1934-03-22

[Stage Direction]
Third report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. Stinson.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 40, to amend the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act.
He said: The changes to be made by this bill are not very important. Certain changes in definition are being made in order to comply with the modern practices of the trade. Another change is in connection with the control of chick hatcheries by any province wishing to have such control. Section 8, subsection 5 is being amended by the substitution of the word "thirty" for the word "sixty." The principle of the act is not being changed in any way.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Who is the chief superintendent of the air mail service?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	What is his salary?
4.	Where was he born?
5.	How long had he been in Canada prior to his appointment to the civil service of Canada?


Mr. DUPRE:: 1.	George Herring.
2.	First appointed to civil service April 2, 1907. Appointed to present position April 1, 1929.
3.	$4,620 per annum.
4.	Inverness, Scotland.
5.	Approximately one year.


SWIFT CURRENT EXPERIMENTAL FARM-SUPERINTENDENT
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What was the annual salary paid' to Mr. Taggart, superintendent of the Swift Current experimental farm during each of the years in which he held the position?
2.	How many expert assistants did he have?
3.	What was the total amount paid to them in each of the same years?
4.	What percentage of the cost of running the Swift Current experimental farm has been paid out of the revenues received from the production since 1929?
5.	What is the total amount expended on the said farm in each year since 1929?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	March 31, 1922, $1,140; March 31, 1923, $2,160; March 31, 1924, $2,280; March 31, 1925, $2,400; March 31, 1926, $2,520; March 31, 1927, $2,640; March 31, 1928, $2,880; March 31, 1929, $3,000; March 31, 1930, $3,090; March 31. 1931, $3,120; March 31, 1932, $3,120; March 31, 1933, $2,772; March 31, 1934, $2,772.
2.	Two.
3.	March 31, 1923, $825; March 31, 1924, $1,664.46; March 31, 1925, $1,609.98; March 31, 1926, $1,650; March 31, 1927, $1,710; March 31, 1928, $3,630; March 31, 1929, $3,720; March 31, 1930, $3,426.60; March 31, 1931, $3,490.50; March 31, 1932, $3,645; March 31, 1933, $3,240; March 31, 1934, $3,240.
4.	-83 per cent.
5.	1929-30, $52,372.38; 1930-31, $56,229.25; 1931-32, $59,260.45; 1932-33, $42,093; 1933-34 to February 28, 1934, $37,124.62.


EASTER RECESS
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That when this house adjourns on Wednesday the 28th of March instant, it shall stand adjourned until Monday the 9th of April, 1934.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. W. T. LUCAS (Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire if it is the intention of the government to introduce legislation during this session in connection with short and intermediate rural credits.
Interim Supply Bill


Richard Bedford Bennett: The intention of the government will be made manifest when the legislation is introduced, if it is introduced. It is now under consideration.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL


[Stage Direction]
year 1934-35
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as supply for this year will have become exhausted on March 31 and we do not reassemble until April 9, the public service would be seriously hampered and the public interest would be detrimentally affected if we did not pass interim supply. Of course, I can proceed only by unanimous consent but I ask the house for unanimous consent for the passing of interim supply of one-sixth of the main estimates for next year. I am asking for one-sixth rather than one-twelfth because under the new act we require a larger proportion than was the case under the old practice. I can go into further details if the house so desires. To-day being Thursday, when the motion to go into supply is put, Mr. Speaker leaves the chair without question put, but inasmuch as I am asking for unanimous consent I suppose I would have to make a motion, which I now make.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) was kind enough to speak to me yesterday of his intention to move to-day for interim supply. I told him that in view of the representations he had made and which he has repeated just now I did not think there would be any objection so far as the official opposition is concerned to granting one-sixth at this time. However, when the minister moves to go into committee I shovdd like to direct the attention of the house to a matter which bears immediately upon the control by parliament of appropriations voted by the house. I assume it is understood that interim supply will be voted on the same conditions as those on which previous interim supplies have been voted, that is, without prejudice as to criticism of any item which may come before us for subsequent discussion or as to the withholding in whole or in part of any item, or part of the supply, if such should be the desire of the house.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is understood that all
reservations customary under such circumstances shall be made and that the fullest opportunity will be afforded for discussion of or objection to any individual vote at a

later period. I do not quite understand my right hon. friend's reference to a discussion on the motion to go into supply. If that motion is to be the subject of discussion, I would not be able to proceed with unanimous consent. The same opportunity would be given to every hon. member and the object which I had in mind would be defeated as well as the rule with respect to proceeding into supply on a day other than Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
is quite right. I overlooked the unanimous consent for which he is asking. When we get into committee of ways and means I shall bring up the matter which I have in mind.


Mr. DUFF:: Does the minister intend to
ask for one-sixth of 100 per cent or of 90 per cent?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall ask for one-sixth
of the supply as it appears in the estimates. This procedure will have no effect upon the subject which my hon. friend has in mind. In view of having to have unanimous consent, perhaps it would be necessary that a motion be made without prejudice to the application of the rule later on to-day. Therefore, I move:
That the Speaker 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. Sullivan in the chair.
Resolved that a sum not exceeding $30,073,471.87, being one-sixth of the amount to be voted as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1935, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty on account, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1935.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
WAYS AND MEANS supply bill
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. Sullivan in the chair.


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 March 31, 1935, the sum of $30,073,471.87 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.

Supply Bill-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like
to take advantage of this opportunity, which is the first I have had since seeing the auditor general's report for the year ending March 31, 1933, to direct the attention of the Minister of Finance, of the Prime Minister, and in fact of parliament, to a statement which appears in that report and which is of very grave concern, I think, to hon. members of this house and to parliament itself. The statement appears on page 55 of the introduction under the head, " Operation of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act." The auditor general there states:
As tlie present report is the first one covering a full year's operation under the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act of 1931, [_ consider that I should state, for the informa-lion of parliament, how this act, amending as it does the previous act, has altered the duties and modified the responsibilities of the auditor general acting as an officer of parliament, and the resultant effect on parliamentary control of expenditure of public moneys.
I need not complete that paragraph. The next one reads:
There is, however, another aspect of the changes made by the new act which calls for special consideration at this time as it involves the principle of parliamentary control over the Issue of public moneys. Under the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act of 1878, provision was uade for the appointment of an officer who ,vould be independent of the government of the day and be answerable to parliament alone in respect of such issues. However, under the Amending Act of 1931, the power of issue of appropriated moneys was removed from that officer, the auditor general, whose powers are now restricted to the examination of accounts and the reporting thereon to parliament. The cases cited hereunder may indicate an inclination to overlook the statutory limitations regarding the expenditure of moneys appropriated, thereby diminishing parliamentary control of these moneys. Under the old act, if the auditor general objected to certain expenditures on the ground that they were not properly authorized, he could refuse to make further issues of moneys; but under the new act he has no such power.
On the next page the auditor general gives instances of the result of the withdrawal of his control over the issue of public moneys.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the right hon.
gentleman would not mind reading those.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be
glad to read them. I had intended doing so. The point Ito which I wish to direct the attention of the house is that, by the Audit Act of 1931, the control which formerly this parliament had over public expenditures, by having its servant, the auditor general, made responsible for the issuing of appropriated moneys, has apparently been withdrawn; that power which the auditor general formerly had
has been withdrawn and vested in an officer who is not a servant of parliament but an official of the government, one whom the government has it in its power to dismiss. Let me say at once that I have the highest appreciation of the worth of the present official, and I do not for one moment assume that there will be in his case any possibility of action of that kind. But I do think it is most important that parliament should retain the power, which it has had for fifty years, of exercising control over public expenditures in the manner in which formerly it did. I submit that at the time the bill was introduced the house was not given to understand -that the new appointment of comptroller provided by the act meant any withdrawal from the auditor general of this particular function, which is the most important of all he formerly had, and placing it in the hands of an officer of one of the departments of government. Had the house so understood, I am sure there would have been strong opposition to such a proposal, and that the house would never have consented thereto. I am not sure that when the government brought in the bill its members appreciated the fact that this would be the consequence. The Prime Minister has asked me to read what the auditor says with regard to the Sffect of the change. I will do so. On page 5G of the introduction he states:
Availability of one vote to cover overexpenditure under another. On pages 195 and 198 of this volume is printed the correspondence with the comptroller of the treasury and the treasury board relative to the procedure followed in the case of several departments which in my opinion was subversive of the principle of parliamentary control over the expenditure of public monej's. In each case the over-expenditure on one vote was charged against a surplus on a vote provided for another purpose. Under section 27 (1) of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act it is provided that all issues of public moneys shall be made under the direction and control of the comptroller but no such issue shall be made in excess of any appropriation. Under section 50 (2) I am obliged to call the attention of the House of Commons to every case in which a grant has been exceeded. The only definite prohibitive direction to the comptroller in the act is that he shall not issue any money in excess of a parliamentary appropriation, and the first duty laid upon me in respect of my report to the House of Commons is that I shall call attention to every case where that prohibition has not been observed. These statutory directions are valueless if the procedure followed in these three cases is to become the accepted practice. Such practice is contrary to the underlying principle of supplementary estimates and of the issue of governor general's warrants. In confirmation of my views I cited previous treasury board decisions, resolutions of the British House of Commons and the debate in our House of
Supply Bill-Mr. Rhodes

Commons in 1888 between leaders on both sides relative to this subject. The principle of parliamentary control is so fundamentally important that I feel impelled to call attention to any departure therefrom.
Payment from general vote of gratuities in lieu of retiring leave.-In volume 1 of my report for 1931-32 (page 286) and page 187 of this volume is printed correspondence with the treasury board in reference to the payment of gratuities in lieu of retiring leave without any special vote having been provided by parliament. In my opinion this was irregular ^ in that payments were made as gratuities, equivalent to or less than the retiring leave authorized by statute, from votes provided by parliament for other purposes. The treasury board differed from this view.
Since then another order in council has been passed, dated' July 31, 1933. providing for the retirement of employees who have reached a certain age limit, with gratuities equivalent to retiring leave of so many months' salary. In some of these cases the gratuities were in excess of the retiring leave that may be granted under the Civil Service Act, and in other cases gratuities were paid to employees who are entitled to no retiring leave under any act of parliament. No special vote was provided and the payments have been charged to various votes under the respective departments. Although the present retirements are being effected in the interest of good administration a procedure is established under which, without any authority other than that provided in an order in council and without any special appropriation being provided, gratuities are being paid to retired employees in excess of those payable under the Civil Service Act, or are not authorized by any statute. The question of the advisability of obtaining a vote of parliament to cover such expenditures has been resubmitted recently for the consideration of the treasury board. The British practice in cases of this kind is determined by a decision of the treasury in the following terms: "My Lords fully agree with the view of the committee that if in exceptional circumstances a gratuity is given on retirement in addition to the statutory superannuation payments, that gratuity should not be paid until an estimate making clear its extrastatutory nature has been presented to parliament and passed."
I shall now read the concluding paragraph:
Howrever I have certified all applications submitted to me for pre-audit as this question had been dealt with in my previous annual report but I feel that the matter should again be brought to the attention of the House of Commons since this class of payments has been extended to cover gratuities that are in excess of what is provided by the Civil Service Act.
The auditor general in the report states in so many words that the Civil Service Act has been violated; that moneys which were voted for one purpose, have been used for another; that moneys have been paid out of the public treasury without any previous appropriation by parliament for the specific purpose and that these violations of a former practice have grown out of the fact that by

the Audit Act of 1931 there was taken away from the auditor general as the servant of this parliament the power which he had for many years exercised of issue of appropriated moneys to be placed to the credit of the different government departments. Certainly the house was given to understand that the purpose of the Audit Act was to bring about a more effective control and not to lessen it; least of all was it thought that its purpose was to transfer control which parliament has most zealously exercised from the very beginning, to the government and to an officer under the government's control. When I read this statement in the auditor general's report I felt it iny duty to bring the matter immediately to the attention of the house, not with a desire of provoking a discussion on the question, but with a view of seeing once this had been done whether in the mind of the government the Audit Act should not be amended so that parliament may have restored to it that power over expenditure of public moneys through the control of issue of appropriated moneys by its servant the auditor general, which has been customary ever since the first audit act was passed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: So far as the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act is concerned, the question of parliamentary control, I submit with all deference, does not arise. All the auditor general is doing in that statement is calling in question an action of parliament itself. Parliament may or may not have acted wisely in passing that act. It may be a question whether there is or is not that same degree of control which obtained under the previous method. But inasmuch as I did not know my right hon. friend intended to bring this matter up to-day and also in view of the circumstance that I have asked unanimous consent of the house, I would be the last to wish to consume time under those conditions. I take it that the purposes of my right hon. friend will have been met if I say to him that I shall be very glad to take his references to-day as a notice and to indicate to him that I shall be pleased indeed at a later stage in supply or at some time when it may be convenient other than when we are voting interim supply, to discuss the question in full detail.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would certainly have given my hon. friend notice of what I intended to say-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am not criticizing my
hon. friend for not doing so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -had I meant in any way to start a discussion. In reading the report I noticed the statement by the auditor

Supply Bill-Mr. Bennett
general and as I believed it was of concern to parliament I considered it my duty to bring it immediately to the attention of the house. I thank my hon. friend for promising to give it consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I saw the volume of the auditor general's report to which reference has been made, and while I did not read the details of the matter, because I was familiar with the position taken by the auditor general, I at once recognized the references when the right hon. gentleman read them. The truth is that the new act entirely changed the conditions under which moneys were made available for departmental expenditures. The truth is also that the auditor general has always disapproved of it. It wiped out the entire bookkeeping establishments in the several departments and instead of credits being granted by the auditor general, they are now referable to the votes of parliament under the comptroller and unless there is provision in the estimate of the particular department for the payment of the moneys that are sought to be expended, then the auditor general declines to sanction the payment when the item comes before him. I do not propose to do more than to say that the effect of the action taken has been to save the country, I think the figure for last year was $231,000-I speak subject to correction-because the new method is partly responsible for the reduction in personnel mentioned in the return made a few days ago by the Minister of Finance. I feel satisfied that when the right hon. gentleman and those associated with him have studied the operations of the act, they will be satisfied that parliamentary control has not been lessened and that the machinery set up for handling the financial operations of the country is such as would obtain in good business establishments and retain to the utmost the control of parliament.
I said to my colleague the Minister of Finance that in view of the attention of the house having been directed to the matter by the right hon. gentleman, we might discuss it fully when the house is again in supply on Monday or Tuesday or any other day that might be convenient. Possibly the best time would be when the item of cost of management in connection with the financial operations of the country is under consideration by the committee. Every facility that can be afforded for the purpose of the discussion will be given and if the right hon. gentleman will indicate that there is any information he desires to be furnished from the department, I will see that it is made available for him before the discussion takes place.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In connection with the Prime Minister's promise a few minutes ago to bring down information to help in understanding the matter of control of public expenditure, perhaps he or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) will be kind enough to have the officers of the department prepare a memorandum which will show by comparison the old system of control and the new and what the differences between the two may be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, certainly, that will be done.


William Duff: I think I am correct in saying that the amount which it is now proposed to vote, is not for March salaries or for payments due to the public to March 31 of this year, but it is intended to cover moneys which will be due to civil servants and to other people who are doing business with the government for the months of April and May. Before the vote is carried, I think this is a very opportune time for the government to tell the house whether we are going to return to the payment of 100 per cent of salaries to lighthouse keepers, customs officials and other officers of the service throughout the country. We should therefore have an expression of opinion from the government with regard to getting back to the payment of 100 per cent of the salaries, whether it be the salary of Mr. Speaker, or that of the Deputy Speaker of this house, or of the chairman of the committee of the whole, or my remuneration as the member for Antigonish-Guysborough, or the salaries of the deputy ministers of the different departments and other officials, or of the lightkeepers and charwomen and elevator men and all the other civil servants of this country. We should have a statement from the government now, because if we vote this money to-day and adjourn over Easter and do not come back until the 9th of April there will be very little time between then and the 15th when the cheques go out for the government to take any action. This vote, as the finance minister said in answer to my question, only covers the amount set forth in the estimates, and as we know, in these estimates the ten per cent is deducted. It is very easy for the finance minister and the government to bring down a supplementary estimate covering the ten per cent, the difference between 90 and 100 per cent, so that the civil servants after the first of April can get 100 per cent which in my opinion is due them.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot agree with my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) that the question of asking for interim supply has any bearing on the major question of the amount of the supply itself. That is
Public Works Program

an entirely separate thing. I may say further that even if it had any bearing I am not in a position to make any announcement today for the very good reason among others that when at their request I met a delegation consisting of the heads of the various civil service organizations some weeks ago, I told them no decision would be arrived at until after a further conference, and that further conference does not take place until tomorrow. That alone would preclude me making any announcement now. I know that under these conditions my hon. friend will not press the question.


William Duff: As long as the hon. minister gives that information to the house before we adjourn I am quite satisfied.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot even give an undertaking to that effect, although I have every hope of doing so.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rhodes thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 41 for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1935.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I had not the
pleasure of hearing the Prime Minister speak in Hamilton last night, but I am told, by one or two who had, that they understood from his remarks that he promised the city of Hamilton a new building when the program of public works was brought down. I would like to know if that is correct?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it would be a fair inference to draw from what I said, that when any program of public works goes forward provision will be made for such a building. The necessity for it is so apparent that it does not require any argument. Unfortunately, for my own peace of mind, I should add there were a number of representatives there sitting at tables marked Brantford, St. Catherines, Galt-


William Duff: Niagara Falls.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Niagara Falls and other
cities, and I am bound to say it did not seem to meet with that measure of approval that one might hope for.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is, I suppose, the first of the promises the Prime Minister is making for the next election.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I hope it is not the first.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: And not the last.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly not the last.
And I may add that he is now in process of endeavouring to give effect to some of those that have already been made.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: May I invite the Prime Minister to come and make a speech in the city of Quebec?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I might say that if I
receive the same reception there as I did the last time I was there I shall be quite content.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: You made only promises there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the Prime Minister when the house may expect to receive details of the program of construction?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the right hon. gentleman is serious about it-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What I said was in a
jocular manner in dealing with the question of public works. I said that any program of public works would in my judgment be incomplete that did not provide for a public building in Hamilton. Those, as nearly as I can recollect, are the exact words I used. I think that yet. So if there is a program of public works I would regard it as incomplete if provision were not made for a public building in Hamilton, where, I understand, they have owned a site for a very long time, and where the government offices are scattered over the community. And I think, if the records were looked at, it would be found that my right hon. friend's party made somewhat similar observations in times past. There is nothing about it that is new to anyone, with respect to the necessity of a building in that community. The provisions of the measure dealing with this matter will be made known as soon after Easter as may reasonably be but the bill will not be brought down until then.

Relief Act 1934



TARIFF BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yar-mouth):: I would like to ask the Prime
Minister whether the government is in a position to make a statement with regard to the questions which will be submitted to the supreme court arising out of the recent decisions of the tariff board. The Prime Minister I think mentioned the other day that he would make a statement shortly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said I would endeavour to table a copy of the order in council by the end of the week. The questions have been discussed and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has prepared the submission, but there was a difficulty as to whether or not a third question should be submitted, and the matter was brought to the attention of the house the other day. I hope I may be able to lay a copy of the order in council on the table to-morrow, but if not it will be done on Monday. There are days when it is difficult to find time to consider these matters; this would have been done to-day but for the fact that the committee concerned with the Jacques Cartier celebration met with us, so we did not have a chance to discuss the order in council.



SAINT JOHN OVERHEAD BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position to state to the house whether or not an order in council has been passed giving authority to the harbour commissioners of Saint John for the construction of an overhead bridge, so called.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Speaking from memory, I remember
that a submission was made to council by the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) of recommendations made by the harbour commissioners as to an overhead bridge over the tracks at the new berth, No. 4. My memory is that such an order in council has been passed. I will verify that, and if it has been passed I will send a copy to the hon. gentleman.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That, it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting relief measures generally similar in terms to the Relief Act, 1933, but which also makes provision for payment of federal proportion of delayed relief accounts, if any, which may be received subsequent to the date of the expiration of said act.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the
minister if I am right in assuming that this resolution is necessary because the provisions of the Relief Act of 1933 expire on the 31st of this month, and, if that is so, that, with it ends all the government has by way of providing assistance in connection with unemployment. That, I understand, is the extent of the government's policy on unemployment, namely, the system of the dole that was adopted last session. That system has been continued under the act of 1933, which expires at the end of this month. Unless we put through this measure before March 31 the government has nothing further that it can do for the unemployed, as I understand it.


Mr. GORDON:: The right hon. gentleman is right, in substance. The act of 1933 expires on March 31 of this year, and unless legislation is enacted before the expiration of the fiscal year there will be no funds available with which to carry on the various activities of the dominion in assisting the provinces in connection with unemplojunent and general relief work.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Gobeil in the chair.


Mr. POULIOT:: At the beginning of the
session I asked a question of the Minister of Labour which is reported, together with his answer, at page 142 of Hansard. The question and answer were as follows:
1.	Since the month of August, 1933, has the Department of Colonization of the province of Quebec proposed to the federal government that it carry on certain work in the parishes of St. Elzear. St. Emile d'x\uclair and St. Benoit de Paekington, Temiscouata county?
2.	Has this work been approved by the federal government?
3.	If so, on what date?
Mr. Rhodes:
1. Yes.
2 and 3. The relief works proposed to be carried out by the province of Quebec at St. Emile d'Auelair, Temiscouata county, received
Relief Act 1934

dominion approval on January 24th, while the works proposed to be carried out at St. Elzear and St. Benoit de Paekington are still under consideration.
They had been under consideration since the previous August. On February 5 of this year the following order was passed by the house:
For a copy of memorandums bearing numbers 48, 54, 56, covering the work which the Department of Colonization of the province of Quebec proposed' to have done in the parishes of St. Elzear, St. Emile d'Auclair and St. Benoit de Paekington, Temiscouata county, and which were sent to the federal government for approval on August 30, 1933; also copy of all the correspondence, reports, telegrams, petitions, concerning the said work.
Approval was given with regard to the parish of St. Emile d'Auclair but, according to a letter I received from the Deputy Minister of Labour, the proposals concerning the parishes of St. Elzear and St. Benoit de Pack-ington are still under consideration. In the return I have just mentioned, which is sessional paper No. 192 and which was tabled on March 2, 1934 by the Minister of Labour, there is some important correspondence at pages 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. This contains the list of settlers in those constituencies who need relief, and the house will remember that last year I complained with regard to the way the settlers were looked after by this government. At that time I was told by the Minister of Labour that I was slandering my province. There was a man, whose name I will not mention to-day, who distorted the facts on that occasion by falsifying the reports of my speeches, and at the request of the Prime Minister the judgment I passed on that gentleman was deleted from Hansard. I wonder if he was rewarded for distorting the reports of the House of Commons by being appointed to the Post Office Department at 82,100 per year; in any case there he continues his dirty job of slandering the members and lying continuously in the newspapers. I shall not insist any more in connection with this matter. But when the Minister of Labour stated in the house that I was slandering my province when, in fact, I was defending the settlers in my constituency and in all other parts of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario I resented his action very much. Now, however, I have part of the proof; I have not the whole of it because I see that the return has been combed before being placed on the table of the house. I repeat that it has been combed. However I have something before me which I shall read to hon. members so that they may know about the real situation of the settlers in my constituency. I regret to have to take this action, but I believe I am bound

to do so because although the minister may have been acting in good faith I do believe that surely he must have been wrongly informed when he blamed me so unfairly.
From the return which I have mentioned I shall refer to a letter from a missionary, the parish priest of the new settlement at St. Emile d'Auclair. This communication is addressed to Mr. Harry Hereford, director of unemployment relief in the Department of Labour, Ottawa. Dated on December 18, 1933, it reads as follows:
Dear Sir,-
I am entrusted with the spiritual welfare of the settlers of Saint-Emile d'Auclair, founded in 1932. I forwarded to your address, some time ago, the information relating to our people.
I clearly explained the situation of my settlers to your inspector, Mr. Lafortune, when he came through here in October.
Over a month ago, your department authorized an expenditure of $9,100 for work to be carried out at the settlement of Lejeune, an adjacent parish, which has a much smaller population than mine.
I have been patiently waiting, until tjhis very day. It will take a miracle to save my settlers from starvation, that is the plain fact, with the few hundreds of dollars which I succeed in obtaining each month at the price of endless complaints and recriminations. The small children of settlers in my parish are without shoes, or stockings or clothes to cover themselves this winter to attend school (a large number cannot leave the camps), they are in great distress, utter destitution-
I shall draw the minister's attention to the fact that this missionary says that the condition is one of black misery.
-a life of cruel disappointment for a poor missionary who is in charge of all these people.
Would you be kind enough to inform me, whether the provincial government has sent in a request for relief in connection with the settlement of St. Emile?
The parish priest wondered if a request for relief had been sent by the provincial government to the federal government. His letter inquires as to whether the request had reached the federal Department of Labour in the previous month of August.
What was the amount? What reason or reasons prevent you from granting this amount? Why these interminable delays as regards my settlement, when you have granted so many requests, here and there?
Kindly inform me whether you approve or reject the requests made by the Quebec government for my settlement. I have witnessed the great distress of my settlers. I must act one way or another, for the heart of a missionary cannot endure such sufferings among those who have been entrusted to him. Please reply immediately.
I have the honour to be your very obliged in J.C.
(Sgd.) J. E. A. Beaulien,
Missionary Priest.

Reliej Act 1934
Mr. Chairman, that is the text of the letter received by the department from the reverend gentleman I have named. There is attached to the letter, at the request of Mr. F. Lafor-tune who, I understand, belongs to the Department of Labour, a list of people who need relief in that new parish which has been created as a means to relieve unemployment.
It is as follows:
Heads of family-	Dependents
Henri Levesque	 3
Xavier Gagnon	 6
Aristide Bouchard	 4
Paul Duchesnes	 3
Emile Berube	 1
Alphonse Tremblay	 1
Hermenegilde Boucher	 9
Edouard Martin	 4
Alphee Robichaud	 9
Romeo Grandmaison	 5
Henri Labrie	 3
Marcel Thibault	 7
Georges Desehenes	 10
Phileas Thibault	 3
Ernest Savard	 2
Joseph Savard	  4
Desire Fillion	 8
Emmanuel Rella	 1
Albert Bova	 5
Joseph Lebrun, p	 6
Emile Lebrun	 2
Eudore Bergeron	 4
Real Dube	 2
Camille Duellet	 3
William Parent	 6
Joseph Levesque	 5
Paul Ouellet	 9
Francois Berube	 5
Georges Pelletier	 0
Lorenzo Levesque	 5
Francis Plourdes	 4
Thurible Pelletier	 4
Alexis Dorion	1
Philas Drouin	 7
Georges Leelerc	 3
William Leclerc	 1
Georges Plourdes	 3
Charles Berube	 4
Sosthenes Rioux	 7
Joseph Duchene	 8
Ernest Bowan	 4
Napoleon Cote	 10
Joseph Phillippon	 7
Emilien Fortier	 4
Esdras Gregoire	 3
Desire Godbout	 5
Alphee Caron	 9
Leger Gilbert	 7
Leodore Fortier	 3
Wilfrid Prevost	 6
Omer Huppe	 4
Pierre Laliberte	 3
Romeo Gagnon	 3
Joseph Boucher	 2
Pierre Lavalliere	 2
Alfred Beaudoin	 8
Albert Gregoire	 1
Alfred Labrie	 6
Johnny St-Pierre	 9
This is the list of family heads which was sent to the department on October 12, and on December 18, two months afterwards, no answer had been received. In proportion to 74726-109
the population there wrere more unemployed in that new settlement established to relieve unemployment than there are in the large cities of Toronto and Montreal. Besides that, the names of many bachelors appear on the same list. Following the names of bachelors is another list containing the names of the heads of families. There are two double column pages of unemployed and people who need relief, and there are further names on the third page. A certificate by the parish priest is attached.
I have received letters from people in the parishes of St. Elzear, and St. Benoit de Packington. The matter is still under consideration, and only to-day I received the following letter from the deputy head of the Department of Labour:
Ottawa, March 19, 1934.
Dear Mr. Pouliot:
I have your letter of the 16th instant, and note your questions in regard to relief works at St. Elzear and St. Benoit de Packington.
Sessional Paper No. 192, reference No. 22, tabled on March 2, contained copies of the correspondence which passed in connection with these schedules to the Quebec agreement.
I note you also ask whether the projects are still under consideration by the minister and department. In reply I might state that as the agreement between the dominion and the province under which federal contribution was provided for on these works expires on the thirty-first instant, and as the agreement contains a provision for all such works being completed by that date, it has been decided not to approve of any further works under the present agreement.
Many months have elapsed since August and the department has no excuse for having waited until December before approving requests received from the Quebec government. I should like an answer to certain questions, and I shall send a copy of these questions over to the minister.
Referring to the answer given by the Minister of Labour and which appears on page 142 of Hansard of this session, to the effect that since the month of August, 1933, the Department of Colonization of the province of Quebec has proposed to the federal government that it carry on certain work in the parishes of St. Elzear, St. Emile d'Auclair and St. Benoit de Packington, Temiscouata county, province of Quebec. Has the work proposed for the parish of St. Emile d'Auclair been approved by the federal government? If so, why? I know it has been approved, but I should like to know why. Has the work proposed for the parishes of St. Elzear and St. Benoit de Packington been approved by the federal government? If not, why? With regard to the two latter parishes, is the government in possession of any correspondence to

Relicj Act 1934

the same effect as that contained on pages 9 to 16 inclusive of sessional paper number 192, reference number 22, tabled in the house by the hon. Minister of Labour on Friday, March 2, 1934? If so, from whom was each document received and what is the date? If such correspondence exists, why is it not contained in the above sessional paper?


George Gordon: On reference to the record I find that the federal government received from the provincial government of Quebec a large number of schedules asking that the federal government approve of work to be done in the constituency of Temiscouata. In all, twenty-five schedules were received for our approval. Wherever possible inspectors visit the locality where relief by way of works or otherwise is sought. Of the total number of schedules received from Quebec, only six were not approved, and of those six, two were subsequently cancelled by the provincial authorities. Undoubtedly this cancellation was brought about by the gradual pickup in business, particularly in connection with pulp-wood and lumbering operations. An inspector from the department visited the parishes to which the hon. member has referred. He interviewed those who in his judgment were acquainted with local conditions and reported that there was no necessity for either a contribution by the dominion government to the province or an expenditure of money by the province. The department acted upon the advice of the inspector.


Jean-François Pouliot: Was that inspector, Mr. Lafortune?


George Gordon: I have not the file before me, but I am inclined to think it was.


Jean-François Pouliot: How is it that Mr. Lafortune's report is not included in the return?


George Gordon: I would regard the report of an inspector who visits a locality and makes an investigation on behalf of the department as being strictly confidential. The names of people are mentioned and, speaking generally, I am afraid that people are rather resentful of anyone who would put barriers in the way of an expenditure of money from the provincial or dominion treasuries.


Jean-François Pouliot: Did the minister have the letter from Father Beaulieu translated for his own purposes?


George Gordon: I have no recollection of
such a communication but the hon. member will realize that tens of thousands of communications are received by the department in connection with relief matters throughout

Canada. I think I can say that if such a letter did come into the department I would have knowledge of it. I will look into the records to refresh my memory and during the course of the debates I shall make a further statement with respect to that.


Jean-François Pouliot: I think it is only fair
that the minister should have such letters translated in order that he may have personal knowledge of them. On the other hand, may I ask the hon. gentleman whether to his knowledge or to the knowledge of his deputy who sits beside him now, there is no correspondence of any kind apart from Lafortune's report or the inspector's report with regard to these two parishes of St. Elzear and St. Benoit de Packington since August last.


George Gordon: I can only assure the
hon. gentleman that at the earliest moment I will look up the file, refresh my memory and answer within the course of a day or two.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman for his answer and I wish to tell him now that I am ready to take his word on that. On the other hand, knowing the people as I do, and knowing the facts as I know them, I have every reason to believe that there is some other correspondence with the department to the effect that the request made by the Quebec government should not be granted to these people. It is my personal belief and impression; and when I say that I say it on the strength of reliable authority. I have received letters which I am not going to read; they are long and I do not want to take up too much of the time of the committee; but when one of our fellow countrymen is suffering it is the duty of a member to bring the matter to the attention of the government. With regard to the grant for the parish of St. Emile d'Auclair, the residents of which complained last year through me to the government regarding the deplorable state in which they were living, the minister admitted that I was acting in good faith, not slandering my province, but taking every available opportunity to come to the assistance of these people, without any political motive, but just to do my duty as a member of the House of Commons. I thank the minister for his answer and I hope he will be kind enough to supplement it at an early date.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What sort of public
works were carried on under the control of the provincial government in Charlevoix and Saguenay under that measure last year?

Relief Act 1934


George Gordon: I have before me the
numbers of schedules for the constituency, showing the estimated cost and the dominion proportion, but as to the actual character of the work I should have to refer to the details of the many schedules. However, it may suffice if I run over the various schedules showing the amounts in the constituency represented by the hon. gentleman.
	Estimated	Date of
Schedule-	cost	approval360 	. $ 1,500	December 20361	. 1,500	Not approved362 	. 10.000	December 6363 	. 10.000	December 6366 	. 1.200	December 20371	. 1,500	December 6372 	. 2.500	December 6373 	. 2.000	December 6142A.. ..	. 2.000	January 17155A.. . .	. 900	January 17151A.. ..	. 3.800	December 28151B.. ..	. 3,800	Januarv 17143A.. ..	. 600	February 28148A. . ..	. 1,000	February 24472 	. 1,000	Later, on	instructions from	the provinceof Quebec,	this schedule was	cancelled.Estimated	Date of*Schedule-	cost	approval17	. 30,000	October 426	. 10,000	October 429	. 8.000	October 474	. 5.000	October 1979	. 8.000	October 19141	. 10,000	October 4142	. 2.000	October 4148	. 7,000	October 4150	. 2.000	October 4151	. 5,000	October 4153	. 1,800	October 4155	. 1.200	October 4152	. 1,500	October 4143	. 2,500	October 4154	. 7.000	October 4269 	. 50,000	October 4299 	. 700	November 2833S	. 5,200	December 6162	. 7.000	December 6359 	. 3,000	December 6


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What do all these
schedules cover? Is it for special work in each case, or have the schedules reference to different work at various times?


George Gordon: Each schedule sent us by ;he province of Quebec outlines shortly the ocality in which the work is to be carried an and gives a description of the kind and jharacter of the work.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Would it be possible to supply me with the names of the places and the work done under each schedule? I do not want to put the minister to the trouble of reading it to the committee, but he might send me a list of the various schedules showing what work they cover, and where the work was carried out.
74726-109J	'


George Gordon: I should be very glad to prepare for the hon. member a statement showing where the work was done and the character of the work proposed or done.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I do not know whether the minister has this information, but if he can give it, I would like to have the names of those engaged on these various works, including the superintendent.


George Gordon: The Department of Labour has no record of the employees. That matter is entirely in the hands of the provincial authorities in Quebec. No doubt, on application, the information could be obtained from the provincial authorities.


Mr. BRADETTE:: This resolution means simply that the country is going to have direct relief again for another year. The Minister of Labour knows very well that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs so far as Ontario is concerned and it shows on the part of the government a lack of policy in regard to dealing with unemployment. I have in mind utterances made last year by several members of the Ontario government, more particularly by the Hon. Mr. Finlayson, highly condemning the direct relief policy of the federal government, even going so far as to say that it was practically a waste of public funds to the country and to Ontario in particular.


George Gordon: Would the hon. member permit me an interjection at this moment? It must be remembered that at no time was a policy of direct relief or of works or otherwise a policy of the dominion government. The legislation passed was to assist the provinces to carry out their constitutional responsibilities. The provinces themselves lay down and administer the course which in their judgment they think it best to follow, having regard to all the circumstances and the needs that confront the various provincial governments in their respective jurisdictions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the
minister tell the committee what the dominion government's policy with respect to unemployment was or is? As I gather from the minister's remarks, any policy as far as there is or was one relating to unemployment was entirely a provincial one, and the dominion had no policy other than just to assist the provinces. Is that the situation?


George Gordon: So far as the administration that falls within the Department of Labour under this legislation is concerned, the dominion has merely contributed to assist the provinces to carry out their obligations.
Relief Act 193Jf


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has the
dominion any policy apart from that or in addition to it? Is not that the sole policy of the dominion, the beginning and end of it?


George Gordon: I do not think I need enter into any extended debate so far as the observation of the right hon. gentleman is concerned. He knows quite well this government has taken many measures which in its judgment would tend to improve matters throughout Canada with respect to trade, industry, agriculture and all the other various activities of the Canadian people. In my view, the actions taken by the government have in effect been very helpful. So far as this legislation is concerned and dealing with the expenditure of moneys, the policy was merely to supplement the efforts of the provinces in taking care of those who are unable to provide for themselves and also to supplement the funds of the provinces in the projection of such desirable works as in their opinion could be carried on in order to provide some employment for their people.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The fact remains that unemployment relief has been the child of the federal government since the fall of 1930. That policy was inaugurated then by this government and has been administered by the provincial authorities. Another feature of this is the fact that for the first year, 1930-31, the government had a public works policy, but for reasons known only to them, it was found wanting and abrogated and then they took up direct relief. That, however, does not conflict with the statement I made a few minutes ago that the provincial authorities of Ontario fully realize that direct relief is only a palliative; that it is not a remedy for the present situation, and I believe I am absolutely in order in saying that the introduction of the resolution now before us brings very forcibly before the house and the country the fact that the federal government has no policy so far as unemployment is concerned. Unemployment relief, as I say, is purely and simply the infant of th,e present government. I could quote several papers which the minister knows are Conservative in their views and which certainly are not satisfied with the present method of unemployment relief. The objection is not as to the way in which it is administered, but they relaize that it is only a palliative and they feel now that after nearly four years in power the federal government should have a policy whereby it will be able to deal with such an important national problem in a way that will satisfy every section of the population. Unemployment re-

lief at the present time is purely and simply the dole and it is a system which is largely deteriorating the moral fibre of our Canadian people. All it is doing is to permit the unemployed and their families to keep body and soul together, holding no hope for the future.
In making these remarks I want to be constructive in my criticism, but I know I have the backing of members of the Ontario government. Last summer and fall and during the winter Mr. Finlayson was quite outspoken in regard to the direct relief policy inaugurated by the federal government. He said practically that it was a scheme that should not be carried on any longer. I was hoping that the government would have a policy whereby unemployment w'ould be dealt with at the root and from the proper angle. As I said, the present method is purely and simply a small stop-gap; it is only a way whereby the people keep body and soul together hoping for better times to come. When those times are going to come, they do not know, but surely the people of Ontario and of Canada generally have a right to expect to get relief and some hope from the present administration.
I know I shall have an opportunity of speaking on the back to the land movement when that estimate comes before us and at present I want to confine my remarks to directing attention to certain works that should be imdertaken in my section of the country. Last fall the people of Canada entertained high hopes for a certain length of time because they were led to believe-I do not know from what member of the present government the report came-the government was going to inaugurate a program of public works. Whether the government had in mind at the time the construction of the St. Lawrence waterway being commenced early this spring, I do not know; but if such hopes were entertained, they were badly shattered last week. So far as eastern Canada is concerned, there is no hope of relief in the construction of the St. Lawrence waterway, but there are other programs of public works of national importance that could be undertaken by the government. It was said three years ago that it was found that the cost to the government of public work construction was practically prohibitive, but surely after three years of experiment the government can find it possible to undertake works of a national character and in an economical way. Knowing the minister so well personally, I make the statement in all sincerity that I know he is not satisfied with the resolution under discussion at the present time. I know he fully realizes, because he is conversant with the

Relief Act 1934
situation that exists throughout Canada, that the settlers in my section and his own and the farmers and workingmen generally are not satisfied under the direct relief scheme as it exists at present. Newspapers in my district, including even my regional one, have been absolutely against the relief meaures we have had on the statutes of Canada for the last few years. Surely it should be possible for the government to give employment to worthy people. It is true that under the relief provisions our people have not actually suffered greatly, that they have at least been able to eat three times a day and to be clothed to some extent, but there are anomalies in the application of those regulations. There is the fact that some able-bodied men have not done a day's work ever since relief was inaugurated, also that men who were willing to work on their farms for instance could not do it because for work done on their own property they could not receive remuneration from the government. I do not know if the Minister of Labour is familiar with the fact that last summer in our section an official of the northern development branch declared in the town of Cochrane that every settler who spent his time working on his farm would receive remuneration. That declaration was received with enthusiasm by every section of the population, urban and rural. I believe it would be a proper method of administering the Relief Act in new colonization areas. But unhappily for our fine rural population that policy was not made effective. I hope the minister will use his influence during the coming summer to see that settlers who are willing to stay on their holdings and clear their land for cultivation shall receive a certain amount of compensation, comparable to what wTas paid last summer for work on colonization roads. That policy would involve no extra cost to the administration.
Another matter which I have mentioned on several occasions, which is national in its scope and in which our section is greatly interested, is the trans-Canada highway. The minister is familiar with the promises made in his riding and in mine during the last federal election that the trans-Canada highway would go through Haileybury, Cochrane and Hearst. I am sorry to say that as far as my section is concerned it has not been routed as we expected. Consequently our people were unable to get the amount of work that was provided, for instance in the Ottawa valley and around the north shore of lake Superior. The promise was made during the last election and should be fulfilled. Some people say that election promises are only to catch votes and must be forgotten after the
vote is cast, but my section of the country will not stand for that. There was a definite promise made at that time that the route of the highway was then or would soon be decided. But as far as I can see, outside of some minor work that has been done on the Ferguson highway at Englehart and Cobalt, very little work has been done towards connecting that highway with the transcontinental highway. That promise was very definite and well-understood by every section of northern Ontario. It may be that the provincial government said two or three years ago that they were not decided on the route but surely after three years of investigation the provincial government should be willing now to give a lead as far as that highway, and our section, is concerned. We believe in our section that we have been fooled on that important question. Although we realize that certain sections of northern Ontario have a right to be connected with the trans-Canada highway, I believe the promise made during the last federal election, which was a logical promise, should be implemented. We want to be connected somewhere east of lake Nipigon with the other section. But I believe our section is being entirely forgotten at present.
To show how much money has been spent on the trans-Canada highway and how much more will have to be spent I will quote a few figures given in answer to a question of the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Hurtubise) as to the amounts of money expended on the trans-Canada highway in the province of Ontario for the years 1931, 1932 and 1933. The answer given was as follows:
1931		 Nil
1932	 $5,980,565
1933	 273,242
It is easy to see that the federal government is satisfied as long as a road is constructed in the Ottawa valley and a certain amount of work done around the north shore of lake Superior, and our section absolutely forgotten. I may tell this committee that not a single inch of work has been performed wedt of Hearst and no move made in that direction. This is work of national importance. One of the finest and most rapidly growing sections of this country is being absolutely ignored, and at the same time the route by the north shore of lake Superior is by far the more expensive. Anyone familiar with the physical obstacles in that section will readily realize that it would cost millions more to route the road that way than through our section. There is still time to remedy the injustice that has been done. We still hope in our section that through the
Relief Act 1934

influence of the Minister of Labour we shall receive the justice to which we are absolutely entitled. One feature strengthening that position is that to-day the province of Quebec is giving a lead in that direction. If my information is correct, presently a large body of men working north on the Mont Laurier road will be connecting on the CiN.R. with Senneterre and that will give the closest route from the maritime provinces and Quebec to Winnipeg. If hon. members will study the map of Canada they will see that nearly 600 miles would be saved by going via our section.
So in considering any national program of public works I hope the minister will see that a certain amount is provided for this highway between Cochrane and La Reine in the province of Quebec. There is only a short link on the Ontario side required to connect with the province of Quebec, about 72 miles in all.


George Gordon: Might I interrupt a
moment? As far as the trans-Canada highway is concerned I do not think the hon. member wants to be understood as saying that in his judgment the trans-Canada highway should go up to Senneterre and out to Manitoba in that direction. And I do not think he means that the road from Sheenboro to connect with Kipawa in Quebec is not being built because of any neglect on the part of the Dominion government, because the fact is we have received no schedule and no request for any contribution to that road which would connect with the Ontario roads passing through Rouyn down to Ottawa md Montreal. The Sheenboro-Kipawa-Ville Marie road is the one break which has necessitated the people in the north end of Pontiac and the Rouyn mining country coming down to Montreal and Toronto by the Ferguson highway in Ontario. I do not think the hon. member wants to be understood as meaning that the province of Quebec has given the lead to Ontario as far as opening up that part of northern Quebec is concerned, as compared with the efforts of the provincial government of Ontario in opening up roads in Ontario, which has been going on steadily and to an increasing extent each year. The Ferguson highway has been the outlet to the front, both Toronto and Montreal, for all of that north part of Pontiac to the present time, and still is as far as vehicular and motor traffic is concerned.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Perhaps I have not
made myself clear. The minister is familiar with the fact that Cochrane is situated on the Ferguson highway. He is also familiar

with the fact that the province of Quebec has a good roadway system all the way from Senneterre to La Reine, near the Ontario border, which is only 82 miles east of Cochrane, and presently the Quebec government is constructing a road from Mont Laurier going northwest to Senneterre, which will give direct connection from Montreal to Cochrane, or at least La Reine, and will then be knocking at our door.


George Gordon: Montreal now has direct
connection with Cochrane.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It has, by a roundabout way through the Ottawa valley; if you want to go from Montreal to Cochrane you have to go through the Ottawa valley to North Bay. The new road now being built by the Quebec government by way of Mont Laurier will mean a saving of at least 200 miles. Surely the minister is familiar with that situation.


George Gordon: I am sure the hon. gentleman would not suggest that, when going through such a wonderful country, a person should take the shortest possible route and go as quickly as possible?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I do not know whether or not the minister drives his own car, but I want to tell him that even if there is a converging road around the north shore of lake Superior, no matter how beautiful the country may be the people certainly will travel by way of Cochrane. Then there is the further advantage that people will be able to go one way and come back the other. To-day the province of Quebec is providing direct communication with the town of Cochrane, and I want the minister to realize the urgent need of constructing that 72 mile link, which is all that is necessary to complete that direct road. Within two years the province of Quebec will be tapping at our door, and we will have no connection between Montreal and Cochrane if this link is not completed. I know the minister is progressive enough to realize that we are entitled to have communication with the city of Montreal, and I have pointed out that we will have that communication when this remaining 72 miles of road is constructed. This is one of the public works which I believe should be carried on.
The minister also is familiar, no doubt, with the agitation, or activities, if I may call it that, in that section of the country for the construction of a highway from Timmins to Sudbury. The minister is aware of the fact that such a road would establish communica-

Relief Act 1934
tion with such places as Shining Tree, Gow-ganda, Elk Lake, Matachewan and Porcupine, and would open up a rich territory, partly agricultural but mainly mineral.


George Gordon: I wonder if I might interrupt once more. I am sure the hon. member knows, though perhaps it has slipped his memory, that the government of the province of Quebec, with whom rests the designation of the route within that province of what has been commonly termed the trans-Canada highway, have declared by order in council that the highway shall come to Lachute and cross into Ontario at that point. After it leaves Quebec, of course, they have no further authority, but that route has been designated by the government of Quebec as the trans-Canada highway. My own view is that this road by way of Mont Laurier would be a very useful piece of work, and while it may not be called the trans-Canada highway I assume that in time, with the annual improvements that will be made, it will become a very passable road. Then getting over into Ontario, I do not think the hon. member will deny that each year the highway from North Bay to Cochrane and west to Hearst is improved very materially. In fact I doubt if there is any gravel road in Ontario that is better than the Ferguson highway from North Bay on up to Porquis Junction and on to 'Cochrane and Hearst.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I do not want the minister to put up a straw man only to destroy it; I have not said a word of criticism with regard to the Ferguson highway. I am going to make this prophecy, however; once the province of Quebec has direct communication with the town of Cochrane, through Mont Laurier, I am sure they will pass another order in council calling that the trans-Canada highway, if we then have direct communication with the western provinces. Of course if the promises made by the minister and his friends during the last campaign are not carried out, then we will be out of luck.


George Gordon: I am afraid I will have to interrupt again. The hon. member mentioned the promises I made during the last election. I think he will search the records for a long time before he finds any promises I made.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Will the minister deny that during the last campaign, in both our ridings, one of the strong planks in the platform of the Conservative party was the promise that the trans-Canada highway would go through that section of the country?


George Gordon: No, I would not care to deny that.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I know the minister will not deny that, because that promise was made in his own riding, whether it was made by himself or by his party. This must not be forgotten.


George Gordon: It is not being forgotten.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The promise will have to be implemented, and the Ontario government will have to come across with the proper routing of the highway. If I show some earnestness when I make that statement it is because I know what has happened in my own section of the country.
Again let me refer to the public works program. I have mentioned two matters, the construction of the communication road between Quebec and Cochrane and the road from Sudbury to Timmins. The minister is familiar with the situation in the north country, and he is familiar with the activities of those two large centres of population. He knows that a road between Sudbury and Timmins would open up a great mining area, and the federal government can help by implementing the public works program. I mentioned also last year that certain hazards in northern Ontario should be done away with. I have in mind more particularly what has happened in the minister's home town and in my own home town, where we had disastrous forest fires which in a few hours destroyed the results of years of labour. Most of the towns in northern Ontario are located in the virgin forest, and only a couple of years ago the city of Timmins had another scare; for a number of days smoke fogs hung over that town and the people expected daily that the fire would sweep through. Forest fires are always dangerous. I maintain that the government should find it possible to clear away all the inflammable material from around those towns for a distance of at least three-quarters of a mile in each direction. I know the minister is in sympathy with such a policy, and if it were put in force hundreds of young people would find employment.
May I again express the hope that this summer the government will find it possible to allow our settlers to spend most of their time on their holdings, and to receive some compensation almost equal if not equal to what they would receive if they worked on the colonization roads. Then I come again to the back to the land movement which I mentioned a moment ago. I believe my riding is one section of the country in which that policy has been carried out to the greatest extent. Hundreds of families have been
Relief Act 1934

placed on the land there, and I may say that in most cases the venture has been a success. The fact remains, however, that last summer we had some very fine people brought from the industrial centres and placed on new farms miles from any road. Surely that should not be tolerated; surely it is within the power of the government to see that no families should be placed on new farms to which they have to pack on their backs provisions for themselves and their cattle. I believe the government should inaugurate a national program of colonization roads, not only for my section of the country but for the whole dominion. It is not my intention to speak at greater length, but I must repeat that under this resolution the people of Canada cannot find satisfaction for the hopes that were entertained at the beginning of the session. Some of the ministers in the Ontario legislature and of the federal government led the people to believe that a program would be inaugurated different from the one which after three years of application has been found wanting and has not proved a solution of our problems. Having given the problem of unemployment a very thorough study I believe that instead of improving conditions the present policy is aggravating them. Further than that, I know of hundreds of young people in my section of the country who are ready and willing to work on the farms. Some of them are college graduates, and they would be willing to go back to the new land if an opportunity were given to them. But that opportunity has not been offered.
Although I have many clippings before me from newspapers in my section of the country I shall read only a few comments from the Porcupine Advance, a newspaper published weekly and well known to the Minister of Labour. This newspaper may be termed a Conservative-Independent publication, and has always fought the battles of the north country with fair-mindedness. Part of an article written last autumn is as follows:
From the earliest signs of the depression The Advance has maintained that only through the providing of employment could any true help be expected. In this young country of Canada there is so much work necessary for the development of the country that it seems absurd to refuse the opportunity for having some of the needs supplied in the way of public enterprises of various kinds. This was the solution promised by Hon. R. B. Bennett's government. It was the plan adopted first by that government and there is every reason to feel that it worked out with reasonable success.

I was not satisfied when two years ago the government found it advisable to abandon the policy of public works and to adopt one of direct relief. To-day I am not satisfied in my own mind as to why that action was taken. Some people have said that the cost of the work then done proved to be prohibitive. That is easily understandable when we remember that the work done in the winters of 1930 and 1931 was done in frozen ground. I am speaking of the construction of roads, ditches and other similar works. Surely if that policy had been followed during the summer months the cost would not have been prohibitive, and to-day the government should not be groping to find its way out of the trouble with which it is now faced.
In the name of the settlers and labourers in my section of the country, and in all sincerity I make the assertion that the people do not want the dole, but that they do want a chance to work. I am an ordinary layman, so far as financial matters are concerned, but undoubtedly if the American congress had seen fit to adopt the St. Lawrence waterways project this government would have found it possible to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a national undertaking. Where would the government have found that money? I presume that the project would have cost the Canadian people at least half a billion dollars, and that money would have had to come from somewhere. But to-day the government does not find it possible to have a national program of public works whereby our people would find the employment they deserve and wish to have. If the money could have been found for proceeding with the St. Lawrence waterway scheme it should be just as possible for the government to inaugurate a policy of public works. Further than that, if to-morrow, in another war, Canada were called upon to defend her good name and ideals, even in European countries, money would be found; there is no doubt about that. Money was found, to the extent of $60,000,000, to back the credit of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Surely in this year of grace 1934, after the government has been experimenting for the last four years on policies which even their own friends and supporters have judged to be a complete failure, the minister should have something to offer better than he is offering at the present time. Some spokesmen of the federal government and some ministers in the Ontario legislature created the impression throughout Canada that the policy of direct relief would be abolished and one of national public works

Relief Act 1934
would be inaugurated. In that way good times would be experienced again because of the fact that the working population would find it possible to engage in remunerative work and add to the prosperity which in Canada is so badly needed, and will greatly accelerate the quick return of normal times.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I should not like
to do anything which would interfere with the giving of relief, but may I say that this matter is brought before us now almost as an emergency measure. We have been in session for about two months, and one might have thought that with as great a problem as that of unemployment before us we would before now have had some concrete proposal brought down by the government.
As was suggested a few moments ago by the right hon. leader of the opposition, apparently up to date the government has no policy and is simply giving some relief when such action is forced upon it by the necessities of the provinces. I note that the measure we are now discussing is to be similar in terms to the Relief Act of 1933 and, as I have done before, I should like to protest that that measure of relief is wholly inadequate to meet the situation. May I be permitted to bring to the attention of the minister and hon. members the report of the committee on unemployment which was recently adopted by the dominion convention of the Canadian Legion. I think this was excellently put and summarizes well the objections to the present policy of Canada, if we may call it such, with regard to unemployment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Lack of policy.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, policy or, as
the right hon. gentleman has said,, lack of policy of the government. I read from the report:
The general tenor of the resolutions and statements before your committee clearly indicates that the members of the Canadian Legion regard the tragic consequences of unemployment as a menace to the stability of our national life. It is equally clear that they are determined to challenge any further delay in the utilization of the national resources and credit to the fullest degree, in order to remove the peril of wide-spread poverty throughout the dominion.
It is considered that general attention should be directed to the following salient features of conditions resulting from prolonged unemployment and inadequate relief measures:-
(a)	Decreasing relief benefits with increasing living costs resulting in more general malnutrition and ill-liealth in the homes of the unemployed, with consequent danger of epidemics.
(b)	Dangerous depletion without replacement of household equipment and supplies, as well as clothing, causing unsanitary conditions and inability to exercise the ordinary precautions against physical disorders and infections.
(c)	The disastrous effects of prevailing conditions on the younger generation in the undermining of morale and physical stamina.
(d)	Insecurity of tenure of homes.
(e)	The lack of measures offering any hope for the reabsorption of the unemployed into industry, the segregation and branding of those compelled to accept relief as a class apart and outcast, and the perpetuation of conditions likely to create a permanent and dependent pauper class deprived of normal economic privileges and rights.
(f)	The general indifference and ignorance shown toward the danger of submitting a large section of the population to conditions of which the foregoing are indisputable features.
(g)	The tendency of some employers to exploit the circumstances of the unemployed in offering inadequate wages for temporary employment.
(h)	The increasing determination of the unemployed to defend their homes by any available means against the social injustice of enforcing degrading and perilous poverty upon them in the midst of plenty.
It is quite obvious that one might easily spend considerable time in expounding and illustrating each of these paragraphs.
These paragraphs are in clear and concise English and I intend to let them stand just as they are. I quote:
Your committee is of the opinion that the gravity of the situation is such as to demand immediate and drastic measures of a temporary nature that the cumulative effects of prolonged unemployment may not further menace the well-being of the entire community.
It is, therefore, recommended that this dominion convention of the Canadian legion urge upon the federal and provincial governments early ameliorative action with respect to the general problem of unemployment and relief, as indicated hereunder:
(a)	The promotion of a program of necessary public works maintenance and development, of sufficient extent and character as to absorb all able-bodied unemployed persons at a scale of wages that will ensure decent living conditions;
(b)	Pending promotion of a public works program an immediate increase in the scale of relief, commensurate with increased living costs, and with uniform application in all cities, towns, and municipalities;
(c)	Free medical, surgical, dental, and optical treatment for all recipients of unemployment relief and their families;
(d)	That in the operation of wTork camps regarded as essential in connection with public works projects, a minimum wage of $1.10 per day be paid in addition to provision of food, shelter, and clothing;
(e)	That more adequate and special provision be made for the protection of unemployed single women;
Relief Act 1934

(f)	That the provincial commands be requested to urge upon their respective provincial governments the necessity of protection for all unemployed persons against evictions and loss of their homes through foreclosure or tax sales.
Had these recommendations been made by a body other than the legion it is quite possible that those advancing them would have been called agitators, boDhevists or impossible dreamers. In my humble opinion they represent a sane and safe program which ought to be taken into serious consideration by this government. I quote:
Your committee recommends that the dominion executive council be instructed to urge upon the federal government the appointment of an economic advisory council, including economists, statisticians and engineers of unquestioned integrity and ability.	It is
further proposed that such council shall function in an advisory capacity to the government, with the main object of correlating all available data and preparing, as may be warranted by the facts, an outline of a planned economy under which,-
(a)	Industry may effectively reabsorb human labour displaced by technological advancement.
(b)	A national financial policy may be so determined as to properly relate distribution to production and enable such adjustment of the monetary system as will give paramount consideration to the economic needs of all the people.
Your committee further recommends that the convention endorse the following proposals in principle, and urge that same be brought under advisement by the federal and provincial governments and all industrial interests, as well as the proposed economic advisory council.
(a)	That in order to spread available employment in industry, legislation be enacted to shorten hours of labour without reduction of properly established wage schedules, and that an immediate step be taken in this direction by the federal and provincial governments as applicable to all public works and publicly owned transportation systems.
(b)	That piece work and overtime be controlled by government regulation so as to ensure maximum employment.
(c)	That the educational age limit be raised, with adequate and free facilities for vocational training of the youth.
(d)	That a general policy be instituted' as regards old age pensions, superannuation, industrial pensions, et cetera, as may influence the general retirement of workers at the age of 55 years.
(e)	That a rigid enforcement be given the application of minimum wage legislation.
(f)	That sweat-shop conditions be abolished.
It is recommended,
That the federal government be urged to enact legislation during the present session establishing a national scheme of unemployment insurance.
I heartily endorse the report as adopted and commend it to the very careful consideration of the minister and the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon.
member who has just spoken (Mr. Woods-worth) has drawn attention to the fact that the resolution states that the bill to be based upon it will be similar to the legislation of last year. I should like to ask the minister if it is the intention to include in the new legislation a clause to give the government authority to pass orders in council with respect to peace, order and good government. This was an emergency clause which appeared in the legislation of 1931 and again in 1933. I should imagine that by this time it should be possible to drop this clause, otherwise what is termed emergency legislation will become the general practice.


George Gordon: The bill will invest the
government with authority to take such measures as are deemed necessary for peace, order and good government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like
to protest very strongly against this power being given to the administration for another year. Originally it was introduced to deal with an emergency situation, that was three years ago. To-day we are not talking of emergency legislation but rather of continuing legislation. The minister's declaration simply means that the government is usurping entirely the functions of the House of Commons. I feel the more strongly with regard to the inclusion of such a provision this year, in view of the statement made only a night or two ago by the Prime Minister. I imagine the country will also resent such a step. The Prime Minister stated that the government had made a $60,000,000 guarantee to the banks in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and that this had been done under the provisions of this act which vests authority in the governor in council to legislate with respect to peace, order and good government. The Prime Minister stated that he intended to make use of powers thus delegated. In view of that statement, this house should consider more carefully than it has ever done in the past whether such powers should again be delegated to the government. This measure purports to be one for the relief of unemployment but in reality it is a measure for the granting of aid to large industries by enactments under peace, order and good government.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: That was not done under that clause.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is under
that authority.

Relief Act 1934


Hugh Guthrie: Subsection 2 (a) gives
the power to make grants to corporations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Subsection 2
<a) of what?


Hugh Guthrie: Of the act. That action was not taken under the peace, order and good government section; it is an express power given by the section.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the same power that is now being asked for.


Hugh Guthrie: The subsection reads:
(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; loan or advance money to or guarantee the payment of money by any public body, corporation or undertaking;
The peace, order and good government section is number 2-b.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The order in
council may have been passed under a different subsection of the act, but it was passed by authority of the same act. -


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit respectfully that the time has come when this house should be more careful than it has been up to the present in considering bills such as this which permit vast expenditures and vast guarantees. If that clause remains in the bill hon. gentlemen opposite may expect considerable discussion on the wisdom of its retention.
In the act of last year the amount for unemployment relief was fixed at a definite sum. Is there to be a similar restriction of the amount in the present act? If so, what is the figure?


George Gordon: That question was given a good deal of thought. Up until the 10th of March there had been paid, on account of direct relief, in round figures, $13,000,000; that is, we had actually disbursed that amount. Unquestionably there will come in, after the 31st day of March, accounts which were incurred under the authority of this legislation. The exact amount of course it is difficult to determine, but there will be no limitation in this legislation because I believe that, with the new agreements that will be entered into, it would not be efficacious to stipulate a limit in the act. We might be met with an overplus, as we may be this year, a small amount, for which the bill will make provision. But I believe that under
the agreements which we shall make with such provinces as cannot get on this year the amount given for direct relief will be very substantially reduced. I believe so, from what information I am able to gather regarding conditions in many of the industrial centres throughout Canada.
With respect to the other observation of the right hon. gentleman, the new legislation proposes to exclude the authority which was contained in last year's measure, appearing in section 2 (a), wherein the governor in council was invested with authority to loan or advance money or guarantee the payment of money by any public body, corporation or undertaking. So that if there is sound criticism that can be offered against the course the government takes with respect to the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other public body, the provision investing the government with authority to give such guarantees, loans or advances does not appear in the proposed bill, the reason being that, in the judgment of the government, this year will not see the necessity arise for executive action in assisting public corporations like the Canadian Pacific Railway.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am pleased to hear the minister give that assurance to the committee, but may I point out to him that all that he has said is another reason why subsection (b) of section 2 should be excluded also-subsection (b) of section 2, or rather the similar section in the bill to be introduced-that is, the one which gives tc the governor in council power when parliament is not in session to pass orders for the maintenance of peace, order and good government. Let me read the concluding words of that section:
-and at all times to take all such measures as in his discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to protect and maintain the credit and financial position of the dominion or any province thereof.
I am wondering whether, notwithstanding that it is proposed to delete the words to which the minister has referred, it will not still be possible for the government to do exactly the same thing under this general power. The minister excludes a specific power but retains the general power, and I hope that he will appreciate where his own argument leads him, and that before the measure is introduced he will give further consideration to the deletion altogether of that wide power, which I do not think should have been given at any time but certainly, in view of what the minister has just said, should no longer be continued.
Relief Act 1934

I should like to discuss one other matter in this connection. The government has recently tabled an order in council dated March 12, 1934, which was passed with a view to instructing the auditor general to begin to audit the accounts of the municipalities and provinces with respect to unemployment relief. The minister will probably remember that at the special session of 1930, speaking on behalf of the opposition, I urged very strongly that the auditor general should be authorized and directed to audit all the accounts that had to do with the expenditure of public moneys for purposes of relief, in so far as they were voted by this parliament. We were told by the Prime Minister at that time that it would be an insult to the provinces to ask the auditor general to do any such thing. I believe he used that word or some word as strong as that; at any rate he used language the equivalent of it. This money we were told was being given to the provinces and they should be permitted to spend it as they thought best. After there has been no end of waste of relief moneys, as the minister well knows, after the sessions of 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933, we come to the session of 1934, and find that the government has now instructed the auditor general to audit these accounts-to do something which at the present time it is impossible to do. Had such instructions been given at the beginning, had there been inserted in the contracts conditions which would have given the auditor general and his officers power to follow the various commitments and expenditures as they were being made, there might have been something in the nature of an audit. Let me read two clauses from the order in council:
And whereas the audits and investigations which have been made and reported upon by the auditor general, in pursuance of the directions hereinbefore recited, have disclosed the necessity for a more extended audit of the accounts relating to relief expenditures if the interests of the dominion treasury are to be adequately safeguarded; . . . Now therefore His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour, is pleased in the exercise of the powers so conferred by the Relief Act, 1933, to order and doth hereby order and direct the auditor general to conduct such audit of provincial and municipal accounts in connection with unemployment relief expenditures as he deems essential to safeguard the interests of the dominion treasury.
There are two questions which I desire to put to the minister in this regard. First of all, this order makes reference to reports that have been made by the auditor general show-

ing the necessity for a more careful and complete audit of the moneys spent on unemployment relief. Will the minister be able to give us these reports? No doubt he has them, because they must be made to him or to the Minister of Finance or to the Prime Minister.
I submit that the committee ought to have the reports before it is called upon to approve of the renewal of a similar measure.
In the second place, will the minister tell us how the auditor general will find it possible at this time, the year of 1934, to conduct an audit of provincial and municipal accounts, in connection with unemployment relief expenditures, in such a way as will be sufficient to safeguard the interests of the dominion treasury? The moneys have gone to all provincial governments and to municipalities from the Atlantic to the Pacific. There is hardly a community in Canada in which some of it has not been spent. And now, with a view to having it appear that the government is seeking to audit relief moneys, it instructs the auditor general to do something which anyone reading the instructions will find to be a wholly impossible task, even if the auditor had an army as staff. I should like the minister to tell us just how the government expects the auditor general to be able to audit these expenditures in a way that will protect the dominion treasury, and particularly how he will audit accounts of provinces and municipalities, seeing that there was no condition put in the contracts in advance giving him this right. In view of that, how will he audit the accounts of the municipalities and provinces?


George Gordon: With respect to the first question, the auditor general has from time to time made the reports which have been referred to and they will be made available to the committee.


Mr. MACKENZIE  ICING@: Will my hon. friend have them laid on the table at his earliest convenience?


George Gordon: I can have that done. With respect to the general observations made by the right hon. gentleman, the auditor general has been making test audits, I believe, since the expenditure started under the various relief measures, and it was as a result of the test audits he made that something over a year or a year and a half ago the first order in council-I do not have it before me-was passed. At any rate, one was passed as a result of conferences or at least one conference I had with the auditor general. Probably

Relief Act 1934
it was as a result of an interview and conference the auditor general had with the director of unemployment relief, the auditor general was asked to audit the provincial accounts and he has made audits of them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What provinces?


George Gordon: I believe he made audits of the accounts of all the provinces with the possible exception of Prince Edward Island, but whatever audits he has made, I shall have the reports tabled. In the course of the auditing of the provincial accounts it appeared that there may have been a laxity in connection with certain municipalities. Of course the Department of Labour has no audit system set up and as a result of the investigations made by the auditor general it was deemed desirable that he be instructed to cany out the audit as set out in the order in council to which reference has been made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must say that I am surprised at the statement the minister makes, if he says that the auditor general has audited the provincial accounts. Has he gone to each province and audited all the accounts that have to do with unemployment relief?


George Gordon: I believe he has gone into all the provinces and audited the unemployment relief accounts in all of them. That is the provincial accounts.
_ EUGENE FISET: Surely the minister is mistaken. I think the auditor general has been instructed to audit, so far as the provinces are concerned, only that portion of the accounts that has been paid to the provinces by the federal government, and not the money paid by the provinces as their share or by the municipalities as theirs.


George Gordon: Just with respect to federal moneys.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All the auditing the auditor general has done is to the extent of discovering whether cheques that have gone from the federal treasury have reached the provinces, but he has not followed the expenditure of the money, notwithstanding it is federal money that is in part involved. That is the point. When the minister says that the auditor general has audited the provincial accounts, he creates an entirely erroneous impression in the minds of those who hear him. All the auditor general has done, according to what the minister now says, is to see that federal moneys have
been paid over to the provinces in accordance with the terms of the agreements that were entered into with those provinces, but he has not followed the payment of those moneys by the provinces to the municipalities or by the municipalities to the persons to whom the money has been paid. That is the only audit that would amount to anything in revealing what was or was not wasted. Does the minister believe it possible for the auditor general and his department to audit now moneys that have been derived from the federal treasury with respect to the uses to which they have been put and to whom and how the expenditures were made?


George Gordon: I can see no insuperable
difficulty. The agreements with the provinces under which the advances by the dominion were made are clear. While certainly it will be quite a task, I do not think there is any reason to believe the auditor general cannot see to it that the moneys have been disbursed in accordance with the agreements entered into and the regulations made thereunder.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What were the terms of the agreements respecting audit? Can the minister give us that information?


George Gordon: I am looking now at the agreement with Quebec for 1933, and the only reference made to accounts appears in section 10 which reads:
7, '	 expenditures made
by the province and municipalities pursuant provisions of this agreement shall be submitted by the province to the Dominion Commissioner of Unemployment Relief, accompanied by a certificate of the appropriate provincial authority that expenditures have been duly made in accordance with such statements; and such statements and certificates shall be m the form prescribed by the Dominion Commissioner of Unemployment
That is the only reference in the agreement, and I believe that same form of paragraph was incorporated in the agreements with the other provinces. But while in the paragraph itself no mention is made of the auditor general, I do not think that precludes the Dominion government from instructing him to audit the accounts of the provinces or of the municipalities. I cannot conceive that by reason of the agreement not in terms stating that the auditor general must make an audit in such a way, he is divested entirely of any right to go ahead even without instructions.
Relief Act 1984


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is apparent that so far the auditor general has done nothing beyond what I indicated, namely making sure that the moneys were paid over to the provinces. So far as the expenditure of those moneys is concerned the Dominion Commissioner of Unemployment Relief is really acting as auditor of them, and that only to the extent of accepting certificates from the provinces themselves, if we are to judge from what the minister has just read.


George Gordon: No, it will be disclosed
that the auditor general has been making what he calls test audits-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a
different matter from a general audit.


George Gordon: -and he has audited, I believe, all the provincial accounts with the exception of possibly those of Prince Edward Island. As to the extent of his audit in each case, I am not prepared to give much information because I am not an auditor, but his reports will be laid upon the table for examination by those members of the committee who are probably more familiar with audits than I am.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Mr. NEILL:: Would the minister be prepared, either now or after eight o'clock, to make a statement on the subject of unemployment insurance? He made a statement a year ago when we were discussing a similar measure. I think the committee would like to have a statement as to what has taken place since then, what the situation is now, and what we may reasonably expect in the future.


George Gordon: When the estimates of the Labour department were before the committee some days ago a question was asked as to the policy of the government with respect to unemployment insurance. At that time, I made an answer to the question, and I can make no further answer to-day.


Alan Webster Neill: As far as I remember the
answer was an evasion of the most patent character. In fact I think it was a suggestion that the question was out of order. I am sorry if that is the best the minister can do after a year's interval and after the very definite statement of the Prime Minister three years ago that before his term of office expired the government would "crystallize into legislation" the information that they intended to procure, and which later statements indicated that they had procured. The minister's statement now will not be at all satisfactory to the people who were led to believe that some action was to be expected in the near future. If that is the best we can get I suppose we will have to be silent, or at least let it stand.
Then in connection with the powers contained in this proposed measure would the minister state whether in dealing with peace, order and good government such powers would in his opinion be sufficient to enable the government to alter or amend or modify any terms of, for instance, the Dominion Elections Act? That is a very important consideration in view of the possibility, if nothing stronger, of an election this year. It is highly desirable that the house know whether the powers could be so used. Whether they could be so used or not, I hope the minister will be able to assure the house that they will not be. It may be that there are reasons why

Relief Act 1934
the government should be given these large powers, but I cannot think of any possible circumstances which would justify the exercise of them in connection with the Dominion Elections Act.


George Gordon: I do not think that elections or the elections act have much to do with peace and order, though they may have something to do with good government. I assure the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that this power would not be sufficiently comprehensive to enable the government to interfere with the Dominion Elections Act. If it were, I think I can speak on behalf of the government and assure the hon. member that the government will not use any such power to change the Dominion Elections Act.


Mr. REID:: as they wished in the matter. Some municipalities require work in return for the little they give, while other municipalities provide the relief and do not ask that work be done. That is not conducive to peace, order and good government; it brings about a good deal of trouble. Before the Department of National Defence took over some of the camps we had the spectacle of men, who were clothed and fed but who were not required to work, walking down the street and talking to men who were working, almost intimidating them, sneering at them and telling them to throw down their tools. Cases like these make me feel that the suggestion that some commission should handle relief should have been acted upon, so that a more equitable method could have been inaugurated in this country and some uniform scale worked out. Then useful work could be done and no municipality would be allowed to give relief unless work was done.
I should like to make a plea to the minister in connection with the youth of this land. He may very well say that it is up to the provinces to take care of the young people, but the youth of the land present quite a serious problem. I am going to make one suggestion that I think might well be adapted by this country. I only point to what is taking place across the line, where many of the youths are being employed in the reforestation of burned-over areas. I think there is plenty of work of that kind in Canada that could be done to advantage, and in the days to come the country would reap the benefit of that work. We have the land, we have the seed plants and we have the youths who to-day are gathering in the cities debating and wondering what the future holds for them and what parliament is going to do for them. Thousands of these youths of eighteen to thirty are destitute; they have no outlook upon life at all, and have almost lost hope.
There is another matter to which I think the attention of the minister should be directed; I refer to the question of single men who live with their parents. I attended a meeting in New Westminster last year which was also attended by representatives of the Fraser valley men as well as by an official of the department in Ottawa. The question of single men occupied the attention of that meeting for about three hours, and it seemed that no one could really say what were the regulations with regard to single men who lived at home. I want to cite one case which I think illustrates the lack of common sense in dealing with this problem. Municipalities which demand work in return for relief also demand that the work be done by the head

of the family only. I have in mind the case of a man seventy years of age who has three sons at home, ranging from twenty-one to twenty-eight years of age. These sons are unemployed and are being kept by the relief secured by their father who was compelled to work. Surely something should be done in such a case. It is only a matter of common sense; it does not require a great deal of expert knowledge to straighten out many of these matters. Many parents in British Columbia are forced by the regulations to put out their children; as they are unable to keep them. Many people had three or four single boys at home for whom no relief was provided under the regulations, because presumably their father had a home. When their parents turned them out into the street, however, they were then cared for by the Dominion government.
I think the minister should take note of these things, because it is not right for him to say that this is a matter entirely for the provinces and the municipalities. I think I am right when I say that the regulations were drawn up by the Dominion government, and the provinces that came here to ask for relief had little choice in the matter. They were not in a position to dictate as to the regulations or as to the amount of relief which could be given. They were almost in the position of beggars, so to speak, coming to the Dominion government for help, and my information is that the regulations were drawn up by the Dominion government. So I think it is only my duty to bring these matters to the attention of the minister. I think many of these cases could and should be straightened out, and these regulations lend themselves to fomenting trouble and unrest among our people. When I sit down I should like the minister to tell me how many provinces have been asked to return the funds that have been misspent or misappropriated, and I should like to know the amounts as well. Perhaps the minister would also tell me if his department has any men in the labour camps other than those conducted by the Department of National Defence.


George Gordon: In answer to the last question, in addition to the National Defence camps the government has camps in the national parks of Canada under the Department of the Interior. With respect to the second question, I will obtain a memorandum with regard to the refunds made by the provinces of moneys that were spent and that did not come within the regulations.
With regard to the other observations made by my hon. friend it must be remembered

Relief Act 1934
that the question of single, homeless men arose in the western provinces some two and a half years ago, when people were riding the rods and giving a great deal of trouble to local municipalities. Representations were made by the western provinces, including British Columbia, that they could not take care of these single homeless men, and as a result the burden of caring for them, to the extent that they were eligible to enter the federal camps, was taken over by the Dominion government. It is so easy for a province to say, "We will shift our burden to the dominion if we can; we cannot carry it." But the provinces have their responsibilities; under our constitution they have certain rights reserved to them, and certain rights invested in them. That very fact alone gives rise to corresponding responsibilities. I think that perhaps after the last dominion-provincial conference there will be a better understanding of the relationships between the dominion and the provinces with respect to the capacity of each in connection with the revenues and sources of revenues to which each could resort. I believe there is a better understanding as to the efforts which each could put forth in the discharge of the responsibilities resting upon it. I shall make only this observation, namely that if we had a different type of constitution this matter would become immeasurably less complex. But, mention that fact to a premier of a province and one does not get very far. The time may come however when the provinces will have to understand that if they seek to render clear their own position under the constitution they must be more astute in seeing that the corresponding responsibilities upon the provinces are assumed by them.


Thomas Reid: So that I may have a true picture of the situation, do I understand the minister to say that all the single homeless men are taken care of by the dominion? I should like to have an answer to that, because the information I have is that since the regulations were made 10,000 transients who are not eligible for registration have come into British Columbia, and have become a charge on the cities of that province.


George Gordon: I said that the dominion assumes one hundred per cent of the cost of maintenance of single homeless men who are certified by the Department of National Defence as being eligible to go into the National Defence camps to obtain work. Unquestionably there are those who are unable to work, and then there are others who will not work-do not forget that there is such a class of persons in this country. Then there 74726-110
is another class who will work only at jobs they like and under conditions they themselves lay down. But one hundred per cent maintenance is provided by the Dominion government for those men who are certified as eligible to work in the National Defence camps.


Thomas Reid: I shall have to accept the minister's statement, but may I explain that I attended a government unemployment relief office the week I left British Columbia, and the information given me, and which I have before me, was that the men in the camps were one hundred per cent the charge of the government, but that there are great numbers for whom no provision has yet been made, owing to the fact that the camps are filled, and that in connection with them only fifty per cent is chargeable to the Dominion government. That was the information given to me by the provincial relief office.


George Gordon: With respect to those
others who for one reason or another are not certified as eligible to go into the camps, the federal government carries fifty per cent of the load.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: As explained only a few days ago by the Minister of National Defence is it not a fact that these concentration camps have a limited establishment, and practically speaking they take care of only those people who apply for entrance to them? Let us for instance consider the province of Quebec; in that province there is only one concentration camp, and it is located at Val-cartier. From Valcartier to the Gaspe peninsula is a distance of nearly 360 miles, and I need not tell the minister that it is practically impossible for anyone applying to enter those camps either from Gaspe or the county of Rimouski to be accepted as eligible and to be admitted. That is the reason why last year the board of trade of the city of Rimouski asked the Department of National Defence to establish a second concentration camp at the aviation field in Rimouski. Unfortunately the matter is still under consideration, and for that reason I should like to call the attention of the minister to the fact that between Valcartier and the Gaspe peninsula there is no such concentration camp. The consequence is that not only are those people unable to take care of the single men, but in order to place anyone in the camp we have to make application which sometimes does not reach headquarters for three weeks. May I assure the minister that the system adopted has not operated successfully.

Relief Act 1934


George Gordon: It was only in the provinces of western Canada that the position with respect to single homeless men became acute. When the Dominion government assumed responsibility in western Canada, Ontario, the province of Quebec and the maritimes made representations with respect to a similar class of single homeless men within their borders. Provision was made to take care of those men in the eastern provinces, in so far as it was within the power of the organization of the Department of National Defence so to do. Wherever in their judgment work of a useful character could be done, camps were established. At the moment I cannot give the names of the places where camps have been formed but I believe that information was spread on the record only a few days ago by the Minister of National Defence.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maloney):: Shall
the resolution carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Is it the intention of the government to launch its building program under this bill, or will separate legislation be brought down for that purpose?


George Gordon: I would prefer to wait until the Prime Minister is in the chamber before answering that question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) at the beginning of the session whether it was the intention of the government to introduce its building program in the form of estimates similar to public works estimates. He assured me that estimates would be brought down in a similar manner, and I hope that that decision is to be adhered to.


Eugène Fiset: Just before recess, and in answer to the hon. member for Temis-couata (Air. Pouliot), the minister read a schedule of works which had been approved of for Quebec. I gathered from the remarks of the minister that it was the intention to abandon this system of relief in so far as certain provinces were concerned. I should like to know if the government intends to go on with the system of tripartite agreements between the municipal, provincial and federal authorities. I should like to know also if works already approved by order in council but not yet started are to be pro-

ceeded with. The minister will recall that last summer I communicated with him in connection with the construction of a bridge at Trois Pistoles in the county of Rimouski. The minister replied that only one work was being approved for that county, and that was at St. Fabien. The minister apparently forgot that last year there was an amalgamation of counties under which the town of Trois Pistoles was transferred to the county of Rimouski. I think he will find the schedules show that this bridge has been approved but appears as in the county of Temiscouata. I am afraid I neglected to mention that this town had been transferred to that county, so the fault is just as much mine as his. I took the trouble to inquire of the provincial authorities whether an application had been made for this bridge, and they told me that it had been not only recommended but approved by federal order in council. Because of the winter starting so early last year this bridge was not commenced; the construction would have been too expensive. I should like to know if in order to have this work proceeded with during the coming summer the town will have to make a new application to the provincial government, or will the order in council already passed be sufficient authority to proceed with the work?


George Gordon: The present legislation expires on March 31, as do the agreements made under it. The bill which will be founded upon this resolution will contain a clause to provide for payment after March 31, 1935, for any works submitted by a province and approved by the dominion which have been commenced but which, if discontinued, would result in the loss of the work already done. As I recall, the application for the bridge to which the hon. member refers was submitted last fall by the province of Quebec, and that submission was approved by the dominion. Unfortunately the provincial authorities decided that the work could not go on during the winter, and just how the people in that locality have survived without that 'work going on-


Eugène Fiset: Public charity.


George Gordon: -is something of which I have no knowledge. My opinion is that it would not be within the powers of the dominion to subscribe to a work which was approved under an agreement and a statute which expire at the end of this fiscal year. If the province of Quebec or any other province maintains that help is needed for their indigent people which they cannot provide, this would have to be the subject matter of

Relief Act 1934
a new agreement. I trust that if such an occasion arises there will be no undue delay in determining the provisions of such an agreement.


Eugène Fiset: I take it that if a petition is launched by the town of Trois Pistoles and the application is recommended by the province of Quebec, as authority has already been given for this construction the minister will give the application his kind consideration.


George Gordon: I will be kindness itself. All of these matters will have to be the subject matter of an agreement to be entered into with the province.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The resolution states that the bill is to be similar to the one passed in 1933, but it goes on to say that it also makes provision for payment of the federal proportion of delayed relief accounts, if any, which may be received subsequent to the date of the expiration of the act. Is anything more implied in these words than is to be found in the last section of the act as it now stands, which provides that on the expiration of the act:
-any obligation or liability incurred or created under tlie authority of this act prior to the 31st day of March, 1934-
It would be the thirty-first day of March, 1935, in the new bill.
*-may be paid and discharged out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund notwithstanding the expiration of this act on the said date.
Is anything more implied in the words that appear in the resolution than appears in the act itself?


George Gordon: The act which will expire on March 31 had a provision limiting to the sum of 820,000,000 the amount which the federal government could contribute to direct relief. That of course was merely an estimate made by the officers of the department after a review of the whole dominion picture as they saw it. The situation at present is that up to March 10 the dominion, under the various provincial agreements, has been called upon to pay some $13,000,000 odd towards direct relief. The winter has been a very severe one and it may be that in view of the fact that the accounts are always delayed, sometimes two, three and four months, and in the case of Montreal many months, the $20,000,000 provided for in the legislation will not be sufficient. I cannot say whether it will or will not be, but the bill which it is now proposed to introduce will take care of the possibility of that $20,000,000 being exceeded by accounts which will come in 74726-110 i
after March 31. The present bill also goes a little further than last year's measure when it makes provision for payments out of the dominion proportion under the agreement with the provinces in order that building works and other undertakings of that kind which have been started and for some reason or other have not been completed before expiry of the act may be carried out. Authority is sought to make provision for the dominion contribution in order that these works can be completed after March 31, 1935.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That, I think, is a provision which will have to be considered with a good deal of care, particularly in view of what the minister said this afternoon, that it is not the intention to limit the total amount of expenditure under the bill, but that the government will ask for a blank cheque to enable it to expend whatever it wishes under the provisions of the act. If the ministry seeks that power it will have to give the house pretty definite assurance that it will not be authorizing the expenditure, in 1934-35, of moneys that may run on to 1936, 1937, 1938 or 1939.


Mr. ROSS:: Will the regulations under which this act will be enforced be the same as the regulations that were applied in 1933? I would remind the minister that certain municipalities ruled that small property owners with property assessed at five, six or seven hundred dollars could not get relief, while relief went to the tenants of large property owners, so that the large property owner was assured of his rent, whereas the small property owner had no relief and no assistance in the payment of taxation.


George Gordon: That is another question that will have to be dealt with when we confer with the provinces, if this legislation passes. There are undoubtedly some property owners who are having some difficulty at this time, but it must be borne in mind that governments as well as individuals are having difficulties, and there is a limit beyond which the government cannot go in assisting various classes of individuals who find themselves in difficulty. I cannot be more definite with respect to the question asked, and can only say that when the conferences with the provinces take place, which will be immediately after this legislation is passed, all these matters will be taken into consideration.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Does that include the question of single and married persons, or is it proposed to take care of single as well as married persons under the act?
Relief Acl 1934


George Gordon: That also will be a matter of conference with the provinces as to what their difficulties are which they cannot take care of, and the extent if any to which this government should go towards contributing to the provinces. [DOT]


Edward Joseph Garland: It is proposed that this is to be again a tripartite agreement.


George Gordon: That is, between the provinces and the municipalities and the federal government?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes.


George Gordon: That will have to be a subject of conference with the provinces.


Peter John Veniot: In 1932 or 1933 I called the attention of the minister to the housing act, under which the dominion government loaned the provinces so much money for the construction of homes for labouring men and others, the administration of which was placed under the provincial governments; and I pointed out then that if an arrangement could be made by which those people owning such houses, having had them built under the housing act, could be given an extension of time, it was desirable that this should be done, instead of having the period of depression counted in the twenty years stipulated. I pointed out that it was difficult for them under the circumstances to meet the conditions imposed by the housing act. The minister then said that he would take the matter up with the provinces, and that was done. In New Brunswick the matter was considered by the provincial government, but fhe terms under which they attempted to re-ieve the situation were such as could hardly oe met. I think a two year period was given. The result has been that some of those people who had their houses built under the scheme, and were unable to meet the two year condition, had to lose all they had put into the property. When the provincial conference takes place, would it not be possible for the minister to discuss the whole situation with the provinces to see whether some better terms could not be adopted? The hardship is too great that workingmen and salaried men who have invested in properties valued at $4,000, $5,000 or $6,000 under the scheme and had made all their payments prior to the time the depression started, should lose all they had put in. I know one or two cases in my own town where the hardship has been very serious. The people were unable to come in under t'he two year extension and the result is that they were virtually put on the street;

they had to walk out of their houses. The town had to take those properties over, and it cannot sell them because there is no demand for them. It might rent them, but it would have to do so at a great deal less than it was getting under the housing scheme. The new system is causing a loss to the town, because it is responsible to the provincial government for collecting the money which is lent to the town at five per cent, and the result is a hardship to the town treasury. It would be desirable if an arrangement could be made between the federal and provincial governments whereby they would extend the term until the end of the depression, especially to people who had been making their payments prior to the start of the depression. This would not cost the federal government anything, but it would be doing much good and would be of great help to .those people. I hope the minister will consider the point I have made and bring it up at the provincial conference when it takes place.


George Gordon: If my recollection serves
me correctly, the housing scheme came into being in 1919. The general plan was-and the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) will correct me if my recollection is wrong- that the dominion lent money to the provinces, tlie latter in turn lending it to the municipalities for the purpose of erecting moderately priced houses on an amortization scheme covering a period of twenty years. That was taken advantage of by a number of cities and towns. My view is that if in any of the municipalities that took advantage of the housing scheme the people find themselves, after having made payments for a number of yearn, unable because of present conditions to continue doing so, this would be a very proper matter for discussion with the provinces concerned, I shall be glad to take a note of it.


Peter John Veniot: The minister will remember that the province took the matter up at his request, but the terms are not ample; the two year period is too short.


Edward Joseph Garland: In the bill of which this resolution is the forerunner is it proposed that any particular program of federal works for the relief of unemployment shall emanate directly from the dominion itself, or is every action to be taken in conjunction with some agreed upon plan with the provinces?


George Gordon: The bill to be founded
upon this resolution does not contemplate federal works strictly so-called, as referred to by the hon. member. It has been said that

Relief Act 1934
the Prime Minister has made a declaration as to how federal work shall be carried on, and of course this may and probably will be the subject of a special act. Certainly it does not spring from this proposed legislation.


Edward Joseph Garland: I remember very distinctly that the statement was made in the newspapers-whether by the Prime Minister or by somebody else is another question-that a program of public works for the relief of unemployment was to be started by the Dominion government in the spring at a cost of something over 150,000,000. The figures and the details were given. Now it appears that this is not to be a purely dominion scheme but it is to be a tripartite or at the very least a two-party proposal. Can the minister give the committee any idea of the amount of money it is proposed to expend under this scheme? I ask him particularly because western newspapers mentioned a specific amount and actually had it divided into a certain allotment for each province. Is it to be $50,000,000 for the whole country, or how much is it going to be?


George Gordon: I have no doubt if the
newspapers carried a story that the sum of $50,000,000 or $100,000,000 was to be expended in federal works, it would be immediately divided up in various ways by those who were to be benefited. There would be no hesitation or delay about that. That legislation is not now before the. committee or the house. Undoubtedly there will be federal works projected, federal works that are essential.


Edward Joseph Garland: Purely
federal?


George Gordon: Yes, quite outside and
apart from any provision that is made in this legislation for taking care of needy people in various parts of Canada.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then the
scheme is to be a sort of two-fold one. It is proposed to continue the tripartite agreement of the past, and, in addition, to launch a program of public works financed purely by the federal government. Is that correct?


George Gordon: The hon. member for Bow River is, so far as my knowledge goes, correct in what he says. Of course there never was, strictly speaking, a tripartite agreement; it was purely a bilateral one.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is
correct, but there were three parties involved.


George Gordon: Not so far as the federal government was concerned. We dealt only with the provinces, and they in turn dealt with their municipalities.


Eugène Fiset: The scheme is
usualy described as tripartite.


George Gordon: I had not heard it called
that.


Edward Joseph Garland: Technically the minister is correct, but usually it is described as tripartite.


Humphrey Mitchell: At eight o'clock I asked the minister whether a building program was to be launched under this legislation. Now the minister says that it is not contemplated. Previously this evening he said that the Prime Minister would make an announcement in that regard. From the answer given by the minister to the hon. member for Bow River I understand it is not the policy of the government to include the building program in the four corners of the present proposed legislation.


George Gordon: I thought I had made the position plain. The federal building program to which reference has been made will be purely federal, dealing with essential federal works.


Peter John Veniot: Under control of the federal administration?


George Gordon: Quite. Under this legislation it is competent to enter into an agreement with the provinces providing for contributions to provincial or municipal works. But it is greatly to be desired that that will not be necessary. And that of course will have to be the subject of conference with the provinces because I think there are no provinces that desire to add unduly to their provincial debt by expenditures of public moneys that can be avoided.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is not an answer to my question. What I asked was, in view of the reply given to the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), whether the contemplated building program that the Prime Minister spoke of in Hamilton last evening is going to be launched within the confines of this particular legislation.


George Gordon: No, it is not.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is all I wanted to know.
Relief Act 1934


Edward Joseph Garland: 
George Gordon: I cannot forecast how much money may be spent under this proposed legislation. I can only say that as far as the government is concerned no money will be spent that is not found to be absolutely necessary.


Edward Joseph Garland: And the minister has no estimate?


George Gordon: No.
Mr. MacIN.NIS: Could the minister tell us how many persons were receiving direct relief to which the federal government contributes, say at the end of February this year?


George Gordon: It is difficult if not impossible to answer that question, because in the returns made to the department by the provinces, which in the main I should think are gotten from the returns made by the municipalities to the provinces, the figures are compiled, I gather, on the basis that if a person gets relief for a day or a week he is included just as if he had been on relief during the whole month. So it is impossible to tell just what it amounts to in numbers, unless one went into the question of how many meals were served and so on. I think that by far the larger proportion of those receiving relief do not get it continuously throughout the month. They may be on relief for a day or a week, then get work and be off relief for a week. So that any figure that can be compiled would not be of much value. We have figures, which I confess I do not rely upon, as to the cumulative numbers-let us put it that way

of those who during the month have received relief from the municipalities, the provinces and this government.
Mr. MacINNilS: Evidently the department has some figures to which the minister has referred. Would the minister let the committee know how many received direct relief for the month of February last, regardless of whether it was for one day or the whole month?


George Gordon: For the month of February the estimates sent in by the provinces showing the number of heads of families given relief-and this means direct relief for varying ('Mr. Milch oil.]
periods; it might be one meal for a day or a week, or the whole month-the cumulative figures are, 267,853 heads of families throughout the dominion.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Has the minister the figures as to the number of dependents of these heads of families?


George Gordon: The number of dependents for the same month totals 955,334; and the same observations apply to dependents as to the heads of families.


Angus MacInnis: Will the minister now tell us how many were receiving direct relief for the same month of 1933?


George Gordon: For the month of February, 1933, the number of heads of families was 276,468 and the number of dependents 1,121,142. The same observations apply here regarding the method of compilation, that is as to the varying periods and varying amounts.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister evidently has the figures by months. Could he put on record the figures for the calendar year 1933 by months, showing heads of families and dependents receiving relief?


George Gordon: I am afraid I would have to make up a statement. I shall be glad to have that prepared and lay it on the table before the bill goes through.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the minister do that? And perhaps it might be arranged by provinces as well, to enable the outlays the better to be understood and comparisons the better to be made. May I ask if the minister has at hand the figures of the number of unemployed at the present time? Has the Department of Labour any statistics showing the total number of unemployed, by months, for the last calendar year, and the total number at the present time?


George Gordon: There are no figures other than those supplied by the bureau of statistics and the trade unions. I could probably get a statement of that also and table it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the minister would give us that information it would be very helpful. It also should be by provinces and by months for the calendar year 1933, and brought as near up to date as may be possible. It had better be given for the years 1931 and 1932 as well.
Referring to the bureau of statistics, I would like to direct the minister's attention to a matter I spoke of once before, that is the manner in which some of the statistics

Relief Act 1934
with relation to employment are compiled. I noticed, and pointed out to the house, that the figures given by the bureau as to employment may be wholly misleading unless they are carefully analyzed and explained in advance to the public, for the reason that under the head of employment are included those employed by relief moneys as well as those employed by private industry in the ordinary course of business. I think the unemployment problem is sufficiently important to expect the bureau of statistics carefully to distinguish in its statistics on employment between employment that is afforded as a result of money voted out of the taxes of the people for purposes of relief and the employment which arises in the ordinary way from private industry. I would ask the minister if he would take up with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is the minister responsible for the bureau of statistics, the importance of having the statistics relating to unemployment make that distinction very clearly in future. I think it is one that ought to be made in regard to all the figures of employment for these years of unemployment, and I wish the minister, as Minister of Labour, would try to secure that information for hon. members of this house. I think it would be extraordinarily helpful in future to find out how much employment has been afforded as a result of moneys voted for relief purposes as distinguished from the employment that has been provided in the last three or four years in the regular course of industry.
While I am speaking on this subject I should like to take this opportunity to say that when I said the figures had been manipulated in a way that caused them to be misleading, I had no intention at all of reflecting on the bureau of statistics or upon any member of the bureau of statistics. What I meant was exactly what the word "manipulate" means. It has a sinister meaning, I know, but it also has the very ordinary meaning of being handled in such a way as to make a certain showing. The figures issued by the bureau of statistics in connection with employment, as they have appeared in the press, would lead the public to believe that the employment afforded by private industry had very considerably increased. As a matter of fact, when one analyses the figures one finds that the greatest increase has come from employment occasioned by the use of relief moneys, has, for example, been in connection with highway construction, most of
which is carried on out of relief moneys, whereas as regards this class of employment the least increase in employment is in connection with the railways, which would be a very good index of the amount of general business going on throughout the country. I want to correct an impression that I was in any way seeking to reflect upon the members of the bureau of statistics. I think that department does its work in a wholly creditable way, but I do think the minister responsible for the bureau, and the Minister of Labour in particular, ought to have seen to it that the bureau of statistics was instructed so to classify the statistics as to make perfectly clear the extent of employment arising out of relief as contrasted with employment in the ordinary course of business.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am afraid an impression has been left with the committee, quite unintentionally, of course, that this resolution is the prelude to a bill that will provide for certain bilateral agreements or undertakings in regard to public works. Is there to be another bill in addition to the one that will be based on this resolution, or will the bill that is to come forward include those purely dominion federal works for the relief of unemployment as well as provision for the bilateral agreements?


George Gordon: Any further legislation
that may be introduced will deal only with purely federal works, essential federal public works, and will have nothing whatever to do with provincial works.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is to be another bill?


George Gordon: Quite.


Edward Joseph Garland: Not this
bill at all?


George Gordon: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: I see; splendid. Then perhaps when the minister is considering the question he would examine this document. It is issued by the Canadian Surety Company, which calls itself the arch of safety, and which deals with fidelity and surety bonds, automobile, burglary, forgery, liability, plate glass and fire insurance. In a recent issue it encourages the people to be of good cheer because the Dominion government is going to launch a definite federal program for unemployment relief involving the sum of
Relief Act 1934

851,000,000. It states that this sum is to be allotted for construction work, to be divided between the different provinces as follows:
British Columbia	 $ 3,640,000
Saskatchewan	 3,975,000
Ontario	 17,560,000
New Brunswick	 2,075,000
Alberta	 3,215,000
Manitoba	  4,484,000
Quebec	 13,366,809
Nova Scotia	 2,425,000
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that if statements of this kind are being circulated the Department of Labour is entitled to check them up, and in justice to the country there should be a contradiction and correction if the statements are not true. The last sentence here is very interesting; it is as follows:
The very fact that the governments are getting behind the construction industry in so substantial a manner will provide the necessary impetus to revive activity.
-and therefore, of course, there will be more insurance taken out, more fidelity and surety bonds purchased from this company. Frankly I protest, first of all against this type _ of advertising, and especially if this information is not correct. I want to ask the minister if the information contained in this sheet, which I have read, is correct or incorrect.


George Gordon: No one knows better than the hon. member for Bow River that if a minister's time were taken up in contradicting misstatements that come from many sources, he would have very little time for anything else.


Edward Joseph Garland: Quite so,
but the minister has a well staffed department.


George Gordon: I have not a department
well staffed for the purpose of contradicting, correcting, revising or reviewing statements that may be made by a section of the press or by such people as those who issued the statement to w'hich the hon. member has refei'red.


Mr. GRAY:: Has that statement any foundation in fact?


George Gordon: I would suggest to the
hon. member that the place to direct that question is to the author of this publication.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the
minister be fair *with the committee? I am sure he would like to be. Are the statements contained in this document, as I have read them, substantially correct or incorrect? Surely the minister can answer that question. I am willing to accept his word.


George Gordon: So far as I am concerned as a member of this government, I never heard of any such division of any such money, and I have missed but few council meetings.


Mr. MACKENZIE  ICING@: Could the
minister say whether the buildings that may be included under this program are of the class for which parliament usually makes appropriations, and whether the construction work is of the kind that ordinarily comes under the federal government? Perhaps I might make myself clear if I asked if it is intended that such public 'buildings or works of construction as hospitals, sewage plants, gaols, asylums and buildings of that kind will be included in the federal program, or are these still to be regarded as provincial matters?


Martin James Maloney: Is this discussion not
entirely out of order?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It all relates to unemployment relief.


Martin James Maloney: It refers to a new proposition which the government is supposed tc be about to bring down, and has nothing to do with the resolution before the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As to the
point of order raised by the hon. member, I submit that we are endeavouring to discover what the government is doing towards unemployment relief. I should think the hon. member would be pleased to have the government make as good a showing as possible; heaven knows, up to the present it is poor enough.


Hugh Guthrie: If the right hon. member will be patient he will know when the bill is brought down.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But the trouble is that like everyone else we are getting impatient.


Jean-François Pouliot: Opinions are free, and the hon. member is not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the
minister be prepared to answer the question I asked him as to whether or not the class of buildings and construction work in any federal program will be similar to the class of buildings and construction work appearing in the ordinary estimates of the departments, or will they go beyond that and make provision for the class of buildings and the construction work usually carried on by provinces and municipalities?


George Gordon: The right hon. gentleman has asked whether or not the work for which provision may be made in subsequent legis-

Relief Act 1934
lation will be work such as the building of hospitals, sewers, asylums and things of that character. I thought I made .it clear a little while ago that any subsequent legislation will make provision ifor only essential federal works.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That answers
my question.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacNicol):: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Alan Webster Neill: Reverting to the point-


John Ritchie MacNicol: The
hon. member for Vancouver South has the floor.


Angus MacInnis: After a great deal of
questioning the minister gave information about the number on relief, which information other hon. members and myself have been trying to get for some time. It would seem to me from the circular read by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) that the Canadian Surety Company has easier access to government information than have hon. members of this house.
This year I put a question on the order paper asking for the number on relief, if the government had the information. I received an evasive reply. However I knew the government had the figures, and when last year we were discussing a similar resolution I quoted some of them. I said that up to the date of the discussion there had been an increase from month to month in the number receiving direct relief. So well informed was the minister that he corrected me-and quite rightly so-stating that in one month there had been no increase, but a decrease. When we are considering a question as important as that of unemployment I cannot understand why it is so difficult to obtain satisfactory information from the Department of Labour. Surely if there is any question before the Canadian people today that is important and upon which they should have accurate information it is that of unemployment. No other question affects so directly the homes and lives of our Canadian people as does the one we are now discussing. We can ascertain quite easily how many pounds of nickel, butter, or copper, or how many carcasses of beef, mutton or pork are shipped out of or produced in the country, and yet when it comes to this important matter we have to squeeze the information from the government.


An hon. MEMBER:: Wring it out of them.


Angus MacInnis: This is the fifth session of parliament in which there has been a discussion of this problem, and it would seem that to-day the government are just as far away from a solution of it as they were when the special session in the year 1930 was called. As a matter of fact, they are farther away, because at the special session they did have a program; it might not have been a good one, but it was at least a program. Also they had some hope. Now, however, it seems that they are bereft of hope as well as of a program.
In answering questions this afternoon the minister tried to place blame upon some of the provinces for the difficulty in dealing with unemployment, taking the position that the provinces would not agree to give up any of their constitutional rights in order to enable the Dominion government more efficiently to discharge its unemployment obligations. I believe there are two ways in which the federal government could very quickly take care of that situation. First of all I would suggest that the next time the provincial premiers or provincial representatives are called into conference with the federal government, such conference instead of being held in camera be held in public. Everything that occurs should be w'ithin the knowledge of the public. The press should have access to the meeting so that the position taken by provincial and federal representatives may be known. I am satisfied that the public feel so strongly in this matter that they would very soon bring to time any government, whether dominion or provincial, that interfered with the efficient and humane handling of this important problem.
There is another way of dealing with the matter. The federal government, having the upper hand economically, as it were, could bring any provincial government to time and could impose whatsoever conditions it wished. I should like to quote from the words of the present Prime Minister as reported in Hansard of 1930, page 2373, uttered at a time when the house was dealing with the situation obtaining in the steel industry in the province of Nova Scotia:
Did Canada thereby become, amongst the nations of the world, a member of the League of Nations? The answer is yes. Did the Liberal party in solemn convention assembled adopt the labour articles of the treaty of peace? The answer is yes. Did the Conservative party do the same? The answer is yes. To-night the question is whether or not the parliament of the Dominion of Canada that signed the treaty of peace, with two great parties pledging themselves to its observance and the group to my left also supporting it, is helpless. It is true that property and civil
Relief Act 1934

rights are matters exclusively under the control of the provincial legislatures. It is equally true that this parliament may, if it so pleases, impose conditions with respect to any matter wherein it expends public money or confers a benefit or privilege upon any person or class or corporation.
The government does all of these things when it helps provincial governments with the problem of unemployment. It assists these provinces financially and, as the present Prime Minister said at that time, when he was leader of the opposition, it may impose any conditions it sees fit to impose. So that I do not believe the government is in a strong position when it tries to place on the shoulders of the provincial governments the responsibility for the present deplorable condition and the present futile policy in dealing with the unemployment problem. The answers which hon. members receive in the house in regard to matters concerning unemployment are so confusing that I am quite sure hon. members may be pardoned for not having a real understanding of conditions.
When the estimates of the Department of National Defence were before the committee the other day a question was asked of the minister by the hon. member for Sherbrooke ;Mr. Howard). This question and the reply of the minister appear on page 1541 of Hansard, as follows:
Mr. Howard: Has the department any plan for some day taking these men out of the camps? How do they intend to rehabilitate them in the ordinary life of the country?
Mr. Sutherland:	We endeavour in every
way possible to encourage the men to get back into civilian work, and with a good deal of success.
The minister then went on to give the number of men who had left the camps in the different provinces. Shortly before this the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) asked a question which appears on page 1523 of Hansard, as follows:
Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver):	Have the
numbers in these camps been increasing or decreasing in the last three or four months?
Mr. Sutherland: They are increasing gradually.
I wonder how long it will take the government to rehabilitate the men in these camps with the methods they are using at the present time when the numbers in the camps are increasing gradually.
A word with regard to the camps themselves. During the past summer I visited some of them. I do not intend to criticize them as camps; for I am prepared to agree with the statement which has been made, I believe in this house and elsewhere, that conditions in the camps are good-fair to good,
IMr. Maclnnis.]
at any rate. The food is good and well prepared, but the shelter accommodation is not as good as it might be. Double decked bunks are used; these should be done away with. While the camps serve the purpose as a temporary expedient, they are certainly not a good thing as a permanent fixture.


George Gordon: What kind of bunks would the hon. member suggest?


Mr. STITT (Nelson):: Feather beds.


Angus MacInnis: Not at all, although I
do not see why the men who are in these camps through no fault of their own should not be entitled to feather beds just the same as the rest of us; they have made the feather beds for the rest of us to sleep on.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: I have never been
able to afford a feather bed.


Angus MacInnis: Neither have I, but I do not intend to crack wisie jokes at the expense of the men who are in these camps through no fault of their own. I believe the regulations governing the logging camps are that every man is entitled to a bunk or bed for himself, and to a certain number of cubic feet of air space. The governments of the various provinces have prescribed rules and regulations to govern men working in the lumbering and other camps, and I think these regulations should be followed when the government puts men into unemployment camps.


George Gordon: What are the rules obtaining for the lumber camps?


Angus MacInnis: I cannot cite the rules
offhand.


George Gordon: Why suggest that the government do the same as is done in the lumber camps when you do not know what is done there?


Angus MacInnis: I am saying that the rules as to sanitation, comfort and sleeping accommodation which the government lays down for the lumber camps should be


Mr. COTNAM:: Will the hon. gentleman state in what camps the rules as to sanitation have not been carried out?


Angus MacInnis: I was referring to sleeping accommodation.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: In what particular camp?


Angus MacInnis: In nearly all the camps.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The sanitation was perfect in the camps I saw.

Relief Act 1934


Angus MacInnis: Will the hon. gentleman say that there were no double-decked bunks in the camps he visited?


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Are there not doubledecked bunks in the sleeping compartments on the trains? Do they give the hon. member a special compartment when he travels?


Angus MacInnis: No. However, my hon. friend can make a speech in his own time.
Mr! GOTT: This speech will not look so good in the papers.


Angus MacInnis: That is all right; I am not concerned so much about the papers as is my hon. friend; I am concerned more for the men in the camps.


Mr. GOTT:: For the papers.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) is so much interested he should fell us about the passes issued to dependents.
3 he CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacNicol):	The
hon. member who has the floor should receive the courtesy of the committee and be allowed to continue his remarks; he should not be interrupted from every corner of the chamber.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: When the hon. gentleman makes statements which are not correct, he should be checked up on them.


Angus MacInnis: After I have finished any hon. member can correct any incorrect statement I have made. I do not interfere with hon. members when they are making statements in this house, and I feel I am entitled to the same courtesy as I extend to them.
I was pointing out that the camps would be quite satisfactory as a temporary expedient if the men knew when they could leave. I am sure the men would not object if they felt there was some hope of leaving the camps and entering again into the active life of the community. I have talked with a great many of them and I have not met any who objected particularly to the conditions. They all agreed that the food was satisfactory, but they did point out that the sleeping accommodation was not all that could be desired, although they were prepared to put up with it. What they were objecting to was the fact that when they entered the camps they did not know whether they would be there for six months, a year or five years. I suggest that a temporary policy of this kind, while it may be good enough enough in its way, is not a good policy for this government to offer to the people of this country. During the recess I visited one of our penitentiaries. I found conditions quite satisfactory from the point of view of food and accommodation. But there was a difference between the penitentiary and these camps. When a man enters the penitentiary it is for a definite term and he knows when he is coming out, but when a man enters one of these camps he does not know how long he will be there. He can leave at any time, but the circumstances which forced him to go there in the first place will force him to go back.
Whatever may be the conditions in other provinces, they are certainly not improving in British Columbia. A few days ago I received a resolution which had been passed by the unemployed miners of Nanaimo, as follows:
Resolved that we ask the city council to enter into an agreement with the provincial government for work and wages for the unemployed, at full time, at the regular city scale.
Whereas, there has been another large number of miners laid off from the local mines, and whereas, the mine itself is only working two days per week in midwinter, with increased distress to the inhabitants in all walks of life, including the business section and the city council itself;
Then it asks for cooperation with various other bodies in bringing this to the attention of the dominion and provincial governments. Now, these are situations that prevail throughout the whole of British Columbia, and I submit that the policy or lack of policy of the government at the present time is not a satisfactory answer to the condition that now exists.


Alan Webster Neill: To revert for a moment to the question of unemployment insurance, the minister told us before dinner that he was not prepared to make any statement as to the policy of the government in the future, because they had not yet decided upon a policy. It is somewhat difficult to go behind that statement. We may condemn their lack of policy or their delay in making up a policy in view of the promises made as far back as three years ago; but if they choose to take that position and assume responsibility, we cannot very well force them to make an announcement which they are either unwilling or unable to make. But as regards the past, as to what has actually happened I think we are entitled to ask for information.
It is known that since the minister spoke last, that is a year ago-it was on the 20th day of March to be exact-there has been a conference of the provinces and the dominion, and one of the items on the agenda was the subject of unemployment insurance,
174(5
Relief Act 1934

more particularly I understand the consideration of how the difficulty of dual jurisdiction could be got round. That conference took place and beyond some very casual political gossip in the papers we have had no information as to what occurred at it. A suggestion has been made that there was something sacrosanct about it; the provinces did not want to show their hand, and therefore the whole thing was to be kept secret. I submit that a conference of that character is not entitled to be kept secret. We have had imperial conferences, the Ottawa conference and the world conference, and there was no nonsense talked about there being anything sacred about them so that what took place could not be revealed. I think we are entitled to know what took place at this conference, because it has a very important bearing on the point of view we take of the whole subject. The government might possibly justify their want of action by saying. "We were willing but the provinces failed to come through; we put up a reasonable scheme to the provinces, one that called for concurrent action with us, but this province or that province refused"-if the government could so inform the house, then it would redound to the credit of the Dominion government and there would be no reason why this government should not wish to show its hand. And if refusal to cooperate came from the province from which I come, then I for one wish to know because others from British Columbia as well as myself might interest public opinion to ask the government of that province to take a reasonable attitude in the matter. If on the other hand the Dominion government made no real offer of any definite scheme but merely said to the provinces, "You have a certain amount of control and we have a certain amount of jurisdiction; will you surrender your jurisdiction without any quid pro quo or any understanding or any proposal on our part," then the question would be that possibly the provinces were in the right in the stand they took and the dominion was to blame. These are things we want to know about and we are entitled to that information, and I do not see why we should be asked to pass this resolution until we are so advised. I think the minister would be well advised, in his own interest as well as in the interest of this committee, to give us such information. I cannot see how keeping the matter secret can be justified. Other matters which the provinces have met to debate have been made known to the public; why not the results of this conference? It is due to the provinces and to the dominion as well that
[Mr. Neill.)
we should know how the matter stands, so that we can formulate our opinion as to who is to blame for the lack of action in this forward movement promised three years ago.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not think the minister would be so discourteous or unwise as to let the matter go without an explanation.


George Gordon: The hon. member has brought this question up a number of times. I do not think there is anyone in this house who is better acquainted with the difficulties that confront any government than is the hon. member-not only difficulties of a constitutional kind but difficulties that have to do with matters of employment in a country such as Canada. So far as any unemployment insurance is concerned, the provinces are by no means in agreement as to the wisdom of it at any time, and certaftily they are not in agreement as to the wisdom of it at the present time. So far as the federal government is concerned, acting within the scope of its constitutional rights, if any measure looking towards the introduction of unemployment insurance is brought down by this government I can only tell the hon. member that he will have to be patient and await the time when such a measure is introduced. As to when it might be introduced I cannot enlighten him.


Humphrey Mitchell: Last year on the introduction of a measure similar to this the minister, if I remember rightly, made a lengthy speech in which he spoke of the back to the land movement as a major policy of the government in meeting the unemployment situation. I would ask him what progress has been made since last year in connection with the announcement of that policy, whether it has been driven forward or whether the matter was allowed to stand after the passage of the legislation.


George Gordon: The hon. member is not quite correct when he says that I made a statement in which I said that this was one of the major efforts. It was one effort looking towards a partial solution of the difficulties that confront this country. Among other things I outlined at that time the return to agricultural life of a great many people in this country, and provision was made in the 1932 legislation to make a certain non-recoverable grant of $200 in conjunction with similar amounts from the provinces, and each municipality which participated in the scheme in order to assist those who had the

Relief Act 1934
desire and the experience to become self-sustaining on the land. I know there are some who scoff at the idea and some who say that they are farmers and maintain that that is the last place in the world to send anybody, but whoever says that is not, I think, much of a farmer. That program has been carried out during the past year and I hope it will meet with greater success during the coming year. The difficulty that confronts anyone in an effort of that kind is on the one hand to restrain those who are unable, by reason of inexperience or othewise, to take advantage of the opportunities that this country offers, and on the other to see that only those who have a fair or good chance ultimately to succeed are selected to go on to land locations. Immediately the scheme was evolved some municipalities thought it was a proper occasion to rid themselves of people who were utterly hopeless. That had to be curbed, and it was, as quickly as the government and those acting in conjunction with it could do it.


Ross Wilfred Gray: What power has the minister's department in the selection, or is that left entirely to the provincial authorities?


George Gordon: There is now and has
been almost from the outset a joint committee representing the Department of Colonization of the federal government, the provincial government and the land settlement branches of both provincial and federal governments. Once this committee got organized and working, the mistakes that were encountered in the earlier stages almost entirely disappeared. The whole object of this colonization at home plan sprang from a realization of the fact that a very large number of people who were induced to come to Canada ostensibly to go on the land did not do so but rather went to our industrial centres, and the fact that industry each succeeding year for many years offered less and less job security to those who had been attracted from the rural into the urban centres, the main objective being to render as many as possible of our own people self-sustaining units and to correct the obvious disequilibrium between rural and urban life. No matter how attractive urban life may be to some people, there is an ever increasing realization that probably more difficulties and more anxiety and sharp suffering are met with in industrial centres when men by reason of the advance of science or otherwise suddenly find themselves out of a job than are encountered in rural life. At least in rural life there is plenty of work to do. That is shortly
the objective. I see the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Southeast Grey having a hearty laugh over what I have said.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is not a laugh; we are just agreeing with the minister that the farmer certainly has plenty of work. The minister is quite correct in that.


George Gordon: I have spoken to many
good farmers and I rarely hear them complain about hard work.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is true too. They complain of what they get out of it.


Humphrey Mitchell: This is one of the most important problems confronting the dominion.
I understood that the policy in connection with the back to the land movement was a major policy of the government. The minister says that it is not a major policy. I would like to ask him what are the major policies in motion at the moment for meeting the problem of unemployment.


George Gordon: Earlier in the discussion
on this resolution a similar question was asked of me, I answered it and I have nothing further to add to what I said.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Before the hon. member speaks again, I am sure all members of the committee are anxious to have the bill before them, and as all of this discussion will in all probability be gone over on the bill, it would be desirable if the committee would take into consideration the fact that the business of the house must progress and would let the resolution through, bringing the discussion up again on the bill.


Humphrey Mitchell: This matter has been under discussion since the sitting began this afternoon and I do not think I have taken u;p more than five minutes of the time of the committee. I represent a large industrial constituency and I know that the question of unemployment is an awkward one from the viewpoint of the government. This might just as well be said now so that the government might contemplate something in between the passing of the resolution and the introduction of the bill. We have had discussions on many factors and phases of our national life, and it is only fair that we who come from industrial constituencies should be given at least some opportunity of questioning the government as to its policies in
Relief Act 1934

connection with what I consider the paramount problem in the dominion to-day. We have had the government make a grant of $60,000,000 to the Canadian Pacific.


George Gordon: No, a guarantee


Humphrey Mitchell: Or a guarantee. I would like the government to guarantee the mortgages under which thousands of people in my community are likely to lose their homes. If it is a sound principle to make such a guarantee to the Canadian Pacific, it is sound to do so for the individual. Under this legislation we have had the pegging of securities held by insurance companies. I would like to feel that the same policy was to be carried into effect with regard to every individual in Canada who finds himself at this moment in difficulties because, as I pointed out before, the greatest tragedy in the depression is the confiscation of the homes of our people. As regards my use of the term "confiscation", when a man or a woman is anxious and willing to work and through inability to find employment loses his or her home, it is correct to say that that home is confiscated by the state. The government in my judgment have absolutely failed to meet the problem. There is no secret about the matter. They were elected to cure unemployment; that is what they told the Canadian people, in short, sharp sentences, and I think it is fair to say that the huge majorities rolled up by. government candidates in the last election reflected the viewpoint of our people toward what was then, in my opinion, a paramount problem.
So far as the question of unemployment insurance is concerned, the government have had ample opportunity in the past three or four years to meet the problem in a resolute way. They had the advantage of the last census returns, and they have had the advantage of a number of provincial-federal conferences in connection with the matter. Yet in this, possibly the dying session of this parliament, we cannot get information of any kind or any indication that the government has studied the matter of unemployment insurance or contemplates the introduction of legislation concerning it.
I think the depression should be met on many fronts. Notwithstanding the opinions expressed by the Prime Minister, this government will have to deal with the question of interest rates, whether they like it or not. It has been dealt with in well-nigh every other country in the British commonwealth-by Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia; and it will have to be met here. In England to-

day, through the lowering of interest rates, money is flowing into the building industry, which is a basic industry in every country, resulting in an enormous reduction of unemployment. I think a major policy that this government could set in motion to solve the problem of unemployment would be to declare a general election. I believe the new blood that would come into this House of Commons straight from the people would set in motion policies on a par with those in the country to the south of us. It was necessary to have an election there and to get a brand new government direct from the people, and that government has been responsible for the enormous reduction of the figures of unemployment in their own country. I would like to think that the Prime Minister could say on the radio what I heard the president of the United States say to people threatened with the loss of their homes or farms, that if anyone faced with the loss of farm or home would communicate direct with him, machinery would be set in motion to prevent such a thing happening. This government's policy in connection with unemployment seems to be an absolutely negative one, if it can be called a policy at all. Every state has a responsibility to feed its people; that is elementary and fundamental. But over and above that I think a government has a responsibility to see to it that the hundreds of thousands of men and women who are ready and anxious to go to work are provided with the opportunity to do so. We can talk of the Canadian Pacific Railway, we can talk of sound money-


An hon. MEMBER:: Where is it?


Humphrey Mitchell: -and I forget the other thing the Prime Minister referred to the other evening, but fundamentally the wealth of any country consists in the ability of its people to work and to make goods. I say, as I have said many times before, and say it in a kindly way, that I think the Minister of Labour is overworked. But I would ask that when they bring down this legislation the government at least have something of a constructive nature to offer, rather than the milk and water policy enunciated by the minister to-day.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would ask the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) U'hat is the use of offering constructive criticism or suggestions when they are given no consideration? The greatest asset of Canada is not the Canadian Pacific railway or the Canadian National railway or the Sun Life

Relief Act 1934
Assurance Company, or any big concern of the kind, or any man in particular; it is the Canadian people as a whole. This will not be denied by anyone in this house. Therefore it is of the utmost importance to look after the welfare of the Canadian people.
My hon. friend was asking the minister what is the major policy of the government with regard to unemployment. It is very hard to tell, because the government seems to have none, either major or minor. The government is drifting, while the number of unemployed becomes greater and greater. I listened with great attention to the figures given by the minister not long ago as to the number of heads of families and their dependents on relief. The minister in reply to my right hon. leader promised to give figures relating to the total number of unemployed. The number at any rate is very large. Of every three men in Canada only one works all the time, one works part of the time and the other is unemployed. There is no excuse for such a state of things.
Very often in this house I have offered one constructive suggestion to the government with regard to unemployment. No progress will be made in relieving unemployment until there is a system, until we have order in the organization of relief. It is an elementary proposition that no one can succeed in any thing without having a plan. One may criticize the Russian plan, one may criticize the Roosevelt plan, but every country has a plan, is doing something. Chancellor Dollfuss in Austria has a plan; the British government have a plan; in the United States they have the National Recovery Act; in Russia they have the five year plan. But here we have a moving picture policy. The only difference between the program of this government and the program at the Capitol or the Regent theatre is that the program at the moving picture theatres changes once a week and that of the government is changing every minute. It reminds me of the story of a woman who was running on the street: someone asked her why she was running so fast, and she said: "I am going to buy a hat before the fashion changes." That reminds one of this government. During the last campaign the poor were given a title-I knew then that the title matter would come before the house-they were called "unemployed." Processions were organized of so-called unemployed, with white buttons in their lapels; they were paid so much per head by the Conservative organization to form huge parades to protest against the Mackenzie King government doing nothing for the
unemployed. It was just political propaganda. Then after the election in 1930 we were called here for a special session to end unemployment, as had been promised by the Prime Minister several times during the election.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: In three days.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, faster than that-we will say the day after he took the reins of office. That was the story. Unfortunately the people were credulous enough to believe it. I told my constituents when they were shouting "hurrah" for the leader of the Conservative party that their worst punishment would be to see him in office, and the trouble would be that the good would then suffer as much as the bad; those who knew he could not fulfil his promise would suffer as much as those who believed in those promises and by their votes helped him to secure office.
Then we came here for the special session of 1930. I remember distinctly, though it is not in the records of the house, that when the Speaker asked the house if we were ready to accept the new high tariff I said, from my seat, "on division." It was not recorded in the papers of the house, but I said it and it was reported by the gentlemen of the press gallery. What were we told then? The Prime Minister said, "We must raise our tariff in order to end unemployment." Then he read or told us about promises he had received from manufacturers to the effect that they would not reduce the number of their employees, nor would they reduce salaries. That is what we were told by the Prime Minister, who was very bombastic at the time. Did conditions improve after that special session?
Then -we had the London conference, which had a strong smell of "humbug" about it, and again the tariff was changed. What was the result? We had more unemployment. Later the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General came back to Canada, after the Prime Minister had been given a degree by Mr. Thomas. That wras the first degree he received after coming into office-"humbug." He came back here, at all events, and we had the session of 1931, with still higher tariffs. I remember that my right hon. leader asked the Prime Minister during the session of 1931 if he had not increased half the tariff items, and the Prime Minister said he had not. My leader said, "Let us be fair; let us say one-third," and the Prime Minister agreed to that. Were conditions better after that? They were worse, because the tariff was increased at the request of men who saw only
Relief Act 1934

their immediate profit and who were not sufficiently farsighted to see what were the real interests of the Canadian people.
The argument of the Prime Minister was that by increasing the tariff we would reduce unemployment, and that as a result no man in this country would be in poverty. If his argument had been right we should have had thousands, tens of thousands and millions of immigrants coming to Canada and no one would have been unemployed, because the tariff has been raised again and again. What the Prime Minister said was childish; he was not serious when he said it. He was so far from being serious that he realized that a country is like an individual; it cannot live alone. The Prime Minister said, "Now that we have isolated ourselves we in Canada are like a prisoner within the walls of a gaol. Now we will have to secure outside help." Then he turned to the other dominions and to Great Britain, and we had the Ottawa conference of 1932, with brass bands. What was the result of that conference? We had prognostications about the possibilities, potentialities and probabilities of the hog trade. We had visions of the future as described by the leader of the Conservative party, but that was only humbug, as was his statement in London when he told an audience that Canada was self sufficient. The trade of Great Britain with the British dominions amounts to only nine per cent of the world's trade. These Ottawa agreements were signed at the last minute; the departure of the boat by which Mr. Baldwin travelled back to Great Britain was delayed for one day in order to give him an opportunity to sign these papers, and there was a famous feast at the Chateau Laurier. The newspapers said the tables groaned under the weight of the food and wines placed on them. If my hon. friends think I exaggerate they need only look at the files of the Citizen and Journal in order to verify my statement. It will be remembered that nothing had been signed and in fact nothing had been agreed to up to the very day Mr. Baldwin was to go back. At the last minute something had to be done; some papers had to be signed; some agreements had to be reached. The secretaries and scribes became very busy putting letters and words one after the other, together with rows of figures in order to have something to show the people. That something turned out to be nothing at all. According to the blue-books containing the reports of the Ottawa conference, this was to be the salvation of Canada and was to bring about the restoration of our trade. Is that what has happened?

The conference was such a failure that the government realized that we could not trade only with England and our sister dominions. We are one of the nations of the world; we are proud to be such, and Canada has to trade not only with England and the sister dominions but also with all the other nations of the world. That will be our salvation. When that is brought about we will cease to have unemployment; there will be no need for direct relief for those who have no jobs and those who cannot find a way to earn a livelihood and bring up their families.
I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that we will have to pay direct relief until the government comes back to plain common sense. That is all we ask of them. We ask them to lay aside these new programs and plans which are absurd and which destroy the very life of Canadian trade and the confidence of the Canadian people in their own country. Sir, the Ottawa agreements clearly proved that the stand taken by the Prime Minister in London in 1930 was wrong. First he thought he was so great that he alone could dispose of the future of our country. After his experiences with the tariff in 1931 and 1932, he realized that he was wrong. Then we had the conference and agreements of 1932, and after that I hope his ministers were good enough friends of his to tell him he was going in the wrong direction. He saw that the agreements of 1932 were wrong, and then what did he do? He tried to bring about a restoration of the former Canadian trade with all the nations of the world, and with that in mind he and other ministers went to London as the representatives from this great country, While there they met the official representatives of sixty-three other countries, from five continents, three of which the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) has just visited. Yes, five continents were represented at that momentous gathering. The idea of the restoration of world trade for Canada was so important that the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) stated in this house that the government was ready to decrease the tariffs and to bring them to a normal level provided other nations were willing to take similar action. He admitted at that time that Canada's tariff was too high. The trip to London was a new experiment; and what were we told by the press while the Prime Minister was in that great city? First of all we were told that the conference was behaving very badly. I do not mean that there was misbehaviour, but that the state of health of the conference was very poor. And then they found a doctor, a political
practitioner who the conference from wreckage, leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada. We learned from the press that two days later the conference was in such good health that it died. It was a marvellous operation which was performed by the Prime Minister.
People do not realize that when power was given to the Prime Minister he received more than that. Actually the Canadian people gave him an axe with which he has completely despoiled Canadian trade. Now he offers a diversion and states, "We have sold so many cans of salmon," when in fact the production of the fisheries has decreased by $21,000,000 when our exports to the British Empire and foreign countries have declined by $11,000,000. At such a time he states, "We are sending so many cans of salmon and so many cans of lobsters." Great! Great! He makes these statements at a time when merchants are selling nothing for weeks and hionths. When a merchant sells a package of chewing gum for five cents he thinks he has made a great profit. The government is acting in the same way.
I want to tell you, sir, that we are sick of humbug; we are sick of smoke screens. We want the truth, and we want it naked, because when an operation has to be made it is not made on a body covered with frills, but on a naked body. If we have to make an operation we must make it on the naked body of Canadian trade, so that we may know the true facts which will enable us to diagnose the sickness. Now, sir, I will diagnose the disease. We hear that in the United States there has been a great improvement in business. Is that improvement due to the N.R.A.?
I will not say that. How is it that confidence has been restored in the United States? I believe the explanation is very simple: The people were fed up with the Hoover regime; they wanted a change, because they had no confidence in the Hoover government. People who had money were not spending it; business was very bad. and the American people were afraid of civil war or revolution. Then what happened? There was a change in government; Mr. Roosevelt was elected, and that very fact restored confidence to the American people. The same must happen in Canada. We have had enough promises; we have had enough experiments; we want a change. We want to open the windows in order to get some fresh air so that we may breathe. It is essential for us to come down to plain facts. In this House of Commons I have
74726-ill
been advocating truth, in order that we may know where we are. When I ask questions of any member of the government or for the tabling of a return I want the same as is required from a witness-I want the truth, and the whole truth.
If the ministers are familiar with their departments, as I believe they are-I give them that credit-they have no excuse whatsoever for refusing to give any information requested from the floor of the house by an hon. member, and they have no excuse for not giving a complete return in accordance with the order of the house. I say that because the government is just a committee of the house, and it is we, the members of the House of Commons, who have the power to decide whatever we think fit. This is a fact which has been ignored, and is one of the reasons why we have that moving picture of changing programs.


Edward Joseph Garland: A slow
motion picture.


Jean-François Pouliot: Slow in motion, but fast in theory. I hope that in the very near future the rights of parliament will not be ignored. Repeatedly I have stated in the House of Commons that hon. members on this side of the house are willing at any time to cooperate with the government in order to bring about some improvement in the business of Canada. I wish to be well understood when I say that when any hon. member on this side of the house offers a suggestion to the government he does so having in mind his responsibility as a member, and in the belief that he is doing the best he can to serve his country. What is said in that spirit should be so accepted, and no hon. member from whatever section of the house he may speak should be exposed to a rebuttal when he is dealing fairly with the government.
After these preliminaries-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: After these preliminaries let me state that again and again I have suggested to the Minister of Labour, and to the government as a whole, that no decision will be arrived at with regard to unemployment unless there is system and order, and unless the government takes the time to concentrate and considers each particular case. I think the committee is fair enough to acknowledge that I have told the government very often that it can have no success in relieving unemployment unless each case is considered separately. This is what was done during the war in taking care of the wounded soldiers. Some of these men received gunshot wounds,
found the evil and saved It was the


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, before we conclude the discussion on this resolution I think it is desirable that this House of Commons should recognize the position in which it finds itself in dealing with this greatest and most important of all questions in the country to-day, the problem of unemployment. This afternoon the Prime Minister moved the following resolution which was agreed to:
That when this house adjourns on Wednesday the 28th of March instant, it shall stand adjourned until Monday the 9th of April, 1934.
What does that motion mean as respects the .matters at present under discussion? It means that unless the bill to be founded on this resolution carries between now and Wednesday of next week, so far as any provision on the part of this parliament to deal with the problem of unemployment is concerned, there will when members leave on their Easter vacation be none whatever. I think it is all important that that should be clearly understood. For reasons best known to itself the government this year is adopting the procedure which it adopted in previous sessions of leaving until the very last moment the discussion of the great question of unemployment and unemployment relief. We are within four days of the adjournment of parliament for the Easter recess and within that time we have not only to complete the discussion of this measure but to enact whatever legislation may be necessary to meet the problem of unemployment at the expiration of this fiscal year, which is March 31. Let me make it perfectly clear that if the bill to be founded upon this resolution is not passed before Wednesday-this means not only its passage through this house but its passage through the Senate and its receiving the royal assent by the representative of the crown- there will not be available from the federal treasury a single dollar to assist in the relief of the unemployed. Notwithstanding the fact which the minister has had to admit to-night that the number of families dependent upon relief runs into the thousands and into the hundreds of thousands and notwithstanding there are hundreds of thousands of unemployed, there will not be a single dollar available from the treasury for the purpose of any work of construction to aid and furnish employment to those who are unemployed. More than that, if this legislation is not passed the government will no longer have the power which it has been enjoying when parliament is not in session of making provision by order in council for matters

Relief Act 1934
that pertain to peace, order, and good government and of meeting emergent conditions under that provision.
Further than that, the government will not have at its disposal a blank cheque from which it can draw funds necessary to deal with unemployment relief. It will not have any of the moneys fixed by the legislation of the past year for the purpose of helping to meet the unemployment situation or to relieve rural distress. That is the position; there will be absolutely nothing authorized, nothing out of which the government can make provision to deal with this great question of unemployment relief, and that notwithstanding the fact that the question was regarded by the government, at the time it came into office now nearly four years ago, as so urgent that a special session of parliament had to be called to consider it. We had a special session to deal with the all important question of unemployment relief, which was then declared to be a great national issue; we had that session, a second, third, fourth and now a fifth session; and what is the position at the moment? Should the discussion of this measure, by any chance, last into the middle of next week when parliament adjourns for Easter and the members are away, the government will find itself beginning a new fiscal year without any provision whatever with respect to unemployment in Canada so far as the federal government is concerned. I ask the Minister of Labour and the administration, is it any wonder that unrest and distress are increasing in the country when neglect and indifference to that extent can be shown with regard to the government's attitude towards this great problem? Nothing could be more eloquent of the neglect, or the indifference, or the incapacity-because it is one of the three -of the government to deal with the problem of unemployment relief than this very fact that there will be nothing on the statutes of Canada that will give the government power to turn either to the right or to the left in coping with the problem of unemployment as it exists in Canada to-day unless some legislation is put through before Wednesday of next week. If this parliament should adjourn at Easter without any provision whatever having been made for unemployment, would it be any wonder if a cry of distress went up from one end of the land to the other on the part of the people everywhere who are looking to this federal parliament that has promised to help them in their efforts to cope with the most critical situation with which the country has ever been faced? If we
74726-Ilia
on this side do not continue, to the extent that we should like, the discussion of some of the matters involved, it is simply because we recognize this fact, that unless some legislation is put through by Wednesday next there will be nothing whatever on the statutes to enable the government to make provision of any kind.
For that reason I say to the minister, I hope he will find it possible to bring down immediately, so that it may be available before the second'reading of the bill, the information which he has promised to-night to let us have. I should like him to bring down first of all the reports of the auditor general to the ministry, or different- members of the ministry, with regard to those cases in which he has discovered that the provision for controlling expenditure, so far as relief is concerned, has been inadequate; next, a statement with respect to the total numbers of unemployed, classified by months and by provinces for the past year-indeed, if he could give it year by year from the time the administration came into office it would be preferable; and the same information with respect to the numbers of persons receiving relief. In addition to that, I wish the minister would also lay on the table a statement giving the latest figures with regard to the total expenditure by years and provinces that has been made under the different relief measures since the administration came into office. If we have this information to-morrow we might let this resolution pass to-night so as to enable the minister to introduce the bill, and we might be able to proceed with the second reading of the bill on Monday, if the government itself is ready to go on at that time. But we ought certainly to have that information before being asked to continue with the measure.
May I add this further word. I hope that between now and Monday the government will consider carefully whether at this session, which may be the last of the present parliament, it should ask this House of Commons again to give it blanket authority to legislate by order in council with respect to any matter it cares to classify under the head of peace, order and good government, and also whether it should ask the House of Commons to endorse a blank cheque with respect to the expenditures the administration may wish to make^ for actual or alleged purposes of relief, especially when the minister has announced, in connection with the work of public construction which the government may bring in, that the government may enter into contracts
Relief Act 1934

which will be continued over a series of years, and the payments under which may be guaranteed for a longer period than the customary fiscal year.


George Gordon: I could give a good deal of the information that the right hon. gentleman has asked for, but perhaps, in anticipation of the filing of the report contemplated by the statute, it would be better if I brought in the information in the form of a statement instead of giving it here to-night. For instance, I could easily give a recapitulation of federal disbursements under the various relief measures from 1930 on to March 10, 1934, but perhaps it would be just as well if a statement were tabled at the opening of the house to-morrow. I think it can be prepared by then, so that all the information asked for can be before the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I suggest to the minister that it would be a matter of very small expense to have these statements presented in printed form so that they might be made available to members of the house generally. I am referring to the tabular statements. I do not mean a comprehensive document but a statement in tabular form by provinces and months for each of the past three calendar years and up to the present, of the numbers of unemployed, the numbers receiving relief, and general expenditures on relief, presented either in printed form or in manifold copies.


Miss MACPHAIL:: How much money is loaned to the unemployed who are being put back on the land-the policy which the minister has been following for some little time? What is the total amount of money that goes to each family and is it the same for all families?


George Gordon: There is no money loaned, so far as the federal contribution is concerned. There is a non-recoverable grant from the federal treasury of $200. That is supplemented by an equal sum from the province and the municipality respectively concerned.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Making $600 in all.


George Gordon: Yes.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: What is the total number of families who have gone back on the land in the last year?


George Gordon: The total number of
families is 2,701; the total number of dependents is 11,657; the total acreage is 328,027 acres.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Are the farms mostly in northern Ontario, or are there some in southern Ontario, so far as that province is concerned?


George Gordon: They are scattered throughout the province, but I think the major portion will be found in that part called northern Ontario.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Is this policy being followed in other provinces?


George Gordon: Yes. The figures I have given are for all of Canada under this scheme.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Does the minister find that the families who went back on the land a year or two years ago are self sustaining?


George Gordon: Generally speaking, yes. There have been some failures. The exact number of those who have returned to their municipalities I have not before me at the moment, but from the reports I get from the various provinces I would say that no plan under the department of colonization in the past seeking to induce people from other lands to come to Canada and settle here has met with the same degree of success that this plan has. It is of course a slow process, but the percentage of failures is very much smaller than under any other scheme that 1 have had under review since coming into the department. That applies to all the various schemes since 1921.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: About what extent is the average parcel of land? How many acres? Are they large or small holdings?


George Gordon: No holding that I know of is larger than 160 acres.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: That is in western Canada?


George Gordon: That would be in Ontario and western Canada. In some parts of western Canada the location may be larger than that, but a good deal of it would likely be rough land.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I remember when the minister first suggested this plan, which I believe means a great deal to him, I thought he was genuinely enthusiastic about it, but I felt it could not succeed. I cannot see now how putting on the land people many of whom, I suppose, have not had great experience there, can succeed when those who are trained and experienced farmers and who are on property that has been in their family for one, two or three generations are really not self sustaining on the land. I know that in my constituency of Southeast Grey many who are good farmers with mortgages of some

Relief Act 1934
considerable size against their land have lost their property, and many more of them will be in a similar position when the moratorium which at the moment is protecting them is lifted. I should be very happy if the whole farming population in Canada could be made self sustaining, but in my opinion they are not at the present time. At least the farmers in my constituency-and there is nothing peculiar about it-are losing out. If they had money in the bank, that money is gone, or if they had not, they have borrowed just as much as they can, and are not able to pay even the interest on their borrowings. I believe that, generally speaking, is a truthful statement. In endeavouring to carry on, they have sold so much of their live stock that they cannot carry on farming operations as efficiently as they could some years ago.
I do not like to discourage the minister, but I feel this back to the land policy is unsound and will, as time goes on, fail. I do not see how it can do anything else. The minister said that the farmer at least never was out of work. That is quite true. The farmer and the farm woman have more work to do than they should, but they do not get paid for it, and the disequilibrium in population between urban and rural communities arises from the fact, not that there is no work on the farm, but that the people who do this arduous work over years and years, are not paid for it. We all know that, and so to attempt just to take unemployed people, and having given them $600, which I admit is a help, put them on the land and expect that they are going to profit thereby-well, I do not like to say it, but I think it shows the minister knows more about mining than about farming. I believe he is sincere and wants the plan to succeed, but I do not think it can. Some of the older members will recall that in 1922 for ten days there was a debate in the house in which protest was made agaiDst the wholesale immigration that was then taking place; we brought in more and more immigrants and put them on the land, especially in western Canada, and we are producing such quantities of farm products that under the system prevailing markets for them cannot be found. Now we are adopting another land policy. It is not called immigration, but it is possibly the dregs of the former immigration policy; we are attempting to put people back on the land. As the representative of an almost wholly rural community,1 I protest against this; I believe it cannot succeed, and in so far as it does succeed it will make the situation just that much more difficult for the farmers who have been on the land and who
have been trying to farm it for quite some time.
I am not, however, going to say that I think the disequilibrium between the population of rural and urban communities is attributable to just one thing; that is not so. There are many causes, but I am not going to take time to go into them to-night. The tariff has had something to do with it; the money power in the hands of a few people who deliberately built up rapidly the industrial life of Canada has had something to do with it, and an educational system that does not in any way fit people to get the beauty and cultural value out of the country in which they are living also has something to do with it. There are many causes for the conditions as we find them, but as the representative of a fine, intelligent rural constituency I protest against this back to the land policy which is being followed. It may for the moment seem to succeed, but just as soon as these people can get off the land, they will do so. As long as it is the only place where they can have any sort of shelter and can produce some food for themselves, they may stay, but that, after all, is not making a living. Finally they will have to get machinery, clothes and many other things they are not thinking very much about at the moment, and I do not believe they can get them under this scheme. I do not suppose the minister will call this the major policy of the government as regards unemployment, but I think he will find that as time goes on it will fail.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I do not know whether the minister has already given this information; I have been attending to my duties in the banking and commerce committee. I should like to know how much is given weekly in each province for the unemployed for each member of his family?


George Gordon: That is a matter which rests entirely with the municipality and with the province. So far as the federal government is concerned we have never put any maximum or minimum on how much a family would receive. That obviously must of necessity be attended to by the local authorities who know the conditions in each case.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Has the minister in his possession information in connection with how much was paid in each province in such cases for each family per week?


George Gordon: No figures such as the hon. member asks for are available.
Relief Act 1934


Mr. CAS  GRAIN@: I have in mind rentals
that may foe in arrears by the unemployed. Has provision been made that out of moneys paid by the federal and provincial governments and the municipalities certain amounts are to be devoted to the payment of rentals for the benefit of the unemployed?


George Gordon: If there is such an arrangement it was made by the province with the municipalities. I am not acquainted with any such arrangement that may have been made.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I suppose the minister
would be in a position to give us a copy of the reports he has received from all the provinces regarding their dealings with the matter of unemployment in reference to this act, and also the amount expended by each province? Has the minister got this report from each province?


George Gordon: Under the provisions of the act a complete report must be tabled in the house within fifteen days after the end of the fiscal year. That report is in course of preparation now.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It will be tabled, then, in April?


George Gordon: Within fifteen days after the end of the fiscal year.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The report that is in
preparation regarding the administration by all the provinces of the moneys contributed by the federal government will be tabled only on the fifteenth of April next?


George Gordon: I hope to have it tabled
before the last day for tabling it, but it will be some time after the end of the fiscal year.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: So we shall not have
available for consideration the reports from the provinces before we vote on the second reading of this bill?


George Gordon: No.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Did I hear the minister state that these 2,000 families that were returned to the land received $200 from the federal government, $200 from the provincial government and $200 from the municipality concerned ?


George Gordon: Yes, 2.701 families were
settled under that arrangement.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Have any families been
settled on land under the Unemployment Relief Act or any other act by some different scheme? Is there any other scheme by which

an unemployed man and his family, if the muncipality does not wish to contribute, can be reestablished on the land?


George Gordon: I believe a small number
of families was settled in Saskatchewan by a joint contribution from the Dominion government and the provincial government. And I believe that under a similar arrangement, namely a contribution of $400, some Men-nonites were settled around Swift Current and some place in the northern part of Saskatchewan. These people had apparently come to anchor around the towns and evinced a desire to get out and get a piece of land and hustle for themselves. There was apparently no municipal responsibility, and a joint contribution was made in a few cases, half by the provincial and half by the federal government.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Suppose a man who is
unemployed in one of these little hamlets in unorganized territory desired to go on the land with his family, is there any way for him to be helped to do so to-day?


George Gordon: I would approve of such
an arrangement. If a person living in unorganized territory, at present on relief or likely to be and without money, wants to take up a piece of land, he would probably be the kind of person who would have a greater chance of becoming self sustaining than even one who had lived in his youth and perhaps beyond youth on a farm and then spent a number of years in the cities. If there were cases of -that kind, and the province viewed it with favour, I would recommend that the federal government join with the province to that extent to settle that man with his family.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The application will
have to come from the province?


George Gordon: Yes.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: Under the
Relief Act of 1931 the farmers of Saskatchewan, and I think of other parts of western Canada, were required to give notes for the relief they obtained. Would the minister when the bill comes up give some information in regard to those notes, particularly the amount involved, whether they are being collected, wihat method is being used to collect them, what amount has been collected, and so on?, That has always been rather a sore point with me. It seemed unfair that our farmers should have had to give a note for every little bit of relief they obtained, whereas in the cities it was not so. I am glad the government abandoned that idea.

Limitation of Armaments
There is another thing to which I would draw attention, as there is need of something being done immediately. I am getting letters from farmers in my constituency saying that they must get more feed for their stock, that stock is dying off continually, and that unless they get feed for their horses they will not be in fit condition to put in the crop this spring. They need feed not only for seeding time but in order to get their horses into shape to do the spring work.


Mr. DENIS (Translation):: Mr. Chairman,
when the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay inquired of the hon. minister what amount was granted to each unemployed per week, in each province, the reply of the hon. minister, if I am not mistaken, was that these figures were not available. As the accounts of each province must be minutely looked into by the minister or his officials, he should be in a position to state whether the treasury is well guarded or the grants made to relieve unemployment were fairly distributed to all the provinces and then to the unemployed. The same applies to rentals. I do not know whether I was well informed, however, I think that in certain provinces rentals are almost entirely paid, while in others no payments are made on them. The distribution of grants to relieve unemployment in the various provinces should be carried out justly, because they all have to pay their quota of taxes to the state. If the government, in the administration of the affairs of the country, acted with reasonable care, its duty would be to scrutinize more closely the statements submitted by the provinces and see that a fairer distribution is carried out.


Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):: You
should mention this fact to Mr. Taschereau.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Let the minister reply. He will, perhaps, do so more intelligently.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Mr. Taschereau is not responsible for this measure, but the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and those who promised to end unemployment in three weeks must assume such responsibility.


Humphrey Mitchell: Arising out of an observation made by the minister in connection with this building program, a thought passed through my mind. I was under the impression that the minister had no knowledge as to the extent of the policy, the amount of money that was to be spent or where the buildings
were to be erected. It passed through my mind that a number of sessions ago the government invited the members to let them know of any public works that were required within the confines of their different constituencies. I think that would be a good policy to adopt in connection with the forthcoming building program. I do not believe this should be-and mind you I am not insinuating that it will be-a kind of preelection pork barrel for the party in power. The members themselves have a very clear understanding of the needs of their constituencies in this regard, and I merely make this suggestion in view of the fact that the policy has not been drawn up or agreed upon. I think the government might bear that in mind when bringing the policy to the house for ratification.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gordon thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 42, respecting relief measures.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie the house adjourned at 10.47 p.m.
Friday, March 23, 1934