1934-03-27

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Stinson.
Third report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. Senn.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. BARRETTE (Berthier-Maski-nonge) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to lay on the table of the house petitions comprising many thousands of signatures and protesting against the levying of a 20 cents tax per pound on Canadian leaf tobacco.
Petition of the municipal councils of St. Modeste and St. Louis de Ha Ha, protesting against a new tax on tobacco in leaf.-Mr. Pouliot.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
Annual report of the Canadian National Railways, Canadian Government Merchant Marine and Canadian National Steamships for the year ended December 31, 1933.-Mr. Manion.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead) moved the first reading of Bill No. 42 (from the Senate) an act to incorporate Personal Finance Corporation.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. HACKETT:: This is an act which has been introduced in the Senate and is in terms identical with an act that was passed by parliament last year. I do not know that there is much to be said about it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If any hon. member
wishes to address the house he may do so. The motion is agreed to on division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the first time.



FIRST READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[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).
Motions for first readings agreed to on division.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: I
have before me an editorial which appeared in the Vancouver Province and which states, in effect, that Victoria has received official notification from Ottawa that the Prime Minister is going to undertake to censor the book
League of Nations

known as Ulysses by James Joyce. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he has taken over the duty of censoring literature.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: I have had no intimation of any
such fact.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) and some others have been asking in regard to the appointment of the special parliamentary committee on railways. I just wish to advise them that, the reports having been tabled to-day, immediately after the Easter holidays we will set up that committee.



RUMOURED ABANDONMENT OF LINE BETWEEN HOPE AND VANCOUVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert James Manion: Yesterday the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) asked me, according to Hansard, as to the abandonment by the Canadian National Railways of the line from Hope to Vancouver. I have made inquiries, and I can find no indication that the Canadian National is considering abandoning that line.



CONFERENCE WITH WESTERN PREMIERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the
Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) if he has any statement to make to the house concerning the reported conference between the dominion government and the governments of the western provinces?


Richard Bedford Bennett: On Saturday last the government
spent a very substantial part of the day in considering the financial position of the four western provinces, especially in view of the representations that recently have been made as to the amount of -money they will require, in excess of what they expect to derive from taxation, to meet what they conceive to be their requirements. A telegraphic communication was sent to the premiers of the four provinces suggesting that their legislatures might adjourn over Easter, in which event

either the premiers or their representatives might meet the government here on Thursday, April 5, for the purpose of discussing the situation.
The government of Manitoba had made arrangements contemplating an early adjournment, and suggested that a later date would best suit their convenience. The province of Saskatchewan, having telephoned Manitoba and Alberta, sent a telegram in much the same sense. Alberta did not reply directly, or in other than the manner I have just indicated, as suggested by the telegram from Saskatchewan. British Columbia suggested that the position of the prairie provinces was somewhat different from their position and that the matters might be discussed at a later date as they were making arrangements for prorogation. Last evening I dispatched a message to the four western provinces indicating that apparently any day next week would not be a satisfactory date on which to discuss the matters, and that they might stand to a date to be mutually agreed upon.



LEAGUE OF NATIONS MEMBERSHIP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, last week in another
place notice was given of a resolution suggesting that Canada should withdraw from the League of Nations. In view of the publicity that has been given this notice, not only here but also in Europe-the fact having been broadcast by some people who were pleased to see that action taken-does not my right hon. friend think it should be made known to the world that this does not represent the view of either the people or the government of Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The suggestion advanced by the
former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is not without merit, but it is difficult to see how this chamber can proceed to deal effectively or effectually with any matter that as yet has not been discussed in another place. As I understand the matter, notice only was given of the intention to discuss the resolution, the resolution being that Canada should give notice of withdrawal from membership in the League of Nations. I need hardly say to the hon. gentleman or to the house that such notice was in no sense supported by the government directly or indirectly, and that His Majesty's government in Canada had no intention of submitting to this house or to any
. MARCH 27, 1934
Supply-Railways-C.N.R.
other house a resolution involving the withdrawal of this country from the League of Nations.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact
that the house rises to-morrow and does not reassemble until April 9, may I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) if any decision has been arrived at with regard to the salaries of civil servants and others who are paid by this government, including members of parliament and members of the Senate, so far as 100 per cent payment is concerned. It seems to me that before we adjourn to-morrow some statement should be made by the government. I should like to know what the Minister of Finance has to say in regard to the matter.


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, no decision has as yet been reached. If one is reached in time for an announcement to-morrow, an announcement will be made.



FRUIT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved the third reading of Bill No. 26, respecting fruit and honey.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sullivan in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The other evening, as
we were leaving the chamber, a question was raised respecting the Canadian National Railways appropriation. These appropriations are for the last year, not for the future, and do not go to the committee in any event. This represents a balance which has to be paid for last year's operation.


Mr. EULER:: Providing for deficit?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I promised I would let the right hon. gentleman know.
Travelling and living expenses of Judge John McKay of Thunder Bay district while acting in Rainy River district, $318.65.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Explain.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: This is to cover the expenses of a
judge from Port Arthur who took the place of a judge at Rainy River stricken with illness. The Rainy River judge has since died, and a new appointment has been made. In the interval the judge at Port Arthur performed the services, and this is to cover his expenses which were unusual and not anticipated.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Loan to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, repayable on demand with interest at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council, upon such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine, and to be applied in payment of:-[DOT]
Deficits in operation of the company and of the vessels under the company's control during the year ended December 31, 1933, and interest requirements - further amount required, $196,997.30.
William Duff: May I ask the Minister of
Railways and Canals the meaning of this
vote?


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I believe
the item is self-explanatory. This is a loan to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited repayable on demand with interest at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council, upon such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine, and to be applied in payment of deficits in operation of the company and of the vessels under the company's control during the year ended December 31, 1933, and interest requirements. This is an amount in addition to that in the estimates of last year to meet the requirements of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited.


William Daum Euler: What is the total amount
of the deficit? How much was in the estimate of last year as being appropriated towards a possible deficit, if any, and what is the total deficit in the operation of the steamships?


Robert James Manion: I did not know that this
matter was coming up, but in a general way I may say that the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, together, have, in round figures, a deficit of about $1,000,000. But to differentiate between them I would have to have my figures, which I did not bring with me.


William Daum Euler: I suppose the amount here
appropriated is in excess of what was anticipated when the estimate was voted last year?


Robert James Manion: Yes.
Supply-Railways-C .N.R.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps it is not best to ask for information which may possibly be given more readily in committee, but I was wondering if the minister could say at this time whether during the past year any of the vessels of the Canadian Merchant Marine were disposed of, at what prices and how many are still left?


Robert James Manion: A number of them were disposed of in the past year. We have had quite a few ships lying in the dock simply rotting away, if I may use that term, because that is what it amounted to. Some of them were sold at practically scrap prices, because the prices of steamships throughout the world, as my hon. friend knows, have in the last few years been very low. Since the war there has been a very great excess of steamships. Ours were lying in the docks, many of them requiring resurveys costing thousands of dollars. On the recommendation of the directorate of last year, and with our concurrence, a number of those vessels were disposed of. I cannot say at the moment as to the number disposed of, or the number remaining, but as my hon. friend has said when we are discussing the matter in the special committee which we will appoint shortly after the opening of the house after the recess, as I mentioned this afternoon, we will go into details, and give more accurate information than I could this afternoon.


William Duff: Would it not be wise to allow this item to stand until the committee is appointed and we are in a position to investigate the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The money has been spent, and the company requires this vote to pay its debts. In the meantime they borrowed it.


William Duff: Parliament did not give any authority to the company to spend the money. I thought parliament was supposed to vote money before the company could spend it.


Robert James Manion: We did vote a good deal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is one of the unfortunate results as pointed out last year and previous years. The amount of money voted for the company has been exceeded, and having been exceeded the company required money before the end of its fiscal year. Money not being available, the company makes arrangements with its bankers, and before the end of March the estimate is supposed to be passed and the money provided.


William Duff: Do I understand the banks will not carry it any longer? Will the banks not carry it until we make an investigation? If they will not carry the company we do not want it to go into liquidation.


William Daum Euler: I notice this vote is described as a loan; is that a correct description?


Robert James Manion: They are all supposed to be loans-although they are irrevocable loans.


William Daum Euler: You do not expect it to be repaid?


Robert James Manion: I do not expect so.


Mr. VENIOT:: In the item I notice the following words:
Repayable on demand with interest at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council.
I wonder if the government could not be as generous to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited as they were to the Canadian Pacific Railway, when they loaned that company $1,447,000 without interest.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is wrong as to that. What was done was that the money was advanced for the purpose of enabling the shops to be kept open, and that money was put into circulation in Canada.


Peter John Veniot: And no interest.
Mr. BEiNNETT: Not until the contingency happened. That contingency will happen.


Peter John Veniot: I do not accept the statement of the Prime Minister as being correct because the order in council reads "without interest," and principal is to be paid only when the Canadian Pacific Railway has earned sufficient to pay more than five per cent dividends to its shareholders.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the 1931 item.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I do not want to impede the passage of this vote. I understand the money has been spent, and that we have to vote it. It is better to vote the money now than to carry it with the banks and continue to pay interest.
I understand that the position is that the steamship company makes an estimate of the amount it will expend and of the amount it will receive during the year, and that in this particular case their expenditures exceeded their revenues by the amount in the estimate, and they went on and spent this excess amount without authority. That is a reprehensible

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.
practice in my opinion, and I desire to call attention to it. I think my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) is right, that the practice should be avoided if at all possible.


Robert James Manion: The only answer to that would be that after having estimated their necessities for the year, and their revenues not coming up to their expectations, if we refused to make good the excess amount spent until the house met, they would close down their ships. The same is true of the railways.
In reply to my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) I do not think it should go out that this house is treating the Canadian Pacific Railway better than the Canadian National because, so far from it, as my hon. friend knows very well, while we mark this down in our books as a loan repayable with interest, as a matter of fact none of these loans has been repaid, and we have within the last few years loaned to the Canadian National, not simply the amount that was necessary to keep open the Canadian Pacific Railway shops, but S600,000,000 odd-


Peter John Veniot: Do not forget the
guarantee of $60,000,000.


Robert James Manion: That was not a loan; that wns a guarantee.


Peter John Veniot: I did not say it was a loan.


Robert James Manion: And that large amount I mentioned is shown as a bookkeeping entry on the books of the Canadian National. We have not received back any of it, and I say frankly that I do not think this or any other government will ever receive back one cent of the amount aggregating hundreds of millions of dollars which have been so advanced to the Canadian National.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maritime Freight Rates Act
Additional amount, in excess of the sum of $6,611,000 already appropriated, required to provide for the payment from time to time to the Canadian National Railway Company of the deficit in receipts and revenues, occurring during the year 1933. of the eastern lines as provided by the Maritime Freight Rates Act:
(a) Amount of the deficit (less that amount thereof occurring on account of the reduction in tolls under the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act) in the receipts and revenues, $80,569.36.
William Daum Euler: In regard to this additional
amount required for the Canadian National Railways under the Maritime Freight Rates Act, is there a similar amount payable to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and if not, why not?


Robert James Manion: Oh, yes. The Canadian
Pacific Railway and any other lines that used to exist down there-they are practically all taken in by the Canadian National now- have the same twenty per cent paid to them as the Canadian National. In addition, if the Canadian National has a deficit, as it has been having in the maritimes on its eastern lines, we make up that deficit, which of course does not happen in the case of the Canadian Pacific.


William Daum Euler: But the Canadian Pacific
Railway would get some amount because there is an excess of what was appropriated for the purpose.


Robert James Manion: The Canadian Pacific
Railway gets the twenty per cent reduction in freight rates exactly on the same basis as the Canadian National under the Maritime Freight Rates Act.


William Daum Euler: Where is the estimate that
provides the amount payable to the Canadian Pacific?


Robert James Manion: The estimate last year
provided sufficient to cover it; so there is nothing further required.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Deficit of Canadian National Railways
Amount required to provide for payment to Canadian National Railway Company of the net income deficit, including profit and loss, incurred by the system during the year 1933, as certified to by the auditors in the annual report of the company for the year 1933, but exclusive of all non-cash items, including interest on dominion government advances, and exclusive of eastern lines deficits, as further certified to by the auditors and approved by the Minister of Railways and Canals; this payment to be applied in reduction of accountable advances made to the company from the consolidated revenue fund under authority of the Canadian National Railways Financing Act, 1933, $52,263,819.05.
Robert James Manion: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this item stand, and I move that the committee rise and report progress.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I would like to ask
the minister if this will be referred to the . committee.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Sullivan):: It is carried.


William Daum Euler: The minister suggested that
it stand, and that it be referred to the committee.


Robert James Manion: No, Mr. Chairman, I suggested that the item stand.


Frederick George Sanderson: Will the minister permit a question?

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.


Robert James Manion: I have no objection if
the chairman has not.


John Alexander Sullivan: It is signed and has gone away. I cannot call it back.


Robert James Manion: With the consent of the
committee, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the hon. gentleman be permitted to ask his question.


Frederick George Sanderson: My question is this:
Will the minister inform the committee if there is any move being made to inaugurate pool trains from Toronto west to London and from London westward?


Robert James Manion: All the arrangements for
the pooling of trains are made by the management of the two roads, and without doubt they are investigating many different sections of the country in regard to possible economies from pooling arrangements. As to the details I know nothing whatever because they are not submitted to me or to the government. I cannot answer as to the particular territory my hon. friend inquires about, but if there are any advantages in making pooling arrangements down there no doubt the management of the two roads are investigating the possibilities.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Before the committee rises may I ask if the Canadian National needs this $52,000,000 odd before the end of the present fiscal year in the same way that the $196,000 is needed?


Robert James Manion: This $52,000,000 odd is the deficit on interest which the Canadian National has incurred in the past year, 1933. In other words, their interest charges were $56,000,000 odd, and their earnings were sufficient to pay $4,000,000; at least they have so submitted to us, but as a matter of fact that is not quite correct because they used some of their reserve material to the extent of some million dollars. Their actual deficit is closer to $60,000,000 than to $52,000,000, but by using some of their working capital and goods on hand they have arranged it that their needs so far as interest'is concerned for 1933 amount to $52,000,000 odd.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I do not think the minister understood my question. The Prime Minister said that this $196,000 odd for the West Indies Steamships had been spent and that it was necessary to vote the money before the end of the fiscal year. But I understood the Minister of Railways to suggest that this item of $52,000,000 stand and be referred to the committee.


Robert James Manion: No, I did not suggest that it be referred to any other committee. It will be taken up again in this house.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The minister suggested that the item stand, or at least that was the impression I got, and I am asking whether it is necessary to vote this item of $52,000,000 before the end of the present fiscal year. If it is not needed before the end of the present fiscal year, why not let the item stand? May I ask if this $52,000,000 is needed by the Canadian National before March 31 next?


Robert James Manion: Yes. The money was paid as needed.	'


William Duff: I am opposed to having this item stand. It is in the same position as item 275. We have to vote the money to pay the deficit on the Canadian National Rail-waj's under this item just as we voted to pay the deficit under item 275. We voted $196,000 odd by item 275 to pay the deficit on the Canadian National Steamships Limited. I think both these items should be treated the same, as they are in the same position; either they should both pass or they should both stand.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Nothing seems to be too good for the Canadian National but there seems to be a question raised when it comes to voting a million dollars to keep the Canadian Pacific shops open, or $60,000,000 to help them finance their operations.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I have no objection to the item passing but the minister has suggested that it should stand. I am asking the minister if this money is needed before March 31.


Robert James Manion: The money has been paid.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hesitate to trespass
upon the time of the committee but hon. members seem to be having a little difficulty in their desire to make trouble. They cannot reconcile what they conceive to be the explanation. As will be seen from the report which was placed in the hands of hon. members this afternoon, on December 31 last the road had the deficit therein indicated. It becomes necessary, therefore, to vote money through this house. The reason the end of the fiscal year is mentioned is for the purpose of, shall I say, regular dealing with financial matters. We have voted a supply bill for two months of the new year and the old year's financial transactions should be disposed of by March 31. This supplementary estimate is being put through by the minister

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Veniot
in order that the supply bill for the year ended March 31, 1934, may close the financial transactions for the year. The transactions for the new fiscal year begin with the appropriation of two months' pay; that estimate has been submitted but this should be out of the way first. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) suggested that the item should stand as some questions arose as to a figure. He intended that it should stand only to later on in the day. He wanted to be certain as to the figure.


John Alexander Sullivan: The
item will stand.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, I understood the minister to say that he wanted the item to stand but afterwards you said that it had been signed and sent away. I wonder if you signed the item with your Christian and family names or just with your initials; it was all done so quickly. Some hon. members think it should be voted; I have no objection to voting it but I should like to know just where we stand, whether the item is to stand or whether it has been voted. There seems to be great perplexity about it. I am delighted to see my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) giving such courteous answers to the questions asked. I think he sets an example to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and other ministers of the crown.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is
out of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am speaking on a very relative matter, on the way in which questions are answered. I take this opportunity to congratulate the minister upon being so courteous to hon. members. I appreciate it and in saying that I think I speak on behalf of all of us. I am just telling those hon. gentlemen, who do not need any explanation as to the policies of the government or who would not understand anything if those policies were explained, just what I think of the manner in which the minister has acted. I shall say no more about this matter but I wanted to give the minister all the credit due to him.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My colleague, the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion), wants to verify his knowledge with respect to this figure so I therefore move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 26, consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Gordon for the second reading of Bill No. 42, respecting relief measures.
Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended taking any part in this debate until I heard the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) read extracts yesterday from the report of the auditor general and his findings in connection with the expenditure and distribution of federal aid to the different provinces. When I heard those quotations I decided that I should make my voice heard, not to say to the government "I told you so," but to draw attention to the fact that in 1932 I made certain charges in connection with the expenditure of federal aid in certain sections of the province of New Brunswick. At that time I called the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) to the fact that paysheets had been padded by placing upon them the names of men who had not done one day's work. I read six or seven affidavits which I offered to the minister. I demanded that an investigation be held and I put my seat at stake. I stated that if at least ninety per cent of the charges contained in those affidavits and the charges made by myself could not be proved before a proper tribunal, I would resign my seat in parliament. I offered these affidavits to the Minister of Labour but he refused to accept them. He told me, as he has often told the house since, that the matter rested entirely with the provincial authorities of New Brunswick and that his department could have nothing to do with an investigation. I refused to allow these charges to be investigated by the provincial authorities but I was prepared to have them investigated by a properly constituted tribunal to be named by the government or by the house.
In the quotations from the report of the auditor general, that official states that in New Brunswick as well as elsewhere he found padded paysheets and that the federal government had paid its share of amounts which it had no right to pay under the law. He stated also that paysheets and accounts were not properly kept, so I decided it was my duty to direct the attention of the house to the warning I gave the government in 1932. On that occasion I spoke from personal knowledge of the way in which things had been carried
Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Veniot

on in certain sections of New Brunswick. I was told by some hon. members opposite that I was decrying my own province, running down my own people. No; it was not my intention to decry my province but to point out to the government of this dominion the necessity for better regulations, a stricter inspection of the way in which the work was being carried on under the relief measure, and if possible putting a stop to this graft and maladministration in connection with federal aid not only in the province of New Brunswick but elsewhere-because I see from the auditor general's report that the same condition of affairs exists, in connection with the -distribution of expenditures of federal money for unemployment purposes, all over the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. SMITH (Victoria-Carleton):: Are these the same charges which the hon. member preferred in 1932?


Peter John Veniot: I do not know whether the auditor general refers to them or not, but I am now referring to the 1932 charges.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Was not an investigation being held by the provincial government of New Brunswick at the time the hon. member made that statement in the house in 1932?


Peter John Veniot: Not of the accounts in
reference to which I read affidavits in this house. An investigation was being held into expenditures of road money in the county of Westmorland; I am not referring to that investigation nor to the charges made and investigated at that time. In 1932 the affidavits I read referred to bridge work in Restigouche county, expenditures in connection with which were not being investigated, and I also referred to road work in the county of -Gloucester which has never been investigated. The auditor general's report now bears me out. It shows that I was right when I warned the government against the way things were being done, and advised that measures, stricter than those already in force, should be taken to prevent this maldistribution of public funds of the dominion. I was perfectly right. The auditor general now points out, as I have stated before, that not only in the distribution of direct relief but in the distribution of aid to unemployment in the matter of public works, fraud has existed, accounts have not been properly kept and paysheets have been padded.
The auditor general, or the person whom he sent to investigate these accounts in the various provinces, had only a slim chance to go into these matters. But slim as was that
[Mr- Veniot.]
chance, we find that the condition has been rampan-t throughout every province in the dominion. In 1930, when the first $20,000,000 was voted for aid to unemployment, the official opposition warned the government against the methods they were adopting to have the money expended. We claimed that there were not sufficient safeguards surrounding the expenditure of the money, and we asked that an audit be made on the part of the dominion. But our friends opposite pooh-poohed the idea; they told us that it would be insulting the provinces and the municipalities if we insisted on an audit. Well, to-day they are insisting on an audit, but they have locked the barn door after the horse has been stolen. It will be impossible to have an adequate audit of the operations of the last four years, but I do hope that a very strict audit, in accordance with the order in council of March 10 last, will be made in the future. But when you have the proof from our own auditor general that crooked work has 'been carried on in these expenditures is it possible that the present government is going to entrust to the same individuals, who were guilty of this crooked work, the expenditure of money for unemployment relief, either directly or indirectly, according to the terms of the bill now before the house? I say that those in authority who permitted this maladministration are not fit to continue the administration of any money which this parliament might vote for unemployment relief either directly or indirectly, and that another system should be adopted by which the dominion could more properly safeguard its interests.
Last evening my colleague, the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Michaud), referred to certain projects in 1933 that had been carried on in the province of New Brunswick. He said, and rightly so, that the money in connection with these projects had all been expended weeks and months before the projects were approved by the federal Department of Labour. That approval was given on October 10, I believe, whereas the money in connection with these projects had been all expended in August and September, and perhaps in July. Let me say to the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska that that has not been uncommon since the inauguration of this relief system, because in 1931, hundreds of thousands of dollars were expended in New Brunswick before a single project had been approved. The projects of 1931 were approved on November 26, and in July, August and September, and part of October, all this money

*Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Veniot
had been expended. There had been no inspection whatever of the projects submitted to the government for unemployment relief in the matter of public works in that province, and I condemned that transaction at the time. I called the attention of the minister at the time to this fact and insisted that in the future no projects should be accepted by the Department of Labour unless they were first examined by an engineer representing the federal government and approved and recommended by him. But evidently that was a suggestion that has not been carried out, at least in the province of New Brunswick.
Now there is a bill before the legislature of New Brunswick authorizing the government of that province to expend $10,000,000 on hard-surface roads. Let me say to the Minister of Labour that the province of New Brunswick cannot afford under present conditions to spend any such amount of money on roads. New Brunswick, with a debt today of approximately $68,000,000, cannot afford to increase that debt by from $10,000,000 to $20,000,000, as the case may be, under present conditions. The government have stated in this house on different occasions that restraint should be placed upon the expenditures of provincial governments, that these governments have been extravagant, and are constantly coming to the Dominion government seeking financial aid. If ever there was an occasion when the government of Canada should restrict any expenditure which is unnecessary it is in the case of the province of New Brunswick. I may be told that this government have no authority over the expenditures of that province. I well know that, but this government have control over the amount of money they will expend in furthering hard surfaced road projects in that province. In that way and to that extent this government can regulate an expenditure which I claim is not necessary at the present time and which the province of New Brunswick cannot afford.
I may be told that this work is required to help unemployment. I am in favour of helping to relieve unemployment. I am prepared to support any measure within reason to help the unemployed in my native province. But there are other means by which the unemployed can be helped, with more permanent effect than by the expenditure on the part of the dominion government of six or seven million dollars for hard surfaced roads in that province. Here let me point out to the Minister of Labour that in the province of New Brunswick there are not more than two
or three municipalities-I doubt if there are three-that are able to take advantage of the government's back to the land policy by paying their $200 share for each settler. Our municipalities are almost bankrupt. They have been brought to that position through the enormous sums that they have had to pay to relieve unemployment, especially by the method of direct relief. The municipalities of New Brunswick cannot take advantage of the Gordon back to the land scheme-I think that is the name by which it is known to-day. Let the government, instead of contributing large sums towards the construction of permanent roads, contribute a larger amount as their share to encourage this back to the land project. At present under that act the federal government pays, I understand, S200 per settler, the province pays $200, and the municipality $200. The municipalities cannot meet that demand. 'Let the provincial government pay its $200 and let the federal Department of Labour add another $200 to what they have already offered, using that money to place unemployed men on new farms in the province of New Brunswick; in that way they will be doing something to establish these people permanently so that in future depressions they will not need to call upon the country to help them. Let me say that the employment afforded by a system of permanent hard surfaced road construction in New Brunswick will not be commensurate with the amount of money expended. We know this work will be done by contract, that the contractor will employ machinery as much as possible and as little hand labour as he can get away with. Therefore the unemployed will not benefit nearly as much as if they were helped to establish themselves permanently on farms. I think I am correct in saying that the auditor general stated that he found in many cases the provinces charging rental to the dominion government for machinery belonging to the province. While he did not condemn such a charge he did state that in many cases the rental was exorbitant. In commenting on that statement I do not wish to reflect at all upon the Minister of Labour, but I am informed that the Minister of Labour himself is perhaps to blame for permitting rental to be charged for the use of provincial machinery on provincial roads. He is also to blame for the exorbitant rental charged, by allowing the ministers of public works of the different provinces to fix what the rental should be, instead of agreeing upon or setting a charge per machine or whatever article is charged for. I have in my hand the report from the

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Veniot

Daily Mail of March 14 last of a speech made in the legislature of New Brunswick. It appears that the leader of the opposition there, Mr. Dysart, attacked the Minister of Public Works for having purchased a machine costing $24,000 and charging it up to federal aid. The Minister of Public Works in defending himself against that charge made the statement that he told the Minister of Labour:
-that it was not practical to use the money received from Ottawa for relief purposes on the trans-Canada highway entirely. . . . The federal Minister of Labour had stated at that time that the provincial government might buy equipment to carry on work and the rental of same could be charged to the dominion government. Consequently, in place of $24,000 being spent as stated by the leader of the opposition, five per cent of the value of the machine was charged as rental and the provincial government absorbed fifty per cent of the cost.
Whether it was fifty per cent of the rental, or of the cost of the machine, that was absorbed is not clearly stated in that speech, but I take it it was fifty per cent of the cost of the machine. If that is so, $12,000 was paid by the federal government, for a machine purchased and owned by the province. No wonder the auditor general says that the rental charged in many cases was exorbitant.
The auditor general also refers to the discovery that ordinary patrol work in the province of New Brunswick was charged up against federal aid, and the federal government called upon to pay its share. I brought that matter up in this house in 1932, I showed where men engaged by the season or by the year on patrol work were included in the items charged against the federal government for unemployment relief. That was not giving relief to the unemployed. These men were paid so much a month, I believe, because their work could be carried on only from May until the end of October or November, according to the season. Those men were regularly employed; what right had they to receive money under unemployment relief? They were receiving regular salaries; that should have been sufficient, and the men without work should have been given a chance to earn the money which was paid these men.
This situation does not exist only in New Brunswick; it is to be found in different sections of Canada. I brought up the matter in this house, but the Minister of Labour would not heed my warning. Now he is brought face to face with the statement made by the auditor general, an official not of the government but of this House of Commons. The minister would not accept the warning as to this kind of expenditure which was given in
{.Mr. Veniot.]
the house, but he is forced to accept the statement made by the auditor general.
The auditor general draws attention to something else which I brought up in the house in 1932, and I think again in 1933. I directed the attention of the minister to the fact that the provincial government had submitted a plan to the minister asking for federal aid in the construction of a power line from Dalhousie to Jacquet River, in which the share of the federal government was to be approximately $27,000. I pointed out to the minister at that time that this enterprise would bring in sufficient revenue to pay for the cost of construction and the upkeep and that the federal government had no right to share the cost of a project under the guise of unemployment relief which could be constructed by the province under the supervision of the hydro commission. In his report the auditor general refers to this matter. He does not condemn it as I condemned it at the time, but no doubt that is because he does not know it is a revenue producing enterprise and that the province of New Brunswick could have constructed that line without incurring one cent of debt that could not be met within a given number of years by means of a proper sinking fund. The report goes on to indicate that even in connection with that enterprise the accounts were not properly kept, and that refunds should be made to the federal government.
I wish now to touch on the question of direct relief. In 1933 I pointed out to the minister that the administration of direct relief was subject to abuse. At the time I referred only to the province of New Brunswick, and I was told by hon. gentlemen opposite that I was decrying my own province. The statement I made then, however, has been endorsed by the auditor general with regard to every province of Canada. I said then, and I will repeat it now-and I have more evidence now than I had then-that there was grave maladministration of direct relief. I showed that men with money in the bank were receiving direct relief. I showed that men who were in receipt of pensions, not as returned soldiers but from other sources, were in receipt of direct relief. I pointed out that men were receiving direct relief who were not entitled to it under the act. To-day we find the auditor general pointing out that in many cases direct relief has been granted to persons who should not be under that scheme. He goes further and points out that in certain parts of New Brunswick where medical aid, dental services and medicine were not provided for, such

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Veniot
accounts were entered as food. That occurred in more than one municipality, and at another point these items were rendered as clothing. Thus the authorities in Ottawa were deceived, because the municipalities knew very well that if the government knew these accounts represented medical attendance, dental services or medicine the government would not pay their share, and rightly so, because that was not the policy. So the statement I made at that time has been substantiated by the report submitted by the auditor general. If that gentleman had time to go further into the matter he would find that in certain sections of New Brunswick municipal councillors rendered accounts to the municipalities for services as councillors in the distribution of relief. Those accounts were paid, and I say that was a direct violation of the municipal act. That practice was followed in the county of Gloucester until this year, when the question was submitted to the attorney general of the province for a legal opinion. He stated that they should not receive remuneration in any case. I know of one councillor who sent in a bill for S166 for visits said to have been made in his parish to see whether certain people required relief.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: The accounts were
passed by the municipal councils?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, until this year, when
they were refused.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: They were submitted to and passed by the council, so why blame the government?


Peter John Veniot: If a better system had
been adopted in connection with auditing these accounts they never would have been paid; the federal government would have seen at once that the accounts were not proper, and payment would not have been made.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: They were approved by the municipal councils, by Liberals and Conservatives alike?


Peter John Veniot: Does the hon. gentleman
wish to bring politics into it?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: No.


Peter John Veniot: have already stated that the municipalities are not in a position to meet the conditions laid down by the Minister of Labour in regard to the back to the land movement. May I emphasize that point, although I believe I need not stress it unduly to the Minister of Labour, because by this time he must know that the municipalities at least in some of the provinces are not in a position to accept his proposition. I repeat what I said a few minutes ago, namely, that instead of spending large amounts of federal money to aid the provinces in the construction of new roads or the hard surfacing of roads already in existence, at least a portion of the money should be laid aside to help the back to the land movement in those provinces where municipalities cannot afford to pay their share of the $200 per settler. If that is done a permanent policy will have been established so far as this movement is concerned.
People will go back to the land. I know there are thousands waiting for the opportunity and financial aid to locate on crown lands. I know that the government of New Brunswick is willing to open those lands to as many of the settlers as it is satisfied will make good. I believe hon. members opposite from New Brunswick will agree that there are no better settlers to be found in the whole world than those who settle on the crown lands of our province.
In conclusion may I crave the indulgence of the house to speak on one other point, because I believe the time at my disposal has almost expired. I believe it was the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) who stated yesterday that there was in existence an organization operating throughout Canada in opposition to the lumber industry. I do not know to what organization he refers, unless he had in mind communistic activities which prevail in the province of Ontario and in the western provinces. Thank God we have very little, if any, communistic activity in New Brunswick. Let me say to some of the lumbermen in eastern Canada, not to all of them but to the great majority, that if they wish their industry to prosper and if they wish to meet the better conditions for the lumber industry appearing on the horizon, they will have to pay their men better wages than they are paying to-day. The trouble with the lumbermen in New Brunswick is that they are not paying wages sufficient to encourage the men to go to and remain in the camps. What do you think, Mr. Speaker, of a lumberman who is paying $10 to $18 a month for the services of a lumberjack? What do you think of a lumber firm which

will send a man into the woods and pay him $1.25 or $1.50 per cord for pulpwood? That man has to cut the pulpwood, load it and pile it. He has to pay from sixty cents to seventy cents per day for board in the camp operated by the lumber company. Under those conditions he cannot make a living. But worse than that, because he has worked in the lumber woods and received a pittance for his labour, hardly enough to keep body and soul together, and despite the fact that his family may be starving at home, upon application for direct relief his wife is told, "You cannot get it, because your husband is employed." Let me warn the lumbermen of the province of New Brunswick the sooner they recognize that reasonable wages should be paid to the men in the bush the better will they get along in their industry.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take up the time of the house this afternoon in a discussion of matters to which reference has been made by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot). I was surprised in the first instance to hear him proceed to blacken the character of the Department of Labour, in the second place the provincial government of the province of New Brunswick, in the third place the municipal councils of that province and in the fourth place the people who elected the government of the province and the governments of the municipalities, which are the very foundation of our democratic life. I know the hon. member would not be so unfair as to attempt to lay at the door of the Minister of Labour many of the irregularities to which he has referred this afternoon, and which are probably as unknown to the Minister of Labour, and were at the time they were committed, as to some man who might happen to be at the north pole.


Peter John Veniot: He knows it now, though.


Mr. SMITH (Victoria):: My hon. friend says that the minister knows it now. In that connection I wish to refer to certain incidents which occurred in the province of New Brunswick while the hon. member for Gloucester was Minister of Public Works for that province.


Peter John Veniot: What has that got to do with this?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Many of the things to which I shall refer have just as much to do with the question before us as the matters my hon. friend from Gloucester has mentioned this afternoon. He was very careful to say

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Smith (Victoria)
that his speech was not political, and yet at the same time one would not have to be a keen observer-


Peter John Veniot: I never used the words that my speech was not political.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I only need to submit to the house the interjection that was made by the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Macdougall) and the reply which came from the hon. member for Gloucester county to corroborate the statement I have just made.


Peter John Veniot: I never made the statement, Mr. Speaker, and I demand that the hon. member withdraw his remarks.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for Gloucester says that he did not make the statement. The hon. gentleman may infer, if he wishes, what the statement meant, but as the hon. member for Gloucester has denied it I would ask him to withdraw unless he can produce the actual words taken down.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I think my statement, Mr. Speaker, will be amply borne out by reading Hansard.


Peter John Veniot: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that I never made the statement, and it must be withdrawn.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I just want to finish my statement.


Peter John Veniot: No, you cannot do it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: He is speaking on the point of order.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: My hon. friend from Gloucester referred to the interruption made by my hon. friend from Inverness as being political, and I therefore say that he wanted to make it appear to this house that his own speech was not political.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That may be so, but the hon. member for Gloucester says that he did not use the words that his speech was not political, and the hon. member should therefore withdraw his statement.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I am very glad indeed, Mr. Speaker, to comply with the rules of the house. I submit still further, knowing the propensities of the hon. member for Gloucester-


Peter John Veniot: Order.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: -and as the house knows them, that I do not think anyone would charge him with having politics at the bottom of his speech.
I was about to say that the hon. member for Gloucester was at one time Minister of
Public Works for New Brunswick. I make this reference to show him how easy it is for the head of a department not to know of irregularities that may be going on under the officials of his department. The hon. member very well knows that during his regime as Minister of Public Works I made certain charges in the legislature of New Brunswick in 1917 or 1918 with respect to the management of his department. He very well remembers also that an investigation was made into those charges and that he himself took occasion to preside over and conduct that investigation. He would not allow any outsider to come in and conduct it, but he himself took full responsibility, and he would not even allow me the privilege of having legal counsel to present my side of the case. It therefore became necessary for me to do the best I could. Information was furnished to my hon. friend as Minister of Public Works at that time in the province of New Brunswick, that men's names were on the payroll of his department and that men had received wages from the department who had never worked a single hour on the road. It was also brought out that children eight years of age had their names on the payroll. That was sworn to before my hon. friend, and yet he never took occasion at that time even to criticize the supervisor who was guilty of that.


Peter John Veniot: That statement is absolutely not correct. The supervisor was punished under my direction for his misdoing.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The statement I
make, Mr. Speaker, is this, that any supervisor who is to be punished cannot possibly be also exonerated on the floor of the legislature of New Brunswick, and that is what my hon. friend did. When these charges were considered in the legislature of New Brunswick, my hon. friend as Minister of Public Works exonerated all the supervisors who had been found guilty of placing on the payroll the names of children eight years of age and the names of men who had sworn they were out at sea during the whole season. He exonerated everybody in common even the whole bunch.


Peter John Veniot: That is wrong. The supervisor was dismissed.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I refer to that
to show that it is absolutely impossible for the head of a department to follow through the line of action taken by all his officials and under-officials.
The Minister of Labour in this government enters into an arrangement with the provincial government of New Brunswick to provide a
1868	COMMONS
Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Smith (Victoria)
certain amount of relief money which goes both directly and indirectly to the unemployed. Who is responsible for the expenditure of that money? First the provincial government. They hand the money out to the municipal councils. The municipal councils submit their bills from time to time to the provincial government, and in turn these come before the Department of Labour at Ottawa. How can you expect the Minister of Labour at Ottawa to know of these irregularities which have been referred to by my hon. friend from Gloucester?
Let me say further that my hon. friend from Gloucester is trying to criticize and blacken the character of the provincial government of New Brunswick. The Conservative government of New Brunswick, as my hon. friend knows full well, is the only government in that province that ever created a royal commission and gave everybody a chance to appear before it and give evidence against the department concerned and the government of the day. The door was thrown wide open and my hon. friend was one of those who took advantage of that opportunity. He appeared many times before the commission to have his charges sustained or otherwise.


Peter John Veniot: Some of them were sustained.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: When they were
sustained, those guilty were punished, not exonerated.


Peter John Veniot: What about Flemming?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: He was punished. I regret that the hon. member for Gloucester has found it necessary to refer to one who has since passed away and who performed such a splendid service for his native province.


Peter John Veniot: He punished himself. It
was not the government that punished him.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: It will be observed by hon. gentlemen that the hon. member for Gloucester and I agree on almost everything.


Peter John Veniot: Especially to disagree.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: There is one
statement the hon. member made with which I am happy to agree, and that was that the public debt of the province of New Brunswick has reached an enormous figure; but we are not as badly off as many of the other provinces. We are able to meet our obligations in New Brunswick, and we always have met them. I consider it is one of the first duties of any government to see that the financial integrity of the people of the differ-
Mr. B. V. Smith.1,
ent provinces of Canada is fully maintained. I cannot but recall the many times I have heard my hon. friend from Gloucester, when he was Minister of Public Works in New Brunswick, stand on the floor of the legislature and tell the people that he was there to spend the money and he intended to do it. I ask him to state in all fairness who is responsible for the staggering debt of the province of New Brunswick. Is it one party more than the other? He knows that both parties are guilty. He should go back in his memory a little and recall the year 1925, when he placed a proposition before the people of the province which, if it had carried, would have made that province absolutely bankrupt. The people denounced him and his party at the polls and put another man at the head of affairs in the province.
My hon. friend referred to the wages paid in the lumber camps of the province and that is one point upon which we both fully agree. However, I expected that he would have been fair enough to tell this house and the people of this country that the provincial government of New Brunswick has been the first this season to pass an act to provide for minimum wages in the lumber camps of New Brunswick. That was an omission by my hon. friend. I am sure he must have overlooked it because he is usually so fair about these things.


Peter John Veniot: I was not talking about
the government of New Brunswick, I was talking about the conditions in the lumbering industry.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The hon. member referred also to the construction of hardsurfaced roads. A few years ago the province passed an act to empower the government to build hard-surfaced roads. At that time I took occasion to call upon the then premier and tell him that I did not think the financial condition of the province would warrant the construction of such roads. I still maintain that position, so the hon. member for Gloucester and I are on all fours in connection with this matter.
I apologize for the fact that conditions in New Brunswick have been brought into the picture to such an extent and have absorbed so much time of this house. I hope the few remarks I have made will clear the mind of the hon. member for Gloucester to some degree and make him realize the difficulties confronting the Minister of Labour, the Department of Labour and the heads of other departments in tracing such irregularities as he has referred to in his remarks.

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Young


Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why this legislation has been delayed until this late date in the session. Parliament adjourns tomorrow for the Easter recess and does not reassemble until April 9. On the thirty-first of this month the relief bill of 1934 will have expired and unless this legislation is passed before the house adjourns to-morrow, the distribution of relief will automatically cease. Parliament is confronted with the necessity of passing legislation introduced only yesterday and which cannot have due consideration or of assuming the responsibility of depriving pepole of relief without which they cannot get along. Parliament has been in session for many weeks and there has been practically no important legislation before us. This and other bills should have been in our hands a month ago in order that we might give proper consideration to the matters involved. Instead of that, we find legislation being withheld until the very last minute. We are now up against the necessity of either putting this bill through by to-morrow night or assuming the responsibility of depriving people of their relief. I do not know what the government has in view in withholding legislation until the last minute. If their purpose is to get it through without due consideration, then I must congratulate them upon the success of their tactics. Parliament was not created and is not maintained for the purpose of putting through legislation without consideration, it was created for an entirely different purpose, to give consideration to important measures of this kind. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) was sitting on this side of the house there was no man in Canada who was more insistent on maintaining the rights of parliament but since he has become Prime Minister he is an entirely different man. We have never had a Prime Minister who was so intent upon usurping the rights of parliament and reducing it to a position of subservience. He is now repeating his performance of last year, of the year before and of the year before that by bringing down legislation at a time when we have to put it through almost without notice and without due consideration or assume the responsibility of depriving people of their relief.
I support my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the statements he made yesterday with regard to auditing the accounts of the provinces in connection with relief expenditures. I remember the fall of 1930 when the leader of the opposition was insistent that an audit of these expenditures sh.ould be carried on continuously. I remember also how the Prime Minister objected
and said that it would be an insult to the provinces to tell them that we were going to audit their accounts. But what happened? We have the report quoted yesterday by the leader of the opposition in which it is stated that the provinces have collected the gasoline tax from their own people and then collected the same tax over again from the federal government. The idea of these measures was to reimburse the provinces for the money they spent, not for the money they collected. The more they collect from the people, the more they collect from us. They have been collecting from us, not on the basis of money spent but on the basis of money collected.
If I understand the bill aright, its aim is to cure unemployment by the launching of an extensive program of public works. Surely the government has learned by this time that unemployment cannot be cured by the construction of public works. Other countries have tried and are trying it and surely the government can learn something from its own experience. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) has asked us to give the government credit for being able to make its own mistakes; I wish we could give it credit for being able to profit by them, but I am afraid we cannot.
Mr. MANIO'N: Do you ever profit by your own?


Edward James Young: I try to.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Give him a chance.


Edward James Young: The only way unemployment can be cured in this or any other country is by a revival of industry. Every measure that tends to retard the revival of industry will increase unemployment; every measure that tends to decrease the burden upon industry will tend to cure unemployment. What is the trouble with industry to-day? The trouble is that the costs of conducting industry are greater than the returns to be expected.


Mr. MacNICOL:: A little free trade.


Edward James Young: I do not care what industry you are engaged in, whether it be farming, lumbering, manufacturing or a commercial enterprise, the expenses to-day in connection with carrying on that industry are greater than the returns you can expect to receive. That is the reason why industry in this country is stagnant and the only remedy is to remove some of the burdens which industry carries upon its shoulders.
One of the greatest burdens of industry is that of taxation. The Associated Chambers

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Young
of Commerce of this country have estimated that one-third of the national income is collected in the form of taxes by the various taxing bodies. If the figures quoted are correct, then the Chambers of Commerce have under-stated the case. If one-third of the national income is collected in taxes, that one-third is part of the national income. That is to say, the national income is the sum of the incomes of all the people. If the wealth created in this country is represented by two, that two represents the incomes of those engaged in industry. If the government collects one unit of that two in the form of taxes and turns it over to another class of people, the amount so collected becomes the income of those people and helps to make up the national income. Therefore, the national income becomes three but the taxes collected are one. That is one-third of the national income but one-half of the created wealth. So that if the figures of the chamber of commerce are correct we are collecting one-half of the created wealth of the country in the form of taxation. That is a burden that industry cannot stand. It means that whether you work at the plough, or at the bench, or at the lathe, or in the counting house, one-half of the product of your labour is being absorbed in the form of taxes. This measure before us, calculated to relieve unemployment by creating public works, will have the effect of increasing the tax burden of the country, and to increase the tax burden is to increase the burden on the back of industry, and therefore create more unemployment rather than reduce it.
Last year the building industry was only 15 per cent of normal. Why was it so low? Why do men not build houses? The first thing a man does when he contemplates putting up a house is to figure what it will cost him, and then he adds what the taxes will be after it is finished, and if the cost of the building, together with the taxes he will have to pay, is greater than the probable value of the building, he will not build. A proposal of this nature, which will add to the cost of building and add to the taxes that will have to be paid on the building afterwards, will further discourage him, so that instead of 15 per cent of normal, building will be less than that. Therefore your public undertakings, public works created to relieve unemployment, will result in more unemployment because it will discourage the building and other industries under private enterprise.
In 1930 we had before the house a bill which proposed to spend S20,000,000 on such [Mr. ymrng.l
a thing as this, to relieve unemployment. At that time we on this side warned the government that it could not be done. We told them that it would not relieve unemployment in the slightest degree; for before you can spend a dollar on public works you must collect that dollar from the people; and when you collect your dollars from the people you reduce their purchasing power by that amount, and when a man's purchasing power is reduced he buys less goods, so that the merchant sells less, the railways haul less, the factories produce less, and there is less employment in the country. So that these schemes which are put forward for curing unemployment through the creation of public works have this effect, that you might create a dollar's worth of employment where you spend a dollar, but you create a dollar's worth of unemployment where you collect the dollar, and the last condition is worse-worse, I say, because in addition to the expenditure on your public works you are saddling yourself with a maintenance cost which will reduce the purchasing power of the people in future years.
I know that some people say that we will print new money to pay for these works; we will not borrow the money but will print it and circulate it. What is the difference? When you print money you really borrow it. When you borrow money in the old fashioned way from the bank, or on debentures or bonds, you borrow from the rich and undertake to pay them back principal with interest; but when you borrow money by printing it you borrow chiefly from poor people and you do not pay them back either principal or interest. That is the essential difference between borrowing in the old fashioned way and printing money. I have here a Canadian dollar bill which states that the dominion will pay to bearer one dollar on demand. It is nothing but a promissory note, and if you print money to pay for these works you will be paying for them with promissory notes. What is the effect? The effect is this, that those who are engaged in productive industry will have to support not only their own industries but other unproductive works which it is proposed, I presume, to create under the provisions of this bill. What kind of works will they be? I do not know, but section 3, subsection (a) says that the governor in council may:
Provide for special relief,

I do not know why the comma is there.
-works and undertakings under control and direction of the Department of National Defence and the Department of the Interior.

Relief Act, 1934

Mr. Young
No limitation is set to the amount of money to be spent, no control over the works to be engaged in. Unlimited sums could be spent and the most fantastic schemes could be engaged in. They could undertake to build a paved highway across Canada, something which would be stupendously expensive to keep up later on. And what good would it be to anyone except a few tourists? Under the provisions of this act they could undertake, at Canadian expense alone, to build the St. Lawrence waterway. Not only that, but having started it, they could carry it on long after the expiration of this act, because section 10 declares:
This act shall expire on the thirty-first day of March, 1935, but any obligation or liability incurred or created under the authority of this act prior to the thirty-first day of March. 1935, together with any liability for expenditures after that date for projects required to be completed in order to preserve the value of work already done may be paid and discharged out of the consolidated revenue fund notwithstanding the expiration of this act on the said date.
That is to say, they can undertake any works, and provided those works are undertaken before the end of March next they can commit this country, they will commit this country, to carry on such works to completion no matter what the expenditure might be. Under this act the Minister of National Defence-because he comes into it-could build fortifications in the arctic circle and no one could stop him.
Have hon. members considered what it would cost to maintain these works? The maintenance cost of public works must be stupendous, and yet it will all be charged against productive industry for all time. And then what will the government do with the unemployed in the remote districts? You cannot put up public buildings in every city, town, village and hamlet in Canada. These works must be located in certain places, and they are bound to be remote from a great many of the unemployed. You cannot take a married man away from home and set him to work in some far distant place without paying him sufficient wages to maintain himself at the works and his family at home, so that you will pay wages out of proportion to the value of the work done.
There are some public works which, perhaps, if the government is bound to adopt a policy such as this, they might consider, namely, public works of the kind which would be at least self-supporting and which would
not saddle us in the future with maintenance costs. For instance, they might turn their attention to reforestation projects. They might reforest some of the waste lands, and in some of the prairie sections, where land is not fit for agriculture, it might be worth while to make experiments in the growing of trees adapted to that country to see whether the monotony of the prairies could be broken and these lands put to some useful purpose.


Mr. GORDON:: The government has been doing that for two years.


Edward James Young: I would recommend that they extend their experiments.


George Gordon: We have set out about seven million trees or more.


Edward James Young: Where?


George Gordon: In the government camps at Petawawa and on other lands owned by the dominion government.


Edward James Young: I am glad to hear it. They might also turn their attention to the draining of some of our lands. I am not an authority on this, but I have been informed that in some of the timbered areas trees would grow more quickly and be bigger if the water table were lowered somewhat. I do not know whether that is correct, but if it is, then a very profitable expenditure could be made in the direction of lowering the water table to promote the growth of timber in such areas. We have in some of our agricultural lands areas that would be better if drained; they would be more easily reclaimed. In some of the drier sections of the prairies it might be profitable, and I believe it is being considered, to find ways and means of catching the spring water and holding it against the drier summer season; not that enough water could be held to affect the climate seriously, but such reservoirs would help in the dry season and would provide men with water for their stock.
I would point out to the government that on the whole the financial situation of the country is such that we cannot afford to indulge in one dollar of unnecessary expenditure. We have to take care of the unemployed; we cannot see people starve in our midst; but the only thing to do is to do it in the cheapest way, and I submit that a program of public works is not the most economical way. We had some experience of it in 1930, when we found that it cost the
Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Pouliot

treasury $4 to put $1 in the hands of a worker. That is to say, for every $4 we spent, $1 went in wages and the other $3 for material and so on. I would suggest to the minister that he should not confine his expenditures to public works but should find cheaper ways of extending relief to people who are in great need.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Mr. Speaker, in the special session
of 1930 the Prime Minister spoke thus on September 16, as reported at page 238 of Hansard:
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving that you do now leave the chair, I do so because of the disturbed conditions that exist in this country and because of the circumstances that this parliament has been called to consider the problem of unemployment. I indicated a few days ago that the measures proposed were three in number, of which a tariff measure was one. Our tariff measure is not a general revision of the tariff, but deals only with such items in the tariff as it is believed will ensure additional employment to a large number of men and women in Canada.
This was a great speech. A little further on the Prime Minister continued as follows:
It is not for the purposes of protection that the tariff is being revised to-day. The resolutions that are being submitted to this house are not for the purpose of affording protection in the sense in which that term is usually used; but if that term is used to designate just what we, during the election, indicated that it did mean, namely, the giving to Canadians an equality of opportunity with others who are building up their country to enable us to build up our dominion, and to give fair competition to the worker in Canada, be it man or woman, then it is protection that we propose.	There can be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, in the mind of any lion, gentleman within sound of my voice, that this government at least has a mandate to give effect to that policy.
It was naturally an experiment.
In every part of this dominion I was at great care to make it known to the audiences who listened to what I had to say, so that there could be no mistake as to what I meant, that in the event of their supporting candidates of our party they thereby supported a policy that would ensure fair competition to Canadian workmen and work women and equality of opportunity to Canadians to build up their country.
That sounded very nice. He continued thus:
A number of items only will be dealt with. They will be dealt with on the basis of the employment that will he given to those who are not now employed. And we have very definite assurances from the producers in this country-
Mark that, sir.
-that as a result of the action we are taking they will increase the number of men and

women in their mills and factories. I said the other day, Mr. Speaker, that the number might be estimated at 25,000 within a reasonable time. I think that is too low an estimate, but I desired that the estimate should he at least conservative-as in keeping with the party for which I speak at this moment. When I say 25,000 I think I am understating the number of men and women who will find employment by reason of the action we are taking.
I shall now ask the hon. gentleman in this most important debate to answer from his seat and tell us who were those manufacturers who made that promise, and what was the promise, that was made. But I do not see the right hon. gentleman there, I do not think the Prime Minister is in his seat. Oh, I understand; Mr. Herridge must be in town, and his company is more interesting to the Prime Minister than the company of his colleagues. But, sir, we are discussing a most important matter. On Thursday last when we were discussing unemployment, the Minister of Labour was in his seat but the Prime Minister was not. Someone told me: "Herridge is in town." Yesterday we were discussing unemployment, the Prime Minister was not here. Herridge was in town! Herridge interests him more than the matter of unemployment. Perhaps the Prime Minister wants to hear the gossip as to how the St. Lawrence waterway treaty came to be defeated in Washington; that may be the big interest with him. We are discussing the most important matter of the session, the matter of unemployment,-unemployment created by his insane policy, but the right hon. gentleman is listening to gossip in some other room of the house. The captain is not on the dock. I think the attention of the house should be called to that. I am very sorry it happens that way, for I would like to have some answer to the very reasonable question that I have put, after reading excerpts from the speech delivered by the Prime Minister in the special session of 1930. But he is not here to answer; and if he were there would be no answer, for he always finds a way to evade answering reasonable questions put by members of this house. What was said then by the right hon. gentleman was most childish; he would have been most credulous to believe what was said to him by these manufacturers, promising to employ more men if the tariff were increased. Did they keep their word? No.
A little further on in the same speech the Prime Minister continued:
We propose therefore to provide that so far as may be reasonably possible the requirements of the 10.000,000 people living on the northern half of this continent shall be provided by Canadian producers.

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Pouliot
What happened? We find distress, especially among the farmers and labouring men. What the government did at the suggestion of the Prime Minister in 1930 was to raise the tariff without taking the trouble to study the effect in detail. They raised the tariff at the request of these people who were filling the corridors of this house and pressing the Prime Minister for an increase of tariff without any due consideration of the merits. He had power, he used it, but did he relieve unemployment? At that time the number of unemployed was about 100,000, one for each hundred of the population. It was very easy for Canada at that time to give relief to the poor. Municipalities were doing that without even the assistance of the provinces. The works done at that time were normal works. But little by little, step by step, the number of unemployed increased until now at least one-third of the citizens of Canada are unemployed. The first experiment in unemployment relief was to raise the tariff, on the assurance given by manufacturers that they would employ more men, 25,000 more they said, but the Prime Minister said that was not enough; he would provide employment for more than that.
That was the first step. What happened at the same time? The Dunning budget that had been prepared with a view to giving opportunity to the Canadian delegates to discuss trade matters with other countries was thrown aside. The Prime Minister came back from London with empty hands. He was unsuccessful at the conference of 1930 because he had no policy. Then came the session of 1931. After having cut off the hands of Canadian trade at the special session of 1930 he cut off the feet of Canadian trade at the session of 1931. Then we had that famous imperial conference of 1932. Well, the government bears a great burden of responsibility. I try to be fair, I do not put the blame so much on the other ministers as I do on the Prime Minister. The blame attaching to them is that they do not tell him to go at once and let some other minister -any one-be the captain of the ship in these stormy days. We have had enough of those experiments with the butcher knife or the axe. Tariffs are not to be dealt with in that way. It is an extremely delicate thing, and when considering the tariff it is most important to take every precaution, to be well informed, to weigh the pros and cons and thoroughly discuss the change that may be suggested. The government has no plan. Why do we have this blank cheque policy? It is because the government program is
blank; there is nothing to it. The Prime Minister decided nothing and waited until the last moment to urge the house to pass his legislation. All legislation should be carefully studied; that is most important. We have special rights as members of this house, rights that date back to the Magna Charta. Why were those rights put aside? It was because the government had no program at the time. In 1930 the government had no program except to raise the tariff; that was idealism. The Prime Minister said his party had a mandate to raise the tariff. Well, Mr. Speaker, many other matters were discussed during the campaign. The Prime Minister had a mandate to increase the price of butter, to the benefit of the producer. He had a mandate to bring prosperity to every home. That was wrhy the people elected him by such a large majority, but if the people had known what was to happen in the latter part of 1930 and in 1931, 1932, 1933 and until the present do you think so many would have voted to support the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite?
The right hon. gentleman always comes along with a new experiment. Why does he not succeed in the government of this country? The reason is very simple; it is because he has disregarded and discarded Liberal policies. He put them aside and said, "Now we will try experiments." He was not qualified; he was not sufficiently prepared to make the change by himself. Sometimes I have the greatest commiseration for his ministers, some of whom are very able. They have no opportunity to be heard, because the power behind the throne is in Washington. I regret that very much. The members of the cabinet are in a very humiliating position; they are not equally gifted, but some are very able men. I am sorry that their opinion does not count. It is Herridge who bosses everything; the Prime Minister; instead of listening to the sound advice of his ministers, listens to gossip from Washington. I am sorry for those who suffer as a result; I am sorry for the workingmen, the farmers and men in every other walk of life-


Mr. SHAVER:: Lawyers.


Jean-François Pouliot: I say I feel sorry for those men, whether their representative sits on this or the other side of the house. We regret very much that it is impossible for the Prime Minister to concentrate. He suffers from travelitis; he goes to and fro. At the beginning of the session, wdien we were discussing important matters, he went to Toronto three or four times. He also went to Saint John in connection with the new construction at
Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Pouliot

that port, though it was the duty of the Minister of Marine to go, and he also went to Montreal. The Prime Minister cannot remain in his seat in the house; he cannot even stay in Ottawa. He has to travel around like a wandering Jew. We want him here in his place; when we have questions to ask we want him here to answer them. If he travels a good deal, sir, I am sure he does so because he is unable to answer the questions that are put to him by hon. members of the house. I resent it very much, not on my personal account but on behalf of the people whom I represent in this house. We have had enough of these experiments at the expense of the Canadian people; we have been fed with words long enough. The situation is very serious, and we should no longer tolerate the apparent indifference to what may happen in the country because of the fact that the right hon. gentleman desires to continue as Prime Minister at the expense of the prosperity of the Canadian people. Have we an iron man in this country? Yes, sir, we have; we have Eric the robot, and what is the difference between Eric the robot and the Prime Minister? The difference is that Eric the robot has been answering questions at some exhibitions in Montreal, according to the press.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is often more than we can get in the House of Commons.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then the Conservative party will not elect Eric as their leader. I do not mean that very seriously, because I know that among the Conservative members, where I count some very dear friends, there are many who feel as I do. I have nothing personally against anyone in this house, but when I see the people in my home town and the surrounding district suffering because of the fact that this government and the Prime Minister ha,ve no policy, the only thing I can do is protest most energetically on behalf of my own and the entire Canadian people.
We hear at times, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister is a very busy man. I submit that instead of wasting his time looking up the stenographic reports of my remarks in Hansard he should devote himself to finding new measures by means of which the condition of the Canadian people might be improved. The right hon. gentleman is responsible for what has been happening since 1930. He tells us that everything is going well, but what does he say when he feels that he has to give expression to his real feelings? He says the country has reached the limit of its credit. Those words mean a good deal coming from the Prime Minister;
rMr. Pouliot.]
yet here wre are faced with the expenditure of another 850,000,000. If Canada has reached the limit of its credit how can the government find 850,000,000 more? Then there is another point, sir. Some time ago, on March 19, Mr. Mussolini, who had a plan previously, enunciated a new plan. He announced a huge construction project, because he wanted to build houses for the Italian people. Then, on March 22, in answer to a question asked by my right hon. leader, the Prime Minister stated that he had promised to build a public building in the city of Hamilton, and from that remark the deduction was that the government would build new buildings at different points throughout the country. I have no objection to that. But if it is true that Canada has no credit, where will we get the money? That is an embarrassing position in which to find ourselves.
Some hon. members opposite paid a very high compliment to the Prime Minster when they compared him to Mussolini. One of them stated that Mussolini should feel complimented because a Canadian had been compared with him. These comparisons went to the head of the Prime Minister. The right hon. gentleman was compared with Mussolini or with Hitler because no one of the three of them either drinks or smokes. This may appear to be a negative comparison; in fact it is a comparison which could be made equally as effectively with corpses. A corpse does not smoke or drink. Therefore that comparison of the Prime Minister with Mussolini and Hitler, two dictators, is completely negative.
But, sir, let us go farther than that; let us think of the future. We will all die. The Prime Minister will die, just the same as any other hon. member. The only difference between him and me is that his body will lie in a mausoleum and mine will lie under six feet of earth.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The remarks of the hon. member have nothing to do with the motion to give second reading to the bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: We must consider this
legislation in its true light, and we must realize that all hon. members will be submitted to the same judgment for their actions in this House of Commons. We must act fairly and give the right hon. gentleman credit for his sincerity. I believe he is sincere, but I regret from the bottom of my heart that some hon. gentlemen opposite and a section of the press have paid him compliments so high that they have gone to his

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. McIntosh
head. We must consider matters calmly. We are not in a position where we may make light of them.
When I think of the unemployment problem I am reminded that every day 1 pass a building on Elgin street which for a time was used as a church and is now used as a shelter for the unemployed. Why is it so? It is because the state is unable to take care of the unemployed, and private charity has to give assistance to the needy. I take this opportunity to make a statement which this week is of particular significance, namely that the church is giving that assistance. The unemployed men were in that church because they found shelter there. They are expecting and hoping for better times, and that sooner or later they may secure work.
Do we not remember that at the special session, of 1930 from his seat in the house the Prime Minister said, " Those people do not ask for charity; they want work. We will not give them charity; we will give them work." How is it so many of those men are on direct relief? They are on relief because the government has no policy but is still operating under a blank cheque policy. What has been done under that policy? Money has been advanced to Newfoundland; private firms have received guarantees or support from the government; the state has come to the relief of individuals-conditions which, under a well governed state, should not exist.
I shall not speak at greater length in this connection but shall ask hon. gentlemen opposite to curtail all further laudatory exaggerations of the Prime Minister, and give him an opportunity again to become what he was when he acted as leader of the opposition. In those days he was a simpler man, but they have spoiled him. They have made him different from what he was, and they are responsible. I hope some day they will understand that in this House of Commons flattery is useless, and that members of the House of Commons are above it. Perhaps if hon. members opposite would realize the truth of what I am saying we might some day have from the government sound policies sufficient to meet present conditions.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, in continuing the
debate on this vicious piece of legislation may I say that I want to touch upon three phases thereof before the house. One is that if the government had a constructive trade policy we would not at this time be dealing with an unemployment problem. Some may say that because of a world situation we would have
unemployment anyway. Well, to a certain extent that may be true, but the volume of unemployed we have to-day would not exist in Canada if we had a constructive national and international progressive trade policy. Secondly, I believe that the unemployment dilemma in which the government finds itself after four years of attempted rule has come about largely through its trade policy, and because the path it has been pursuing politically and otherwise has been absolutely unsound
First, with regard to trade it might be well to say that the condition now existing in Canada did not always obtain. In 1929 our trade with the United Kingdom was valued at approximately $625,009,000. In 1930, a year afterwards, it had dropped to $472,000,000. In that year the Liberals left office. Then, in 1931, when the present administration was getting down to business, trade dropped to $370,000,000, in 1932, to $290,000,000 and in 1933 to the paltry sum of $271,000,000. These figures indicate a drop in trade from over $600,000,000 to about $300,000,000, or a drop in the ratio of two to one.
In 1896 when the Liberal government came into power under Laurier, what did the Liberals of that day do? They inaugurated and put into effect a progressive empire trade policy. Although the policy was opposed by Conservatives of that day, notwithstanding the opposition, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and those who followed him attempted and succeeded in one of the greatest pieces of trade reconstruction that had ever been known in the history of the empire, and Canada benefited immensely from that move. In 1896 Canada had a trade with the United Kingdom valued at only about $99,000,000, but in 1911 after fifteen years of Laurier rule, it had reached about $250,000,000, or about two and a half times as much. In 1925, when the Liberals were in power, the trade had reached $548,000,000. Hon. members will note that under Liberal rule, trade with the United Kingdom rose from $99,000,000 to over $600,000,000. To-day it is down to about one-third of that; in other words, two-thirds of that trade has been destroyed. Is it any wonder we have unemployment? Is it any wonder we have about 1,300,000 people living on relief in this country and that we have thousands and thousands of unemployed, that the family life of Canada has been to a large extent disintegrated, and that we have the growth of ideas politically in many ways that are not for the good of this country? I do not think we need wonder at the conditions that have come about.
Take our trade with the United States. We find practically the same story. In 1929,

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. McIntosh
when the Liberals were in power under my right hon. leader, our trade with the United States amounted to $1,381,000,000; in 1930, $1,383,000,000. In 1931 it started to go down, the minute this government came into power, dropping in that year to $900,000,000. In 1932 it dropped to 8600,000,000. There was a continual dropping and dropping, and with unemployment increasing until we are in the position we are in to-day. In 1933, just a year ago, our trade with the United States was $380,000,000. In other worde hundreds of millions of our trade with the United States have disappeared just as hundreds of millions of our trade with the United Kingdom have disappeared.
This decline in international trade means a decrease in national business, and a serious reduction in national business means the destruction of employment and the introduction of unemployment until by degrees we find ourselves in the position we are in at the present time.
What about Canada's total trade-not our trade with the United Kingdom, not our trade with the United States, but Canada's trade with the whole world? That is an important thing to consider because the world is the ultimate economic unit, the ultimate trade unit, and if we do not measure up in world trade, then of course unemployment will appear and the financial and commercial state of the nation will go from bad to worse.
In 1929 Canada's position in world trade was a phenomenal one. Our trade in that year amounted to over $2,600,000,000. In
1930	it dropped to $2,400,000,000. But note the drop when this government came into power and on up to the present time. In
1931	it had dropped to SI,700,000,000; in 1932 to $1,100,000,000, and in 1933, last year, it had dropped to about $900,000,000, or about one-third of what it was in 1929. That does not take into consideration the fact that in 1933 the gold value of the dollar was only 87 per cent of its gold value in 1932, so really we ought to deduct ten per cent from the figure I have given for 1933, and if we do that we find that our world trade in that year amounted to merely $800,000,000.
Looking at it in another way, if we let the total trade of Canada in 1929 equal 100, and we measure our trade by that yardstick, we see that in 1932 our trade had dropped to 34 per cent, whereas world trade measured by the same yardstick dropped to only about 39 per cent. In other words Canada's trade dropped five per cent more than world trade. Surely that makes it plain that all the ills that have

come upon us have not been because of a world situation that has developed.
So, Mr. Speaker, we find that the causes of this destruction of trade are to be found in tariffs and trade restrictions, in war debts and the cessation of international lending, but above and beyond all may I say that in my humble opinion tariffs have done more to destroy world trade and bring about the unemployment situation in which we now find ourselves to-day than any other factors. The export trade of Canada in 1929 amounted to $1,300,000,000; in 1930, $1,100,000,000, and in 1933 it had dropped to $480,000,000. There is the trade picture of Canada in its relation to the whole world. I have given it to the house in relation to the United Kingdom and in relation to the United States, and the all-compelling thought is simply this, that the trade policy of this government has been a failure. Its tariff policy too is absolutely wrong. No country like Canada can prosper and grow and develop under a prohibitive tariff policy. In the history of Canada before confederation and from confederation down to 1878, and from 1878 to 1896, and from 1896 to 1911, and from 1911 down to the present time, anyone who cares to read will find that a prohibitive tariff simply destroys Canadan trade, interferes with business, and gradually brings us into a position where we have great unemployment and always a position that is not in any way favourable.
Second, what about the unemployment policies of the present government in 1930, the last time an appeal was made to the Canadian public? You will find that it gave many pledges and promises to the people of Canada-pledges and promises prophetic of its political doom. These pledges have already been put on Hansard, but with a federal election coming on-since we have come to the fifth session of this parliament-I think it is only well to again put on Hansard these widely-proclaimed pledges and promises, for I believe the Canadian people can read and re-read them with profit. They tell the whole story, and the whole story is this: The present government got into power by promises and pledges which they have not carried out. They have not measured up to their promises and pledges, but have done the opposite, so that to-day Canada is faced with the most serious unemployment situation it ever had. In 1930 they promised by a system of prohibitive protection to develop our natural resources. How much have they done, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to develop our natural resources by prohibitive protection? I leave it to the parliamentarians and to the Canadian people to answer whether there has been any develop-

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. McIntosh
ment worth speaking of. Consequently that pledge has fallen dowTn.
They-the Conservative high command- also pledged that by a system of high protection they would develop our agricultural and industrial life and keep the consumers from exploitation. Well, the deplorable story that we have heard in this house during the last few weeks, and the exploiting evidence that has been adduced in the committee inquiring into the spread between the price the producer receives and the price the consumer pays, furnishes a direct contradiction of the pledge of the federal government that it would by a protective tariff protect our consumers from exploitation. Had the pledge been put the other way, it would have been the truth. If they had said that by a system of high protection or prohibitive tariffs the consumers would be exploited from coast to coast, that would have foretold exactly what has taken place.
They also pledged to develop agriculture, the live stock industry, the dairy industry, and to bring about stabilization of economic conditions; to build up foreign trade and empire trade, and at the same time to have these compensating advantages extend to all other avenues of public life.
There are their pledges, practically seven or eight, and not one of which has been kept. Not one piece of constructive development has taken place in our Canadian national life in the last four years, no development of our natural resources, no building up of agriculture, no development of world trade or empire trade, and no stabilization of economic conditions. Not one of those pledges has been worked out, and in that we find the explanation of the fact that we have over one million people on relief in Canada to-day. What a record!
May I just touch for a moment or two upon some of the promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and see how they measure up with present conditions and with this iniquitous bill now before parliament. What did he say? At Edmonton he said that he would face unemployment at once. But he has not faced unemployment at once or at any other time. He may have faced it but that is all he has done, he has not solved it. Again he said: "I accept the challenge." Any man who is a real man will accept a challenge and face it; he will bring about a condition of affairs so that the challenge will not hold goodi-will, in fact disappear. But the challenge is as good to-day as it ever was, showing that the Prime Minister has not accepted it in the real sense. He has thrown it aside and the challenge is there still, even worse than it was
in 1930. What did he say at Chatham, New Brunswick? He said: "Put me into power and this bogy of unemployment will be destroyed." Has the bogy of unemployment been destroyed? Has it? It is bigger to-day than it ever was. In 1930 it was but a molehill but in 1934 it has become a mountain. The condition is more serious than ever. What did he say at Moncton? He said: "The Conservative party is going to find work or perish in the attempt." I think it will perish in the attempt.
This unemployment problem is the biggest problem facing Canada to-day. The Liberals are going to challenge the government on its lack of policy in not facing this question. Make no mistake about it, the unemployment problem is here and must be solved. If this government cannot solve it, then the Canadian people will soon see that a government is put into power that can solve it. We, the official opposition will watch in all seriousness and with all vigilance every move made by this government between, now and election day. We will watch the government to see what policy it brings forth and how it is going to manipulate vainly to get out of the position in which it now finds itself. The only thing the government can do is to bring down a real policy, a policy that will build up trade, relieve unemployment and restore the confidence of the Canadian people.
According to the Ottawa Citizen of July 14, 1930, the Prime Minister said that he would solve the unemployment problem and if he did not he would ask his supporters from Quebec and other members of his party to put him out of office. He has not solved this problem and the members from Quebec have not voted him out of office. The members from the other provinces have not voted him out of office. They sit there day after day in a docile manner; they see the lack of policy with regard to unemployment, with regard to trade, with regard to finance and with regard to everything, yet they continue to vote to keep this government in power. They are opposing themselves to the promises made years ago by the Prime Minister.
What did the Prime Minister say at Vancouver? He said: "I will see that my promises are carried out or I will go out of power trying to do so." There is no doubt that those promises have not been carried out and may I say there is no doubt that he will go out of power trying to carry them out. At Winnipeg the Prime Minister said that he would meet the unemployment problem or perish in the attempt. At Sarnia he said that Canada
1S78

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. McIntosh
was in a critical condition. At that time the condition of Canada was not comparable with the condition to-day. If Canada was in a critical condition on July 17, 1930, Canada is in a much more critical condition to-day. He said: "Unemployment exists,"-unemployment to-day is tenfold and twentyfold what it was then; what is the government going to do about it? Proceeding, he said: "-on a scale which never before was known in the history of this country." To-day we have unemployment on a scale never before known in the history of Canada and yet this government is standing idly by without a policy. It has been completely beaten in its attempt to put Canadian industry and commerce on its feet.
At Montreal the Prime Minister said: "The first duty of a Canadian government is to provide work for Canadians." If that is the first duty of a Canadian government then this government has not measured up to its primary duty. It has not furnished work for Canadians. It has not furnished work in the maritime provinces, in Quebec, in Ontario, in the west or in British Columbia. What we want to-day is mobility or activity in exchange. If we get that we will prosper, if we do not get it, we cannot prosper. Canada to-day is without a policy, without leadership, without direction and without determination that something tangible must be done for the Canadian people. We have a government which does not inspire the Canadian people and the result is that conditions are not improving as quickly as they should.
Without dealing further with the promises made by the Prime Minister, may I say that the Liberal party has a policy with regard to unemployment. They had a policy in 1896 and unemployment disappeared in a year or so. When Laurier came into power in 1896 the Liberals opened up the great west and delivered this country from bondage. Laurier made a greater Canada and stood for a greater dominion. He gave scope to thought and action in this country and the result is that to-day we have a Canada from coast to coast. Again, when the Liberals came into power under my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) in 1922 we had unemployment, but it lasted only a year or so until the Liberal policies were under way. Unemployment disappeared like mist before the morning sun. For eight years Canada had development, progress and prosperity. When I make the statement that the Liberals have a policy which if put into effect will solve the problem of unemployment, I am merely stating what is proved by history. It is not guess work, it is a fact. This statement is in accordance

with the record of Liberalism in Canadian history.
What is the policy of the Liberal party with regard to unemployment? I assure the house that it is not a policy of prohibitive tariffs. Such tariffs have destroyed Canadian public life and business, both national and international. The time has come when we must have something different in this country. I do not intend to touch upon tariffs at any great length but I should like to give one example. The importation of mowers and binders affects all the farmers in this country. Under Mr. Borden the tariff on these articles was twelve and a half per cent; under Mr. Meighen it was twelve and a half per cent, but under the Liberal administration of the Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King it was only six per cent, ome-half of what it was under Borden and one-half of what it was under Meighen. But what did this government do in this connection? What they did is known all over Canada. Is it any wonder that agriculture has been demoralized, is it any wonder that our farmers are discouraged when we realize what this government has done? Under Mr. Bennett the tariff on these articles was raised to twenty-five per cent, just four times what it was under Liberal rule. This is what is known as prohibitive tariff legislation and it is such legislation that destroys business and brings about conditions such as we have in Canada at the present moment.
What is the policy of the Liberal party with regard to this unemployment problem, the most crucial problem confronting Canada to-day? The Liberals always had a policy and they always will have a policy because the Liberal party is the party of progress, of idealism, of power, of determination and advancement. Those who stand by that party as did Laurier and the other leaders of Liberalism, will always be in the van of progress.
Now here is the policy of the Liberal party on this question of unemployment. The Liberal party stands for the liberation of external trade. That means that trade is in bondage at the present time, and the Liberal party will take external trade, international trade, overseas trade, out of bondage, out of slavery, and take the Canadian people out of slavery along with it. The Liberal party, in other words, believes that trade is the basis of industrial and commercial development, and that Canada needs trade. Heaven knows she needs trade, and more than that she needs a new government and new leadership at the same time. Moreover, the Liberal party will promote trade with all nations, and negotiate

Relief Act, 1934~Mr. McIntosh
trade agreements with every country willing to trade with this country on a reciprocal basis. The Liberal party will abolish extravagant increases in the tariff made by the present administration, which increases have had the effect of strangling trade, exploiting commerce and consumers and robbing the railways of business. The Liberal party will abolish all unwarranted extra taxes on imports, such as the exchange and dumping duties imposed by the present administration. The Liberal party will put an end to the making and altering of tariffs by executive action. The Liberal party will substitute stability for uncertainty in the administration of customs affairs, and will continue the Liberal policy of a British preference, by means of lowering the tariff to Great Britain rather than by a percentage increase in the tariff against foreign countries. The Liberal party will concede to British imports a real preference, and by so doing build up empire trade once more. Further than that, the Liberal party will make it possible for this country to trade with every nation in the world.
But let me go further. The Liberal party stands not only for the liberation of external trade but, in a complementary manner, it stands for the liberation of internal trade, because national trade and international trade go hand in hand. They are complementary; one supplements the other, and if you have one in the larger sense you will have the other, provided you pursue the right policy. And so the Liberal party stands firm for the liberation of internal trade. That means, just as it meant in connection with external trade, that our national or internal trade is also in bondage, in slavery, shackled hand and foot, so that it is impossible for it to fimction, and the consequence of that is that ten million Canadians are practically in poverty, and industrial stability and development from coast to coast is a thing of the past.
Now what is the Liberal policy, in its exact words, with regard to the liberation of internal trade? Here it is:
The Liberal party will seek to end' artificial price control and agreements in restraint of trade. Price-fixing by agreements restricts and hampers trade internally, and the internal trade of the country has become honeycombed and enmeshed by secret understandings and agreements.
How can national trade grow and flourish under such conditions? Yet this government, and those who sit behind thorn, have allowed a condition such ns I have described to grow up until trade is strangled both inside and outside of Canada. In addition to these two 74726-119
important, planks in 'the Liberal party's policy of building up trade -and smashing unemployment, destroying it for good in this country, we have the Liberal party standing firm on the development of the primary in-diuatries, on the development of agriculture, mining, lumbering, the fisheries, and on the development of all other primary industries. Unless we free these industries basically we cannot expect secondary industries like manufacturing to prosper, and unless we make it possible for our basic industries, our primary industries and secondary industries :to prosper, we shall not have much prosperity in this country, nor shall we get very far away from the unemployment condition that has ominously reared its ugly form in our land since 1930.
The Liberal party stands for the development of our primary industries along same, constructive land progressive lines. The Liberal party will see that the .right degree of democracy is instilled into every industry, whether basic or secondary, and may I quote its policy on this important point, "The Liberal party believes that industrial reconstruction is the problem of the future". It has not yet dawned on .this government as the problem of thie future, for there has been no industrial reconstruction so far as this gov-eromemf is concerned,-simply industrial destruction. Further than that, the Liberal party will seek in industrial relations, as opportunity offers, to give to workers and consumers a large share in the government of industry, control of industry -by those who work therein, thereby bringing about satisfactory labour conditions and giving a lead to reconstruction not only in an industrial way but also with respect to labour, from coast to coast.
I am told that I have but ten minutes in which to conclude my remarks, and in that ten minutes I wish to deal with the bill before us. The preamble gives us an idea of what the bill ought to be, but it does not in reality tell .us what the measure actually contemplates. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this bill should not foe before pariiamient. this bill is no honour to the Canadian dominion. This bill is no honour to a man who calls himself a British citizen, a Canadian, or a member nation of the great British Empire. This^ bill does not appeal to any man who has in him the blood of freedom and liberty that characterized our forefathers, who had to build up the empire, and whose descendants are calling upon us to-day to maintain this same liberty and freedom.

Oaths of Allegiance Act

As far as I am comoeamed, I am not afraid to take a stand on this bill. I repudiate every word, every phrase, every sellable, every clause, and every paragraph of this bill, as far as its import on Canadian partUamenitary and public life is concerned. lit is not in line with Canadian democracy; it is not in line with British freedom or liberty; it is opposed to all these, and so far as these features are concerned I am opposed to the bill, whether every' man in this house votes for it or noit. These features I will willingly and anxiously oppose and do my best to destroy. Judging by the preamble, you would think the bill was a wonderful piece otf work.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 13, respecting the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company.-Mr. Stinson.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 34 to amend the Oaths of Allegiance Act-Mr. Lapointe.
Ernest Lapointe: The Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) has asked me to let this bill stand until he gets some information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hope the hon. gentleman will look into this matter. The provisions of the Naturalization Act do not require an oath of allegiance that is in any sense affected by the statute of Westminster. It is only the act to which reference has been made and one or two others to which the suggested amendment would have any application. We have all been looking into the matter, because it was discussed in some of the states of the commonwealth. They have no oath of allegiance that is at variance in its terms with that which is contained in our Naturalization Act, which does not mention "dominions," "colonies," or "dependencies," as perhaps the hon. gentleman will recall. So far as most of ours are concerned they do not call for amendment and they are not altered in any sense by the provisions of the statute of Westminster.


Ernest Lapointe: But this is entirely within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not suggesting that it is not.


Ernest Lapointe: These words, the right hon. gentleman will admit, are not in harmony with our present status.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But they do not appear in the Naturalization Act oath of allegiance.


Ernest Lapointe: But it is not to amend the Naturalization Act; it is the oath of allegiance that everyone takes who enters the public service, and I do not think there is a form which is identical in all the dominions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The oath of allegiance which is taken by those who become naturalized is a fixed oath which has nothing to do with the question of dominions and is not affected by the statute of Westminster.


Ernest Lapointe: But I think this is a different matter altogether.
Bill stands.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The business of private and public bills having been completed, the house will revert to the adjourned debate-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker, I move that you do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Tummon in the chair.

RAILWAYS AND CANALS Deficit of Canadian National Railways
Amount required to provide for payment to the Canadian National Railway company of the net income deficit, including profit and loss, incurred by the system during the year 1933, as certified to by the auditors in the annual report of the company for the year 1933, but exclusive of all non-cash items, including interest on dominion government advances, and exclusive of eastern lines deficits, as further certified to by the auditors and approved by the Minister of Railways and Canals; this payment to be applied in reduction of accountable advances made to the company from the consolidated revenue fund under authority of the Canadian National Railways Financing Act, 1933, $52,263,819.05.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The item stood for the purpose of having the minister look into the question of the accuracy of the figures. Forty-seven millions of this was included in last year's estimate, and the remaining $5,000,000 represents the added deficit. In order to make the matter free from technical difficulty the law officers advise that the whole estimate be dealt with.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Marine-Radio
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions

British Columbia and Australia and/or China, service between-further amount required, $39,600.
Ernest Lapointe: What is the explanation of "and/or China"?


Mr. STEVENS:: That is the wording that has been used for about six years. It really is unnecessary because it does not at the present time apply to Australia. The contract for this service was entered into in October, 1,932, and last year's estimates did not quite cover the full amount required on a per voyage basis.


Mr. REID:: Is so much a trip paid to the steamship company?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Thomas Reid: Would this amount be necessary because of extra trips?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


William Duff: Is this in addition to what
we passed in the main estimates?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, the main estimates
of this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Labour:	Annuities Act, further amount
required, $30,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the
minister explain why he requires this extra S30.000?


George Gordon: When the labour estimates were up a short time ago I made an extensive explanation of this amount. It arises by reason of the increased sale of annuities, which last year was very considerably greater than in any other year since the legislation was passed. This amount is to take care of the commissions due the agents.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Were not
commissions paid previously?


George Gordon: Y es. There has been no
change in the commission, but the business grew to such an extent that the vote of last year was insufficient by this amount.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the expenses of the Saskatchewan resources commission, $15,000.
Hugh Guthrie: This is the commission
now sitting in respect to the natural resources, as between the Dominion of Canada and the province of Saskatchewan. The proceedings are similar to those taken four or five years ago as between the dominion and the province of Manitoba.
74720-119J


Ernest Lapointe: Who is representing the Dominion government before this commission?


Hugh Guthrie: The board of commissioners or arbitrators was agreed upon between the province and the dominion. The chairman of the board is Mr. Justice Dysart of Manitoba. Mr. Justice Bigelow, I suppose you would say, represents Saskatchewan, though he was agreed upon, and Mr. McDonald, a chartered accountant of Montreal, was the third man agreed upon. The counsel are Mr. McGregor Stewart, K.C., of Halifax, and Mr. Hunt, K.C., of Winnipeg, representing the dominion, and Mr. Gordon, K.C., of Regina, representing the province.


Ernest Lapointe: Can the hon. gentleman give me an idea of the amount claimed by Saskatchewan?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think the
original figures have been reduced. If Saskatchewan were to receive the claim which they have estimated, it would run to probably $75,000,000 or $100,000,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Canadian radio broadcasting service, further amount required, $25,000.
Frederick George Sanderson: I should like to ask the minister for an explanation as to why this money is required.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: This is to cover the cost of the transmission lines necessary to broadcast throughout Canada the concerts of the Metropolitan Opera Company and the New York Philharmonic Society from December 1 last on Saturday and Sunday. When the estimates were voted last year, the broadcasting of these programs was not contemplated. This amount is covered by the licence fees; the public is paying for these broadcasts, and these programs have been very popular.


Frederick George Sanderson: Are contracts entered into with the Metropolitan Opera Company and the other organization, or on what basis are they paid?


Alfred Duranleau: I am not prepared to give particulars as to that; I know some arrangements have been made by the radio commission with the Columbia Broadcasting Company, but I cannot give the details. These programs do not cost the country anything except for the transmission lines throughout Canada.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Is this to pay the cost of the hook-up?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.
Supply-M arine-R adio


Frederick George Sanderson: The minister said he did not think it cost the country anything. How does he arrive at that conclusion?


Alfred Duranleau: 
Frederick George Sanderson: Is the minister sure of that?


Alfred Duranleau: It looks like it, because from all over Canada we have heard praises of these programs by the Metropolitan Opera Company and the philharmonic society.


Ernest Lapointe: Will my hon. friend say what sort of agreement exists between the radio commission and station OHRC in Quebec city with regard to the programs of the commission? For example, these great opera performances are very popular, as my hon. friend says, but in Quebec city when these programs are being broadcast on Sunday afternoons, station OHRC prefers to broadcast the hockey games of the Canadian-American hockey league. I do not know how many people prefer to listen to those hockey broadcasts, but many complaints have been received during the course of the winter. We have been told that the station broadcasts the programs of the commission, but is it bound to do so if it has something which it is paid to broadcast, and which is a better proposition than the commission programs? Is there any agreement with CHRC which binds that station to broadcast the programs of the commission?


Alfred Duranleau: We were informed of the complaints in that district to which my hon. friend refers, and I am pleased to tell the hon. gentleman that recently we authorized the construction of a relatively powerful station in Quebec in order to give entire satisfaction to that district. The new station will be operated under the control of the commission.


Ernest Lapointe: Altogether?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, altogether, and these programs will be broadcast in the Quebec district.


William Daum Euler: When the department issues the licences is there any understanding that the radio commission is entitled to broadcast its programs through any station to which a licence is given? I have asked that question because I am told there is at least one station to which the commission has no access whatsoever. I suppose that station has contracts which are more remunerative than commission programs would be. Can the minister give us any information in this regard?


Alfred Duranleau: Under the regulations I believe the commission has power to compel the broadcasting of its programs upon any stations. I believe there are fixed rates of so much per hour, and the commission has the power to see that its programs are broadcast.


William Daum Euler: I am told that there is at
least one station through which the commission cannot broadcast.


Alfred Duranleau: I am not aware of
any.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has power under the
law to compel the broadcast.


William Daum Euler: They are not doing it.


Mr. BOTHWBLL:: Does this vote mean
that the radio commission has used the million dollars we voted last year, and requires this further sum?


Alfred Duranleau: Exactly.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I am very glad to
hear the minister say that the people of Canada are pleased with the programs he is getting from New York. I expect those expressions of approval must have been made within the last month or so, because I have not heard a single person in any part _ of Canada compliment the radio commission upon its work. I believe we would be making a mistake to vote the radio commission any moneys in excess of their estimate, until they make some showing for the money which has already been appropriated.
Mr. JACOB'S:	When this commission was
brought into being last year we were assured that they would be self supporting and could proceed under their own motive power. Now the people of Canada are asked to vote another $25,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, this is part of the
licence fees.


William Daum Euler: They do not spend it all,
do they?

Supply-M arine-Radio


Mr. JACOBS:: It is in addition to the
money already voted, as I understand it.


Alfred Duranleau: If my hon. friend will allow me to say so, the fact is that last year we did not vote the full amount of the moneys paid by the public for licences.


Samuel William Jacobs: What amount was voted last year?


Alfred Duranleau: One million dollars.


Samuel William Jacobs: We were assured that would be all that was required.


Alfred Duranleau: That was what we
expected last year, but as I explained to the committee we did not at that time contemplate broadcasting programs from New York. Requests were made for these programs from so many people that the commission had to take action. It is the excess expense for transmission lines which we are now asking the house to vote.


William Daum Euler: How much was actually
collected by way of licence fees?
-Mr. DURANLEAU:	My memory is that
in round figures we collected about $1,450,000.


William Daum Euler: And expended only a million?


Alfred Duranleau: A million, plus the
cost of collecting the licences.


William Daum Euler: How much would the surplus be?


Alfred Duranleau: It would be about
$250,000 I would suppose.


William Daum Euler: What becomes of the surplus left over?


Alfred Duranleau: It is left for the use of the commission, when required.


William Daum Euler: It does not go into the
general fund?


Alfred Duranleau: Of course it is paid to the treasury of the country, but if needed it is always at the disposal of the commission.


William Daum Euler: Would it be true to say
that some of the money received from the payment of the $2 licence fee may be used for other than radio purposes?


Alfred Duranleau: It is not contemplated by law.


William Daum Euler: I do not think that would
be fair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It all goes into the consolidated fund, and only a certain part of it is used.


William Daum Euler: Is the balance earmarked
for radio purposes?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. minister inform the house why he refused to renew the permit of the broadcasting station at Mootmagny? This station broadcasted excellent programs in that district, it also permitted the people on "He aux Grues," who are entirely isolated in the winter, to communicate with the mainland.


Alfred Duranleau: I am informed that this station had an amateur's permit. At the request of the Canadian Radio
Commission, it was not renewed. The minister, in these matters, is guided by the commission. I wish to inform my hon. friend that the people of "He aux Grues" are in communication with the mainland through the broadcasting stations kept up by the Public Works department; they are entirely satisfactory.


Mr. FACTOR:: The	programs of the
Metropolitan Opera Company and the philharmonic orchestra were broadcast without expense (to the Canadian public before the radio commission began operations. Who receives the money for broadcasting these two programs? To whom is the money payable?


William Duff: Mae West.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Samuel Factor: No, it is not carried. I
want to ask who receives the payment of these amounts.


Mr. NEILL:: To whom is the money paid?


Alfred Duranleau: I understand that
the commission has an arrangement with the Columbia Broadcasting Company for the broadcast of those programs in Canada. The commission does not receive the money for it.


Samuel Factor: Is it the minister's opinion that this money is being paid to the Columbia Broadcasting Company for permission to broadcast those programs?


Alfred Duranleau: I -told the house my information was that nobody was paying for those programs.


Samuel Factor: What is the money for,
then?


An hon. MEMBER:: Tell him again.
Supply-M arine-Radio


Alfred Duranleau: The expense is for
the services of the transmission lines only. It may be that that amount is paid to the Columbia Broadcasting Company; I am not sure. That expense has been incurred since last December, but only to meet the charges of transmission lines.


Samuel Factor: As I understand the radio situation the chain broadcast consider themselves privileged when a station throws itself open for the broadcast of their programs. For using the facilities of the radio commission the Columbia or National chains ought to pay the Canadian Radio Commission for the privilege of broadcasting. I should like to know why it is necessary to vote these moneys to have such programs broadcast.


Samuel William Jacobs: In other words, we should
ask for $75,000 from them, rather than pay them. That is the suggestion.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I think it is evident
that only a few hon. members have listened to these programs. Had they done so they would have learned that the programs in question are made possible through public subscriptions. They are not sponsored by advertisers, and those hon. members who have listened in will know that a prominent newspaper man of New York makes an appeal to the audience for funds. On one occasion I heard him tell of a subscriber in one of the Oarolinas who had contributed $50,000 towards the program.


William Duff: Speaking for the Prime Minister and myself I must object to those secular concerts being broadcast on Sunday afternoons. The Minister of Marine has said that the people of Canada were very much pleased with the different concerts. I am very much afraid that the minister has had his head in the air instead of having his ear to the ground, because there is no question in my mind that the concerts and the reception in Canadian radio to-day is not as good as when Commander Edwards did the whole thing for a much smaller sum of money than this commission is costing the country.


Mr. IRVINE:: I do not wish to enter into a discussion of this matter, but I should like to point out that there are some people in Canada who would be very glad to wreck the Canadian Radio Commission. I do not think we should be over critical of an institution which has had very little time to perform a very great task, without having much precedent to follow. It was practically a new business and had to be organized from its inception. On the whole I think the com-

mission has done very well. I believe that there is considerable agitation throughout the country to try to upset the commission and get the whole thing back again into private hands, but while hon. members have every right to question every expenditure and be critical, I think we ought to go a little slow in our wholesale criticism of the radio commission. Personally I think it has been a great improvement. The programs are very much better than they were, and in another year I believe that there will be much greater improvement. I for one have every sympathy for the commission.


Frederick George Sanderson: What is the total
amount paid by the radio commission to broadcasting companies in the United States?


Alfred Duranleau: I am not in a position to give that information to my hon. friend. The question might be brought up when the main estimates are under consideration. We have set up a committee specially to deal with radio and my hon. friend is, of course, at liberty to go before that committee and get any information he likes from the commissioners who I understand are attending every sitting. This amount of $25,000 is for the transmission lines not only in the United States but in Canada; for these programs are broadcast throughout this country.
Mr. MoINTOSH:	That makes it all the
worse if the programs are no good.


Frederick George Sanderson: The minister's answer
is not very satisfactory to me. It raises the question that we debated in this house last year. We have a responsible minister of the crown and we have the chairman of the radio commission, and yet when the radio estimates come up in the house the minister seems to have no knowledge of what is going on. This matter was fully discussed in the house last year, and I think the minister should prepare himself to answer questions that may come before this committee. We cannot question the chairman of the commission in the House of Commons, and while hon. members may attend the meetings of the special committee it is not always convenient for them to do so. It brings us back to the point that was raised last year, that the minister is responsible or should be responsible for the chairman and the members of the radio commission, and he should have the necessary information before him when his estimates are considered in the house.


Mr. MORAND:: Inasmuch as I am at the present time chairman of the committee that is hearing evidence on radio I do not pro-

Ways and Means-Supply Bill
pose to make any lengthy statement in reference to this matter, but I should like to say, in all fairness, that these programs from New York come into Canada free of charge right up to the stations in Canada. More than that, the National Broadcasting Company and the Columbia system in the United States are paying the copyright privileges, so that it costs nothing for Canadian listeners to get these programs except the cost of their transmission throughout Canada.


Frederick George Sanderson: I would ask my hon. friend what is the total amount paid for that transmission throughout Canada.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: It is so much an hour.


Frederick George Sanderson: What is the total
amount it has cost us?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I have not those figures but I shall be glad to get them for my hon. friend in the committee, where they can be conveniently submitted.


Alan Webster Neill: The experience in the district I represent is twofold. In that part which is conducted by the minister's own department, that is the taking care of interference, there has been a great improvement, and I am glad to testify to it. They are doing good work. As regards the radio commission part, there is only one complaint, but it is quite a considerable one, and that is that it is of no use because we cannot hear the programs. I get information from over a wide area, and of course I have my own experience, and it is that since the commission has taken this over we cannot get the Vancouver station. They have jumbled the channels or done something which prevents us from hearing Vancouver. That is the universal complaint from distances as far apart as two hundred miles from where I live. We cannot get the radio commission station in Vancouver, but before the commission took it over we had no trouble in hearing it.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: I have a letter that I received in the mail five minutes ago which I might read to give the committee some idea of what the rank and file think of the radio commission. The trouble at the present time is that the radio commission is responsible both for policy and for administration, and this has subjected the commission to much criticism that might be avoided if the thing was put on a broader basis. To show what the people back in the rural parts
of this country think of the present radio commission I quote from this letter:
The radio programs have been excellent on the whole. Very good, I should say, without flattery. Before (American programs now) there was too much shrieking about soap, razor blades, patent medicines, jack-rabbits, this and that, plus chewing gum, so that all effect was marred by the trivial advertising. Commission programs carry no advertising, and so are a great improvement. Seems to me, members know not what are long winter evenings here in remote western villages and settlements. It is sometimes blowing and very cold for weeks at a stretch. You have to keep inside and cannot read all the time or play cards, and can't show your nose outside. It is then that good radio is appreciated. If you know these men tell them that radio keeps us from being insane-no one knows this more than we do-in remote settlements.
This letter comes from the constituency of the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) and is dated March 12, 1934. It comes from Hafford, a little village.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I think you have got the name of the riding wrong,


Michael Luchkovich: No.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I think you have.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time, and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Maloney in the chair.
['I have not had the advantage of being a member of the banking and commerce committee, nor have I read all the evidence. I was present for a short time as a spectator but I was not particularly edified by what I heard. However, I am a member of the House of Commons; we\nQuestions', 'are in committee of the whole and I do not think the Prime Minister will say that I have asked an unreasonable question. If he declines, the responsibility is not mine.\nProgress reported.']
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1934, the sum of $52,661,304.36 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


William Duff: There is no ten per cent deduction in this?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rhodes thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 52, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1934.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first anu second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
Relief Act, 1984-Mr. McIntosh

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon for the second reading of Bill No. 42, respecting relief measures.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, when the house
rose at six o'clock I had dealt with two of the angles of the bill before the house, namely, the question of trade and trade policy upon which depends in the last analysis employment or unemployment in any nation and, second, the question of unemployment, its causes in a general way and the Liberal trade policy which if put into effect in Canada will surely destroy and put to rout the unemployment conditions which exist in this country ait the present time. There is a third aspect of the measure with which I want to deal. We are told in the preamble of this bill thait it is proposed to furnish financial aid to the provinces by way of guarantees, advances and loans; second, to further the unhampered prosecution of direct relief and a works program in order to help the unemployment situation and, third, to maintain dominion and provincial credit. These are three worthy objectives and I have no fault to find with any bill trying to arrive at any one of them. From a practical point of view I would be willing to support the government in its desire to give financial assistance to the provinces, to further direct relief and to uphold the credit of the dominion and the provinces.
However, when I go beyond the preamble and come to the blank cheque principle and the further principle, closely allied to it, of destroying the power of parliament, then I am opposed to the bill. As far as the principle of the blank cheque is concerned, this brings us face to face with the question of the control of parliament over expenditure. I should like to put on record the position of the Liberal party with regard to this important question. I have in my hand a book entitled "Evolution of the Dominion of Canada" by Edward Porritt. This is a very important publication and on page 149 appears some of the things for which the Liberal party stood for in days gone by. They are:
Reform in the method of sale of crown lands.
Abolition of customs houses and duties on imports.
An elected legislative council.
[Mr. Rhodes.}
There has been an abolition of nearly all the legislative councils in Canada. The Liberal party also stood for:
Election by county and municipal councils of all county and municipal officers.
An extension of the electoral franchise.
No expenditure of public money without the control of the legislature.
Representation according to population.
Abolition of pensions to government officials.
Canadian commerce and commercial intercourse -with other nations to be entirely under the control of the legislature.
The legislature to have power to alter or repeal any act or charter, imperial or otherwise, affecting only Canada, which the imperial parliament itself might alter or repeal.
I should like to refer to the one paragraph, no expenditure of public money without the control of the legislature. The bill now before us is designed .to spend public money and no figure is incorporated in the bill. We can spend hundreds or thousands, millions or hundreds of millions, and if we pass this bill we shall be relinquishing the power of parliament to control revenue a historic principle for the preservation of which the Liberal party in days gone by opposed the Conservatives. It was as a result of that opposition that we have that principle incorporated in our constitution. But this government is taking the same stand which the party it represents took one hundred years ago with respect to this very important fundamental. Hon. gentlemen opposite are opposing the very foundation of parliamentary government and of constitutional rule in Canada, and as a Liberal I am obliged to stand up and oppose such a course. I oppose the Prime Minister, every minister of the cabinet and every member behind the cabinet in my contention for this principle. Let me show the attitude of the Tory party throughout the history of Canada towards this important principle; you will see that where the party stood one hundred years ago iit stands to-day. It has made no progress- absolutely none. At page 111 of the same work to which I have referred there appears the following:
The claim for responsible government was conceded in 1841. The concession was withdrawn in 1843, but was completely and finally conceded in 1849. Its first and its final concessions were due, not to anything actually stated in the act of 1840, although that memorable act was the key to all the constitutional freedom now enjoyed by all the dominions. They were due to the statesmanship and democratic spirit of Sydenham, Bagot, and Elgin, three of the four governors-general who were in office from 1839 to 1850, and also, it is important to note, to the new policy literally forced on Downing street by the

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Duguay
Liberals of Upper and' Lower Canada, who were in control of the legislative assembly of the United Provinces, during the first decade of the constitution of 1840.
So that where the Conservative party stood in 1840, in 1841 and in 1848 the Conservatives of the present day stand; and the Prime Minister's attitude is directly opposed to the stand taken by Ragot, by Sydenham, by Elgin and by Durham, yes, by all constitutional leaders. I say therefore that the right hon. gentleman is diametrically opposed to the parliamentary principles of liberty and freedom on which this great dominion is based.
Le me go further. At page 137 of the same work I find the following:
A disposition to observe constitutional usages and practices was never characteristic of the Tories of the Family Compact groups in Upper and Lower Canada.
That disposition has never been characteristic of them, and it is not characteristic of the Conservative party in this dominion at the present time. They are out to undermine responsible government and to destroy parliamentary control in Canada; and I fancy that when the country is appealed to, this constitutional problem, together with other problems that will evolve as this parliament proceeds, will receive the consideration of the people. I have no doubt about that, and I am satisfied to abide by the decision of the electorate. The author says further, with reference to the Conservatives:
They were a law to themselves, as was sufficiently proved by their ejection of Mackenzie from the assembly at Toronto. They again ignored constitutional usage in the crisis over the rebellion losses bill. They organized many petitions against the bill: but instead of presenting these petitions to the assembly, or to the legislative council, in accordance with the usage at Westminster, they addressed them to Elgin personally. This unconstitutional course was obviously adopted with the design of bringing about a collision between the governor general and his ministry and the assembly.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
spoken forty minutes.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am sorry I have not
more time to conclude what I have to say with regard to this constitutional question- Conservative disregard of parliamentary authority-which is becoming more and more important in Canada every day that this government is in power.


Mr. L. DUGUAY (Lake St. John) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in this debate, thinking that the
discussion on this bill would be very brief; however, I have changed my mind, after listening to hon. members opposite repeating their speeches of the last three years. I wish to point out that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) was the only one who had anything somewhat new to suggest. By the way, I warn him to be on his guard, because Mr. Taschereau may, one of these days, send him a little note reproaching him for insulting the people of Quebec. I have had some experience in this respect. The right hon. leader of the opposition strongly criticized the provincial governments in connection with the unemployment problem. I quite agree with him in this matter. May I state, sir, that this question was brought up in the house, even before the Conservative party came into office.- An attempt is being made to have the people believe that the unemployment crisis prevails only since the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is at the helm of the country's affairs. May I point out that, on March 31, 1930, the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) introduced in the house the following resolution :
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take immediate action to deal with the question of unemployment.
Therefore, the unemployment problem existed in 1930, before the Conservative party assumed power.
What did the Prime Minister of the day reply?
On April 3, the right hon. Mr. King stated:
We have no right to state that an unemployment crisis exists in this country.
On April 8, this motion was defeated by a vote of 100 against 81. All Liberals voted against extending help to the unemployed.
However, a general election took place and in the course of the summer the present leader of the opposition toured the whole of Canada. He became aware that the unemployment crisis which prevailed had spread more than he had thought, the fact is, sir, as all are aware, that when hon. members opposite are in office, they are not interested in finding out what are the needs of the people, their only aim is to maintain themselves in power and cater to their friends. The leader of the opposition became aware then that an employment problem did exist. What remedy did he bring to bear? He proposed that a commission be appointed. Fortunately, the people were not deceived by this commission, for they elected the present Prime Minister
Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Duguay

who immediately, in 1930, summoned parliament for the purpose of enacting measures to relieve unemployment.
In September, 1930, the government appropriated 820.000,000 toward relieving unemployment. What attitude did the Quebec premier take in this connection? He contended that the Dominion government had not appropriated a sufficient amount to relieve unemployment, though he, himself, had proclaimed in the course of the 1930 election that there were no unemployed in his province. Why? Simply to be in unison with his very dear friend, the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King.
The right hon. leader of the opposition four years later discovers irregularities in the distribution of moneys to relieve unemployment. Everybody knows that the Dominion government could take no other means than to have the distribution done by the provinces and municipalities. The irregularities were committed by the provincial governments. In the cases quoted in the house, by the leader of the opposition, we concluded that the principal irregularities took place in Quebec. Why? Because, unfortunately for the Quebec people, the leader of the provincial government is a Liberal.
May I, sir, read what the hon. leader of the opposition stated in the house on January 29, 1934:
Everyone who knows what has taken place with respect to relief moneys in the provincial elections which have been held is aware of the manner in which public moneys have been used by the governments of those provinces or of the dominion in order to give employment to large numbers of men during the period of elections. The day after the elections the work in large part has been stopped; it had served its particular purpose.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: For instance, in Yamaska!


Joseph Léonard Duguay: What governments, since 1930, have held elections and profited by this relief work? I am aware of one, namely the Quebec Liberal government which, on the day following the election, dismissed all the unemployed who had been given work, because, having once more stolen the election, the Quebec government had no further need of their services.
However, the Quebec premier's attitude is not for us a matter of surprise. It is no more liberal than the attitude taken by the Prime Minister of the dominion in 1930. In the debate which followed the motion of the hon. member for North Winnipeg, the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, on April 3, 1930, page 1227 of Hansard, stated:

May I conclude what I have to say? So far as giving money from this federal treasury to provincial governments is concerned, in relation to this question of unemployment as it exists to-day, I might be prepared to go a certain length possibly in meeting one or two of the western provinces that have Progressive premiers at the head of their governments-[DOT]
Some hon. Members: Oh!
Mr. Mackenzie King: -but I would not give a single cent to any Tory government.
That is, sir, what would have been the stand taken by the Dominion government had the Liberals remained in power. That is why I stated at the outset of my speech that I agreed with the right hon. leader of the opposition when he strongly criticized the Liberal governments for having appropriated public funds purely and simply for political purposes. This happened in the province of Quebec on numerous occasions. I could bring out facts which go to show that the right hon. leader of the opposition was quite correct in stating that the unemployment funds were unfairly distributed. I have no hesitation in revealing the facts to the house. In 1931, a wholesale merchant sold to a dealer in my district some goods. Finding it difficult to meet his liability the dealer offered the wholesale merchant provincial government bonds to cover his debt to him. It was accepted, in 1932, and it was only in March that he received payment for the goods sold in 1931 and delivered to settlers in the course of February.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: What year were they paid for?


Joseph Léonard Duguay: In March,
1934. That is how these goods were paid for. The wholesale merchant was given a cheque with the words "charge chomage 1932" written across. To this was attached a voucher which read as follows:
Good's delivered to settlers in the course of February, 1933.
The outcome is that the Quebec government settled its stolen election debt in 1931 with the Dominion government funds or else, stated this merchant, my knowledge of business is short.
Similar dealings were clearly evidenced in the report of any inquiry held and laid on the table of the house, in 1932, by the hon. Minister of Labour. I need not further emphasize the point as .all are acquainted with the findings of this inquiry.
Immediately after the facts referred to came out, the Quebec Premier, in order to whitewash his colonization agents in my district, intimated to the press of this country that

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Duguay
the merchants of my county were, so to speak, robbers because, he stated, they had sold their goods too dear. All are aware that the accounts of the merchants in my county as well as those throughout Quebec were only settled seven or eight months after the goods were delivered. The people also know that the Quebec Prime Minister took this stand not only to exculpate himself and his government for the delay in settling accounts but also to shield its colonization agents who sought, by such means, to defray the provincial election of 1931.
In my opinion, hon. members opposite should not oppose this bill to the extent of obstructing its enactment, because they must admit that had they been in office only Liberal governments would have benefited by the grants made by the Dominion government.
All know that just previous to the 1931 provincial election the Quebec Prime Minister made the following statement, at St. Raymond:
We shall not force municipalities to incur liabilities. The province of Quebec is capable of supporting its people. The three departments who are in a better position to give out work (Colonization, Highways and Public Works) will receive all the necessary funds to carry on. Our financial situation is excellent. Should unemployment spread, the provincial government will remedy the situation with its own funds.
Did the provincial government remedy the situation with its own funds? No, sir, since the Dominion government's quota in this connection, from 1931 to 1933, amounted to S10,-696,543. This proves that the attitude taken by the right hon. Prime Minister differed entirely from the one that the leader of opposition would have taken had he been in office.
There is another question which I wish to broach. Our friends opposite endeavour to convince the people that the Dominion government is responsible for the dole. As a matter of fact, sir, it was the prime ministers of the various provinces who requested that the Dominion government give direct assistance and, the one who, among them all, insisted the most that direct assistance be given rather than work, was a Liberal premier, one of the best friends of hon. members opposite, the prime minister of the province of Quebec, the Hon. Mr. Taschereau.
They endeavoured to make political capital with the dole. Unfortunately, I must admit, they were too successful. I shall refer to one particular instance: the privilege granted to certain municipalities to contribute only 10 per cent to direct assistance.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: They are friendly municipalities.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: These municipalities are controlled by the Municipal Commission, and are obliged to submit to the commission's instructions because the provincial government forced them to incur debts in connection with work on highways and also to satisfy the greed of influential friends of the Quebec government. This has often happened and is still going on in the Lake St. John district.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Hear,
hear.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: Does this
commission intend to improve the financial affairs of these municipalities? I doubt it. Their aim is to find lucrative employment for a few friends of the provincial government who have had the misfortune of making heavy losses and who without this help would be destitute. These people receive large amounts not from the Dominion or provincial governments but from the municipalities themselves. I wonder why municipalities which are not controlled by this commission are not given the same advantage as those which are. I think that all should be treated alike, it would only be just.
I am also of the opinion, sir, that the dole system should not be kept up too long, because not only is it utilized in Quebec to relieve the unemployed but also to make men work on small wages for the benefit of lumber companies. The provincial government did not insist, last autumn, that these companies should fix a minimum wage for the men in lumber camps, although it had reduced the rate on the cut of timber. I also wish to point out that when some one, in Quebec, wishes to obtain the same privileges, they are refused. Such privileges seem to be exclusively for these large companies.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: There
wiil be a change after the next provincial election.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: I know of some municipalities where recruiting agents of lumber companies made arrangements with mayors in order to recruit men for the lumber camps. These men were told: Go to the lumber camps and the municipality will provide for your family. The men had to leave and the families were given relief by the municipality. The dole was therefore resorted to in Quebec to help the lumber companies in recruiting men.
Relief Act, 1984

The dole system should not be kept up too long and I feel satisfied that with the present Prime Minister at the helm of the country's affairs, it will cease shortly. I wish, sir, to reply briefly to some statements made this afternoon by the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot). I do not intend to follow him on all the subjects he discussed or to adopt his manner of speaking. I wish to simply point out to him that it is to the advantage of the Canadian people that the Prime Minister is entirely different from the one he attempted to describe. I rejoice in seeing the present Prime Minister at the helm of the country's affairs; I fought on his side in 1930, and I intend to always give him my full support because I realize that had it not been for his energy, his application to work and experience, Canada would be worse off than it is to-day. The Canadian people will themselves reply to the hon. member for Temiscouata by returning to office the present Prime Minister.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
Mr. GORDON moved that the house go into committee on the bill.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Agreements with provinces.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With regard to section 2 I hope the minister has had a chance to think over the appeal I made to him the other evening to delete this year the clause which gives the government power:
When parliament is not in session, to take all such measures as in his discretion-
The discretion of the governor in council.

may be deemed necessary or advisable to maintain, within the competence of parliament, peace, order and good government throughout Canada;
And this notwithstanding the provisions of any existing statute or law. I would say to the minister that that section, which ought to appear, if at all, only in time of war or insurrection, is one that, as he knows, has been very strongly objected to from this side of the house in previous sessions. It was not found necessary to insert it in the legislation of the special session of 1930. After it had

been inserted in the legislation of 1931 it was dropped in the legislation of 1932, and then it reappeared in the legislation of last session. I should like the minister to tell us first of all to what extent that section has been used for the purpose of maintaining peace, order and good government. To what extent has it been actually used; what were the measures passed by virtue of this power and what are the reasons that render necessary its being granted this year? I think we ought to have that information before the section is discussed further.


George Gordon: The first order in council that was passed pursuant to that portion of the section as it appeared in the statutes of 1931 was with respect to the prohibition of the export of gold from Canada, and I believe no one, in the light of the situation that then confronted this country and of the necessity for taking prompt action, would have any serious objection to what the government did in that regard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I interrupt the minister for just a moment. Did not the government have power to take that step anyway under the Finance Act? I think that was admitted some time ago.


George Gordon: They did not; at any rate the action was taken under the relief measure of that year. If my recollection serves me correctly-and I stand to be corrected in this -the matter was referred to the Department of Justice and the government were advised that the action would have to be taken under this section. Then in October, 1931, the government, acting under this section, passed an order in council with regard to the valuation of securities in bank returns under section 112 of the Bank Act. In December 1931 action was taken by the government authorizing the superintendent of insurance with respect to the valuation of securities in the returns submitted to the superintendent under the provisions of the Insurance Act. So far as the Department of Labour knows, those were the only measures passed by virtue of the peace, order and good government clause contained in this section, and I believe that is the only action that was taken.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Surely not. There were guarantees to the banks in connection with advances made by them to

Relief Act, 193b
the wheat pool; there were guarantees to some of the banks in connection with the
S60,000,000 loan to the Canadian Pacific railway; there have been cash advances to the Canadian Pacific under this section, and guarantees were given the banks in connection with loans made to the Beauharnois company, the Algoma Steel Corporation and to other corporations.
Mr. 'GORDON:	My right hon. friend is
mistaken. Those guarantees were not given under the clause of the section relating to peace, order and good government. They were given under section 2 (a) which reads as follows:
Notwithstading the provisions of any statute or law the governor in council may,-
(a) Upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon-loan or advance money to or guarantee the payment of money by any public body, corporation or undertaking;;
It will be found that the action taken was under that part of the section.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was looking
at the section itself which contains this provision, and I assumed that the orders in council, being under this section, were under this particular clause, but apparently they were under one of the other clauses of the same section. If what the minister now says is correct, the section referring to peace, order and good government has been used only for the purpose of prohibiting the export of gold, and to allow the revaluation of securities of banks and insurance companies. I am to understand these are the only purposes for which this power has been usefl in the four years during which relief measures have been on the statute books, and in the two years during which this section has been included in those measures. Why then, may I ask, do we need this section inserted again for this year? With all the other powers the ministry have had heretofore and now possess, what grounds can the government urge for again asking parliament to insert this particular clause in the section?
I want to read the entire section, so that the minister will see the force of my remarks. So far as the opposition are concerned, we have no desire to prevent the government from being in a position to take any step that may be necessary to meet an emergent condition, and from having power for which they can give reasonable grounds. But we do very strongly oppose departing altogether from the practice of parliament with respect to legislation, and handing over to the governor in council a power to legislate which belongs, and ought to belong only, to parliament, because that is what it means when the governor in council is given power to pass orders with respect to peace, order and good government, notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law. That phrase is broad enough to cover legislation on anything. The minister tells us it has been used only to prohibit the export of gold and to enable the securities of banks and insurance companies to be revalued. Let us see what the power would be which by this section the government would be given, apart from that given it by this objectionable clause. If that particular clause were struck out of this section to-day the section would 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 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-
Then omitting the clause relating to peace, order and good government, and continuing:
-and at all times to take 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.
Surely those powers which I think go much too far, are comprehensive enough to enable the governor in council, in addition to existing legislation, to deal with any critical situation when parliament may not be in session. But in the circumstances, if the government say they used those additional extensive powers and will take the responsibility of asking parliament for them, so far as we are concerned we are prepared not to oppose such action. We do, however, oppose very strongly the reintroduction into this measure of a clause which is most objectionable, which was enacted only by use of the closure in 1931, and was dropped in the year 1932. I refer to the section respecting peace, order and good government.
May I give another reason why that particular clause should not be inserted? The government has taken credit to itself for having dropped the following clause:
Loan or advance money to or guarantee the payment of money by any public body, corporation or undertaking.
1&92
Relief Act, 1934

Hon. members opposite have taken the attitude that this year they do not need that clause, and they are leading the public to believe that conditions have improved so greatly that there is no necessity any longer to ask for the power to advance moneys to or to guarantee the payment of money by public bodies, corporations or undertakings. If that is so, how can they justify retaining a power which includes that being dropped, is more drastic, goes very much further, and one -which has never been used by any government until this government used it? As I pointed out when I spoke on a former occasion this power was intended to be exercised only on the occasion of war or the invasion of the country, actual or apprehended. I hope the minister will not make it necessary for us to contend over this section. If we were to agree to allow the remainder of the section to pass he might well withdraw the objectionable clause, or at any rate allow it to stand until he has had a conference with his colleagues to see if it cannot be dropped at least for this year.


George Gordon: Mr. Chairman, the very fact that the government proceeded under this part of section 2 on only three occasions is at least considerable evidence that they would take action under the section only in cases where it became apparent that in order to avoid a great major difficulty speedy action should be taken. While I am in agreement with the remarks of the right hon. gentleman with respect to the sanctity of the rights of parliament in matters of this kind, yet I think every hon. member wijl agree that during the last few years we have watched a changing world. In Canada we cannot always be the authors of our own course, or even nearly so, but rather at times speedy action has to be taken. Occasion may arise, even during a recess of parliament, when by reason of events beyond our control action might have to be taken before a special session of parliament could be convened. I say again that I am not by any means unacquainted with the laws and ordinances which have grown up, some incorporated into statute law, and some by reason of long practice and usage, which preserve to parliament its rights. But I am also aware of the fact that in times like these-and I hope it will not be necessary- the executive or the government might have to turn to this authority in order to take speedy action in connection with matters touching vitally the business of the country.
If the right hon. leader of the opposition is really fearful that the government will during the recess of parliament take undue

powers under this section and act without good and sufficient reason, I can only repeat that in the past in my judgment the government has not acted in that way, and I do not think it will do so between now and the next sitting of parliament. However I am not averse to having the section stand until tomorrow to discuss the question again, as has been suggested, with my colleagues. I feel that while at times on the part of one party there may be a desire in this chamber to survive over another party-a principle which seems very closely identified with political activities in Canada-yet I feel that the real desire of all members is to adopt such legislation as is best calculated to meet and to overcome the difficulties which to-day and for some years past have confronted Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: The minister has said that in the past the government have never used in an objectionable manner the powers conferred upon them by relief legislation, and that to be sure of the future we should rely on what has happened in the past. It is because we do not believe that parliament has been treated fairly in the past under relief legislation that we have objections to granting anew the powers asked in this bill. A glaring instance is afforded us in the orders in council laid on the table of the house a few days ago concerning the guarantees of the government with respect to the marketing of wheat. The first order in council is the one by virtue of which this country became responsible to seven banks for moneys advanced by them to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited for the marketing of wheat, and particularly including advances for the purchases of wheat or other grains deemed necessary to secure the advantageous sale of such grains already delivered or to be delivered. That order in council was passed on September 12, 1931. It is very interesting to read the order in council and to learn what preceded it. The order in council reads in part as follows:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report dated 11th September, 1931, from the Minister of Finance, recommending that, in pursuance of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, and of an undertaking on behalf of the government, made before the session of parliament at which the said act was passed, to implement by legislation the recommendation hereinafter set out, the governor in council guarantee repayment.
And so forth. So during the whole session of 1931 the country had been engaged to the banks to guarantee the payments of these moneys by an undertaking preceding the session, which undertaking the government had pledged themselves to implement by legisla-

Relief Act, 1934
tion during the session. Was it treating parliament fairly not to introduce legislation into parliament in order to implement that undertaking? But instead the relief act was passed in July or August taking all the powers to do anything under the sun, and the government waited until September to do by order in council what should have been done by legislation, the confirming of an agreement entered into before the session of parliament. If that is treating parliament fairly I do not see why we should continue to exist as a parliamentary and legislative body.
The preamble of the present bill states the reasons why it is needed. It says:
Whereas the provinces may require further assistance in carrying out necessary relief measures and in meeting financial conditions as the same may arise; and whereas in such event it is in the national interest that parliament should support and supplement the relief measures of the provinces and grant them financial assistance in such manner and to such extent as the governor in council may deem expedient; and whereas it is necessary to make provision for further expenditure for relief purposes under the Department of National Defence and the Department of the Interior; and whereas for these and similar purposes the powers necessary to insure the speedy and unhampered prosecution of such relief measures and the maintenance of the credit of the dominion and the provinces thereof should he vested in the governor in council;
All these purposes can be met by the various sections of the bill, excluding the one to which we mostly object, that relating to peace, order and good government. There is nothing in the preamble which justifies the insertion of these words which were eliminated from the preceding bill. I think that on further consideration the minister will drop that clause from the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the minister propose to allow the section to stand? I should like to draw his attention to this phase of the matter. The minister, in speaking, mentioned as the reason for the possible retention of this objectionable clause the fact that something might come up suddently that would affect vitally the business of the country and would have to be dealt with in a summary manner. I would gather that the impression which the minister sought to leave was that the government had not adequate power apart from this clause to deal with situations of the kind. If that were the case there might be something to be said for its insertion, but the government has ample power. The statutes of this country for dealing with untoward situations remain what they have been from the time of confederation down to the present. The country has always
had to face the possibility of some situation developing that would require immediate action on the part of the government, and ample power to cope with such situations has been in existence all along. It does not come into being by virtue of this particular clause. I believe the existing powers are ample in every way, and I cannot quite understand what the minister has in mind. If he would say quite frankly that what he fears is something in the nature of an outbreak or insurrection, if that is what he means, we would then discuss the question as to whether the powers that are given to the civil authorities and the power which is given the government to aid the civil power by the military forces, the mounted police and other bodies, are not adequate to cope with situations of the kind. Or has the minister in mind some financial condition which the other clauses of the act as drafted and other statutes in existence are not adequate to meet? The point is that there does appear to be ample legislation existing to deal with any condition. This clause was inserted at the outset, or so it was alleged, simply because at the time, 1931, a number of people in the country, and apparently some members of the ministry, were genuinely alarmed at the situation in which Canada found herself under the conditions of depression that were then existing. But this provision was dropped in the following year and nobody was any the worse. It was reinserted last year but apparently not used at all. Why should it be reinserted this year, especially if, as the government says, conditions are improving and the necessity for this form of extreme legislation is not apparent at this time?


George Gordon: I can scarcely follow the
logic of the right hon. leader of the opposition in opposing the retention in this clause of the words "peace, order and good government" when he says that there is no necessity for having them there because under other laws the government has this authority. I assume the right hon. gentleman has reference to the War Measures Act, which can be invoked only by proclamation, and perhaps under that legislation action could not be taken as speedily and as effectively as under the legislation here proposed. But if the government does now under that statute or under any others possess this power, why should anyone be fearful even if that power is duplicated in the 'bill now before the committee? If the power exists now, we are not adding to it by reasserting it as it is reasserted in the present bill.
I have already stated that these are times when governments the world over, even in
Relief Act, 1934

countries where democracies have been established for a long period of years, are giving to the executive heads powers that are perhaps a direct invasion of the principles upon which those democracies have been established and have grown and prevailed for many years. Each of us can speak only of conditions as they come under his observation and as are indicated by such records as are available, but my view is that conditions certainly are improving. In connection with the business with which I am associated and in the public office which I hold I have considerable opportunity to observe the state of business conditions. I know there are some who will not admit they are improving, who do not want to admit it. There is a class of people in this country who I believe would suffer a very severe disappointment if things did improve just now. There are some who are so mentally constituted, but perhaps they cannot help it. The fact remains, however, that from what information I can get I believe business is improving. As I said a few moments ago, certain countries have been content, perhaps with some anxiety, to invest the executives of their governments with powers which would have been unheard of ten years ago or before 1929 when world affairs, world business and world politics assumed an unprecedented degree of confusion and chaos which has been more or less apparent ever since. I know the opposition is fearful as to whether the judgment of the government will be good or can ever be good. The only assurance I can give hon. members of the committee is that the government will take power under this section only when it is abundantly convinced that that power should be taken in order to maintain within the competence of parliament, peace, order and good government throughout Canada. I do not know that I can say anything more with respect to this matter.
I assume that there will be a degree of [DOT]disappointment expressed by hon. gentlemen opposite at the amendment I intend to suggest in connection with the guarantees to the wheat pool. Section 2 (a) of the act of last year reads:
-loan or advance money to or guarantee the payment of money by any public body, corporation or undertaking;
In drafting this bill I overlooked the fact that the guarantee to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited was in the nature of a continuing guarantee until that business was closed out. I intend to have my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), move an amendment to cover this one guarantee.


Hugh Guthrie: I beg to move that section 2 (a) be amended by adding after the word ''province" in the fourth line the following words "and to Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited", and that the marginal reference opposite the section be amended by adding the same words thereto.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As we were
discussing the section perhaps we had better continue with it as a whole rather than come immediately to the amendment before us, so that I may answer the points raised by the minister in reply to my remarks while they are still in the mind of the committee.
The minister said that there was something wrong with my logic, since having stated that the government had already this power under previous legislation I should not take any exception to this clause as it simply duplicates that. If that were all I had in mind there might be something in what the minister says. The minister was referring to dangers in the nature of insurrections or something of the kind, or at least I so understood him when he seemed to be talking about untoward events.


George Gordon: I never had any such thing in my mind at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what I am trying to find out, what it is that the minister is afraid of, and what makes necessary this grant of power to the ministry to pass orders in council for peace, order and good government notwithstanding existing statutes and laws. The minister referred to the power which European nations had given to their executives.


George Gordon: And the United States.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He must have been referring to Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany and Stalin and some of the others in Russia, and Dolfuss in Austria.


George Gordon: And Roosevelt in the
United States.


An hon. MEMBER:: And Pattullo in British Columbia.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
cites the United States. I prefer to take British precedents and follow the example of British parliaments which have retained their power to legislate.


Mr. MALONEY:: What about Pattullo?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Apparently hon. gentlemen are very much exercised about Mr. Pattullo. May I ask them where the premier of British Columbia found his example. He would appear to be imitating or following

Relief Act, 1934
the example of hon. gentlemen opposite in asking for extraordinary powers. No doubt he is seeking to obtain bargaining power wherewith to deal with the executive of the dominion. However, it is for each province to manage its own affairs. What we are concerned with here are the affairs of the dominion, and the minister has not yet given a reason why there should be included in this bill the grant of power to the governor in council notwithstanding existing legislation, to pass orders when parliament is not in session, on any subject relating to peace, order and good government. If his reason relates to the possibility of an uprising of some kind, and the minister can point out wherein the existing law is not sufficient to meet a situation of that kind, we are perfectly prepared to grant him the further necessary power. But that is not what the minister wants this particular section for. Although he speaks about the changes which may occur in these unsettled times, the only instance of which he has told us where it was necessary to use this power is the permission given to the banks and the insurance companies to revalue their securities.


George Gordon: And the prohibition of
the exportation of gold.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: .And the prohibition of the exportation of gold. Why then should this power be granted again this year to this government? If the government desires authority to enable corporations to revalue their securities they should so state the situation in black and white and make clear what is needed to maintain the financial credit of the country or the standing of individual corporations. What we object to is the government's taking this blanket authority to legislate in regard to anything that may serve its purpose. I hope my hon. friend will not think I am unduly stressing our alarms when I mention again what I said the other night about this being in all probability a year in which there will be a general election. If there is a general election, as hon. gentlemen well know, there will be no parliament to report to as to what may be done by the ministry during the election period under the power of passing orders with respect to peace, order and good government until a new parliament is returned. In these circumstances while there are a good many of us who may have a certain amount of faith in hon. gentlemen opposite, we are not prepared to trust them to the limit with blanket authority to legislate in any way they please at such a time on any subject they may designate as relating to peace, order 74726-120
and good government. That is one of the objections I see to having that clause inserted this year, and I say to the minister frankly that I cannot understand how it reappears at this time, unless the fact of the possibility of a general election has something to do with its insertion. I hope the minister will give us better reasons than he has thus far given for retaining the clause, or else relieve our suspicions as to the purpose of its insertion at this time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think probably the
right hon. gentleman means, " to remove our anxiety" rather than our suspicions. I will be generous and say I think he means anxiety.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Both.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, probably both. I rise however merely to point out to the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) that he is entirely in error when he assumes that there was any bad faith manifested to this parliament in connection with the guarantee given to the banks with respect to the account of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited. The truth is, as perhaps he has gathered from the evidence given in the banking committee, that the guarantee was given in 1931 and has continued ever since and will continue until there is a liquidation of the accumulated surplus held by the Cooperative Producers Limited. That I think is fairly obvious. When he points out that the order in council to which he has just referred was prepared in the form in which it was, I would say to him that it was put in that form by the solicitor for the bankers' association, who thought there might be some uncertainty, and was of the opinion that it more clearly expressed the position of the banks in relation to the government if we put it in that form, and I informed him that there was no objection to it.
I would make it clear to the hon. gentleman that the transaction was as follows:	(1)
Advances made by the banks to the organization. (2) The guarantee given to the bank by the government, which could not in terms mention a specific sum. That, I think, will be found in the evidence given the other evening in the banking committee. (3) It continues from year to year, and the reason it was thought that it might be rewritten in the form in which it was ,was that there was some question as to the sufficiency of the language to carry over the liability from one year to the other and to make it clear that there was no uncertainty as to what was meant by the language employed; and the rewriting to which

Reliej Act, 19S4

the hon. gentleman has referred was done for the purpose of removing any doubts and at the instance of Mr. Henry T. Ross, secretary of the Canadian Bankers Association, with whom I considered it, and subsequently with the Minister of Justice, who said that there was no reason why, if they felt that it made the matter clear, it should not be put in the form in which it is.
I can only say that in this relief measure there has been an effort to remove certain clauses which it was felt conferred upon the government larger powers than the house was of opinion, under present conditions, should be conferred upon them; and all those words to which the minister has referred as being in last year's legislation were removed from the present bill. But with respect to peace, order and good government, if the right hon. gentleman is correct in saying that they add nothing to the existing language of other statutes, then it is abundant precaution which can do no harm. If on the other hand he feels that they might be necessary for the purpose of valuing securities, as he indicates was done, and which now fortunately for us is a matter that need give us no further consideration, inasmuch as the securities that were so valued have risen in value to a point far beyond that then expressed as a reasonable value, in that instance we were but following the practice which prevailed in Great Britain as well as in the United States; because our own securities having been sold in large quantities at the express request of the governments of the day to the banks, it was unfair to ask the banks, for the purposes of their balance sheets, to value them at a figure very much lower than that at which they had bought them-and it was not buying that was taking place at any particular time before 1930 but that had taken place from time to time'- to enable the government to secure funds from the banks and make success a certainty with respect to the sale of securities.
With respect to the insurance companies, the matter can be put on this simple ground. The liabilities are liabilities maturing in the future, and the whole business of insurance is predicated on the assumption that the present reserve will be sufficient, on the values placed on them at the time they are purchased, to meet obligations that will mature at some future period of time. What we did was to follow the practice that obtained in the forty-eight states of the union, where the commissioners of insurance met together and, with one single exception, determined that that was the proper action to take. And it was taken in a subsequent year as well.

So far as the words "peace, order and good government" are concerned, the reason they appear in the statute in the form in which they do is that they are words used in our constitution. It is felt that they confer, in case of emergency, power to be exercised by the executive for the peace, order and good government of the country for the purpose indicated in the measure, a power that should be in the hands of any government in these days. I think it is rather unfair to say that the government of British Columbia have borrowed from this parliament the proposals they have made to their legislature, because had it been our example, the statute would have read in this form: that during the time that parliament is in recess the governor in council may make laws to be called ordinances, and then recite the whole twenty-nine articles of section 91 of the British North America Act. The statute in British Columbia recites seriatim the various items in section 92 of the British North America Act and declares that when the legislature is not in session the lieutenant governor in council may make ordinances which shall have the force of law. In other words, the legislature is abolished; the assembly is abolished. Now, I am sure the right hon. gentleman will not suggest that we have endeavoured to abolish parliament by the section that appears here, because these words have a well defined meaning; and having a meaning well defined by the courts it is, I think, only reasonable, to ensure this country against any unforeseen difficulties that may arise between now and the time parliament meets, that provision of this character should be inserted in the legislation. There have been limitations imposed which we were glad to impose, but on the other hand in view of the very circumstances to which the premier of British Columbia has referred as to the effects of outside influences on the life of that province, and when reputable members stand in their places in this house and point to external influences endeavouring to destroy the very institutions of the country, I think that even although it may be a repetition of what is found in other statutes, it is well to make assurance doubly sure by providing that the executive, shall have authority, between the time that such conditions might arise and parliament be called together, to make orders for the peace, order and good government of the country. That is as far as it goes. It is difficult to assure hon. gentlemen who will not be assured, but I should like to assure my hon. friends opposite that there is no desire

Relief Act, 1934
to act either as a usurper or a dictator. If when they allege that we so act they think that the task involves pleasure, they would only have to put in the hours per day that are put in with respect to the very matters to which they refer to see that all pleasure and all happiness and comfort disappear in dealing with problems of this character.


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend will
permit me to suggest it, perhaps if he were to share with parliament these anxieties they would be lighter. He was not in the house when I made my remarks about the guarantee given to the banks for the moneys advanced to the wheat producers. I did not complain about the nature of the order in council or its language. I did not deal with the merits or demerits of the transaction. My ground of complaint to-night was about the manner in which it was carried out, and my right hon. friend has not alluded to that. Perhaps he might explain this; in the order in council itself, passed on September 12, 1931, we are informed that this order was to ratify and give effect ito an undertaking made on behalf of the government before the session of parliament. That undertaking was that it would be implemented by legislation at ithe following session, yet wre sat here for five or six months and never heard anything about it. When the relief act was discussed I took the trouble to read Hansard to find out whether this was alluded to during the whole course of the discussion, but I find not a word of it. Only after ithe session was over, in September, did the government by order in council give effect to a guarantee made before the session of parliament, which guarantee they had pledged themselves to implement by legislation. Why did the government not introduce legislation making the house and the country acquainted with the guarantee that was given to the banks for the purpose of helping the marketing of grain? It might be a good thing to give such a guarantee, but I submit it was for parliament to say so, and that it was not treating the House of Commons fairly merely to ask by a relief act to be empowered to give guarantees to provinces or companies, while the government knew all the time that this undertaking had been given to the banks and the wheat producers. That is why we think we have ground for complaint, and why we do not like to continue a blank cheque authority giving to the government ithe right to do by order in council what should be done by parliament.
74726-120^


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have to trespass upon
the time of ithe committee again for a moment. I was not in the chamber during the whole of the hon. gentleman's observations; I came in just as he was concluding. If he will be good enough to look at Hansard he will find that a statement was made, not only by myself but by others during the discussion in connection with the wheat transaction, that a guarantee had been given. lit was not in connection with the relief act that that statement was made, because the question did not arise; it was in the discussion concerning the wheat transaction. Hon. gentlemen will recall ithat I said I believed it would not be in the interests of the country at the moment to follow the transactions closely, but that if it was thought desirable by the house in committee of the whole I should be glad to do so. I suppose it adds nothing to it to say that if for a single moment it had been thought desirable, or if the question had been asked, I should have been only too glad to say that a guarantee had been given to the banks, because from the very start we had no hesitancy in saying that. From the time in 1930 when an effort was made by the western provinces to induce the dominion government to set up a wheat board, or to "peg the price", as it was called, of wheat at 70 cents, we never showed any hesitancy in making clear to the country through this house what had been done; and from that day to this we have made it perfectly clear what was done. I think we made it abundantly clear the other evening.
I will say this, and I hope it will not be misunderstood, that while parliament is the great court of the country, the court of inquest, which has a right to know everything that is done by its executive, yet in times of stress and strain and difficulty, when the government has to have recourse to many methods of dealing with problems of extreme gravity, until such time as they are concluded it is sometimes injudicious to discuss them publicly. It is not suggested, of course, that there is anything that should not be disclosed, but only that the time is not always most opportune to do it while the matter is pending. I quite appreciate the attitude taken by the hon. gentleman; it is the attitude any opposition would take, that in a matter of this kind, where the executive is exercising its power, it should as far as possible make the fullest disclosures to the house of everything that transpires. I say further-it is not a matter of importance, but my colleagues
Reliej Act, 1934

will bear me out in this-that many times during the last three years when matters have been under consideration I have been asked why I do not make a statement about them. The other evening, after the discussion in connection with the guarantee to the railway company and in connection with the sale of wheat, the question was asked: Why could not these things be said at the time? I only say to this committee, and I ask men of experience in business whether their experience does not bear out what I say, that at times nothing could be more fatal to the transaction of business than a public discussion of it before it is concluded. My glance happening to rest upon the face of one hon. member opposite recalls a certain transaction in the public interest which was about to be carried out in connection with a rather large public undertaking, and a premature discussion wrecked it. Those who are familiar with the story of the purchase of the Suez canal shares will recall what has been said in the accounts of the lives of statesmen of that day as to what would have happened had this transaction, which was dealt with by Disraeli and the Rothschilds, become a matter of public discussion before Disraeli was enabled to close it out as he did.
Now I add only this. There is no desire in any way to keep from this house or from this country any particulars of any transaction with which this government has been connected since it came into office, affecting the public interest, under these various relief measures or other statutes that conferred authority and, in my opinion, imposed responsibilities. Those responsibilities we have endeavoured to discharge in the manner we thought best for the country. It is possible that I or my colleagues may have been in error, but if at times we believed that it was not in the public interest to blazon these matters from the housetops and not to discuss them even in this house until such time as further progress had been made in connection with some of them, I think we adopted a course which sound business at least, by experience, has indicated to be the proper course in connection with ordinary transactions. I believe my hon. friend from Quebec East will find, in connection with the matter to which he referred, that it was made abundantly clear to this house from the inception of the transaction that the government had given a guarantee to the banks to enable the cooperative wheat producers to carry out the business for which they had appointed Mr. McFarland their general manager, and which has been
[M~. Bennett.]
carried on ever since. In 1928 the excessive crop brought about too great a carry-over of grain into future years, which has been reflected in the excess carry-over ever since, until this very day.
I make that statement because, if there has been any suggestion that in any sense there has been an endeavour either to deceive this house or keep anything from it, other than what we thought should be kept back at the moment for good public reasons, I should like the fullest investigation before any committee of the house, with witnesses called to establish that what was done was done with an eye to one single purpose, and that was to endeavour to ensure that this house and this country would have no reason to say that, through the failure on our part to do something, there had been a collapse of public confidence or a panic in connection with any of our institutions that might imperil what had been built up by many years of laborious effort on the part of the Canadian people.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) I think have failed to understand the force of my objection, or at any rate to answer it. Possibly I have not made myself clear. The Prime Minister stated that my objection was that this clause simply duplicated previous legislation; that, to use his words, it was a repetition of previous legislation, that it added nothing to existing statutes, and that for this reason there should be no objection to making doubly secure that which is already secure. That was not my point at all. It is not that it adds nothing to existing legislation; it is that it takes away existing legislation, takes away the protection which existing legislation gives to citizens of ths country with respect to innumerable matters. The government asks that notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law the governor in council may, when parliament is not in session, take all such measures within the competence of parliament as in his discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to maintain peace, order and good government.
That language is as plain as day if one will stop to look at it. It means that notwithstanding all the laws that parliament has made, with regard to insurance companies, banks, railways or anything else one wishes to name, the government may when parliament is not in session, set aside all those laws and pass any orders in council it pleases so long as it cares to designate them as necessary for the peaoe, order and good government of

Relief Act, 1934
Canada. That is the power for which they are asking, and I say that power is setting parliament altogether at naught. It is doing away with parliament and what parliament exists for, namely to protect the citizens of this country in their rights and privileges.
I doubt very much if hon. members have even yet grasped the significance of this section. We listened to the Prime Minister speak of the necessity of doing things quietly, of times being troubled and of the need to give the government an opportunity quickly to deal with an emergency, and so on. For my part I am ready to give the minister any powers for which they ask provided they will set out in black and white the exact powers needed and are able to support their request on reasonable grounds. But that is not what they are asking for here. They are asking that notwithstanding the existence of any statute or law, once this parliament has prorogued the governor in council may legislate as he pleases with regard to anything, regardless of existing legislation. I say that the granting of such power has in itself a terrible unsettling effect upon the country. The banks and those who have relations with banks, for example, do not know whether some section of some act on which they rely for protection in their rights is going to be set at naught by some order in council pased under the heading of peace, order and good government. The same statement applies to insurance companies or to anything else one may wish to name. That is what is asked for and that is what we object to granting. We are not objecting to making security doubly secure where there is any danger of an untoward incident of any sort or of the government not having sufficient power to deal with any situation. We are objecting to the danger of taking away that protection which this parliament has placed around business and around its citizens their rights, liberties and privileges, by the laws it has passed; we object to any legislation whereby, notwithstanding existing laws and statutes, these laws and statutes may all be set at naught if the government think it desirable so to do in order to pass an order in council contrary to their provisions.
I say again to the minister that I hope he will not press for this power this session. His powers have been gradually extended in other clauses of this section. To indicate my desire to cooperate with the government, so far as I am concerned, I will not take exception to the amendment which has been moved by the minister, although it gives him additional power with regard to a matter as to which he has already given guarantees. Anything
for which the minister can give reasonable grounds in a concrete way will meet with a like reception; he will find the opposition perfectly ready, I think, to meet him in a cordial, cooperative way, but in the light of what may take place I do not think we can be expected willingly to allow the government to set aside, if it so desires, all the existing statutes and laws and remain free to legislate as it pleases when parliament is no longer in session, and when the ministry may no longer exist or may not have this House of Commons to reckon with when it comes to seeking the explanation of why these particular powers were made use of in the manner they were at a particular time.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I think it only fair to say a word in reply to the Prime Minister's explanation as to the wheat guarantee. At the time Mr. McFarland was appointed manager of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, on November 30, 1930, the situation was critical. Later parliament met, but the members of this house were not apprised of the situation, according to my recollection, or as we have been able to find in Hansard. That is one of the reasons why we were somewhat exercised, not only the members on this side of the house but people throughout Canada generally; we ran along from year to year without knowing exactly what was being done. The matter is being discussed and evidence is being taken by a committee of this house at the present time. I think it is a good thing that this investigation is being made; it has cleared the air considerably. We realize the critical situation that existed in the fall of 1930 and there has been no complaint from this side of the house as to what was done at that time. The three prairie provinces appealed to the Prime Minister to take action. I do complain however that we have had to go from November, 1930, practically to the end of March, 1934, before we could find out exactly what was being done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not desire to contradict the hon. member, but if he will be good enough to look at Hansard he will observe that I made very full statements twice on the subject.


Ernest Lapointe: 1931?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said twice.


Charles Edward Bothwell: We did not know anything about it until some time in the year 1932, and as a matter of fact we did not get a great deal of information at that time. With the exception of the remarks I have
Relief Act, 1934

made I do not believe any hon. member from the west has any complaint to make. I do believe this however, that had parliament been advised and been in a position to look into the situation, better ways and means might have been devised to handle the situation. At least we would have had the benefit of advice from every organization interested in the wheat situation. I have risen to say only this, that so faT as we were concerned, the difficulty in which most people in the west found themselves was that they did not know wha-t was being done.


Michael Luchkovich: I was very much
surprised to hear the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) say that this clause has been introduced in order to enable the government to peg the shares of insurance and other companies. To follow that up I suggest that if that action could be taken under this clause to help insurance and other companies it might also be taken to help the farmer peg his mortgages, his wheat and other securities. I was not very much influenced or impressed by references to the parties of two hundred years ago and the constitutional questions of those days, because if we went back far enough neither of the larger parties in this house would be very proud of its origin. According to Sir Erskine May the word "Tory" two hundred or three hundred years ago was an appellation used to designate some robber band in the old country, and the word "Whig" used to describe the Liberal party in those days designated what in the Scotch vernacular meant sour cheese.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What does Sir Erskine May have to say about the C.C.E.?


Michael Luchkovich: And, speaking of sour cheese, I believe I should rather be a living" highwayman than a disintegrated cheese. But even the present government is like the highway bands of three hundred years ago. At least under this peace, order and good government clause it might be the Robin Hood type of highwayman who took from the rich in order to give to -the poor.


Ernest Lapointe: An amendment has been moved by the Minister of Justice to the effect that guarantees should be continued to the cooperative wheat producers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is because of the
elimination of the power to give guarantees to any private enterprise.


Ernest Lapointe: Why not do it by special legislation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is special legislation.


Ernest Lapointe: Why do it under a relief act? I think we are entitled to know the amounts of guarantees which have been given to the banks with regard to the marketing of wheat, and I should like the minister to tell us where the country stands with regard to past guarantees, before we give the government power to give new guarantees.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That has been twice before the committee on banking, and it was thought undesirable-


Ernest Lapointe: If we have no right to
refer to what goes on before the committee, I think this applies to the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All right, then, it applies to the Prime Minister. The wisdom or unwisdom of determining the amount I believe I can set at rest in a single minute. The amount of the guarantee varies from day to day. It varies to the extent to which there have been purchases of farmers' wheat to prevent its being without a purchaser. Those who are familiar with the operations of the grain market, under which wheat is purchased will realize that the amount that, is put up, that is by the purchaser, for which guarantee is given, is an amount fixed by the customs and regulations of the grain exchange itself, and the variation of the amount is of course dependent entirely upon the price which the commodity commands at the close of the day's operations. It was said the other evening that an increase of ten per cent in the then price of wheat would relieve the guarantor of any responsibility. That was thought to be sufficient, and I should think possibly that might be regarded as ample for the purposes of this committee.
I only say to the hon. member that I believe the matter about which he is now speaking is illustrative of the point I previously made, namely the undesirability of discussing the details of a business transaction while the transaction is yet incomplete. I would ask him on reflection to ask himself whether or not he does not think that is a correct statement of the position-that is, while the transaction is still proceeding it is not desirable that there should be an effort on the part of hon. members in this house to disturb or to dislocate business as normally transacted, in order that it may be carried to a successful conclusion.


Ernest Lapointe: After all, this is a
representative parliament and a representative government. Many of my constituents and,

Relief Act, 1934
in fact, other people, have asked me on many occasions what amount was involved in respect to or as a result of this guarantee. I have always been compelled to say that I did not know. I do not think they will be satisfied when again they ask that question not only of me but of other members in the house, and receive the answer, "Well, the Prime Minister thinks it is better that you should not know." In my view the people of Canada are entitled to know that; they are the ones who will be responsible if there is any amount to pay. Certainly we have a right to know how we stand at the present time. The Prime Minister states the amount varies from day to day. Let me ask him where we stand at the present time. What was the amount for which we would have been responsible if the wheat had been sold in November, 1932? Before continuing to the government the right to extend the guarantee I think we have a right to know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Samuel William Jacobs: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: As I say, it varies from day to day, but I have used a figure which
is an outside figure, in view of the insistence of the hon. gentleman, who is within his
rights; but it is against my own judgment and against the majority of a standing committee of this house. If he insists I can only make the observation that I have made and that I now make. If the house presses for further information I think I have discharged my duty after I have explained to them as fully as I can what I believe the consequences will be, and then if they insist they will carry with me jointly the responsibility that attaches to it.


Samuel William Jacobs: I think it is only fair for me to add, although I do not know that I can relate to the house anything that took place before the committee, that as a member of that committee I asked the Minister of Finance to say if the government considered that the divulging of any information of that kind would not be in the public interest, and the Finance minister replied that the government would not say one way or the other, that it was for the committee to decide. Evidently there has been some change in the view of the government since that time.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I was a little late getting in this evening. I should like to ask, is it not the intention of the government to carry on the stabilization of the wheat market under this clause?
With regard to the information that has been asked for this evening, in another place it was pointed out that the world at large knows to what extent Canada has wheat within its borders, but what they do not know is who has control of that wheat. Whether it is in the interest of Canada that it should be known how much wheat is held by John I. McFarland in the interests of the government or of the producer is perhaps a debatable question, but I will say this, that to divulge the information can do no good, and it may do some harm, especially to the producer. An hon. member asks me, in what way? I reply, in this way: If you go back to say February of last year or December you will find that wheat hit its low in Winnipeg at 38| cents. If Mr. McFarland performed the functions he was appointed to perform, and he admitted in another place that at that time he had to take 75 per cent of the wheat off the market-if he bought wheat at 38f cents, wheat now being 70 cents, there is a lot in what the Prime Minister says, and Mr. McFarland could probably show himself in a more favourable position to-day than at any other time in the whole of his operations. But if information is to
Relief Act, 1934

be given as to where he stands to-day, we should have from Mr. McFarland or from the government information as to the position he occupied at the end of every six months period dating from the time he took over on November 30, 1930. Unless that were done, Mr. Chairman, I do not think it would paint a true picture.
In conclusion, representing a rural constituency, I cannot see that divulging the information would do any good. I do not know why the government should be anxious to conceal it unless it did not want the world at large to know just who is in control of our wheat. I am of an open mind whether the divulging of the information would do injury or not, but I do say most emphatically that it can do no good and might do some harm.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There seems
to be some question as to how far the government should disclose what guarantees it has given to the banks with respect to wheat pool transactions; but guarantees have been given to the banks with respect to a number of other matters. Perhaps the minister will tell us what those particular guarantees are, and their extent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before my right hon.
friend proceeds with that I am sure the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) will permit me to refer to Hansard of March 17, 1931. Speaking on the address on that occasion, I said:
In connection with agriculture I do not intend to say more than that we took such action as to prevent a panic in connection with wheat, an action which I think any government would have taken had it been seized with a thorough appreciation of the seriousness of the condition then existing. That action had the result at least of saving the situation at the moment. I can only say that whatever may be necessary for the purpose of enabling agriculture to be placed upon a firm and stable basis, we will do, but no man w'ho has followed the history of world movements during these last eighteen months can fail to understand that the failure to appreciate what was coming had been responsible for what is. The right hon. gentleman mentioned yesterday the necessity for study and deliberation, and I have read in the Liberal press the statement that he did not decide quickly but, oh, so deeply.
Turning to page 1076 of Hansard of April 28, 1931, I again referred to this matter because my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Yallance) was discussing the matter with me. I said:
What would the price of wheat have been in this country had it not been for the action of the government?
An hon. Member: What has it done?
Mr. Bennett: Ask any thoughtful man about that.

An hon. Member: Tell us what you did.
Mr. Bennett: I tried to indicate the other day that I think it is very much better that these things should speak for themselves. We put the collective credit of this country behind the wheat market.
Mr. Vallance: It was security only to the banks which you gave, not to the wheat pool at all, or to the farmer. The help was given to the banks.
An hon. Member: It was the banks you saved.
Mr. Bennett: I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the Canadian people, to judge whether anything could better illustrate the line of thought indulged in by some bon. members than the two observations to which we have just listened.
An hon. Member:	God help the farmer
anyway.
Mr. Bennett:	Could anything be better
calculated to bring-shall I say?-despair on the part of those farmers who are struggling with adversity than this counsel of desperation to which we have been listening? The banks have money belonging to their depositors, and they owe it to them. The banks have no right to lend that money upon security which will hazard the deposit. The banks have lent the money to the farmers, to the pool

which was a voluntary organization created by the farmers themselves and not by the country. The banks were called upon to do one of two things; support that market by continuing to advance money; or stop doing so and let wheat drop 40 cents.
Mr. Young: Would wheat have dropped 40 cents if you had not taken the action you did?
Mr. Bennett: I cannot say. I can only say that that is the judgment of those well able to express an opinion on the subject.
Mr. Young: That is 40 cents more than it actually did drop.
Mr. Bennett: No, it would have dropped to 40 cents a bushel.
Mr. Vallance: It went to forty-one cents to the grower at the shipping point.
Mr. Bennett: I am not talking of that, I am talking of the market price. Let us go one step further. We did that. The pool controlled over 50 per cent of the wheat of this country, and the support given to the pool wheat protected and supported the non-pool wheat. _ That was well known by everybody. At a given day on the Winnipeg exchange it is a fact, known to those who take the trouble to investigate, that but for the action taken by the government the bottom would have entirely dropped out of the market.
Now, 50 cent wheat is no new thing in Canada. Have any hon. gentlemen read the life of Sir William Van Horne? Do you recall the days of 50 cent wheat as reported by his biographer?
Mr. Brown: I recall it.
Mr. Bennett: Then my friend from Lisgar has had experience of what 50 cent wheat means.
Mr. Brown: Overalls were 75 cents then; to-day they are $3.
Mr. Bennett: Quite so.
Further discussion took place, but I desire to direct attention to the fact that it was made abundantly clear at that time that we

Relief Act, 1934
had supported the situation by guaranteeing the banks. I am quite certain my hon. friend overlooked the observations made by me on April 28, 1931, and the earlier observations made on March 17, 1931, which appear on page 70 of Hansard. My memory was somewhat uncertain as to what I had said at that time but I secured the Hansard, and that is the record.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I am sure the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) will take no exception to the simple question I intend to ask. Mr. McFarland began his operations on the Winnipeg market in the fall of 1930, I think in November. Would not it be the natural and logical thing to have the standing of his account given to parliament at the end of each grain year, that is July 31? This would bring matters up to July 31 of last year and his standing to-day would not be divulged. I think this should be done in order to preserve some of the business ethics of government which they are now demanding of others- chain stores for example. I have never had much business experience but I know of the old saying that short accounts make long friends and long accounts make short friends. Why should not the government try to follow out this adage and give us a short account in order to preserve a long friendship? Where you have an account running for years you are bound to get into trouble. It is claimed sometimes that memos have not been made or have been lost, that this and that has not been put down or someone has died, and perplexities thus arise. I have not been worrying the Prime Minister with questions to-day; this is the first one I have asked.
I might say that I have been a wheat pool contract signer, although there are no contracts now. As a citizen of Canada I have a share in the line of credit being used and the guarantee given by the government. I am interested also as one who still patronizes the wheat pool, even though there are no contracts. I do not think it is exacting or unreasonable to ask the government to let us have a statement up to the end of each crop year. Surely to goodness we could not ask anything more modest than that. I am in the position of my hon. friend to my right (Mr. Lapointe); my constituents are asking me for information about this. If this thing is allowed to run indefinitely there is bound to be trouble at the end. Someone will have to clean up the whole thing and it may not be our friends opposite; it may be some other government, even a government of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. To do this would be recognizing just a little of the business principles which actuate people in carrying on their own business.


John Vallance: I imagine the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) is just as well acquainted as I am with the facts in connection with the guaranteeing of wheat in western Canada during the last four years. There was a government which guaranteed the pool before this government came into the picture. The Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta governments saw fit to come to the rescue of the pools in 1929 and 1930. There was no disposition on the part of those governments at that time to conceal from the electorate or the taxpayers the position of things. It was well known during the whole [DOT] activities to what extent the governments were guaranteeing. In fairness to the hon. member for Melville, I must admit that no ill effects came from that information being given out. I cannot say whether there would be the same result if the information now asked for were given to the committee. My perambulations through western Canada were considerable for the six months before I left to come to Ottawa-I may say that I took part in the Mackenzie by-election-and in all my perambulations I did not meet one farmer who asked me how the government stood one way or the other. It is not very often that hon. members opposite agree that I am fair, but in this instance I must make that statement.
We must admit that there was a time when you could not sell wheat on the Winnipeg market. The only individual who was taking up options was Mr. John I. McFarland. As to how low wheat would have have gone if this action had not been taken, I do not know, but the fact is that there were days when you could not sell Canadian wheat on the Winnipeg market. While I should like to say that the government should not divulge this information, as I said before, I do not see where any good could come out of giving it and there might possibly be some harm.


Mr. BAKER:: If the western farmer did not complain, why should a representative of the western farmer make a complaint in this house?


William Richard Motherwell: I have not had the advantage of being a member of the banking and commerce committee, nor have I read all the evidence. I was present for a short time as a spectator but I was not particularly edified by what I heard. However, I am a member of the House of Commons; we
Questions

are in committee of the whole and I do not think the Prime Minister will say that I have asked an unreasonable question. If he declines, the responsibility is not mine.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 28, 1934