably this would be more apropos of expenditures of the government for the construction of public works, but I would suggest to the minister that the government give very serious consideration to the matter of housing in Canada, and in connection with the provinces and municipalities. The minister is no doubt thoroughly familiar with the very large number of people who are engaged in the construction business during a normal period, and as a matter of fact, if we were in a normal construction period, we should have very few unemployed in the dominion to-day. I think the minister will agree with that statement to some extent. I do not think that the construction of large public buildings will put to work as many people as would the construction of smaller homes and repairs. I suggest to the government that they consider loaning money to municipalities for the purpose of housing construction. At the present time, as the minister is aware, it is almost impossible to procure money under mortgage by virtue of the financial situation in Canada. If money were available under mortgage a great deal more construction would already be taking place. I suggest to the government that if they would see that money is made available at a low rate of interest to the provinces and the municipalities, for which money the municipalities particularly would become responsible, to encourage the construction of smaller houses and even repair and painting work, that would put many more people to work than would be the case through any general scheme of large building construction for federal or provincial purposes. I would be glad if the minister or the Prime Minister would give consideration to that suggestion when the bill in connection with public works is brought down.


George Gordon: There is a good deal in what the hon. member for Vaneouver-iBurrard has said, but it must again be borne in mind that this and the preceding government made it very clear that if we are going to preserve even a semblance of our constitution, we cannot deal directly with municipalities. If, however, it seems desirable, the matter might be approached from another angle, and I have no hesitation in assuring the hon. member that the suggestion will be given thought and consideration. But let me point this out with respect to the advancement of moneys on mortgages: from the investigations that I have made I hazard the opinion that the constant passing of moratorium laws by our provinces with no indication that those laws will not be extended, has perhaps done more to dry up the well of mortgage money than any other action taken by the provinces. I have no control over what the provinces may do, but I know personally of many people who would build and of many who would lend money, but they are fearful that the moment they lend on a mortgage some act like the moratoriums that have been passed by a number of provinces will be put into operation and their money will become tied up ad infinitum with no remedy or redress left to the lender. Those, however, are matters that will be given consideration.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think the governments themselves killed the building industry by the enormous interest rates paid by municipal, provincial and federal authorities a couple of years ago when money borrowed by municipalities cost as high as seven per cent. At that time we saw an immediate falling off in the building industry in this country. There was an example recently where Ontario raised, I think, some $40,000,000 at four and a half per cent, and the amount was over-subscribed in two hours. Why should it not be? Another example was in the city from which I come where they were able to borrow money a few weeks after much cheaper than the province itself could. If the federal government are to be wet nurses to the lenders of money we shall never get anywhere.
The development of the building industry in Great Britain is a clear indication of the absolute necessity of either lowering interest rates by legislation-and it will have to be done whether the government likes it or not -or setting in motion a policy whereby people can borrow money at low interest rates so as to press forward a building construction program that will provide homes for our Cana-
Relief Act, 1934

dian people. What I am most concerned in at the moment is, of course, that in view of the fact that the government have announced their intention of launching a building program, it should be gone on with at the earliest possible opportunity. It is a fair observation to make to say that 95 per cent of the building tradesmen in this country are at present out of work. We are now reaching spring time and we have had no announcement from the government in connection with the intended building policy. We will drift along possibly until the fall-


Mr. BOUCHARD:: The fall of the government.


Humphrey Mitchell: There may be some truth in that. We will drift along possibly until the fall before the necessary machinery is set in motion to begin this building construction program. What I am most concerned about is that the government should hurry forward this building program so that the tradesmen connected with that industry will receive the benefit at the earliest possible moment in the spring of the year. It is a well known fact that 80 per cent of the money expended in buildings of any character goes directly in wages, and it would be far better that this program should be pressed forward with vigour than that we should continue to support on relief our building tradesmen and others in trades allied to that industry. There may be some quarrel as to the proper policy to adopt, whether it should be houses or large buildings, but in view of the fact that the government has apparently made up its mind as to what it is going to do, I see no reason in the world why the policy should not be pressed with vigour and why the opportunity of work for those men engaged in the industry should not be provided at the earliest possible moment. I thought the Prime Minister might have been able this afternoon to give some indication to the people engaged in the industry at what time, and I hope in the not distant future, they might expect some relief brought about by the setting in motion of the policy in question. The keystone of the building industry is interest rates and unless the situation is met in one way or the other I see no hope for the money flowing into the channels that provide the driving force for the building industry of this country.
I would like to ask the Minister of Labour or the Prime Minister whether the anticipated building program is to be carried out in conjunction with this particular measure or whether a separate bill is to be brought down?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has already been indicated once in the house that there will be a separate measure.


Humphrey Mitchell: Might I ask the Prime Minister how soon we may anticipate that it will be brought down? I ask that in view of the anxiety of these men to get to work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know how soon the hon. gentleman might anticipate it, but any reasonable anticipation that he may have I fancy will be realized in the not too distant future.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think the Prime Minister should try to be clever over a situation of this description. I quite appreciate the fact that most hon. members have very little worry so far as the next meal is concerned, but coming from a large industrial riding I know these men are anxious to get to work and the Prime Minister could easily have said: We anticipate bringing this bill down in a month or two months, instead of treating the matter with the levity he has shown.


Charles A. Stewart: 
Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Will the hon.
gentleman permit-


Charles A. Stewart: The hon.
gentleman will be given his chance when his time comes. Then we find that through the agency of ithe provinces and the municipalities
8110,000.000 of federal government funds have been expended in addition to the provincial funds, not in giving work but in direct doles.

Relief Act, 1934


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh no, be accurate.


Charles A. Stewart: Well, I
would like to know where the work took place. I have the figures here as far as work is concerned. But let us say that at least three quarters of it was expended in doles or direct relief in all the municipalities in Canada, in addition to the expenditures for work, which appear on another page and to which I shall refer later. That was the response to the statement given to the electors which I for one believed was intended to be fulfilled-that work was to be provided and not doles; but up to the present, almost four years having elapsed, with the single exception of the relief camps, which are practically the same thing, we have had for the most part nothing but doles or direct relief. Now it is announced that we are to have a building program, so that this promise is about to be kept.
In addition, let me say this; let us give credit where credit is due. Let us give credit to the government for having accepted the responsibility they said they would accept in connection with granting $22,000,000 for relief in the province of Saskatchewan, under their own control and administered by their own organization. Whether or not they get the money back; whether or not it is ever returned to them, the need was great and could not be attributed to any action of theirs. In my opinion they are to be commended for what they did on that occasion. But to what condition did they bring the provinces? The provinces found themselves unable to finance themselves because of economic conditions throughout the country. I do not say the provinces were wise in their administrative methods; I do not say they were warranted in making the expenditures they did make or in incurring the liabilities they did incur, but at all events they did what everyone else was doing at that time. They did spend money that perhaps would have been better left unspent; they did incur obligations that I am sure every provincial official devoutly wishes to-day had not been incurred. But, because of economic conditions in this country which I say are at least fifty per cent attributable to the policies of this government, the provinces find themselves in their present unfortunate position. The Prime Minister takes the ground that we must have sound money in Canada and that we must pay our debts. Paying our debts is a laudable thing; no one desires to disregard that obligation, but those provinces were not in a position to pay their debts.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: To what provinces does my hon. friend refer?


Charles A. Stewart: The western provinces found themselves in the position that they could not pay their debts, and we have to come to their rescue. So we find vast sums of money being loaned to the provinces in order to carry them over this difficult period.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The western provinces.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton) Quite right; I do not refer to the eastern provinces at all. But I say again that this government cannot escape responsibility in this connection. You cannot have two hundred million bushels of wheat in the elevators of western Canada and be able to pay your debts; I think that goes without saying. You cannot have the markets closed against your live stock and pay your debts. This government has done nothing in the way of seeking wider markets except through the agency of the imperial agreements, and even that ray of hope seems to be dimming when we see the reports in the press from day to day as to the attitude of the British government with respect to those agreements so far as they apply to live stock and live stock products. Even that avenue seems to be closing, and the outlook seems extremely dark when the one ray of hope we had in connection with an assured market for our live stock and live stock products seems about to vanish at any moment.
I am not going to deal with the provisions of another bill that will be up for discussion later, but let me say that since this government took office we have had nothing but restriction all along the line. We have had no attempts to open the channels of trade; we have done nothing to try to relieve the railway situation or the shipping situation. All avenues of business that would give employment are being closed day by day. I notice that the report of the bureau of statistics states that this year fourteen thousand more cars were loaded and moved than was the case last year, which was the zero year in transportation. That is encouraging, but the hope it holds out is so small and so meagre that it does not give very much encouragement for the future, and now that the agriculturists of this country are on the verge of bankruptcy we are going to do something to relieve them. I had better not touch upon that, however, because that is another question. I simply say, in the light of what

Relief Act, 1934
the Prime Minister stated in his pre-election promises and in the light of the results that there has been no promise fulfilled up to date except the promise to increase the tariff, and that has been implemented one hundred per cent. That promise was kept, with the disastrous results that we have seen and that are shown from time to time by statistics which are released by the government.
I do not know that this government can criticize provincial governments very much for the position in which they find themselves. I do not know that the provincial governments have gone into debt any faster than this government is going into debt. This government said it would accept the responsibility. It has accepted the responsibility for thirty per cent of the expenditure in regard to relief, with the exception of the $22,000,000 and some other amounts that have been expended directly. The situation of the provinces and municipalities to-day is such that I do not wonder that the Prime Minister wants very drastic provisions retained in this act in order that he may deal with the situation. I am very much afraid that from a financial standpoint he will have to continue to deal with it as long as the finances of the dominion government will stand it. We must stop somewhere, however. Despite the statement that we hear from time to time that we are to spend a large sum in the construction of public buildings this year I do not believe this will relieve the situation at all. The situation never will be relieved until men get work. To me it seems useless to talk about the extension of credit, the wider circulation of money and all the other panaceas that are offered; if men do not have the privilege of working and earning a livelihood then we will continue to have depression and hard times in this country. No government can assume the responsibility of keeping a large proportion of its people on the payroll of the government; that is out of the question. If fiscal policies are to prevail that will prevent men from getting work and prevent businesses from expanding, the present condition will continue until a change is brought about.
I was rather astounded the other night when the minister in charge of this bill gave us a resume of the actions that have been taken under the provisions of this act, altogether outside the purview of relief. When we find authorized under this provision advances of $15,000,000 odd to Beauharnois, advances to the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation of Nova Scotia for the production of fifty
thousand tons of steel rails, and advances to the Algoma Steel Corporation for the production of thirty thousand tons of steel rails-


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Does my hon. friend object to that?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I absolutely do because the parliament of Canada was never consulted about it. Advances were made to the Algoma Steel Corporation of $660,000 for the production of thirty thousand tons of steel rails, and guarantees were given to the banks in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway of sixty million dollars, also advances to the government of Newfoundland -all done under the provisions of this legislation. I may be pardoned for saying that I do not know what obligation Canada had to Newfoundland, and particularly what obligation that would require action to be taken under this measure. This bill, Mr. Chairman, is just as vicious in taking from parliament its authority over expenditures as all the preceding measures. The Prime Minister pointed out yesterday that this provision was invoked when Great Britain went off the gold standard, to prohibit the export of gold from this country, but outside of that there have been very few instances in which the drastic powers conferred by this section have been invoked. Now we are told that because two of the provinces have taken advantage of a situation similar to the situation indicated by this government, it becomes necessary to retain these drastic powers so that the dominion government may be in a position to deal with them. It is a vicious circle that is widening all the time, as was pointed out by my leader this afternoon. It is the same vicious circle that we see extending throughout the world to-day and which is bound sooner or later, unless we do something to counteract it, to create a war which we shall all deplore. Restriction of trading, restriction piled upon restriction, with consequent unemployment everywhere until we have a condition of affairs that sooner or later will lead to revolution. But when the time comes when we are unable to continue this sort of thing and are unable to borrow money-we have not touched the fringe of the difficulty yet-I want to knew what the people of this country, highly civilized as we claim to be, will do then. What will happen to us? That is something which I trust will never come about, but I do say that ten millions of people, and after all it is our people who constitute the real wealth of this country, cannot shoulder this burden much longer.
Relief Act, 1934



* COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Something must be done to bring about a cure or the consequences will be disastrous indeed.
May I say that I have made some examination into the report of the gentleman who under the control of the auditor general audited the accounts in the province of Alberta. I do not see very much wrong with those accounts. I have not very much to complain of.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There are a couple of errors that might easily be corrected.


Charles A. Stewart: But I do say this, because I want to be perfectly fair in my statement, that the federal government should either accept the word of the province through its auditors or do even now, late in the day as it is, what I always felt they were going to do, namely, take the whole responsibility for relief under a minister of the crown or under a commission which would have complete control of the expenditures. I for one felt that that was the intention of the government and I have not hesitated to say so upon every occasion when the matter came up for discussion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
knows that some of the provinces do not agree to our taking it over.


Charles A. Stewart: I knew that before the right hon. gentleman spoke. I knew it would be resented by the provinces. I am simply pointing out what my right hon. friend himself said when he appealed to the electorate of this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what I stated at all. Produce it; read it.


Charles A. Stewart: I have my right hon. friend's words before me. In speaking in Montreal on July 18, 1930, he said:
Canada is now in a critical condition. Unemployment exists on a scale never before known in the history of this country. All this by reason of the policies of the Ottawa government.
Again, speaking in Montreal on June 27, he said:
Unemployment has become a national problem in Canada. It is the direct result of nine years of unsound economic policies applied by Liberals under Premier King, and the King government cannot escape the charge of having neglected to realize that the first duty of the Canadian government is to provide work for Canadians.
Again, in Calgary on June 13, he said:
I am convinced this unemployment has now ceased to be local and provincial and has

become national in its importance. It has reached far beyond the narrow confines of Calgary or Alberta and is stretching into the broad confines of our dominion. I will not permit this country with my voice or vote to ever become committed to the dole system. I will not permit those to share in any benefits that may accrue unless they are willing to work, if they are fit to work, and my duty is to provide them with work to do. . . . There are great national works that may be undertaken in times of stress and strain. . . . They will be undertaken, and I propose that parliament shall formulate a definite plan for permanent relief, and that parliament shall deal with this national problem and provide amelioration for the conditions in order that next winter the Canadian people may not be facing the crisis that is upon us without having a remedy at hand.
I do not think I need to read any more, but I have here a great many statements of a similar character that were made by the right hon. gentleman. I say, as I have said on former occasions, that I assumed the right hon. gentleman meant what he said when he used those words.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So he did. I said it was a national problem, and so it was.


Charles A. Stewart: A national problem, and you were going to provide work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


Charles A. Stewart: And not doles.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We did not provide the doles. The provinces provide the doles.


Charles A. Stewart: That is a terrible admission. I wonder what my right hon. friend would have said to my leader if he had been sitting over there and made any such reply as that. I have sat in those seats opposite and listened to " red-blooded " Canadian talk and all sorts of criticism, and I have often wondered as I have sat in my seat on this side what the right hon. the 'Prime Minister would have said if he had been sitting over here and we had been over there.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are glad you are not.


Charles A. Stewart: Had we been over there Canada would not have been in the deporable condition in which she is today, and we would not be in the position of having to find excuses for failing to carry out a program such as my right hon. friend enunciated, not at a convention, but from every platform in Canada when he was speaking as the responsible head of his party.

Relief Act, 1934
Mr. MAC'DOUGALL: Not a five cent piece for the unemployed.


Charles A. Stewart: Doles for the unemployed, when work was to be provided for them. And to-day we are asked to give the government a blank cheque to assist in giving more doles. We are to be asked to vote large sums of money for the purpose of starting public works, and when public works were started by this government they were started in camps administered by the Minister of National Defence. Do you call that pay for work? I am not complaining but if hon. gentlemen think that they have carried out their promises, they are welcome to all the comfort they can get out of that. So far as I am concerned I propose to state here and tell the people in the country exactly what you did and then ask them how far they think you have carried out your promises.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: What about the
$20,000,000 for the unemployed?


Charles A. Stewart: What about it?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: You voted against
it.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
once when hon. members opposite had the courage of their convictions and brought down a stated amount and gave parliament an opportunity to decide upon it.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: You voted against
it.


Charles A. Stewart: But you are not doing that to-day; you are asking for a blank cheque and all sorts of arbitrary power to deal with this matter. You are asking us to support you in this and to be parties to the usurpation of the powers of parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You are wrong.


Charles A. Stewart: But we
refuse to do it. As long as I have the honour of occupying a seat in this chamber I shall continue to refuse to do it. I am opposed to the provisions of this bill; I am not opposed to the assistance which will be rendered under it through the agencies of the provinces, but I am opposed to the method by which it is done. That is the objection I want to register. The statements which hon. gentlemen have made in connection with having carried out their promises are the most lame and lamentable that any government has ever presented to parliament. May I say with all vehemence that you cannot escape a fair share of the responsibility for
the condition of things to-day by persisting in a fiscal policy which is absolutely ruinous to a large portion of Canada. These are the things I want to say on this occasion and possibly I will repeat them later when another bill is up for consideration. The vicious circle keeps ever widening. As I stated a few moments ago, because the government finds agriculture in the deplorable condition in which it is to-day it is seeking to ameliorate that condition by bringing about another which is just as vicious as some of the fiscal policies which it has put into force and Which have brought about ruinous results to Canada.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton):: Shall the amendment carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let us clear the air a
little. Are we considering the amendment of the right hon. the leader of the opposition or the one which we propose?


Charles A. Stewart: We propose to let our amendment stand; the one offered by the government does not help the situation at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then we will vote upon that amendment.


Mr. HEENAN:: During the discussion
yesterday afternoon I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) a number of questions, and in answer to one of them he stated that so far as he was aware there had been no application by the government of Ontario for a contribution toward the works to be carried on in that province. I should like to know if that statement applies to the other provinces.


George Gordon: When the hon. member asked me the question I believe he was referring to a newspaper report in connection with some works which the government of Ontario had stated that they intended to commence. I was asked if the provincial government had approached this government for a contribution towards the works referred to in the press, and I replied in the negative. The obvious reason for our having received no request from Ontario is the fact that we have no authority to enter into any agreement, this authority having lapsed through the effluxion of time. The provinces are well aware that the statute expired on March 31. If this legislation goes through and the provinces find they are not able to carry on, I have no doubt that they will confer with the dominion, but we have had no inquiries other than the general discussions which took place at the dominion-provincial conference. Those

Relief Act, 1934

discussions had no reference to specific works which might be carried on this summer. I do not know that I can add anything to what I have said. Outside of what appeared in the press, and I did not know it was in the press until the hon. gentleman referred to it, I do not know of any program contemplated by the province.


Peter Heenan: Is there not an agreement or an understanding between the federal government and the government of Ontario, or the other provincial governments, with respect to the completion of the highway known as the trans-Canada highway? Does this agreement run for only one year or is it continuous? The largest portion of this highway traverses Ontario, and I should like to know if there is not an agreement or understanding that the government will continue to contribute fifty per cent, or forty to sixty, or some such percentage, until it is completed?


George Gordon: The agreements are made from year to year in harmony with the provisions of the various relief acts. The acts expire at the end of each year according to their terms, and any agreements made thereunder expire concurrently. There is no agreement with any province respecting any works because it is obvious that we have no authority to enter into an agreement until this parliament gives us that authority.


Peter Heenan: That is not what I mean. I realize that the agreement expired on March 31, but this government has made a specific promise that it will contribute fifty per cent of the cost and I should like to know if there is some understanding that that contribution will be continued until the highway is completed. Let me put it in another way. The Prime Minister and his candidates promised that a national highway would be built with funds from the federal exchequer. Apparently they abandoned that idea and offered to make a contribution to the provinces of fifty per cent of the cost. Is there not an agreement that this contribution will be continued until the highway is completed?


George Gordon: I cannot add anything to what I have said already. There is no agreement because there is no authority to make one. Those provinces that find that they cannot get along without assistance from the dominion undoubtedly will approach the dominion with a view to entering into an agreement to take care of the matters to which the hon. member has directed attention, as well as other matters. But at the present time there

is no agreement, there is no understanding, because so far as the government is concerned it would be highly improper to have an understanding or an agreement without any authority for entering into one.


Peter Heenan: I suppose we shall have to take that just as it is, but once again I submit that it places members in a strange predicament to find themselves voting for a blank cheque to be given to the government when they can get no information as to what is intended. The government made specific promises to the people before they came into power. They cajoled them into voting for this administration, and when my hon. friends got into power they refused to tell the electors what they would do. They will not even give any information to the elected representatives of the people as to what they contemplate. If there is one thing more than another that should open the eyes of members of this house it is the answer which the Prime Minister gave to the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell). The Prime Minister went to Hamilton and, surrounded by his friends, he got into that sort of humour that I suppose most of us get into at one time or another, though perhaps not with the same spirit as some of us, and he promised the city of Hamilton a building. There are hundreds if not thousands of workmen in Hamilton represented by my good friend from East Hamilton-and he is a very good representative too-and when the hon. gentleman stands on the floor of this house and inquires of the Minister of Labour or of the Prime Minister when it is proposed to start that work what answer does he receive from the right hon. gentleman? He receives one of the most flippant answers ever given in parliament since I have been a member of this house. The hon. gentleman can presuppose this, or he can imagine that, in the hope that some day his expectations may be realized. Is that the sort of answer that should be made by a government who are asking this parliament for a blank cheque?
I cannot see how the government can take this position after four years. There might be an excuse the first year or even the second year; they might say then, "We don't know what will arise; we cannot tell what each province may require." But after four years, surely they ought to be able to inform the members of this house just what the government of Ontario, for instance, or other provinces will wrant. They ought to be able to tell us, after the discussions they have had, whether certain work is to be undertaken in northern Ontario, or in Nova Scotia, or in

Relief Act, 193/f
the province of Quebec, as the case may be, and that as soon as this bill passes they expect to ask for so many millions. They should have some conception of what money is going to be expended and the use to which it will be put. If I were inclined to vote against this measure for any reason whatever, that reason would be the answer which the Prime Minister has just given to the hon. member for East Hamilton. The hon. gentleman has been a very courteous member; he has not been like myself, critical of this government, but has tried to save the government from the mess they got into over the titles question. Well, here is one of the most courteous members of this house rising and asking a question which vitally concerns the workmen of Hamilton: Are they going to be able to save the titles to their little homes? That is the question, and the Prime Minister gives, as I say, the most flippant answer, the sort of answer he would give to a schoolboy.
Yesterday in the course of his remarks the Prime Minister tried to make excuses for the government for the manner in which the federal moneys have been expended, and he compared what the government had done with the Liberal government's attitude towards old age pensions. What a terrible predicament the Prime Minister and the government must find themselves in when they begin to talk about old age pensions and to compare that question with unemployment relief! We made an agreement with the provinces, under authority of an act of parliament, to pay fifty per cent to any province participating in the scheme for the payment of pensions to persons over seventy.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Seventy-five per cent.


Peter Heenan: I am speaking about the time we were in power. The only difference is that we carried out our promise and you are carrying out yours only twenty-five per cent. The provincial government has full control over the administration of old age pensions-not the municipalities, not unorganized districts, not contractors. The provincial governments are responsible. The Prime Minister yesterday referred to fraudulent cases that had occurred under the old age pensions scheme, and he likened it to the terrible calamity we have now in connection with the expenditures of federal money. Can you imagine the Prime Minister and the government in such straits? Of course, in connection with old age pensions as well as under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Mothers' Allowance Act, you will find instances here and there where someone 74726-127i
probably gets the benefit of the act when he is not entitled thereto, but I do not suppose that in the whole of Canada there are more than twelve cases; yet the Prime Minister compares that to the expenditure in connection with unemployment relief.
Let me say this, that under the old age pensions legislation the accountant of the Labour department persistently checked up the various provinces, and while it is true that he discovered here and there someone that was not entitled to pension, the province concerned immediately made an adjustment. On the other hand, he found a good many people who were entitled to pension and whom the provinces had denied, and in a great many instances there was an adjustment in this direction. But when hon. gentlemen talk about old age pensions I cannot help observing at this particular time that Ontario through their commissioner is chiselling, whether the Minister of Labour knows it or not, many of the aged people of that province out of their old age pensions. I have several letters, one in particular from a Conservative, a man who was born a Conservative and who I suppose will die one. This man got $20 a month when he reached the age of seventy. That is what the law allows. When his wife attained the age of seventy she also was entitled under the act to $20 per month. And remember, that is the law; it is not what some politician or some commission may say, but it is the law. But the commission in Ontario wrote to this aged couple a letter in which they stated, "Now that you are both receiving the benefit of the old age pension, $30 ought to be sufficient for the two of you." That is chiselling aged people, who are on the brink of the grave, out of $10 a month that is theirs by law. So far as the Prime Minister is concerned, who promised especially in Nova Scotia that one hundred per cent of old age pensions would be paid by the federal government, the less the right hon. gentleman says about old age pensions the better.
I think the Minister of Labour placed on Hansard the record of what the former Liberal government did in 1922 with respect to the administration of unemployment relief. I was not in the House of Commons at that time; I was in the legislature, so I can speak only by the records, but he will find that tiie system that was in vogue in 1922 was instituted by a good Conservative government in October, 1921. That Conservative government initiated the making of agreements not with the provinces but with the municipalities. Now the present Prime Minister says that they were all wrong; that constitutionally
Relief Act, 1934

they had no right to make those agreements with the municipalities, that the action taken was unconstitutional, but nevertheless the government that was defeated in 1921 instituted in October of that year the practice of making agreements with the municipalities. The agreement was extended to some extent since then. At that time it was, I believe, speaking from memory, one-third of the excess cost over normal of works that were done in the winter time. The provision was that this excess cost would be estimated by the dominion government engineers, and this was done. I know from the records, because I had to settle up a good many of those cases even after 1926, that the dominion engineers refused the claims in many instances. For example, some municipalities had put down shovelling snow as excess construction work and there were many other cases of that kind. Those were all checked up by the auditor general and there is no suggestion whatever that through those years there was anything Wrong.
I want again to refer the Minister of Labour to our discussion of yesterday. I know the limitations of the authority of the minister with respect to wages and all that kind of thing, and I am not going to ask him to do anything that I feel I could not do myself were I in that office. But in this particular case provincial governments are, as they have done before, asking the Minister of Labour for contributions to enable them to carry on certain works. While the minister has no jurisdiction in setting wages in the provinces except on dominion works, he has now the jurisdiction to say: "We will give you those contributions on contain conditions," and one of the conditions could be that they pay prevailing rates of wages, or fair wages, or some kind of wages that the minister himself, after consulting with his officers, might determine. He has that power. We do not need to give money away if we do not want to do so, and if we give it away we can give it under any conditions we like to impose.
As I said yesterday, when the bill was first introduced in the house at the special session of 1930, this government gave a specific pledge. I think the hon. member who gave the pledge for the government was the Minister of Justice, who has just left the chamber. We pointed out to him the resolution that was passed in 1900 providing that any contract for works undertaken by anyone with a contribution from this government should include a fair and reasonable rate of wages provision. In 1930 we passed in this chamber

another act providing for eight hours a day and fair rates of wages for government work. The Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister, if I remember aright, specifically stated, in answer to some of us on this side, that those provinces which were carrying on relief work would have to comply with that resolution and that policy. If that be true, how does it come about that the Ontario government-and I am speaking only about the province in which I reside and about which I know something- with that provision in their agreement and with those regulations to govern them on highway work, dropped the wages of their labourers from thirty-five cents to thirty cents, then from thirty cents down to $5 a month and their board, then raised it to $10 a month and their board, until now, after three years and after some of us have gone through the country shaming that government into action, they have decided all at once to give twenty-five cents an hour? How is it that the Minister of Labour for Canada has not some say in the matter? That is what puzzles me. So far as I can see, the only good to be accomplished by talking on the floor of the House of Commons or outside is to awaken the public to what is going on. I am certain I am not going to get the Minister of Labour, or the hon. member (Mr. Macdougall) who is sitting behind him just now, to agree with me on all points; or.if they do, they will not say so. However, I thank the hon. member for Inverness for agreeing with me for once. I do not speak in the house in the hope of getting the Prime Minister to become a Liberal; I speak in order that the public may understand the treatment that is accorded to the people in northern Ontario and the mishandling and bungling of everything in which the Ontario government has ever taken part. I am appealing to the Minister of Labour to take a hand in this matter and to see that the Ontario government do the right thing. I can recall in 1923 when I was given an acclamation in Ontario-


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The hon. member
will never get one again.


Peter Heenan: I do not want it again;
I want to fight, because the next morning everybody in the street told me he gave me the acclamation. On that occasion there were only two of us who got acclamations. The then member for Kingston, Mr. W. F. Nickle, the only democrat the Conservative party ever had, the man who told the people of Great Britain that we did not want any

Relief Act, 1934
more titles in this country, and I, were the only two who got acclamations. The Conservatives were so pleased with the work I had done in the four previous years that they did' not run a man against me. What happened? The Ferguson government came into power and the highway and road work was shut down overnight, just like the crack of a whip. I knew what was in their minds, but I tried to make excuses for them. I went through my district for six months saying: Be patient; wait till this government find their feet; they will not leave these miles of road leading into the bush, leading to nowhere; give them time. But I found out that it was a designed plot; they were going to tell the people that they had elected a labour man and .to show them that as long as they did not elect a man who would support the Conservative, or the Ferguson, government-because it was never really a Conservative government-they were going to persecute the district. I then went to Hamilton where my hon. friend lives and I made a speech there pointing out that the Ontario government was persecuting a district because I was elected. I went to the head of the lakes and made a similar speech and to Winnipeg and made a similar speech there. And the people, even Conservatives-because there are some good Conservatives; they are pretty hard to find nowadays, but there are some if you look for them-asked the Ontario government: What is all this about? The result was that the Minister of Lands and Forests hied him in a private car to my constituency and put hundreds of men to work-I would not like to say thousands-and then he went to Toronto and said to the newspaper men: "What an awful liar that man Heeoan is; I have more men working in his riding than in any other part of Ontario." So we are speaking here not only because we feel that some time we might touch a sympathetic chord in the heart of the government, but more particularly to let the people of Ontario and of Canada know just what is going on so that they will ask the government whether this is true or not. We ask the Minister of Labour to give us some help, because he is at the head of the department that is supposed to do that. There is only one department of the government of Canada charged with caring for labour, and the officers and the minister of that department ought to have a labour psychology. I agree that there is a limitation to his authority, but we ought at least to have that outlook on life from that department. When we speak about wages we ought to have the sympathetic help of the minister;
he ought to stand in this house and say that if the Ontario government does not increase the wages of these men, we will not give them any further assistance, while if they do increase wages we shall give all the assistance we can consistent with the amount of money we have to spend. In our constituency we had to hold mass meetings of Conservatives, Liberals, Labour, United Farmers of Ontario and everything else in order to get any consideration from the Ontario government for districts for which no Conservative is sitting. I admit that conditions are better now in that regard; they could not allow people to starve to death, because that would attract attention and the rest of Ontario would suffer. But what I am trying to do is to get the assistance of this government and especially of the Minister of Labour. Labour men, Mr. Hutchinson, the member for Kenora in the legislature and a good many others, and I, have been pounding away at the Ontario government for the last three years about the wages they are paying in the camps in northern Ontario, $5 a month in the summer and $10 in the winter. At last after we had called attention for three years to this scandal, the government of Ontario on the eve of an election come out and say they are going to pay twenty-five cents an hour. Of course there will be a lot chiselled off that; they take 50 cents a month for the doctor and so on; they whittle it down so that a man will have about S8 a week. Many of them are married men. Suppose they have a house of which the rent is $15 or $20 a month, and at the end of the month they have $32 to send to their families! I have attended the funerals of some of these men; I have been in their homes when they have been called in from highway work on account of their children being sick through lack of nutrition, or because they were not able to clothe them and send them to school. I have seen some of those men die-they probably would have died anyhow, but I think the Ontario government's scale of pay hastened it somewhat. Now after two or three years, on the eve of an election we have got the Ontario government actually to say to them, not from concern for the working men but in order to try to get a few more votes:	"We have defrauded you
men out of your wages for three years; now we are going to give you back the money that we kept out of your pocket, in the hope that you will vote to put is into power again so that we may sink this province further into debt and increase the taxation of the people." That is the situation in the province of Ontario. I have here for the information of the
Relief Act, 1934

minister a statement made by the Minister of Lands and Forests himself in his own constituency. Speaking in Orillia on February 2, he said:
"I don't consider $10 a month is any wage."
He will not agree that it is even slave wages.
These camps were undertaken to take care of as many idle young men as possible and to give them good board. We give them $10 a month as an allowance and we couldn't give them any more.
In February Mr. Finlayson said: "We cannot give them any more," but now on the eve of an election he says he can give them twenty-five cents an hour. I want to know where the money is coming from. How is it they are in a better position now than when Mr. Finlayson made this statement? I think we are entitled to know this. Mr. Finlayson was one who along with Hon. Charles McCrea and Hon. Howard Ferguson and Hon. George S. Henry and many others took leave from their provincial duties during the last federal election to go up and down the province of Ontario, saying what? Saying that the fact' that there was unemployment in Ontario was due to the fiscal policies of the Liberal government at Ottawa. Now after nearly four years see what Mr. Finlayson says:
Defending the government in regard to present economic conditions the speaker described the depression as an aftermath of war.
Then another minister of the crown in Ontario went to Fort Frances and added insult to injury. Hon. Charles McCrea at Fort Frances last fall said in effect-I have his statement from the local paper, edited by the local Conservative member, so it must be a correct report: "Some will say that the present depression, the troubles we are passing through, were caused by the government at Ottawa or the government in Toronto, but any of you who read or think or exercise ordinary intelligence and sense will know that neither the government at Ottawa nor the provincial government in Toronto is responsible, but that the great war was the cause." That is what gentlemen went about saying. Some of my hon. friends on the other side-I have a lot of good friends there, and hope I shall always keep them-may think that some of us criticize them unduly, but it is because of such trickery as that that we do it. I do not mind losing or winning a football match or a cricket match or an election, but let us do it in a sportsmanlike way; let us not go round blowing about what we are going to do and promising the people what the Prime Minister and members of the pro-

vincial government promised they would do, and then four years afterwards insult the people by saying that if they use common sense or intelligence they will know that we were only trying to deceive or fool them three or four years ago. That is the effect of Mr. McCrea's words.
I want to ask the Minister of Labour now whether he will not insist that some of this money that the government of Ontario has hoarded or has borrowed-I understand they borrowed $40,000,000 recently-will be used to give these men w'ho have been working on the highways their back pay, the money of which they have been robbed. That should be done, instead of increasing their wages now at the eleventh hour, prior to an election. It is their due. These men have been working; they have not been having a good time, as some of the newspapers would have us believe. The foremen have been led to compete against each other to see how many yards of dirt they can move and they, in turn, have had to work their men. They have been firing men because they were not able or willing to work in competition with others. These men have been doing laborious work in the interests of the state, and the state now says, "We do not require these fellows at nil; we are just putting them away up there in the bush."
I understand some question has been raised with regard to the one cent cheque to which I referred yesterday; I understand that the newspaper in Vancouver that published a photograph of this cheque now denies it. I am going to make the statement again, so that it will be understood. The picture of the cheque appears on page 20 of the Vancouver Daily Province of Wednesday, August 16, 1933.


Mr. GOTT:: It is cheap trash for a provincial election, and you will not get to first base with it.


Peter Heenan: I was going to say to the minister, " Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; render unto Gott that which is Gott's." That would be about a nickel, or a cent.


Eccles James Gott: You have put that on record about four times.


Peter Heenan: And you would not understand it if I put it on record again. Eveiy time you squeeze an onion it makes your eyes water. This cheque for one cent was issued by the northern development branch of the province of Ontario and was sent to the editor of the Vancouver Daily Province

Private Bills
by the man who received it. This man's name is C. Oaesar; the cheque was issued on the Canadian Bank of Commerce at Minden, Ontario, and the photograph is headed by the words, "One Month-One Cent." Below the photograph the editor of the newspaper has this to say:
After clothing issued to C. Caesar, worker at camp No. 9, Hall Lake, Minden, Ontario, had been half paid for, he received the cheque shown above for his month's wages. It is a moot question how many dollars will be expended in bookkeeping for the next two or three years carrying this cheque entry forward as an outstanding item, as its owner has requested its return so he may frame it as a souvenir to show to his grandchildren.
I presume he wants to show his grandchildren how the Ontario government paid their workers in 1933. I have other cheques here that have not been cashed.


Eccles James Gott: It costs the country more than one cent to have the hon. member speak. It is a waste of time.
Mr. HEE'NAN:	Pefhaps that is what my
hon. friend thinks, and I cannot blame him if he does think so. Sometimes I wonder if I do much good, but I will say to my hon. friend that he never opens his mouth without giving a grunt like a pig, and that he never rises on the floor of this house except to interfere or heckle. If he were in some parts of the country-


Eccles James Gott: I will stand up now to say
that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River ought to be ashamed of himself.


Peter Heenan: I am, because I am talking to you. Every time I talk to my hon. friend I am ashamed of myself.


Finlay MacDonald: All this conversation is entirely out of order.


Peter Heenan: I want to be decent, but I can never be decent when I am speaking to that hon. gentleman.


Eccles James Gott: We know what to expect.


Peter Heenan: If the chairman cannot
keep that hon. gentleman quiet I will try to do it myself.


Eccles James Gott: You would have a fine time.


Peter Heenan: All you would have to do would be to give him a little pin prick and he would burst like a bubble. It may be that I am not doing any good, but at least I have awakened some of our editors to the fact that conditions are not what they should be. I have here the Ottawa Citizen of February 10, 1934, from which I am going to read just one sentence. Referring to my remarks in connection with the one cent cheque the Citizen has,this to say:
When Russia has been discussed at Ottawa, there have been contemptuous references to the "slave labour" of that country. At least we ought to set our own house in order before indulging again in such audacious hypocrisy.


Mr. POULIOT:: This is much more interesting than Ferguson's five cent speeches.


Peter Heenan: So notwithstanding the
fact that some hon. members may think I am not doing much good, I think perhaps I am doing some good in drawing these matters to the attention of the public. At least I am doing this much good, if my hon. friend can understand it; I have been working on this for over three years, and finally the Ontario government have announced that the wages of the men will be increased to twenty-five cents.


Eccles James Gott: I listen to and understand anything that is sensible.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



SECOND READING

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 28, to incorporate Ancient Foresters' Mutual Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton West).

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Gertrude Ethel Mosgrove Roast.-Mr. White (Mount Royal).
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Clara Dingman Freeman.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Marguerite Pearl Hopper.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Sadye Harris Rosenberg.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Eva Brabant Paradis.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Williamina Muir Briggs.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 42, respecting relief measures-Mr. Gordon-Mr. Gobcil in the chair
Relief Act, 1934
[Stage Direction]
On section 2-agreements with provinces.
Mr. HEEN.AN:	While the minister is
waiting for his deputy I want to say a few words by way of concluding my remarks. If the province of Ontario enters into an agreement with the federal government, as undoubtedly the minister expects, I would ask him to see to it that the policy enunciated by this government that fair wages shall be paid on all public works to which contributions are made by this government is carried out. I trust that the minister will insist upon that at this particular time at any rate, even although he has failed to do so in the past.
There is another matter. I recall that wihen the Prime Minister was speaking on the relief bill in 1930 he enunciated a policy of undertaking works for the purpose of supplying work and wages. I think we have got away from the wages end of that policy. It is true that the regulations provided that men in the community in which the work was to be undertaken would be supplied with work, and settlers and others located along the line of the highways would gat the benefit of such work. I would urge upon the minister, and at the same time make an appeal to him, that this government has a duty to perform and that is to see that that policy is carried out. In our district, and I think it applies throughout northern Ontario although I can speak more particularly for the district of Rainy River and Kenora, a great many settlers live during the winter by cutting pulpwood for pulp and paper mills. These mills have been closed down until recently and the settlers have not had the same opportunity to make a living during the winter time. It was expected that the camps would obtain their supplies of vegetables and meats from the settlers along the highway, but the provincial government let a contract to the firm of Crawley and McCracken. We were unable to have these contractors purchase their vegetables and meats from the settlers residing along the highway. The member for Kenora in the legislature went to the government about the matter but they referred him to the contractors. The contractors stated that -they could buy only meats which had gone through a certain inspection. The matter was then referred to me and I took it up with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). I must give him credit for doing his share, and I am glad there is one member of the cabinet to whom I can throw a bouquet. I received a telegram from Doctor Grisdale, the deputy minister, under date of December 11, 1931, reading as follows:
Am advised by Mr. Fairbairn, deputy minister agriculture, Toronto, that agreement [Mr. Gott.l
with Crawley and McCracken who have contract to board labour specifies that food shall be good and wholesome. There is no mention of meat inspection. We are ready put man at Dryden or any other place supervise hog slaughterings and issue certificates wholesomeness of product. Please advise with whom we might make contact in order speed up necessary arrangements.
That was in 1931 when there was a plentiful supply of hogs in that particular district. Notwithstanding the fact that this government was making a contribution to the Ontario government, we could not get this contracting firm to purchase, supplies from the farmers in that part of the country. I am safe in saying that hundreds and possibly thousands of bushels of potatoes which these settlers had been encouraged to grow in the belief that they would be purchased as supplies for the camps, rotted in the cellars, while potatoes were purchased in Winnipeg and from eastern points.
There is no doubt that if this matter is brought to the attention of the Ontario government they will claim it has been rectified, but I should like to tell the committee how it has been rectified. The Minister of Lands and Forests made a trip through northern Ontario accompanied by Premier Henry and other members of the cabinet. When this matter was brought to h-is attention by the local member, as well as by settlers in that part of the country, he got up on a public platform and made the announcement that henceforth he would see to it that the contractors purchased potatoes and other vegetables from the settlers in that part of the country. But that promise was never put into practice. The Ontario government is on the eve of an election and the Conservative candidate does not even live in the riding; he lives in the riding of Fort William. This gentleman has placed an advertisement in the papers to the effect that he has made an arrangement with Crawley and McCracken whereby they will purchase their supplies for the camps from the farmers in that vicinity. This is playing politics with unemployment relief, something which the Prime Minister promised would not be done. It is all right for the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) to stand up on the floor of this house, as he did the other evening, and say that in connection with all works with which he had anything to do he would give the benefit to his friends and not to his enemies-incidentally, I notice the papers took him to task editorially for making that statement-but I hope the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) will not take a similar position.

Relief Act, 1934
My last appeal to the minister, on this occasion at least, is to ask him to see that these provisions are included in the contract. But a contract is not considered by the Ontario government to be worth very much; they would break a contract to-morrow if they thought it would enhance their political prestige. That is the experience I have had for fifteen or sixteen years. I would much rather say something nice about them, but I cannot find anything nice to say. I appeal to the Minister of Labour to see to it that contractors who are receiving federal money comply with the announced policy of the government.
Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I have
listened carefully to this debate hoping to hear some constructive policy announced by the government to deal with the unemployment problem, but I think it is fair to say that up to the moment the only policy announced is purely negative. It is in direct contradiction of the claims made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and other members of the government when they went around the country in 1930. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) has given examples of the wages paid in the camps up in his part of the country. When the government contribute funds to an enterprise or undertaking, in my judgment they have a direct responsibility to see that a fair rate of wages is paid. I do not think it is fair to the unemployed or to the employed that these men working on a constructive undertaking should be asked to work for $10 a month. In some instances the result has been that a man has received as little as one cent at the end of the month. If these men were placed in the camps simply to be fed, there might be some excuse, but they are taking part in a national enterprise, the construction of a highway from one end of this dominion to the other, and I do not think the government should employ men at a wage scale which no private employer would stoop to pay.
AVe have another example offered us in the
18,000	civil servants receiving less than $1,000 per year who are to have the ten per cent deduction returned to them. It looks to me as though the committee now investigating mass buying should investigate the wages paid by this government as well as those paid by private employers. Perhaps hon. members should not be unmindful of the fact that many within the compass of that 18,000 are postmasters and that this is a strategic move in view of the nearness of an election.
I have listened with keen interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River in connection with the policies of the Conservative government of Ontario in this crisis. There is to be an increase in relief. I have no objection to this; I believe it should have been done long ago, but it is passing strange that on the eve of an election a provincial government should find it necessary tc increase relief payments which practically come out of the federal treasury. The workers in these road camps, under this policy, are to have their wages increased to twenty-five cents an hour. It is a pity we cannot have an election every week or so; we should all become rich under those conditions. This afternoon I got a rather stinging reply because I asked when the government expected to be able to put into motion the building policy it had in mind. I hope that is not going to be a purely political policy in view of the forthcoming election. In 1930 it was, "We will cure unemployment or perish in the attempt"; in 1934 the policy is, "Give the electors what they want so that we can get back into power". It is so obvious to even the casual observer that this is the background of the policy.
During the supper hour I was reading a periodical which brings out very clearly the direct responsibility of the government in connection with the payment of wages in any undertaking under their control. The article which I read was an open letter to the Prime Minister in the January number of Chatelaine. It discusses a family, husband and wife and four children. The husband had been out of work for two years but through the assistance given them by their friends they have been able to remain off relief. Eventually this man got a job in one of the camps at a salary of $39.50 a month. The family budget was given as follows: Rent, $12; fuel, $7; light, $1.50; milk, $6; and expenses for the husband's clothes and at the camp, $3.50; drugs, $1, or $31 in all. That left $8.50 to feed and clothe a family of five under their conditions. I will not draw any inferences regarding what has happened in other countries; they have to work out their own destiny their own way. We however have a direct responsibility in relation to a vital question such as this.
Under the widow's pension legislation of the province this family would have been entitled, if the husband were dead, to allowances equivalent to $58.50 per month, so that the family would have been better off had the husband and father passed to the great beyond than they are while he is trying to make
Relief Act, 1934

a contribution to the building-up of the country. Had he been an invalid-he would have been treated as a child-he would have received S67.05 per month. In my judgment this shows very clearly the responsibility of any governmental agency in the employment of men who after all are their fellow Canadians.
I should like to have seen the government bring down something very definite instead of giving us a reiteration of the policy of the dole -because we might as well be frank about it- which has been in existence during the last three or four years. I should like to have seen them move in the direction of getting rid of some of the slum districts in the larger centres. I should like to have seen them expand a building program to provide houses for the people of the country. One could quote figures showing the real shortage that exists at the moment. In my city rents are increasing because of the contraction of available houses owing to the depression. I think the government has a direct responsibility in that regard, just as much of a responsibility to the average man and woman in the street as it shows in its policy in connection with one or two big undertakings which have been assisted. I do not say this critically but by way of comparison; for if it is sound and logical to come to the assistance of one form of organization which the government feels necessary to the life of the dominion, I think it is just as essential that the government should [DOT]come to the assistance of those who find themselves in a position such as I have indicated, over which they have no control.
I must therefore express my disappointment in the attitude of the government with regard to unemployment. I cannot say that I wholly agree with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the view he takes of the blank cheque aspect of the legislation. I would give the government any kind of cheque if only they would implement the promises they made in the last election. I think the Canadian people are all of one mind on that point. I am mindful of the fears of the leader of the opposition, but I would point this out. Liberty is not merely a right; it has been obtained by fighting and sacrifice. It is an asset that has been dearly won by the Anglo-Saxon people and it can be maintained in a democracy only if the citizens are willing to grant the state the powers they think necessary in an emergency of this description. I believe you have to choose between that and a dictatorship. I do not believe anything can be done under a dictatorship that cannot be done in a [Mr. Mitchell 1
democracy, and I am of the opinion that when the history of this period is written it will be found that those countries who observed most closely the spirit of democratic institutions will be those that will have passed through this trial and will most successfully cope with the inevitable problems that will confront them then. I believe that sincerely. At the same time, I do not think that we should deny those who have the responsibility of leadership and government the freedom to lead, though I think that responsibility should be definite and for a fixed period. I think this also, that you must retain control over those charged with responsibility; you must leave yourself the right, I might almost say the divine right, to change them. I have never held the opinion that we should permit legislative medicine to be prescribed for us. I think it can be safely said that this House of Commons is a pretty fair cross-section of the Canadian people. What I like about democracy is that it is so human; it is a system of government in which you suffer for your own sins. If you elect t'he wrong kind ,of people, you suffer accordingly.


Mr. YOUNG:: We are finding that out.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is pant of the
penalty. I believe that this government will suffer for its legislative sins at the next election. But I do not think there is any argument in the matter of giving the Prime Minister and the executive the right to make a quick change to meet an emergency should one arise. I agree with the Prime Minister that in every country there Should be a forum where men can speak the truth as they see it notwithstanding the fact that ninety-nine per cent of the people may disagree with them. Last summer I had a very practical experience of that, and I will close with this observation which, too, is very human. I went to Russia, where one can sense the oppression, the censorship; and I visited Poland, where I had promised to make a speech to the people of my political outlook. When I got there I found that fifty per cent of the members of the House of Commons of radical outlook were in gaol, and I did not make the speech. I went on tio the next stop, Berlin, where most of the fellows of my political complexion, trade unionists and so on, were either in concentration camps or in gaol, and I was bold not to ask the questions I thought I should ask. When I went to the next stop, London, England, I could have stood outside Buckingham palace and told them where they could get off at, and they would have simply laughed at me. In this

Relief Act, 1934
hour of trial that object lesson was worth something; it exemplifies the true spirit of Anglo-Saxon liberty; it exemplifies the real driving force of our civilization. I would like those in this country who feel that the right method to adopt is suppression, to take a leaf out of the book whence our institutions sprang.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Might I ask the minister for some explanation regarding the amount of S110,198,272.92 which appears under the heading of "Recapitulation of Dominion Disbursements under Relief Legislation?" I see, for instance, that under the heading of " Department of the Interior, including the Yukon," the expenditures are as follows:
Year-	Amount
1930	$	56,994 681931	
876,125	731932	
660,185	841933	
1,139,203	18Total	$2,732,509	41
Can the minister give the committee some explanation of the expenditures under these various items, in what provinces the money was spent and for what purpose?


George Gordon: In the four western provinces, in the national parks of Canada which are administered by the Department of the Interior, certain camps were established to take care mainly of the floating population, and each succeeding j^ear to the extent that those camps were taken advantage of, the amount has increased. Perhaps hon. members will remember that in 1931, yes, in 1930, it got to be a habit for people to take advantage of all sorts of transportation, sometimes riding in freight oars and on the rods, sometimes hitch-hiking in trucks and so on, to go from place to place and concentrate here and there, until the problem arose, particularly with the four western provinces, of taking care of those people. I think complaints were made in the house at that time and the plan was evolved, in so far as the western provinces were concerned, that the organization of the Department of the Interior could be used in order to provide subsistence camps in the national parks to take care of that floating population. Hon. members will likewise remember that the Department of National Defence also took part in the organization and carrying on of camps where these people could be housed, taken care of and do some work on dominion projects. That work has also been carried on, and a few weeks ago in the house when the estimates of the Department of National
Defence were under review, I believe complete information was given to the committee as to the work which was done. That, shortly, accounts for the expenditures to which the hon. member has made reference.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The minister has mentioned the national parks in various parts of the dominion, but this item includes the Yukon. What was done there? Is there a national park there? Are the people travelling or staying in that part of the country?


George Gordon: The contribution that was made to the Yukon was in the form of public works and direct relief. The administration was in the hands of the gold commissioner for the Yukon.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: How many people in
the Yukon territory received relief?


George Gordon: I have not the figures.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is the population of the Yukon?


George Gordon: The population of the
Yukon, that is, if you confine it to the electoral riding, is something under 2,000, probably between 1,800 and 2,000.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The minister cannot tell us how much was spent there for direct relief?


George Gordon: Under the 1930 act,
S20,000	was spent on works in the Yukon. Under the 1931 act I have not the figures showing the Yukon separately. The expenditure of the Department of the Interior is joined with that of the Yukon, and I am sorry I am not able to separate the figures in order to apprise the hon. member of the exact amount spent in the Yukon proper.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Has the minister the
figures for 1932 and 1933?


George Gordon: I do not think anything
was spent there in 1932 or last year.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Besides direct relief,
what kind of works were carried on in that territory?


George Gordon: Apart from direct relief the work was chiefly road work, bridges, culverts and work of that kind.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: How much was spent for those works, roads, culverts and bridges?


George Gordon: I am sorry I have not the figures of that.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Would the minister be
in a position to give the information?


George Gordon: Yes.
Relief Act, 193b


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: And also if there was
any money spent for direct relief.


George Gordon: Yes I can get details of it.


Charles A. Stewart: I notice
that the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy) is now in his seat. As I understand it, the relief work in the parks is being carried on under his supervision. I was in Jasper park last summer and had the pleasure of driving over a very nice piece of new highway that will open up a considerable portion of the park. What I am chiefly interested in, however, and what I think the citizens of Jasper are interested in, is the continuation of the highway to connect with the national highway projected through to the coast. I think it is correct to say that the projected highway between Lake Louise and Jasper will take considerable time to build, and in my opinion it would be much more serviceable and would meet the public demand very much better if work were concentrated on the highway going through to the coast. I understand-and I got this information from a statement in one of the newspapers, I think the Calgary Albertan-that there is some sixty-six miles of the Big Bend road construction still to be completed, and that the part undertaken by the dominion government under the parks branch from Golden westward is almost completed; indeed if my information is correct more money has been spent upon it than was contemplated. But it seems to me that when large sums are being spent on relief projects it would be wisdom on the part of the government to concentrate on the completion of this highway, giving an all-Canadian highway through to the coast. I think that should be done first. I say that because it was rather a pet project of my own when I was in charge of the department, and now that we are spending large sums of money on projects of this kind, and will continue to do so, surely it is advisable to have an all-Canadian highway to the coast constructed before we extend very much farther the highways within the park boundaries.
Then on the completion of that, or contemporaneous with it, it seems to me that any work done in Jasper should be directed to extending the road down to connect with that highway, in order that people in the northern sections of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta might have a highway through to the coast by way of Jasper park. The construction of a highway over the summit I would not consider nearly as necessary as the completion of these highways. I know that my hon. friend the member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) is also

very much interested in this project. I trust that future expenditures will be confined to these two projects, at any rate until they are completed or until such time as it is not necessary to find employment for a great number of young homeless men.


George Gordon: That work is under way,
and there is a concentration of men working on both of the highways to which referen'ce has been made. The dominion government undertook to build the east leg of the Big Bend road up to Canoe river, the province of British Columbia undertaking to build the westerly leg from Revelstoke to Canoe river. But at the present time, owing to the financial condition of the province of British Columbia, the federal Department of the Interior is continuing the work on the east leg, and the Department of National Defence is concentrating on the westerly leg of the road. I think some very useful work is being done there.


Charles A. Stewart: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that the Department of National Defence are working on the British Columbia end?


George Gordon: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: Were they
working there all last summer?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Since the fall, I think.
I speak subject to correction.


Mr. MURPHY:: As the hon. member for
West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) has stated, certain of these works, namely the eastern leg of the Big Bend highway and a certain amount of work on the section between Donald and Golden, were carried on during the season of 1933 by the Department of the Interior. Under the agreement entered into during the time the hon. member himself wa3 Minister of the Interior the Dominion government undertook to construct that part of the highway known as the Big Bend highway from Donald north to Canoe river, the province of British Columbia obligating itself to build the highway north from Revelstoke joining the Dominion government's portion of the road at Canoe river. Work on that project was continued for some three years, I think under the regular parks appropriation, by the dominion on the eastern leg, and last year the work was continued under the unemployment relief scheme on which were engaged single, homeless men. In addition to that the Department of National Defence, under the agreement entered into by the dominion with British Columbia, used single homeless men on construction work on the

Relief Act, 1934
western leg of that same highway. The eastern leg has been completed to within about twenty-eight to thirty miles of Canoe river. In giving these figures I do not wish to be taken as speaking with absolute accuracy because I have not the figures before me, but they are approximately correct.
The hon. member has also mentioned the road between Golden and Donald. May I point out that that portion of the road is not a dominion responsibility under the agreement; it is a provincial road. But under an arrangement made between the Department of the Interior and the Department of National Defence the Department of the Interior did use a certain number of single homeless men on that road during the season of 1933. While a certain amount of work was accomplished both on the Big Bend section and on the Golden-Donald section, not as much was accomplished as anticipated owing to lack of men. That is, we did not obtain the services of the number of men anticipated.
The hon. member for West Edmonton has also spoken of the road in Jasper park, asking that work be done upon the road which proceeds from the eastern boundary of the park west through the townsite of Jasper. The road from the eastern boundary of the park to the Jasper townsite and for a certain number of miles westward is an all-weather highway. As the hon. member knows, the road from Edmonton to the eastern boundary of Jasper park is not entirely an all-weather highway. The road of which I am now speaking is a provincial road, going from Edmonton to the eastern boundary of Jasper park. A goodly number of miles of that road cannot be classed as all weather highway, though it is a fairly passable road. The hon. member urges that the Dominion government continue that road westward through Jasper park in order to connect up with the Big Bend highway, I take it, at Canoe river, but may I point out that from the western boundary of Jasper park to Canoe river no work has been done, according to my information, and there is no road there. I think I am correct in that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A tote road to Kamloops.


Charles Murphy: But not a road that could be described as a highway or a tourist road in any sense of the word. Until these two sections, namely the section between Edmonton and the eastern boundary of the park and the section between, the western boundary and Canoe river are put in passable condition it would not seem to be of very great advantage to the dominion to push the road
through to the western boundary of Jasper park. We have been utilizing the services of single homeless men in Jasper park for many purposes, such as establishing tourist camp sites and building and improving the highways within the park itself which are used by tourists and others.


Charles A. Stewart: May I say to my hon. friend, while he is on that question, that last summer I travelled over some twenty-five miles of very fair new highway which I presume, and as a matter of fact I know, was to connect with the projected road from Lake Louise to Jasper. All I am urging is that this remain in abeyance until we have through highways to the coast, that this construction be discontinued until the highways are completed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would give connection through to the coast from Edmonton.


Charles A. Stewart: But my right hon. friend must realize that if you travel by way of Lake Louise rather than by the shorter route you must go a great deal out of your way. I can speak only from the information I have obtained from the engineers, and while I admit at once that the reconnaissance surveys north to Canoe river were somewhat indefinite, yet if my information is correct you must go over a summit of six thousand feet coming from Lake Louise, so this will not be of very much use as a motor highway during the summer months. Many years ago in the Crowsnest pass, where the summit is over 5,200 feet, we had the road open only about one month in the year, and my hon. friend knows quite well that in the vicinity of Lake Louise we frequently must remove a tremendous amount of snow before the existing roads are passable. If my memory serve me rightly, however, the greatest elevation if you travel to the coast by way of Jasper is 3,400 feet. Of course that is not true of the southern highway, but the southern highway is so much nearer completion that I would urge its completion first, at the same time continuing to project the road over an easy summit and connecting it up with the highway that is being completed by the southern route. That is all I am urging. I have no particular objection to seeing this road completed in the years to come; in the last two or three years a good deal of expenditure has been made in connection with it, but I do urge that before further expenditure is made upon that road both the other highways be completed in order that people may have access to the coast over Canadian territory.
Relief Act, 1934


Charles Murphy: The hon. member for West Edmonton must admit that the dominion has carried out, and in fact more than carried out its undertaking with the province of British Columbia in constructing the Big Bend highway. As I said a few moments ago, in constructing the eastern leg of that road we are now within some twenty-eight miles of Canoe river, and that is the portion of the road which the dominion obligated itself to complete. As a matter of fact the western leg, which the province of British Columbia agreed to construct, is very far from completion. When I said a moment ago that the dominion has done more than it obligated itself to do, that was made possible only by the work the dominion is carrying on in providing employment for single homeless men. Under that scheme the Department of National Defence did construct last summer several miles of road on the western leg, and by an arrangement with that department the dominion government, through the Department of the Interior, constructed a certain part of the road between Donald and Golden, which is a purely provincial responsibility. Therefore I do not think the dominion government can be charged with any laxity in pushing the all-Canadian highway westward to the Pacific coast. As a matter of fact, had the province of British Columbia completed the work in accordance with the terms of the agreement, by the end of the present year there would be an all weather road through to the coast. So while the hon. gentleman urges that the dominion should make greater efforts to complete this road I think it can be said that the dominion has made very great progress, since they have done more than under the agreement they obligated themselves to do. Further may I point out that while the hon. member urges the completion of the Edmonton-Jasper highway westward, that portion of the road between the western boundary of Jasper Park and Canoe river is a provincial responsibility.


Charles A. Stewart: Part of it would not be if Mount Robson were added to the park.


Charles Murphy: There is a large "if" there; if such and such were done it would be a different matter. That portion of the road from the western boundary of Jasper park to Canoe river is a provincial responsibility practically in toto, and while the hon. member urges the completion of a national highway through to the coast I have endeavoured to point out to him that the dominion has made very great efforts to push forward a

road to completion in order to give the people of Canada access to the coast. The hon. member also mentions the work that has been done under the unemployment relief scheme in the construction of a road from Lake Louise to Jasper, and I am very happy to state that over fifty miles of that road has been constructed by means of relief labour. I have travelled over it from Lake Louise north and from the Jasper end south.


Charles A. Stewart: How many miles have been constructed from Lake Louise north?


Charles Murphy: Some twenty odd miles, and a greater number of miles at the other end.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Twenty-four and twenty-six miles.


Charles Murphy: That is approximately
correct, and I may say that this road will be one of the most scenic roads in Canada. That, of course, is a purely dominion responsibility, because that road lies within Banff and Jasper park. Upon its completion it will provide an outlet for the people of Edmonton and others in the northern parts on which to travel to the coast. True, it is a different route from that which the hon. member advocates, but surely it is not contended that the dominion should be expected to carry on the construction of two transcontinental highways through the Rockies to the coast. One transcontinental highway should serve the purpose. But if another road is desired and the province see fit to connect up Canoe river eastward to the boundary of Jasper park, well and good. That would provide an alternative route.
While on the subject of the work done in our national parks under the relief scheme I would point out that we have carried on work not only in Jasper and Banff but in the other parks, for instance, at Waterton in southern Alberta, a certain amount in Yoho park and a considerable amount in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, and in Riding Mountain park in my own province of Manitoba.
May I here pay tribute to those who have had charge of that work? It has been my privilege on more than one occasion to visit the work that has been done, and I can say that the roads that have been built are up to the park standard. They have been well built. The other works that have been carried on, such as underbrushing to prevent forest fires, the construction of trails and of certain needed buildings and bridges and other works too numerous to mention, are all a

credit I think to those who have been in charge of the work. It will be a permanent asset to the people of this country.
I have visited the camps in all of these parks with the exception of Yoho, and so far as I could judge on a visit which was not advertised in advance, with no one knowing that I was coming with the exception of my party, the men were contented. They were well housed, well clothed, and well fed. There was a big difference in their appearance and in their morale when they came out in the spring than when they entered those camps in the fall of the year. I may have something more to say on this subject, Mr. Chairman, on another occasion if it seems advisable.


Peter Heenan: May I ask the Minister
of the Interior what rate of pay the men received on that work?


Charles Murphy: My hon. friend asks what wages were paid on that work. Wages as such have never been considered as being paid. These men were placed there on a sustenance basis. They were given their food and their shelter, and their clothing and equipment to fit them for their work. In addition, they were given an allowance of twenty cents a day, which was given not as wages but to enable them to provide themselves with certain necessaries such as shaving equipment, toilet articles, tooth brushes, soap, towels and so forth, and tobacco. The twenty cents a day was not paid to these men as a wage. They were there simply on a sustenance basis. It had been pointed out to the dominion government that through no fault of their own these unemployed men did not belong to any particular municipality, and therefore not being considered a charge upon any particular municipality it was contended that they were a dominion responsibility. The dominion through the Department of the Interior and the Department of National Defence have been taking care of a good many thousands of men falling within that category. But again I wish to emphasize that it has never been my understanding that these men were working on a wage basis. It was a matter of sustenance and sustenance alone.


Peter Heenan: That brings me to another question, and I am glad that the minister has been so frank in his answer. The Ontario government took the same position in regard to their camps, but they have recently issued a statement that from the first of April they are going to pay wages to the extent of twenty-five cents an hour. Might I ask if this government intends to
Relief Act, 193A
follow the example of the Ontario government in the work that is being done in the national parks under the Minister of the Interior and in connection with the air fields under the Minister of National Defence?


Charles Murphy: I take it that the policy
of the government will be made known by the Prime Minister in due season. I am not prepared to make a statement on that point.


Peter Heenan: So long as the matter is
still under consideration and the answer is not definitely no, I am satisfied to wait. But I should have thought that a time like this when the government is asking for a blank cheque would be a good opportunity to make an announcement.


Charles A. Stewart: I thank the Minister of the Interior very much for his very full explanation of the improvements being carried on in the parks. I will agree at once with his statement that the work is well done because I have some knowledge of the personnel that is still carrying on there.
The Minister of the Interior seems to feel that British 'Columbia should not be given greater assistance. As I understood the program carried) on throughout Canada, the Department of National Defence has undertaken the responsibility of taking care of the unmarried men at camps which they have established all over the country. If I am not mistaken there was a camp of these men under the Department of National Defence on the highway leading to Banff inside the park area.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is one near here.


Charles A. Stewart: I merely
mentioned that fact in passing. This national highway was a pet scheme of my own when I was Minister of the Interior. I was extremely anxious that we should have an all-Canadian route. True I was not as anxious about the northern portion as I was to complete the southern portion, because with its completion we would at least have one highway on which we could go through to the coast without passing through American territory. But as Jasper developed and as the provincial government began to project their highway to Jasper, in 1926 I had the very definite promise of that provincial government that within one year they would have completed their highway to the park; they would not have it all gravelled, not an all-weather highway, but they would have a highway reaching the eastern boundary of Jasper park. With that understanding, as Minister of the Interior I secured a vote in
Relief Act, 1934

the House of Commons here for the purpose of taking up the ties on the abandoned grade and constructing a road from the town of Jasper to the eastern boundary. I regret very much that the provincial government did not carry out their part of the agreement. So far as I know there is still a small mileage that is not an all-weather highway from Edmonton into the park, but I am not finding fault with anybody. All I am urging now is that inasmuch as the federal government for relief purposes have camps on highways all across Canada under the Department of National Defence-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Other classes of work as well.


Charles A. Stewart: I am speaking now primarily of highways. It is not likely that the British Columbia government will complete that sixty-six odd miles for some years to come. They may do so, but judging from the statement of their provincial treasurer the province is not going to be in a very healthy condition financially to undertake works of this kind, and I should like to see work on that piece of highway concentrated under the Department of National Defence in order that it may be completed. Instead of concentrating on the highway leading from Lake Louise to Jasper, which runs in a southeasterly direction, I think the minister should concentrate on getting to the edge of the park. Then if the highway is to go on, the Department of National Defence might carry on to connect with the southern highway. I am finding no fault with what the minister or the department has done because I have seen the work and I agree with the minister when he states it is well done. The northern section of the highway from Jasper to Lake Louise will be valuable as a scenic route for tourists because it passes many beautiful lakes and does not have to go over any great height of land, such as is the case in the southern end. It will be valuable to that extent and certainly the work has not been wasted. I contend that before any further work is done on that particular piece of highway, there should be concentration on the other.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The representatives of
the Edmonton board of trade and chamber of commerce called on me when I was last in the west and we resumed a conversation which we had had some years before in connection with this work. The provincial government w^as unable to complete the highway west to the eastern boundary of Jasper park. We {Mr. C. A. Stewart.]
gave assistance and men were actually en-. camped on the line west of Edson. However, winter came on and it was not possible to continue with the work. I think the hon. gentleman knows exactly what happened-a snowstorm came up and it was impossible to carry on. It is the intention to assist the provincial authorities as far as possible to complete the line into Jasper park. From Jasper park west it has been completed by the federal government. Some years ago when we were carrying on relief measures, representatives from the Edmonton district concluded that it was desirable to cut that road through to lake Louise in order to enable people coming in from the south to reach Jasper and go back by way of Edmonton and those coming in fj-om Saskatchewan and the north to go south and then return on the other highway, in other words, make a round trip of it. The road which has been cut through is said by those well able to judge to be the most beautiful road in western Canada, but I am not in position to state just how accurate that statement is. I do not think it is fair for the hon. gentleman to suggest that any government, under existing conditions, should undertake the construction of a highway from the western boundary of Jasper park to Canoe river or Kamloops. There is a tote road down there and the reconnaissance survey indicates that the construction of a highway would cost a very substantial sum of money. That money would have to be found by the province and the province is not in position to find it. British Columbia agreed in a written contract to complete this part of the highway up to the western boundary of Riding Mountain park. That work has not been done but the government is assisting in the completion of that line. So far as it may be possible to do so, the work will be carried on and a highway completed to permit a continuous journey through Banff national park, past Canoe river and down to the coast. The cost of the work on the British Columbia side was somewhat greater than was anticipated when this house confirmed the agreement some years ago. Nevertheless, to the extent that it may be possible to do so an endeavour will be made to complete the line through to the coast even though by so doing we will be discharging obligations undertaken by British Columbia.
May I say a word with respect to the sustenance employment given to these men working in the parks, Riding Mountain, Banff and other places. They are told that whenever an opportunity for permanent employment offers

Relief Act, 1934
they are free to leave the camps. An effort is being made constantly to provide them with employment at suitable wages. In many instances this has been successful and the number of camps has become less than it was when they were first started.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: I wonder if the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) will be good enough to amplify the statement he made just before six o'clock as to the future relations between the federal and provincial governments in so far as the relief of unemployment is concerned. A few days before the Easter recess he stated in answer to a question asked by me that it was the intention of the government to invite the provinces to a conference in Ottawa with a view to establishing a new system of direct relief. He made the positive statement that the federal government was to call the provinces to thiis conference', but just before six o'clock he left the committee under the impression that only those provinces which could not find their way clear to provide for unemployment would be called to Ottawa in conference. That statement is a direct contradiction of what he said before the Easter recess. I might as well tell him that the statement he made before the recess received fairly wide publication. I have received many letters asking when this famous conference was to take place but the only answer I was able .to give was that given to me by the minister. The minister told the committee that the western provinces already had been called into conference and I should like to know if it is the intention of the government to call other provinces, for instance Quebec, into conference as soon as possible after the Easter recess.


George Gordon: I do not think there need be any confusion in the mind of anyone in connection with the relationship between the dominion and the provinces. If a province can get along and discharge its own constitutional responsibilities, I hope that province will not come to Ottawa seeking money simply because some other province less fortunately situated financially has had to appeal to the federal government to supplement its own efforts in looking after its own constitutional responsibilities. That is the thought that I intended to convey. I hope that some of the provinces may be able to take care of at least the greater share of their relief requirements without help from the federal authorities. They may not be able to do this one hundred per cent, but they may be able to do more than they have been able to do in the last two or three years. These are matters which 74726-128
will have to be discussed by this government with the representatives of those provinces which acknowledge their inability to discharge their constitutional functions.


Eugène Fiset: What government is going to take the first step to ascertain if a province needs further direct relief? In the past the federal government took the initial step. For my own information I should like to know if the federal government is going to continue to take the first step to ascertain whether the provinces are able to carry their own burdens or whether they will require assistance from the federal government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I assure the hon. gentleman that until this legislation is passed the provinces will have to look after themselves. What action is to be taken will be determined by the time it takes to pass this legislation.


Eugène Fiset: I might tell my right hon. friend that I said, after this legislation is passed.


Mr. BRADETTE:: I wish to discuss the
question mentioned by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, and of which the minister has knowledge. Last week Mr. Finlay-son stated that work on the trans-Canada highway would be started west of the town of Hearst. This is a message that has been received with great joy in my section of the country and also in the riding represented by the Minister of Labour, and I should like to receive from the minister an assurance that the government of Ontario has approached him in this matter in his capacity as head of the unemployment relief administration.
There is one question which is of very great importance to our section and it is this. Construction of the highway west of Hearst is a problem that must have been studied carefully during the last three years-that is, the routing of the road. If the road swings back immediately south of Hearst it will have no significance to our section from the point of view of tourist traffic. The routing of the road west of Hearst should go westerly following the National Transcontinental highway for a considerable distance, at least as far west as Nakina. I draw this to the attention of the minister because I think he is familiar with the situation so far as the trans-Canada highway is concerned, and I think that sufficient time has been given the provincial government to study the proper routing of the road.
I should be glad if the minister could tell the committee that what Mr. Finlayson has

Relief Act, 1934

said will be carried out in the course of the summer, and that the work will be started very soon in the spring.
There is another matter which is discussed a good deal in our section of the country, and that is the land-bonusing scheme. I believe the impression has been created in northern Ontario that the scheme will be financed partly by the federal government and partly by the treasury of Ontario, and this is one of the best ways whereby to remedy the dire situation that exists among our settlers in northern Ontario. It may be suggested that such promises are made only in anticipation of an election, but I do not take it in that sense. I am sure that if this promise were implemented it would provide an excellent way of improving the condition of our settlers, and the beneficial results would be reflected not only throughout Ontario but in the whole of Canada.
Another matter in which I know the department is interested is the back to the land movement. I would point out to the minister that this year most of the people settled under the scheme in northern Ontario will find it absolutely impossible out of the $10 a month that they receive, or, to be precise, out of the $200 they get yearly for three years, to supply themselves with the necessary seed grain. This being so, I think that everyone will realize at once that unless the necessary seed is given them free the people who have settled under the back to the land movement will find it utterly impossible to get along this season, because they cannot provide seed for themselves this year. It is true that some of these people have been operating under the scheme for the last two years, and some settled last year. The question may be asked: How is it that these new settlers did not find it possible to grow sufficient grain to supply their own requirements for the coming season? Well, the answer will suggest itself to anyone who is at all familiar with the climatic conditions that prevailed last summer in that part of the country. The conditions were such last year on account of the drought that practically no grain could be grown on the land by these people, and that should convince the committee and the minister that it would be impossible for these people, out of the $200 they receive under the tripartite arrangement, the contributors being the municipal, provincial and federal authorities, to provide sufficient funds to buy the necessary seed grain. I believe that the government of Ontario led the settlers in my own section of northern Ontario as a whole to understand that they would be

supplied with seed this spring. Now, I do not believe in giving a wrong impression of any situation, but I am bound to say to the minister that in my section not five per cent of the settlers will be in a position this spring to buy seed grain, and I know that if the grain is not given them free most of the area ploughed last fall will remain uncultivated. It will be absolutely impossible for these people to put the ground under crop, and from that statement the committee will realize that the situation will be aggravated next fall; it will be worse than it is this spring. I do not know how far the federal authority will go in supplying the seed grain to the settlers who have been on these farms a number of years, but I do know that under the back to the land scheme the government will have to find funds sufficient to supply with seed for the coming spring the new men placed under the direct policy of the federal government.
Reverting to the important question of the trans-Canada highway, I must repeat the statement I made a few moments ago that when that message on the subject was delivered by Mr. Finlayson it was received with considerable enthusiasm in my own section of the country. In view of the fact that the federal government is contributing fifty per cent of the money spent on the trans-Canada highway, I think it should have something to say in regard to the routing of this highway, and we fervently hope that, in the light of the knowledge and experience of the present federal Minister of Labour, the routing will be one that will satisfy our section. I will not take up the time of the committee reading several editorials that have appeared in the Northern Tribune of Kapuskasing and in the Cochrane Northland Post, but it is pointed out in these articles that it would be deplorable if the government did not push the route westward following the Canadian National line as far as Nakina, then branching off with the other branch of the trans-Canada highway from the southern section of northern Ontario and eventually connecting direct with Winnipeg. If the road were constructed immediately south of the town of Hearst, following the Algoma Central and giving direct communication with Sault Ste. Marie, that would not provide a solution of the problem from our point of view, because it would not give the communication to which we are entitled. I should like the minister therefore to be kind enough to answer the three questions I have submitted to him.

Relief Act, 1934


George Gordon: Replying to the first question about the routing of the trans-Canada highway, I have not read in the press any announcement that Mr. Finlayson may have made, but I have no doubt that it was made as the hon. member has said. However, the routing of the trans-Canada highway throughout the various provinces is a matter which is of course entirely within the judgment of the provinces, and the federal authority has been in the past from time to time formally notified of the terms of any order in council designating any particular stretch of what has been euphoniously called the trans-Canada highway. That official notification the federal government has not yet received; I suppose we shall receive it in due course.
With respect to the bonusing of settlers, that is a purely provincial matter. I do not share the gloomy view which my hon. friend from North Timiskaming seems to hold of the position of the farmer and the settler in Timiskaming-indeed-it is probably to be regretted he has painted the picture as he has. I think I am as well acquainted as any other person with the farmers and settlers in that county, and while they have had their difficulties, I have seen years when the difficulties were immeasurably more trying than they have been in the last four or even in the last ten years. They have through the clay belt adopted methods of farming that perhaps have placed them in the forefront of agricultural activities in Canada. They have no trouble in holding up their end at any of the agricultural fairs. They have a large mining market at hand of which they take advantage; they are organized in a cooperative sense to sell their vegetables and all the other products of the farm and to put them up in an attractive way for those big mining markets, and I certainly do not share with my hon. friend the picture he paints of the farmer and settler in Timiskaming.
With respect to seed grain, that is another purely provincial matter, and I am informed that at no time have the federal government advanced money directly to the farmers for seed grain. They have for many years past at times lent money to some of the provinces which in turn have supplied seed grain to those unable to procure it for themselves. If in certain localities or with certain individuals the condition is as the hon. member for North Timiskaming has stated, then the proper course would be to call the attention of the provincial authorities to that situation, because in spite of what has been said here, I still have enough confidence in the provincial
74726-128J
authorities of Ontario to feel that they will take care of a situation like that and not see worthy settlers unable to put in a crop because of their not being able to finance the purchase of seed grain.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I wish to enlarge
slightly on what the minister has said. First of all, as regards the routing of the trans-Canada highway, I knew this was a provincial matter, but in view of the fact, as I stated a few moments ago, that fifty per cent of the money is being raised by (the federal government, I thought we should have some say as to the routing of the road so that it would not be run where it would be of no use or would not fulfil the purpose for which it was built. The only reason I brought the matter to the attention of the minister was that he is familiar with the exact situation. In our section we maintain, and rightly so, that if that routing goes directly south of the town of Hearst it would not be satisfactory and it could not be called part of the trans-Oanada highway. Surely the minister must have some jurisdiction in the matter when at least fifty per cent of the money spent for that particular purpose is being given by the central authorities, and as he is also familiar with our section of the country, whatever he may say in an advisory way will certainly be listened to, as coming from a man acquainted with the situation.
_ As regards the settlers, I do not want the impression to be created that I was desirous of painting a very gloomy picture, but I must tell the minister that in my section most of the farmers are settlers, the majority of them trying to emerge or graduate from the settler into the farmer class. This is not the case in the riding which the minister represents because it has been in existence for a longer period of time and there most of the settlers have already graduated from the settler into the farmer class. It is true that we have local markets, but it is also true that, for several reasons which I intend to mention when the agriculture estimates are under discussion, we cannot take full advantage of those local or regional markets in our section of the country. The minister well knows through tihe reports made to the provincial government that, take for instance, west of the town of Cochrane in the Hearst, Kapus-kasing and Cochrane district-and this does not apply so forcibly to Matheson, Ramore and Yal Gagne-nearly ninety per cent of the farmers and settlers have been on direct relief for the last two years, and were it not for that relief most of them would have found
Relief Act, 1934

it impossible to live on their holdings. I fully appreciate the fact that the distribution of seed grain is a matter coming primarily under provincial jurisdiction, but the fact is also that we must have a certain amount of responsibility when we contribute fifty per cent of the money spent on direct relief. On that score again I believe the minister could give help in an advisory capacity by allowing at least quite a number of the settlers on t.heir new holdings to have free seed grain for this year. It is all very well to say that in the past they were supplied with seed grain, but it was not free. This year I had the experience of having some settlers come to my home who, on account of liens against them for seed grain supplied a few years ago, had had their farm holdings cancelled. Some of them who had lived on their farms for fifteen or twenty years lost their holdings. The government was no doubt right in faking back the crown land because the settlers had had a long period of time to repay those amounts, but if another such loan is made to the settlers many of them will find themselves in the same position; their holdings will be cancelled and threats will be held over their heads for years and years, so that eventually they will become discouraged in their calling. This is not giving a gloomy picture of the situation; it is bringing to the attention of the country a problem which we Should not be afraid to tackle. With the minister's knowledge of conditions in his and my sections of the country, his personal influence should be used so that there will be no lack of seed grain to cultivate this year all the acreage that is tillable.


Mr. GRAY:: Perhaps the minister has given the answer before, but we in Ontario would be interested in knowing how many settlers have been placed in northern Ontario under the land settlement scheme. Perhaps he could give the information by years under that scheme by which the municipality contributes $200, the province $200 and the dominion a like amount.


George Gordon: I gave the details before, but I will give them again. In Ontario there were 362 heads of families with 1,4711 dependents settled on 27,400 acres. Is that the information the hon. member wants?


Ross Wilfred Gray: Yes. How many of those people have been returned to their municipalities?


George Gordon: I think none of those has been returned. Those are the ones at present on their locations. There were some who were returned to the municipalities.


Ross Wilfred Gray: That is the information I would like.


George Gordon: I do not know the exact number, but the percentage is very small. Of course there are bound to be some who will not succeed.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Does the minister suggest that they are making a success of the venture?


George Gordon: That is what our reports state. I saw an exhaustive report made by the Reverend J. C. Cochrane who has had an extensive experience in colonization work throughout that part of northern Ontario. His report was made public and I think published subsequently by the Ontario government. I had an opportunity to read it, and I depend a great deal on anything the Reverend Mr. Cochrane would say, knowing him as I do and knowing his experience in opening up land for settlement there, and his close contact with and interest in the settlers in the early stages of establishing their farms and getting their buildings in shape and developing their holdings. Although he makes some criticisms, I would say that of all the so-called colonization schemes that have been inaugurated in the past there is none that has been as successful as this one of colonization at home, although as I said some people got past the choosing committees who really had little chance from the beginning to succeed. They were returned to the municipalities from which they came. Of course we must expect some failures.


Mr. MOORE (Ontario):: I have no desire to prolong this debate, but I should like to ask the minister whether he is aware of the special conditions which prevail in rural municipalities adjacent to industrial centres. Many people who have drifted into such areas are in need of relief or on relief, but the rural organization in some instances is not in a position to fulfil all the requirements of this plan. I have several such municipalities in mind. I know of one in which unhappily there has been malnutrition, and insufficiency of clothing. The situation, of course, is that in these rural municipalities the farmers are really not in a position to meet the special requirements of these people who have drifted across their borders and do not properly belong to the municipality in which they happen to be.
While on my feet may I say that I thought the minister was just a little ungenerous the other day when he referred to the lack of sympathy, if you like, from this side of the

house, and seemed to suggest that we do not appreciate the improvement that has taken place in conditions. May I say for myself that I have been reading the barometer as carefully as I could, and I have been calling off improvement wherever I saw it. I believe sincerely that we are pulling out of this depression. But one thing that our people must have is confidence, and most of all must they have confidence in government-which applies not only to Canada but to all countries. Now, unusual legislation does not inspire confidence.
I think if it were not for the unusual privileges that the government ask I should vote for this bill. I should like to vote for it. But I should like the minister to consider whether all the unusual clauses are required. I should like him to consider the effect that such legislation has on the public mind. People cannot contract with confidence so long as they are told that unusual conditions exist, that emergent measures are required. And if they cannot contract with confidence they cannot employ labour, they cannot pay wages, they cannot look forward to buying and selling in the ordinary way. I would have the minister consider these matters, because it seems to me that in an attempt to meet one set of conditions the government may bring about another set of conditions entirely different from what they may have expected.


Thomas Reid: The minister in answer to a
question said the other evening that some reforestation work was being done in some of the provinces. I would like to ask if any reforestation work is being done in British Columbia, either under his department or any other department of the government. The reason I ask is that wThile the minister may say that it is up to the provinces to carry on this work, I think he or the government would be well advised to consider a national scheme. Surely we are not going to stand by and see our forests depleted; and under the modern system of logging they are not only being depleted but are being severely injured from the point of view of future growth. Surely we are not going to leave nothing but debts to the coming generation. I know of no finer national undertaking that might emanate from this administration than some scheme of reforestation in the provinces suitable for that purpose. Most countries to-day are doing a certain amount of reforestation work. I need scarcely name them-Great Britain particularly is doing it; so is France, and so is the United States. Here is work that is useful, work from which the coming generation will receive benefit.
Relief Act, 1934
I have here the report of the auditor general, and would like to ask the minister if the auditor general in his investigations in British Columbia went as far back as in the case of the other provinces.


George Gordon: In answer to the hon.
member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) let me say that I appreciate his observations with respect to legislation of an unusual character. There is no question that that is one of the risks attendant upon emergent conditions, and perhaps I might say emergent legislation. Much thought has been given to the question of the powers asked for in this legislation. Some of those powers I should like to think could be abandoned, but I do not believe that they should be abandoned this year. However, as the hon. member will note, some that were found in last year's legislation have been omitted in this year's legislation; for instance that with respect to guarantees, advances, and so forth, to public bodies, does not appear in this year's bill. I regret that we have to differ as to the necessity for the various powers contained in the bill. I believe that they are necessary for this coming year. I hope that before the year is out we shall have made further progress, and I agree with the hon. member when he says that in his judgment we are pulling through. I believe we are; there are evidences of it. It may take some time for this country and for the whole trade of the world to become substantially readjusted and to get the channels of trade open, because one country cannot do it alone. That is the difficulty Canada has had to face. No one wanted to take any action, governmental or otherwise, that would prevent the free exchange of goods so far as that is humanly possible. But when you find your country in the midst of a national and international tariff war it is sheer folly to think that, if you are to survive, you need not take such action, for a time at least, as will maintain your industries and your agriculture, certainly not as actively as they would be under different conditions, but at least preserving their integrity pending some better understanding among the nations of the world.
With respect to the other question to which the hon. member directed my attention, on a number of occasions similar situations have been brought to my notice. I have no doubt that from time to time the provincial governments are notified in such cases. I have drawn the matter to the attention of provincial governments on a number of occasions, and I should be glad indeed if the hon. member would let me have the name of the
Relief Act, 1984

municipality in. which the condition exists. I will draw the matter to the attention of the provincial authorities, and I believe they would hasten to take such action as might be necessary to .put such people beyond any danger of malnutrition or anything of the kind.


William Henry Moore: I shall gladly
take advantage of the offer of the minister, and I appreciate his kindness.


Thomas Reid: I was not particularly complaining about the malnutrition of the youth of the land. The minister is perhaps well aware that British Columbia is doing its full share in the work of reforestation, but the minister also knows that British Columbia, together with the other provinces, is carrying an excessive load in regard to unemployment. It is not a matter of suggesting something to the provinces or pointing out something; my suggestion is that the dominion government join in a national scheme of reforestation in cooperation with the various provinces. Some of the provinces are carrying on this work, including British Columbia, but perhaps it is not being pursued to the extent it should be during the present economic distress.
Now I would ask the minister if, in his report, the auditor general went back as far in regard to British Columbia as he did in regard to the other provinces. I should like to know just how far back his investigation extended.


George Gordon: I have not the report of the auditor general before me, but it is available; I tabled it myself. I would respectfully ask the hon. member to avail himself of that report; I do not have it here or I should be glad to give the information. With respect to reforestation may I tell my hon. friend that the government has been doing reforestation throughout Canada, wherever there are federally owned lands adapted to that work. Up to date some millions of trees have been set out through the agency of the departments of the Interior and National Defence. I am thoroughly in agreement with the hon. member for -New Westminster when he says this is a useful and desirable work; perhaps in some respects no better work could -be carried on. The Dominion government is well aware of the desirability of continuing this work.


Thomas Reid: In the report that has been
laid on the table I notice in the statement of amounts refunded by the provinces under the various relief acts -that British Columbia made one refund of $23,955.26, and below I

see another item of $11,955.87. I do not see any refund for 1931, and in that connection I should like to direct the minister's attention to a statement made in the report with regard to expenditures made in British Columbia in 1931, I believe. In this report it is stated that investigations have been instituted by the Department of Labour, and I am going to ask the minister if he will be good enough either to investigate the situation to which I am going to refer or to make a statement to the committee now, because I think the matter is very important. According to the auditor general's report I find that an amount charged for supplies, totalling $72,524.36, practically disappeared. I do not think this measure should go through until something is done in this connection. I am going to suggest to this government that an investigation be launched and that, if possible, the officials responsible for the disappearance of these supplies should be indicted. I read from page 40 of the report:
Unissued stores charged to "material account" and not distributed-$72,524.36: Although the provincial inventory showed these materials ("purchased from unemployment relief funds") as on hand at November 30, 1931, that is, after the relief program was discontinued, no credit for unissued stores appears to have been passed to joint account.
This is the significant part:
The ultimate disposal of these stores was not traced during the investigation.
I believe they should be traced; I believe the department should send an official to British Columbia to find out where these stores went. This is part of the steal that took place in 1931, to which I directed the attention of the government when I was making some suggestions in connection with the misappropriation of funds by the provincial government during that year. I am going to ask the minister what he is going to do about these stores that disappeared.
Mr. -GORDON: Mr. Chairman, following the auditor general's report there was a refund from the province of British Columbia amounting to $23,956.26. Then by reason of the investigation, if you like to call it that, or the adjustments made direct through the Department of Labour a further refund of $11,955.87 was made. Questions of adjustments, refunds and matters of that character are constantly under way with the staff we have, and I will make a special effort to look into the matter the hon. member has drawn to my attention.


Humphrey Mitchell: I should like to ask a question before the discussion closes. Is

the federal government sympathetic to the announcement of the Ontario government that relief allowances are to be increased by twenty-five per cent? Will the federal grant to the provincial government be increased automatically?


George Gordon: I have not seen, nor have I been notified, what the Ontario government is doing, but, as I indicated before, any contribution that may be made by the federal government to the province of Ontario will have to be the subject matter of an agreement between the two governments after and if this legislation passes through parliament, and the authority to enter into such an agreement is vested in the government.


Humphrey Mitchell: It would be fair to say then that up to the moment it is not a part of the policy of the federal government but merely a declaration by the government of Ontario on its own behalf?


George Gordon: Of course no province can adopt a course that will involve the dominion treasury without the matter first being discussed and agreed upon. While it may seem that there has been a very large amount of money spent from the federal treasury, if we had contributed all the money that all the provinces wanted I am afraid the picture would indeed be a romantic one.


Angus MacInnis: Has the government considered increasing the direct relief or any relief owing to the increase in the cost of living over the past few months?


George Gordon: So far as direct relief is concerned-and in passing I am glad to observe that the hon. member for Vancouver South recognizes that very desirable condition of affairs, namely that there has been a rise in commodity price levels-the federal government has not up to date under the various agreements dictated to the municipalities or to the provinces what they should supply or the quantity. The question the hon. member has raised will be the subject of consideration because it is obvious that it could not be determined in a moment, having, as it has, its own complexities.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Following up the question asked by the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) might I ask if consideration has been given to continuing direct relief for the provinces? The government had conferences with the provinces in the month of January before the session opened and I should like to know if any agreement or understand-
Relief Act, 1934
ing was reached at those conferences between this government and the provinces as to the continuation of direct relief, and if so, for how long a period.


George Gordon: At the dominion-provincial conference in the early part of this year many phases of relief matters were discussed at great length. There was. considerable diversity of opinion among the various provinces, though not in an acrimonious way, with respect to what their responsibilities and burdens might be during the remainder of the winter and into the spring and early summer. Certain reports were made by the various provincial representatives giving their viewpoints, but no agreement was entered into as to the continuation of dominion contributions. It was merely a recitation of the views of the provincial premiers and representatives as to what the future would disclose with respect to the necessity of taking care of those who were unable to take care of themselves.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Was not the opinion expressed by this government that direct relief would be discontinued after April 1, or some other date?


George Gordon: That hope was expressed.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Do I understand that there is going to be another conference between the provinces to settle this very question of direct relief?


George Gordon: I thought I had made it [DOT]clear a while ago that if this legislation passes and any of the provinces is unable to carry its responsibilities, then the dominion will have to avail itself of this legislation to assist such provinces; but it will have to be made clear that they are unable to do it themselves.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Then do I understand it will be up to the provinces to come and ask the government to help them in the matter of direct relief?


George Gordon: We are not going to force it on them.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No. It will be up to the provinces to come to this government and ask to be helped in carrying on direct relief.


George Gordon: Yes, they have done that each year.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Going back to the subject that I brought up a little while ago, and which apparently caused a lot of other members to speak upon it, I should like to ask for information regarding the Department of the Interior and the administration of the Yukon territory. The minister, if I remember aright, said that in that part of the country there is
Relief Act, 1934

a population of from 1,800 to 2,000 people, and that the amount of $20,000 odd was spent in the year 1930 for the relief of those people.
I	should like to draw to the attention of the minister and the country at large the fact that this parliament is being asked to spend for the fiscal year 1934-35 very large sums of money for that part of the country. At page
II	of the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1935, I find an item of $9,500 for the Yukon territory, for miscellaneous expenditure, including salaries and allowances of court officers, and so on. Then on page 13 there is an item of $9,000 for the Yukon territory for the salary of the judge of the territorial court. Then, at page 50 there is the sum of $102,000 for the following items under the heading of Government of the Yukon territory :
Salaries and expenses connected with the administration of the territory, including surveys, $42,000.
Grant to Yukon council for local purposes, the construction and maintenance of roads and such other expenditures as the commissioner is authorized to expend by and with the advice and consent of the council or any committee thereof; and the accounts with respect to such expenditure shall be subject to examination and audit by the auditor general as provided by section 22, chapter 215, revised statutes, 1927, $60,000-Total, $102,000.
Then at page 58 under the heading of Public Works, chargeable to collection of revenue, there is an item in vote 255 of $108,000 for the Yukon system, main line telegraph and telephone lines. Last year that item was $116,500. We are being called upon to vote in the main estimates all these various sums to look after a population which the minister told us was between 1,800 and 2,000. I submit that the cost of government is too great for a population of that size and for the revenue which the government is deriving from that part of the country. I was astounded this afternoon when the minister stated that some $20,000 had been paid out in direct relief during 1930 for the small population in the Yukon. In spite of this we are called upon year after year to vote money for the construction of roads and other purposes. There cannot be many people in that part of the country who are out of work, because the whole population is only between 1,800 and
2,000.	Apparently nearly everyone, both old and young, has been given direct relief. These great expenditures are one of the causes why the people are exasperated. They see this duplication of government services and realize that we are over-governed and spending too much money for the administration of a small part of the country. When the redistribution [Mr. Casgrain.l
bill was up last year I referred to this matter and directed attention to the fact that a member of this house represented a very small population. The territory he represented might be large in area but the population did not compare with that of the district I represent, which amounts to over 55,000. I believe the administration of the Yukon costs more each year than is spent in the district which I represent. Last year and the year before when we were discussing the estimates for public telephone and telegraph services I asked for a vote to repair the telegraph line running from Saguenay to Newfoundland. This has been carried on each year little by little, we have a vote of $15,000 one year and then perhaps $25,000. That is all we can get but yet this other district with such a small population is able to get the large amounts which I have mentioned. The expenditures which have been made should be scrutinized fully. We should have full details of the people who have been on direct relief. Considering the small population of the Yukon, everyone must be either an official of the government or else working for the contractors building these roads. I am surprised to hear that we have to spend $20,000 for the relief of such a small population, when in addition large sums of money are voted every year for the maintenance and support of the government which they have up there.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Another angle to this
question has been brought to my attention by statements accredited to the premier of New Brunswick which appear in the Telegraph-Journal of Saint John of April 9. In my opinion the premier has not been correctly reported. The dispatch reads:
Commenting upon matters discussed at Ottawa, the premier stated:	"Among other
matters, we took up the question of the agricultural school to be established at the Fredericton experimental station and the training of single men in the relief camp at Sunbury in woods operations. It is being brought to my attention," he continued, "that a number of the younger men, who came of age recently, know little or nothing of the lumber industry and would have difficulty in obtaining employment in the woods.
I requested the military department to appoint supervisors to train these young men in the cutting and peeling of pulpwood and the cutting of long lumber while they are preparing the military range. This the department has promised to undertake."
This must be a misquotation because I cannot understand the premier or anyone else in New Brunswick asking the Department of National Defence to train young men for the peeling of pulpwood and other lumbering

Relief Act, 1934
operations. The main problem which we have to face in that part of the country is the giving of employment to men who have spent their lives in lumbering operations. If such representations have been made to the government, I would ask the minister to consult with the representatives from that province who sit to the right of the Speaker before undertaking the expenditure of money to train young men for the peeling of pulp-wood and the cutting of lumber. The unemployment problem is acute in New Brunswick and many men who have spent their lives in lumbering have not been able to adapt themselves to other callings. I know the minister will say that unemployment is a matter which must be treated locally, but I contend that it should be treated nationally. Some of the provinces and most of the municipalities cannot afford to spend any more money to take care of their unemployed. Their credit has been exhausted and thus this matter becomes a national problem and should be viewed in that light. Instead of training young men to peel pulpwood and cut lumber they should be trained along other lines. As long as they remain in lumbering operations they will always be on the unemployed list and will have to be taken care of by the public. Instead of spending money in this way, it should be spent to help these young men establish themselves on the land. If there is to be cooperation between the dominion and the government of New Brunswick, the provincial government could well afford to supply the land while the dominion government could undertake to provide for the erection of houses and barns and the providing of the necessary agricultural machinery. If this were done within two or three years these men would become taxpayers. They would be able to support not only themselves but their families and would no longer be a charge upon the community. Unless some plan of this kind is adopted the unemployment problem will not be solved, [DOT]and I do not think that the solution will be found in any amount of money that may be spent for temporary work such as road building, road repairs, training men in camps, building military ranges, peeling pulpwood, sawing lumber, and so on. That is not the solution of the problem, and I submit to the Minister of Labour that in some of the conferences which he may have in the future with representatives of the provinces he should advance the proposition of trying to solve the problem permanently by means of proposals which I am sure his supporters in this house will strongly approve, and which I have no doubt would bring an end to the situation
which is acute and which cannot be in any way remedied by the methods now being followed.


Edward James Young: I notice in the statement of disbursements in connection with relief legislation tlhe sum of $10,663,000 for the Saskatchewan relief commission. Is this all the money that the Saskatchewan relief commission spent?


George Gordon: In 1931 the Saskatchewan relief commission received $5,372,971.30; under the 1932 legislation, $4,459,919.11; under the 1933 legislation, $830,269.16, making a total of $10,663,159.57.


Edward James Young: On the next page we find
a summary of loans and advances outstanding, including the Saskatchewan relief commission, $22,579,078.16. Does that $22,000,000 owing to the government by the commission include the $10,663,000 odd?


George Gordon: As well as the $10,000,000
which represented moneys disbursed by the Saskatchewan commission, loans were made to the province and to the relief commission. I have not before me the details showing how it is divided, but before this measure goes through I will get a detailed statement.


Edward James Young: I understood, at the time
the commission was set up, that the federal government would furnish all the money they spent. Here is 810,000.000 odd furnished by the federal government and spent by the commission, and we find in addition to that that they borrowed some from the government. Is that correct?


George Gordon: I shall have to look into
these figures to make sure that the information is correct.


Edward James Young: Will the minister also look into the amount collected by the commission and ascertain how much has been returned? I understand that for the past two falls the commission has been making vigorous efforts to collect the notes they took from the farmers when they granted relief, and I should like to know how much was collected and how much was returned to the federal government. Can the minister get that?


George Gordon: That was the subject of
quite a long discussion this afternoon when the hon. member was not in his place, and the amount is on Hansard. In round figures, the notes amounted to slightly over $200,000 and the amounts refunded amount to slightly over $8,000.


Edward James Young: The minister means that
the amount collected was slightly over

Relief Act, 1934


George Gordon: No, the amount of the notes.


Edward James Young: Oh, it was more than that. They took notes for all they granted. The first year they operated they took notes in advance for everything. The notes were signed in blank when they made application for relief and covered everything they were to get.


George Gordon: I shall have to go into
the figures. I took the figures from what was read out of the auditor general's statement by an hon. member who was discussing it at the time. However, I shall look into it and get a statement.


Ross Wilfred Gray: The minister has said on
different occasions, certainly when speaking in the house on Wednesday, March 8, and again this evening, that this bill No. 42 omits the provision contained in the 1933 act with respect generally to the right to loan or advance or guarantee the payment of money by any public or corporate body. In the last few weeks we have had specific reference to the advance guaranteed to the Canadian Pacific of the sum of $60,000,000. I take issue with the minister on the question whether or not this bill does in fact ensure the limitation which he has told us it provides, and I would ask him to consider seriously making a positive statement to the house on the question. We should like to know definitely whether or not such power will be exercised. Section 2 begins:
Notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law the governor in council may . . .
I understand that the Prime Minister's amendment reads " in addition to." Quite frankly, I think that if anything he has added to rather than taken from the powers sought, though I doubt that it makes any great difference whether he says " notwithstanding " or "in addition to." But whether we read it " notwithstanding " or " in addition to," the section will read, in subsection (b):
When parliament is not in session, to 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 at all times to take all such measures as in his discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to protect and maintain the credit and financial position of the dominion or any province thereof.
In the discussions which have taken place in connection with the advance or guarantee made to the Canadian Pacific Railway of some $60,000,000, we have been led to believe that that advance or guarantee was made for 
the specific purpose of maintaining the credit of the Dominion of Canada. I submit to the minister that under Bill No. 42 as at present drafted, the government still has that power and that unless we have from the minister, as a representative of the government, an assurance that such power will not be exercised, they can still proceed to make such guarantees as they have in the past and at the next session of parliament come before the house and state that they were made in order to preserve the credit and integrity of the dominion or of some province. The minister, not internationally but by his repeated assertions that this clause has been amended, has permitted an erroneous impression to go throughout Canada that the government can no longer -make those guarantees. I submit with great respect both to the minister and to the Prime Minister, who has made a similar statement, that the government still have that power if they wish to exercise it.


Mr. DENIS (Translation):: I wonder
whether, according to the provisions of this section, the government is really in earnest when it requests parliament to sanction the expenditure of unlimited amounts for a purely political purpose.
Hon. members opposite have stated and repeated that we were on the road to prosperity. Last year, a fixed amount was voted to relieve unemployment, while, to-day, the house is requested to sanction an unlimited amount. On the eve of a general election, the government should be more scrupulous and not insist that it be granted such powers which would permit it to distribute political favours in any province it pleases.
According to the report submitted to the house, we find that the government has expended, this year, in Ontario, the sum of $7,753,625.54 and in Quebec, $2,524,402.98. I do not think that there are more unemployed in Ontario than in Quebec; however, the government has, perhaps, more political friends in Ontario. As to public works submitted for the approval of the dominion government, the department was rather reluctant in accepting those proposed by Quebec and it thought fit to curtail them. That is why, we, from Quebec, should feel more reluctant in accepting this section which is inserted in order to favour the government's friends and, thereby derive political advantages.
The other day, I crticized the government for not having acted in a regular way and carried out the distribution of funds more justly. I note that the government has not mended its ways for it still persists in re-

Relief Act, 1934
questing unrestricted powers so as to expend the relief funds rightly or wrongly.
I, therefore, am opposed to this section and I think the government should be more considerate of the rights of this house and should state the amount to be appropriated for the relief of unemployment. With what experience we have had we should drop the dole system and replace it by public works which would raise the morale of workers and, thereby, enhance the public wealth of the provinces and Canada.
The government should be more considerate of the rights and prerogatives of parliament and the constitution and should only request the house to vote definite amounts. It is no excuse, because an extraordinary crisis prevails, to set aside parliamentary rights. I strongly resent these unconstitutional methods and request the government to be respectful of the rights and privileges of this house.


Mr. DUPRE (Translation):: As in British
Columbia!


Joseph-Arthur Denis: I am not concerned with other provinces, sir; however, I think that the government have been too lavish, and have not been sufficiently sparing in their political favours; they have not lived up to their obligations nor have they submitted to the house the necessary measures not only to carry out the pledges made by them, in 1930, but also to acquit themselves as Canadian citizens should. The time has arrived for the government to display some human feelings, to carry out its duty and consider the hardships from which we suffer, moreover, to find a remedy.
I shall not further insist. The government must bring down a measure to solve the problems of this crisis. During the 1930 election, members opposite insisted that the solution of the crisis fell to the lot of the Dominion government rather than that of the provinces. To-day, with amazing boldness, they deny all their statements made during the 1930 election. To excuse themselves, they contend that the crisis is world wide and simply ask the people to trust the government, an incompetent and inert administration-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: They
should be ashamed of themselves.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: *-which appropriates only a few million dollars to relieve unemployment, while setting aside in the estimates, an equal amount for public works. It is high time for the government to show that they are well disposed towards the people, the workmen and the poor. It is high time, I state, to check this revolutionary spirit which has begun to show itself. According to hon. members opposite, this section is unnecessary, however, since they wish to have it passed, it simply proves their lack of sincerity.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Mr. Chairman, I think I can agree with most of the remarks made by the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis). He is right in recalling the promises made by the government a few years ago, and more especially in 1930 when this government was supposed to settle all the ills and troubles and problems of the country, to give to the workingmen six days' work a week and to the farmers large profits for the things they produce on their farms. We now have to consider this bill, which is to reenact legislation put before the house by this government in the years 1932, 1933 and 1934. When we look at the results that have been achieved under this measure we really do not think that the government has any reason to be proud of them. There is still unemployment in all parts of this country; in the province of Quebec from which I come, in Ontario, in the western provinces and in the maritimes. We are told to-day that this legislation is absolutely necessary, that it was necessary before the month of April-and we were taken to task by the government because this legislation was not renewed before the first of April. The legislation was not renewed, and up to the present time we do not find that things are going so badly as we were told they would. We have before us the consequences of the operation of this act, resulting in an expenditure of 8110,198,272. I started to scrutinize the expenditure item by item and asked the government for some explanation, but although these figures have been placed on the table of the house for the attention and consideration of the members, when we asked the minister this evening for certain explanations with reference to large amounts such as the one I started to discuss concerning the Department of the Interior, amounting to over $2,000,000, it appears that there are yet some figures not within the minister's reach. I do not want to be unfair to him; he is not now in his seat-it may be that he has gone to look for some of the information that has been asked by hon. members on this side. The reason this bill is put before the house at this time is that the government wants to have another chance to settle the problems which it undertook to settle in 1930. For this purpose the government comes to us and asks us to renew legislation which we have been enacting for the last three years, to give them blanc seing, a blank cheque as it was called when this legislation was intro-
Relief Act, 1934

duoed, permitting the government to do all that it thinks best in the interests of the community in order to relieve unemployment throughout the country. I for one think that in view of what the government has achieved in past years under this legislation they should not be entrusted with this blank cheque. We criticized this legislation when it was first introduced, and we oppose it now for the reasons which have been pointed out by my hon. leader and other members of this party including the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) who spoke this evening. We hear from people all over the land who speak on behalf of the government that things are going a little bit better. One thing the people need to-day is confidence, and I think this is reactionary legislation the effect of which is to weaken confidence, at a time when the government should be doing everything it can to encourage people to start works that may give more employment and more bread and butter to the population. This afternoon in the banking and commerce committee a most important witness, Mr. Jackson Dodds, said that more trade is the cure for our ills and problems. This government may bring in all kinds of legislation, but they will not be able to achieve their end and settle the problems of this country and bring back prosperity as long as these provisions remain on the statute book.
I have some further remarks to make, but I think some other hon. members want to take part in the discussion.


George Gordon: Mr. Chairman, a while ago the hon. member for Charlevoix-Sague-nay (Mr. Casgrain) asked for figures concerning the Yukon. The amount in the estimates for this year is $102,000. In former years the amounts for similar purposes were as follows:
1929-	30	$217,7001930-	31	
225,5001931-	32	
185,5001932-	33	
162,5001933-	34	
115,000
So hon. members will see that the estimates for the Yukon have been reduced from $225,500 in 1930-31 to $102,000 this year. With respect to the sums that were allotted in connection with relief I am told, although I am not acquainted with that locality, that there was a great deal of distress among the elderly prospectors and the Indians. The money was devoted partly to direct relief and partly to relief by way of work on roads, bridges and so on. In the county of Char-levoix-Saguenay last year the Dominion government, having had representations made to it that people needed relief, approved of

thirty-five schedules covering works aggregating some $207,800.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gobeil):: Shall
the amendment moved by the right hon. leader of the opposition carry?


George Gordon: With respect to the question raised by the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray) of course I cannot agree that this legislation does not take away from the government rights which they had under the legislation of last year. If one examines section 2 (a) it will be seen that it gives the governor in council power, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon, to enter into agreements with any of the provinces respecting relief measures therein and to grant assistance to any province by way of loan, advance, guarantee or otherwise. If reference is made to the legislation of last year hon. members will see that these words followed:
-loan, or advance money, or guarantee the payment of money by any public body, corporation or undertaking.
Those words are deleted from the legislation of this year, and in my opinion the language of the section that follows is not broad enough to permit, and I think is not capable of any interpretation that would permit, the governor in council to make such guarantees to public bodies or corporations. As the Prime Minister has said, the words " peace, order and good government " have been interpreted on a number of occasions down through the years by the judicial committee of the privy council, and with the deletion of the specific words to which I have made reference my opinion is that the remainder of the section would not invest the governor in council with the right to make guarantees to public bodies and corporations.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I do not like to interrupt the minister, but will he make special reference to the sentence on page 2 of the bill beginning with the words " and at all times."


George Gordon: That is section 2, subsection (b); the sentence reads:
*-and at all times to take all such measures as in his discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to protect and maintain the credit and financial position of the dominion or any province thereof.
I am not at all prepared to agree that this section is capable of any interpretation that would invest the governor in council with authority to guarantee public bodies, corporations, and so on, as was done under the legislation of last year.
Progress reported.

Questions



BIRTHDAY GREETINGS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ECCLES J. GOTT (South Essex): Mr. Speaker, before the hands of the clock reach eleven, and the labours of the day having been concluded, with the unamious consent of the house may I be permitted on behalf of the members in this section of the chamber, and I hope on behalf of all members of the House of Commons, to extend to you and the members of your family on this, your natal day, our hearty greetings and best wishes.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Eccles James Gott: We realize, sir, that for some time your health has been impaired, which has made the dispatch of your duties the more arduous and strenuous. With our congratulations we couple our fondest hopes that you may experience a steady, speedy and complete return to your former health and vigour, which permitted you to serve your country both at home and abroad with credit to yourself and honour to all who possess the privilege of your acquaintance and friendship.
May we ask you, sir, to convey to the Sergeant at Arms, Major M. F. Gregg, V.C., our felicitations and congratulations also, since I learned that to-day is the anniversary of his birth as well.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, April 11, 1934