1940-06-21

THE GOVERNOR GENERAL


Mr. SPEAKER :: I beg to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House, Ottawa,
21st June, 1910
Sir,
I am desired by the Administrator to inform you that the Right Honourable the Earl of Atblone will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day, at 11:50 a.m., for the ceremony of his instailation as Governor General of Canada, following which His Excellency the Governor General will remain to give the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira,
Acting Secretary to the Administrator.
The house will now proceed to the senate for the royal assent to certain bills. After the assent has been given the Speaker of the House of Commons will withdraw. Members of the House of Commons who wish to do so may remain in their places, but I would point out that we shall require a quorum of at least twenty when we resume here, after the assent has been given.
Accordingly, the house went up to the senate.
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name royal assent to the following bills:
An act to confer certain powers upon the governor in council for the mobilization of national resources in the present war.
An act respecting the appointment of auditors for National Railways.
An act to amend the Canada Grain Act.
An act to amend the Dairy Industry Act.
An act to ratify and confirm a certain agreement respecting the joint use by Canadian National Railways of certain tracks and premises of the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company, at Vancouver, in the province of British Columbia.
An act to amend the Seeds Act, 1937.
An act to authorize the raising, by way of loan, of certain sums of money for the public service.
An act to amend the Department of National Defence Act.
An act respecting the Royal Canadian Air Force.
An act to amend the Canada Evidence Act.
An act to amend the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act, 1937.
An act to amend the Department of National Revenue Act.
An act to authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the Corporation of the City of Ottawa.
An act to amend the Militia Pension Act.
' An act to amend the Wheat Cooperative Marketing Act, 1939.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.



SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table of the house an order in council declaring illegal an organization known as Technocracy Incorporated; also an order in council providing for the control and management of all properties belonging to associations declared illegal.

Subversive Activities
If the house wishes to know in what way we will deal with them I would say this, that all property rights and interests in Canada belonging to any illegal organization shall be vested in and be subject to the control and management of the custodian, as defined in the regulations respecting trading with the enemy, 1939.
Subject as hereinafter provided, and for the purpose of the control and management of such property, rights and interests by the custodian, the regulations respecting trading with the enemy, 1939, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the same extent as if such property, rights and interests belonged to an enemy within the meaning of the said regulations.
The property, rights and interests so vested in and subject to the control and management of the custodian, or the proceeds thereof, shall on the termination of the present war be dealt with in such manner as the governor in council may direct.


Mr. STIRLING:: Will the order in council, banning Technocracy Incorporated, in the ordinary course of events be printed in the
Canada Gazette?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.



INTERNMENT OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL UNITY PARTY

Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I should like to give some further information. Eleven members of the so-called National Unity Party in the last few days have appeared before a court in Montreal for preliminary investigation. Having heard the evidence and having seen the exhibits produced, the presiding judge declared he had reason to believe that a plot has been organized against the state, and he has referred the matter to the attorney general at Quebec. The attorney general at Quebec has sent me a report in the matter, accompanied by certain exhibits which show clearly that those people had communications and intelligence with enemies-Germany, Italy and elsewhere. Accordingly I have issued an order directing the internment of those eleven persons for the duration of the war. Among them are Henri Arcand, Maurice Scott, of Montreal; Joseph C. Farr, and John Lorimer of Toronto.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Are the criminal proceedings to be continued also?


Ernest Lapointe: They will stay in abeyance.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But they are not being abandoned?


Ernest Lapointe: Not at all; far from it.



SEQUESTRATION OF PROPERTIES OF DUFFERIN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY AND DUFFERIN PAVING COMPANY

Richard Burpee Hanson: While we are on this subject, may I presume to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) if the property of the Dufferin Shipbuilding company and the Dufferin Paving company has been sequestrated? I saw a legal notice in one of the Toronto papers to the effect that the firm of Price, Waterhouse & Company has been appointed to some position in respect of this matter. Probably the minister would be in a position to give the house some information.


Ernest Lapointe: Alien enemy property is under the Secretary of State, who is custodian, the under-secretary of state being deputy custodian. I think something has been done, but possibly my colleague would make a statement in the matter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps the Secretary of State (Mr. Casgrain) would make a statement. I must apologize for not having asked him in the first instance.
Hon. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Secretary of State): Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) is that Price, Waterhouse & Company have been appointed to look after this matter. As yet I have not received any report, but my hon. friend is correct when he says that we have taken charge of the property of the party in question.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Part or all?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: All, I understand.



PRIVILEGE


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I never raise questions of privilege, or allude to what appears in the newspapers; but my attention has been called to an editorial in the Ottawa Journal interpreting certain words I used in an address a few days ago as applying to all the newspapers in Canada. That was far from being my intention. I had in mind only two or three newspapers, and I am pleased to say that the Ottawa Journal was not one of them.
Private Bills



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. C. ABBOTT (St. Antoine-West-mount) moved the first reading of Bill No. 44, respecting the Cedar Rapids Manufacturing and Power Company.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. ABBOTT:: The purpose of this bill is to grant certain powers to this company as now provided for in section 14 of the Companies Act. Three powers are being asked for. The first is the power to sell or dispose of the undertaking of the company or any part thereof for such consideration as the company may think fit. The next is the power to distribute among the shareholders any property or assets of the company of which it may have power to dispose, and the third is the power to amalgamate or consolidate with any other company. The first of these powers is identical with that granted by paragraph (m) of section 14 of the dominion Companies Act. The second is substantially identical with that granted by paragraph (u) of section 14, and the third, while somewhat abbreviated, is similar to that granted by paragraph (b) of the same section.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FIRST READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Elma Jane Harris Aspell.-Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Edith Leanora Holland Bonnet.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Dorothy Lavinia Worsley Baker.-Mr. Casselman (Grenville-Dundas).
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Eugene Belanger. -Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Rebecca Cohen. -Mr. Mcllraith.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. K. ESLING (Kootenay West):: Is the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) ready to make a statement which would relieve the anxiety of several thousand young men whose applications have been accepted for enlistment in the air force? These men have waited some time for definite word and are beginning to feel somewhat discouraged. Many of them are ignoring the call for enlistment in other branches of the service.


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: I shall be very glad to make some such statement at the earliest opportunity.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There are many young men in this position.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, June 20, consideration in committee of Bill No. 42, to assist in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress-Mr. McLarty-Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 3-Agreements with provinces and others.
Mr. MacNICOL:: I was quite pleased with the information the minister gave yesterday in reply to a question I asked with reference to the use of technical schools in Toronto. The minister stated that my understanding of the matter was correct. I think this is a step in the right direction. If Canada is to do her part toward winning the war there is no doubt that in a short time many of the plants in this country not now in operation will be operating at full force and there will be need of young men to man these plants. Many young men now taking courses in the technical schools will have an opportunity to take the three months' summer course in order to finish their training. The board of education in Toronto has decided to keep all the technical schools open and the various instructors have indicated their willingness to forego their holidays in order that instruction may be given. I think that is a most patriotic gesture on their part. As I understand it these students are to be instructed in machine shop and foundry practice and so on.


Mr. McLARTY:: And the metal trades.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They will be instructed how to make drawings of the different things they are working on; they will be instructed in the welding of metals and in die and tool making. In many of these trades there is an acute shortage of mechanics at the present time because during the last two or three years many mechanics have gone back to the old country. Will there be instruction in laboratory practice?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not think that that will be studied in any great degree; I think it will relate pretty largely to the practical

Unemployment Relief
trades, to training in the metal trades and in tools and diemaking, in which, as the hon. member suggests, there is a very small surplus. I would not want to be too specific about laboratory practice, but there will doubtless be some.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I had in mind the various items that enter into the construction of steel, of which we shall require such a large production in this war. There will be some instruction in foundry practice, I presume, because all our technical schools now have foundry furnaces within their walls, and I presume there will be also instruction in electricity and in the making of the various parts used in aeroplanes, diesel engines and so forth. If so, that is fine; the minister should be commended if such a programme is to be carried on. Such training of this kind will be very beneficial; it is a step in the right direction.
Under the bill that was passed in the United States instruction is to be given in the technical schools in four major courses of study in the various trades I have mentioned-steel, the metal trades, and so forth- and parallel instruction in electricity and allied subjects. I find in that bill something which I presume the minister also has in mind-that in training men regard will be had to supply and demand. On the other side they are very particular to see that there will not be four or five qualified tool and diemakers applying for the one job, and they have arranged to have regard to the law of supply and demand. But in this country the demand in my judgment will, owing to munition production, greatly exceed the supply, so I do not think we need to worry very much about an over-supply. If the minister keeps that consideration in -mind, his bill will perhaps be more effective than it otherwise would be.
Perhaps under this bill the department would undertake to keep a record of those about to graduate-I am speaking particularly of factory employees-so that they might be placed in factories which will be requiring their services or which will shortly be called upon to produce war equipment. The main purpose of the bill this session is altogether different from the purpose of the previous bill, because under this bill the purpose is to provide a sufficient number of qualified mechanics in all the trades allied with steel and iron production so that we shall have a sufficient number of men available to produce munitions and all the other equipment that is necessary to win the war.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I thank the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) again for his constructive suggestions. I am advised that the arrangements for the use of the technical schools this summer call for 4,000 to 4,500 for courses in instruction, and we are going to endeavour to speed that up. We are going to use instructors in technical schools who have been kind enough to offer their services. We are also going to have instructors from different plants. We have already made a survey of the amount of labour immediately required not only in each plant but in each portion of each plant, and we are endeavouring in every possible way to speed up the training in order to meet the demand.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Since the beginning of the war there has been a continuous increase in the cost of living. That increase is not yet burdensome to persons with wages or salaries over $1,500 or running into several thousand dollars, but it has a very important bearing on the standard of living of those who must live on $200 or $300 a year, as many of the unemployed have to do. Has there been any conference with the provincial authorities with a view to increasing the relief allowance to take care of the increased cost of living?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The position of the
dominion government is this, and I think perhaps I have stated it before. The provincial governments and the municipalities are the ones that fix the quantum of individual relief. Our arrangement with all the provinces except New Brunswick is that we shall contribute dollar for dollar with the province. Answering the specific question which the hon. member has asked, there has been no conference between the dominion and provincial authorities relative to an increase in the quantum of individual relief as a result of any rise in the cost of living, the reason being that that is purely a matter of provincial and municipal determination, we simply paying dollar for dollar with the province.


Angus MacInnis: Has the federal Department of Labour been approached by any province for an increased grant in aid owing to the situation which I have just mentioned? It is very well known to the house, I think, that many provinces are in such a position that they cannot increase their grants or aid to the municipalities until they first receive increased aid from the federal authority.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think perhaps the hon.
gentleman is putting the cart before the horse. Answering offhand, the dominion Department of Labour, so far as I know, has not been approached bv any province relative to the
Unemployment Relief

quantum of individual relief, the reason being that the quantum of relief is within the sole determination of the province. If they decide to increase that quantum, then under our arrangement we have to meet the province dollar for dollar, but we cannot ourselves step in and fix the quantum of relief.
Mr. MaeINNIS: I think the minister misunderstood my question. I was speaking not of the individual amount of relief given to recipients but of the increased burden on the provinces because of the rise there has been in the cost of living.
Mr. MeLARTY: I do not think any province has suggested an increase over the 40-40-20 arrangement that was entered into last year. Speaking purely from recollection, my answer would be that there has been no representation made by any province that the dominion should absorb a larger proportion of the total relief.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: During the past
several weeks various relief recipients in Saskatchewan have received notice that the amount of their relief is to be considerably reduced. But if I understood the minister correctly he stated the other evening that no notice had been given by this government to the provincial governments of any anticipated reduction this year in the amount of relief that would account for the notices being sent out by the provincial administrators of relief.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but he will remember that in the notice sent out to the provinces was the suggestion that in view of the vast war expenditure some maximum might have to be applied. I added that the intention was to apply that maximum in those provinces in which war orders are to a great degree resulting in a reduction in the amount of relief required, and suggested that I did not think Saskatchewan was in that class.


John George Diefenbaker: 
Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not wish to withhold from the committee any information that I have, but this bill has not yet been passed; as soon as it is passed, estimates will be received from the various provinces as to their requirements. I suggest that the hon. member's question would be more appropriately asked upon the estimates. I cannot answer his question at the present time, much as I should like to do so.


The CHAIRMAN:: Although there is a certain connection between section 3, which is now under consideration, and the question which was asked by the hon. member, I do not believe that, in view of the fact that the estimates are to be studied, it would be quite in order to discuss the amount to which he has referred, namely the estimate of $24,000,000 for relief, because this will come up in due course when the estimates are before the committee.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I did not mean to take advantage of any rule of order. I merely suggested to the hon. member that I thought, if he could defer his question until the estimates come up, I would be able to give him an answer, which I am unable to do to-day.


Thomas Vien: I wanted simply to point out to the members of the committee that it is undesirable to go at too great length into items of the estimates, although some latitude is quite in order, as has been recognized heretofore.


John George Diefenbaker: Without reference, then, to the question of estimates, the point I am trying to make is this, that under this legislation what the government asks is a blank cheque to proceed with measures for the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Nothing will be spent until the estimates are passed in this house. We are not asking for a blank cheque.

Unemployment Relief


John George Diefenbaker: Surely the minister is in a position to give an estimate of the amount which he anticipates will be expended in the several provinces.


Norman Alexander McLarty: No. I regret, Mr. Chairman, I cannot give that to the hon. member to-day. But, as far as a blank cheque is concerned, not a cent will be spent which is not passed by this house, save and except under the Youth Training Act, which is a statutory amount.


John George Diefenbaker: In order to arrive at the amounts set out in the estimates the minister must have had in mind the several sums which it is anticipated will be expended in the several provinces. Otherwise the amounts and the anticipated reductions would not be provided for in the estimates placed before the house.


Mr. HLYNKA:: In my opinion, what the group in this corner of the house is asking for may be boiled down to the three fundamental things of life-food, clothing and shelter. For the past three days we have been engaged in discussing what is probably the most important bill of the present session, that relating to conscription. The agricultural assistance bill, it seems to me, is at least next in importance. Considering the plight of our farmers in western Canada, we sometimes wonder whether this government realizes its obligations towards these people. It seems to me that, for some reason or other, this government has a grudge against the people, at least those of western Canada, and that it is trying to revenge itself upon the farmers of the west. Every hon. member will admit, I am sure, that during the past ten years our western farmers and workers have had no assurance that they would get three meals a day, along with clothing and shelter. When these three fundamentals of life are denied to our humblest and poorest, it is about time for this government to shake off its sleepy mood and proceed to give assistance to our people.
Last September, when the leader of this group, the hon. member for Lethbridge, came home from the session, his little boy asked him a question.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Not about finance, I hope?


Anthony Hlynka: He said, "Daddy, do you think that you will keep up with this line of work?" My leader replied, "Why not?" "Well," said the boy, "it surprises me, Dad, that according to the press you are always wrong and the Prime Minister is always right. How is it? Is the Prime Minister such a
brilliant man, much more so than you are?" The leader of the New Democracy group answered his little son in this way: "Well, son, some people may think to-day that the Prime Minister is right, but there will come a time when the people will realize that we are right and have been right all along. And I am sure that that time is not far off."
As a new member, I have been astonished at the readiness with which government supporters, when the views of our group were propounded, have taken offence or tried to distort anything we have suggested. The government at this time should be only too glad to receive suggestions from every corner of the house. I do not see any special evidence of wisdom in any one particular section of the house and therefore I suggest that we should try, at this critical moment, to work together as one family for the purpose of solving our problems. Our people are [DOT]entitled to food, clothing and shelter. The two old-line parties have denied the Canadian people these three fundamental necessities of life in the last ten years. We must have these things to begin with if we are to exist at all. Napoleon on one occasion said that an army travels on its stomach. I say that a nation exists and fights on its stomach, and you cannot expect the Canadian people to carry on unless they are given adequate care, unless they have the assurance that conditions will make it possible for them at least to exist, to say nothing of getting a real living.
I disagree with some members in our group on one point. Many of them have stated on the floor of this house that the present government gives no privileges to the under dog, no privileges to western farmers and workers in the economic sense. I disagree with that, because our farmers and workers enjoy one privilege, a privilege which is exclusively theirs, or almost exclusively-the privilege of paying taxes. They are never asked to express their opinion as to whether they can bear the burden of taxation that is being piled up on their shoulders. Now, at this critical time, when our farmers in the west need assistance as never before, what do we find? This government invests 8750,000, three-quarters of a million, in a building in this city, the Jackson building, to be used for war purposes. Should the government do this, if it is sincere, as I hope it is? Should it invest three-quarters of a million dollars in a building of this sort-a dead investment-at a time when we need this money for our people and to further our war effort? After passing the important bill that was put through yesterday, the government could take possession of that building without paying three-quarters of a million dollars. They
Unemployment Relief

could have had the use of that building for the duration of the war. If we are going to have equality of sacrifice, if we are going to conscript wealth and industry, that would be the right place to begin at this time. It is inexcusable to spend three-quarters of a million dollars for this purpose, and I suggest that we are justified in saying to the government that they are hindering our war effort by sinking money in an investment of this kind, an investment that is as dead as a doornail.
A few days ago I received a copy of a magazine with beautiful pictures in which suggestions are given as to where one can go for a holiday. I am sure some of the members of this house, and especially government supporters, must have forgotten that the people in western Canada especially do not know what a holiday means. It is about time that we thought of giving them a chance at least to exist. Recently I read a book with the strange title "How to Live On Nothing a Day," written presumably by a Liberal. It is an attempt to force the philosophy upon the people of Canada that it is possible to exist and enjoy life, not on a dollar a day, not on a dollar a year, but on nothing a day. Why should anyone suggest such a thing? We should try to help people along.
We have often heard from the government side the statement that this is war-time and that their obligations are exceptionally heavy. Of course, they will offer a whole lot of such excuses. But great men, any number of great men working together, never shun their responsibilities or look for excuses; they rise to the occasion. If they are really big men they can cope with any situation, no matter how serious it ma3' be, and excuses of that sort are nothing but admissions that the government is incapable of dealing with the problems of the day. Until the poorest and the humblest in our country are provided with food, clothing and shelter, neither this nor any other government in Canada can pride itself upon having discharged its obligations to the people.
I do not know how many of us have ever stopped to consider the implications of what is called interest. We in western Canada have had a little more to do with interest than some of the people in the eastern part of the country, and I have been wondering why the federal government in the past has never concerned itself with the fact that our people have paid interest rates ranging from one to fourteen per cent. May I point out something in simple arithmetic. One dollar at three per cent compound interest gives a total in one hundred years of $19.22-using one hundred

years as a round figure. One dollar compounded at the rate of eight per cent gives a total of $2,199.76, and one dollar at ten per cent gives a total of $13,780.00-and mind you, our people have had to pay at the rate of $13,780 for the use of one dollar; at least, that is what it would amount to over a period of one hundred years. But we have never heard of any supporter of the government getting up on the floor of this house and telling the government that this is going a little too far, that this burden should be taken off the shoulders of the people. They have allowed our people to pay this rate of interest and to-day they wonder why the morale of the Canadian people and of the people of the British empire is not as strong as it should be. That is the real reason.
Who invented this compound interest? I should like to know who gets the benefit of it. Surely not the poor people in western Canada, not the producer, not the worker. What would this government say if our farmers in western Canada refused to produce wheat on the assurance that they would get five per cent above the cost of production? They would say it was sabotage. Some of the manufacturing concerns have refused to put in tenders in time of war because they were not allowed more than five per cent profit. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that this is real sabotage. If the farmers of western Canada were assured of five per cent above the cost of production I am sure they would be satisfied; and on behalf of those farmers I ask that this government consider at least the question of the cost of production.


Mr. MAYHEW:: Will the hon. gentleman
permit a question?


Anthony Hlynka: When I get through.


Mr. GARDINER:: What has this to do
with the bill?


Anthony Hlynka: I am trying to point out
to hon. members that the farmers of the west must receive greater assistance than they have received in the past. I have pointed out on other occasions that they did not need charity but only what was coming to them.


James Garfield Gardiner: Assistance to the farmers of western Canada, about which the hon. gentleman is talking, has been carried on under another bill.


Anthony Hlynka: Section 3 of the bill reads:
3. The governor in council may enter into agreements:
(a) with any of the provinces respecting the alleviation of unemployment conditions and of agricultural distress therein and to assist those in need;
I believe that settles it.

Unemployment Relief


James Garfield Gardiner: Assistance to farmers
in connection with feed and fodder, and the relief given in farm homes, has been given through the Department of Agriculture under another arrangement in the most difficult years. This measure has to do with the lending of money and making grants in aid to the provinces to carry on the work of relief.


Anthony Hlynka: I still maintain that this
is agricultural assistance. Our problem is one of distribution; our farmers and workers must have more purchasing power placed in their hands. This government has absolutely failed to show us how it can place that purchasing power in the hands of our people, and it has absolutely failed to show me how it is going to wipe out unemployment. It seems to me that the government is just dragging on from day to day, and you know that at five per cent compound interest any sum of money doubles itself in fifteen years. If this government carries on its present policy for fifteen years it will simply mean that our farmers will have to repay the money lenders twice the amount originally received.
I am not going to speak at any great length-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Anthony Hlynka: I know the hon. members on the government side are anxious that no one else should express his opinion, but no one party has a monopoly on the desire to help our people. We all want to do our bit in that direction. I happen to represent over fifty thousand people, and I do not think any member of this house will suggest that we should not have the privilege of saying what we have to say.
We in western Canada are not so much interested in theories or in the wording of bills. We have been fed with all that sort of thing for the past seventy years or so, and our people find themselves in distress to-day. We are interested in the results that are achieved by putting the bills into operation. In most of the totalitarian states they have resorted to the production of synthetic bread. We do not need to do that. Canada produces ample supplies to feed not only Canada but the whole British empire. All our farmers ask is a fair price for their wheat and a little assistance when they really need it. If they get that, believe me, our farmers will never fail the nation in time of stress.
A tricky system has been used many times to more or less pull the wool over the eyes of the farmers; the current year is compared with the year previous, or the year before that, to show how the revenue or the profit or commerce has increased. The government never compares the better year with the
worse, but always the worse with the better. Then they say, "Things are improving. You go ahead and rely on us to see that you get what you deserve." That has been the system used right along. There is only one reason why our farmers will not accept a negative answer from this or any other government until they get what they want and what they are entitled to, and that is the law of self-preservation. This nation is fighting Germany because of the same law; we must obey it or submit, or die. That is the only choice we can expect. This government should be proud and glad that our people in the west are not dead yet but are making themselves heard and are placing certain demands before the government, through their elected representatives. I think that that is a good sign. If we ever came to the time when our people would no longer demand or ask for anything, it would be a sign that we had reached the end and that there was no future before us.
I beseech the government to consider our farmers, our workers, the real pillars of our nation. Give them what they deserve; then, believe me, these farmers will not refuse to produce. Give them five per cent over the cost of production and they will be only too glad to carry on. And let us have no more deals in which we squander and waste three-quarters of a million dollars in buying a dead investment while the farmers really need money and would at least give some return on the investment.


Mr. POULIOT:: I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka) on his interesting speech, his first address in this house. The hon. member has a fine voice; and if he would sing a duet with the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) it would be well worth hearing. The hon. gentleman has shown enthusiasm, and, while we do not agree with much of what he has said, he deserves praise and I am glad to give it to him.
There is another hon. gentleman to whom I should like to say a few kindly words. I refer to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). His remarks this afternoon were refreshing. In the past the government has received nothing but abuse from the other side of the house in regard to the way the people of the west have been treated. The hon. member for Lake Centre uttered a few words of appreciation and gratitude, however, which indicate that he has a kind heart and can appreciate what is done for his constituents, although perhaps he does not get all that he would like to get for them. I have here the report of the dominion commissioner for unemployment relief for the year ending
Unemployment Relief

March 31, 1940, and it shows that the western farmers have not been as badly treated as has been stated in some quarters. As a matter of fact the prairie provinces and British Columbia have enjoyed great superiority over tlie eastern provinces in the matter of financial aid.
Take for example the matter of seed grain. In the first instance the farmer will say to the municipal authorities that he is insolvent. In turn the municipal authorities say to the provincial government, "All the people in this municipality are insolvent." The report is sent to the province, and the province writes to Ottawa that all the municipalities in that province are insolvent and must therefore have aid. Just because the eastern provinces do not use the same methods of approach, they do 'not receive seed grain assistance.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: And the dominion government does not do anything.


Jean-François Pouliot: Assistance is given in three forms. In the first place a guarantee is given to the province.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is not aid.


Jean-François Pouliot: In the second place, loans are given, and in the third place, grants are given. Sometimes it happens that for different purposes the western provinces receive at the one time guarantees, loans and grants. Well, that is not so bad. On the other hand we in the province of Quebec do not have so much; Ontario does not have so much; the maritime provinces do not have so much. The western provinces seem to be the pet population in Canada.


Angus MacInnis: Did the hon. member say " pep " or " pet "?


Jean-François Pouliot: Pet and they have lots of pep, too. I am not making these statements to minimize their efforts, because I admire the constituents of the western provinces. But I suggest they think of others in the east who are in great trouble at times, but who are not so greedy, when it is a matter of dominion assistance.


Mr. FAIR:: How about public works grants?


Jean-François Pouliot: No public works this year.


Robert Fair: How about years gone by?


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the tariff?


Jean-François Pouliot: If I were to speak about the tariff I would be out of order; if the hon. member will put that question to me when we are discussing the budget resolutions I shall be in a position to answer him. I will tell him right now that if we had no tariff we would 
have no revenue to give these grants. This is a very important matter, and one which ought not to be forgotten. Without money no grants would be available. The grants go from the east to the west-and of course that shows just how much we like our western friends.


Robert Fair: And the money to pay those grants comes from the west to the east; don't forget that.


Jean-François Pouliot: I turn to page 16 of the report of the dominion commissioner of unemployment relief, and I find that outstanding loans to the province of Manitoba amount to $25,573,138.54, and those for Saskatchewan amount to $71,291,194.81.


Mr. MARSHALL:: What is the hon. member reading?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am reading from the report of the dominion commissioner for relief.


James Alexander Marshall: What is the hon. member quoting?


Jean-François Pouliot: Loans outstanding for the year ending March 31, 1940, as outlined at page 16 of the report.


Mr. GILLIS:: That is for the last ten or fifteen years.


James Alexander Marshall: Yes, those are loans for the last ten years.


Jean-François Pouliot: For the province of Alberta net loans outstanding amounted to $26,025,500; for British Columbia, $34,503,762.30. The grand total of loans to provinces outstanding as of March 30, 1940, is $157,393,595.65. Then, in addition there is an amount for the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Well, that is not so bad. In these expenditures the western provinces have received something which they do not share with the east. Then, there are the dominion subsidies to provinces, and I find that in respect of Saskatchewan an exception has been made. I refer to the principle of payment according to population. Hon. members may check what I say in the year book. Proportionately the province of Saskatchewan gets much more than do the other provinces, so far as papulation is concerned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: When the hon. members contrasts the drought conditions in Saskatchewan with the smiling conditions in the fair province of Quebec, as I know it, does he not think that the people in Saskatchewan ought to receive more in the way of help? I suggest we ought not to begrudge fair treatment to the drought-ridden farmers of Saskatchewan. The east has not been affected in the same way.

Unemployment Relief


Jean-François Pouliot: I would ask my hon. friend, in the first place, not to place a false interpretation upon my words.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not do that.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is much better to let me finish; and the hon. member ought to know that it is always dangerous to interrupt me, because he does not know what I am about to say. In my argument I am not complaining about giving assistance to those who need it; that is not my point of view. My complaint is that one part of the country is receiving aid through the gift of large sums of money by way of loans and grants. Those moneys amount to S157,393,595.65. Last year we heard the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour say that the interest was not all paid on that large sum of money.
This is a serious consideration, and as an hon. member representing taxpayers who contribute to those loans and grants, and who are responsible for the guarantees, I say to the western provinces, "You have got something; do not complain that you have received nothing."


Charles Edward Johnston: How much did Quebec get in the same period?


Mr. LACROIX (Beauce):: They got twenty cents on their butter.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hon. members from the west are always asking more and more. That is their right, but they ought not to forget what they have received. I do not say that they must thank the government; they have no reason to thank the government for assistance given to people on relief. But at least they could show their appreciation. That is why I have just complimented one of the supporters of the opposition.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Jean-François Pouliot: I know what stand he has taken in the matter. People have been put on land in Quebec. Those lands have been found to be rocky, and they are not fertile. It is not the fault of those settlers that they were given wrong information about the district to which they went. But under the present circumstances it is impossible to get anything for them. I shall not repeat what I said a few days ago in that connection; but if farmers in the west receive a certain amount of aid from the dominion government by way of loans to the provinces, I do not see why the settlers in my constituency cannot have the same kind of aid. That is my point of
view, and it seems to me it is a fair one. I have written often to the Department of Labour, although the present minister of that department may not have seen the correspondence. If he were to refer to his officials they would tell him that they have received more correspondence on behalf of the settlers from the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) than they have received from any other member of the House of Commons. In that correspondence I have made representations respecting the dire circumstances in which those people were living. They have been asking aid from the government.
I do not complain because the western farmers are receiving help. That is the end of my argument. But I do point out that the settlers in my constituency, and especially those in the southern part-the leader of the opposition is familiar with the parish of St. Jean-de-la-Lande-are suffering hardships. I want them to receive the same help as the [DOT] western farmers have received. It seems to me that that would be fair.


Charles Edward Johnston: We are right with you on that.


Jean-François Pouliot: If we only listen to each other there will be complete understanding in a short time.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Except in connection with matters of finance.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not talking about finance. Nothing has been given to my people. I want something given. It may take months or years, but I know they will get it.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member will be over here then.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will be here until I die, and I expect to live to an old age.
A most sensible decision was arrived at by the city of Cincinnati with regard to relief. The city manager of that municipality is Colonel Clarence O. Sherrill, a gentleman who has had considerable experience, both as an engineer and otherwise. The soundness of the policies of this city in dealing with the relief problem has been demonstrated quite clearly. They decided:
1.	To see that no one suffers from lack of food, shelter, clothing and fuel.
2.	That no unworthy person shall receive relief.
3.	That every able-bodied adult shall prove his worthiness by working for the relief furnished his family.
4.	That each person on relief shall have a real incentive to get a job in private employ.
Unemployment Relief


Mr. HANSELL:: If a man works and receives pay, he is not on relief.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am sorry, but I have not the time to argue that. For several days I have been in the chamber listening to what was being said and after I am through with my remarks I intend to see to my correspondence.
Before I take my seat I should like to give the committee certain information in connection with the department of welfare of the city of New York. We cannot compare Canada with the United States because the population of that country is ten or twelve times the population of this, but there is no reason why we cannot do in Canada what has been done in the city of New York. That city has a certain advantage in the regulation of welfare in that the population is compact, while the population of Canada is distributed from ocean to ocean. Regulations in connee-' tion with welfare differ in every municipality. However, I should like to let the committee know what has been done in New York city by the welfare department under the able leadership of Commissioner William Hodson. I intend to quote from a report covering the period from January 1, 1938, to June 30, 1939.
On January 15, 1940, Mr. William Hodson, commissioner of welfare of the city of New York, wrote as follows to Mayor LaGuardia:
The effort has been made to save money on administration, in places where it could be saved, not as an end in itself but as a means of providing the largest possible amount of financial aid and kindly, humane care for the distressed families of our city.
In his report to the mayor for the calendar year 1938 and the first six months of 1939, Commissioner Hodson has given most interesting figures about the efficiency of the work of the department of welfare of the city of New York. The accomplishments of that department may be quoted as an example. In New York city unemployment relief is no longer regarded as being temporary or an emergency. Mr. Hodson writes:
On January 1, 1938, the task of caring for the needy unemployed as well as the needy unemployable was established in New York city as a regular function of government thereafter to be administered by a permanent city department.
What have they done? On January 1, 1938, 167,226 were under the care of the home relief division. During the following eighteen months, 396,659 applications were disposed of, 195,380 were accepted and 201,279 were rejected. A total of 206,522 families left home relief to accept private employment, WPA, some other form of public assistance, or for other reasons. On June 30, 1939, the total cases under care

were 156,084, a decrease of 11,142. The total cost of home relief, exclusive of administration, during that period was $118,062,532.
In connection with the care of dependent children, the city maintained 22,610 children, half of whom were in private institutions and the other half in individual boarding homes, at the cost of $13,304,324. In the matter of the care of the homeless, 5,466,000 night lodgings were provided and 14,641,000 meals were served to homeless men at the municipal lodging houses and in the commercial shelters. Approximately 1,000 men are under care at the rehabilitation center, camp LaGuardia, with a total of 517,000 night lodgings, and
1,612,000	meals over the period. There are 125 women cared for daily at the women's emergency shelter. The total cost of homeless care was $3,020,466.
In connection with relief for non-settled families, there were an average of 3,784 families that did not have settlement in New York city receiving home relief each month. Settlement means residence in the city for one year without having received assistance. The department returned 1,449 of these families to their places of residence, and the children's division returned an additional 296 children. The cost of relief to non-settled families was $2,534,075.
In the matter of special services, during that period the department collected $230,873 for the care of children born out of wedlock and $139,404 for the support of dependent children. In the matter of old age assistance, in addition to home relief, the department cares for dependent old people, 65 years and over. The total cost of old age assistance was $22,532,029 for 49,969 persons.
In regard to veteran relief and assistance to the blind, the total cost of veteran relief was $8,047,974 for 10,763 families, and that of assistance to the blind was $614,622 for 1,482 persons. During any one month, approximately 566,253 men, women and children are receiving some form of public assistance from the department of welfare. There should be added to that total the 65,971 children and their mothers cared for by the board of child welfare, and the 550,912 Works Progress Administration (WPA) workers and their dependents. The grand total would be an average of 1,183,136 men, women and children assisted by public funds at all times during that period.
During the eighteen months there were 314,989 visits made by physicians and 22,510 visits by nurses of the medical and nursing service division to the homes of families receiving the various forms of public assistance, whenever acute illness occurred. The sick

Unemployment Relief
were given 455,759 prescriptions, together with 58,542 pairs of eye-glasses for those with defective sight and 2,488 surgical appliances to overcome physical disabilities of various sorts. In cooperation with the WPA, 272,870 dental treatments were given by the dental projects. The total cost of the medical and nursing services was $2,397,297, while the cost of dental care was $344,471.
A WPA serving project sponsored by the city produced 5,292.295 pieces of cotton clothing and household articles valued at $3,993,334, and the department distributed these articles through 16 depots to families under care. In addition, 127,642 women's and girls' coats and dresses were made by a WPA project and distributed by the department. The value of this clothing was $545,826. The department also distributed 89,118 garments valued at $940,248, which were allocated to the city by the federal government out of an open market purchase made to absorb the clothing surplus. These garments were of excellent quality and included men's and boys' suits and overcoats, women's and misses' suits, coats, dresses and other items, all of regular models. This clothing was provided over and above the cash allowances for clothing which are included in the relief grants from time to time.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: On a point of
order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to know what we are on. Are we discussing the bill or reading statistics?


Jean-François Pouliot: I can tell the hon. member. In the first place, if he is not interested, he simply need not listen. But I am telling the committee what has been done across the boundary for people on relief. If we are not going to heed and profit from what has been done elsewhere for the good of mankind, we might as well just let the country drift. It is to the interest of Canada to know just what is being done elsewhere and to take advantage of it.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Go ahead.


Jean-François Pouliot: Certainly I will go ahead. The chairman is fair enough, and I take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman (Mr. Fournier, Hull) to welcome your presence in the chair.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: Suppose we have a holiday from this for twelve months and then start in again after the war is over.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell the hon. member for Danforth, whose name I mentioned a moment ago, that this is no matter for a holiday. I will appeal to his heart. There are in this country people who are unemployable, unable to work, and I am pointing out to the committee what has been done
for unemployables in New York City. These men cannot work, and they must live. If we are going to take care of aliens and German people I do not see why we should not do something for our own people who would otherwise starve to death. I can go to the constituency of the hon. member for Danforth and speak to his own people, and then his small majority will be reduced to nothing and changed to a Liberal majority. I am sick of that kind of thing.


Joseph Henry Harris: Will the hon.
gentleman permit a question?


Jean-François Pouliot: No.
In New York city, Mr. Chairman, and in all the other cities of the United States a marked division is made between the unemployables and the employables. The unemployables, of course, are supposed to be looked after by the state because they can do no work in return, but they are considered as citizens just the same and something must be done for them, and the services I have enumerated are provided for the relief of unemployables. So efficient and so good are they that within a period of one year and a half the number of unemployables in the city of New York decreased from 210,000 to 155,000, thanks to the good food, good care and decent clothing provided. That means that 55,000 unemployables by reason of this good care and good food became employable. That is a great lesson in Christianity and brotherly love to the whole world.
But there is something else. While the city of New York takes good care of its unemloy-ables, much is also done for its employables. I think hon. members will be surprised at the record of the city of New York in the years 1938 and 1939 in providing work for the unemployed of that city under the WPA. New York is only one city, but this work has been done under the dynamic leadership of Mayor LaGuardia and Colonel Brehon Somervell, a distinguished army engineer who made a survey of navigation conditions on the Rhine and Danube rivers for the League of Nations, and who also was engaged by the Turkish government to help put the country on a sound economic basis. Here are the notable achievements of the WPA in the city of New York in 1938:
Public buildings:
158 newly constructed, 761 reconditioned, work underwas' on 420.
Fire:
2	new houses erected, 41 renovated, work in progress on 40.
Highways:
172-5 miles of new construction, 308-2 improved.
Bridges:
13 new ones built, 46 altered and improved.

Unemployment Relief


Mr. KUHL:: Where does the money come from ?


Jean-François Pouliot: The report goes on:
From the Administrator . . .
During the course of the year inquiries by the thousand are received regarding the program of the Works Progress Administration in New York City. This booklet is an attempt to simplify and to answer graphically some of these inquiries.
Back of these pictures moves a varied program of public works and services. Through it the city's assets in buildings, in ultilities, in required facilities for promoting decent living have been preserved and extended. The same is true in respect of properties of the state and federal government.
Beyond these construction projects are hundreds of others through which employment is given to "white collar" workers. Through these, WPA is aiding in the eternal struggle to conserve health, promote the public welfare, and to improve educational and recreational opportunities for all citizens and at the same time give employment to those who through no fault of their own have no other means of support.
Brehon Somervell.
These are the accomplishments of New York city through its department of welfare and also through the Works Progress Administration.
My hon. friend asks where the money comes from. Regarding WPA projects, the federal government pays for all labour, and in addition pays for a fraction of the material, namely six dollars per average man-month of labour. The proportion may be higher than that when the classifications are made respecting salaries. It is a long story.


Mr. JAQUES:: AVhere does the administration get the money?


Jean-François Pouliot: They do not get it in the form of social credit money, anyway; otherwise no work would be done there.
I have given these facts to inform hon. members of what has been done in the way of social services to people across the border. We may learn from their example. Let us provide relief of some kind to those who are unemployable, but let us also take advantage of the ability to work when help is given to the man who is employable. Let us utilize what he can do for the benefit of the state.
It comes to this, that it is important for the Department of Labour to make a distinction between the employables and the unemployables. The distinction should have been made a long time ago. That work was done by a member who is in the house now, but afterwards a commission was appointed on which there were men who were unable to
understand the importance of the problem_____
among them Mr. Arthur Purvis, whom I mentioned yesterday, and Mr. Tom Moore.
95826-63}


James Alexander Marshall: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, with pleasure.


James Alexander Marshall: I wonder if the hon. member would refer to the appendix to this report under the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, 1939, and explain for the information of the committee the figures shown on page 40 of that report.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, I would like to explain that to the hon. member, but it would take me a whole week. I regret that those figures are very numerous. My hon. friend knows that, with twenty-six letters of the alphabet, millions of books have been printed; and here there are many figures.


James Alexander Marshall: Will the hon. gentleman explain what is meant by the figures under " recapitulation of dominion disbursements under relief legislation as at the close of fiscal year 1939-1940:" Quebec, $61,000,371; Ontario, $99,919,778; Manitoba, $26,315,113; Saskatchewan, $56,109,009; and Alberta, $17,954,838?


Jean-François Pouliot: That is not page 40; it is page 41.


James Alexander Marshall: No; the figures I am quoting will be found on page 40 of that report. If the hon. member will look at the list he can verify it.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fournier, Hull):: The hon. member having put his question, I would like the hon. gentleman who is speaking to proceed, and stay within the limits of standing order 58.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will you read standing order 58?


Alphonse Fournier: It reads, in the second paragraph:
Speeches in committee of the whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am very glad that that has been read, because all this is strictly relevant. It shows the amount which has been paid to the provinces, and if we cannot discuss it, it would be just as well to lock our desks here. I know, Mr. Chairman, that you will not insist upon such an interpretation.
In this connection there are two things to be considered. In the first place, the population, which is not the same in Alberta as in Quebec, as my hon. friend knows. Besides that, no mention is made on this page of the loans and guarantees. In any case, besides the amounts set out here, other guarantees have
Unemployment Relief

been made to the western provinces, and there have also been grants. I have the list upstairs;
I have not brought it down to-day.
Therefore, sir, to bring these observations to a concluusion, is it not possible for the department to make a classification of the unemployed, differentiating between unemployables and employables, and to enable the provinces to provide sufficient relief to the unemployables so they may live and be looked after if they are sick, their families not being allowed to starve during that period. On the other hand the employables should be separated from the unemployables so that advantage may be taken of skill and ability to work, with consequent benefit to the state. The example of New York is very good. I fear, sir, that in the branch of the federal department which is charged with relief, as well as in the provincial and municipal relief departments, there are officials who live on the distribution of relief and are opposed to work relief. I do not know about it, but I ask the minister to make an investigation on these lines. Of course, what has been given there has been given. It has been distributed to a certain number of people, but they have been enabled just to exist. I want the settlers in my county to be fairly treated *when they are on land which is not productive.
I hope the minister will consider seriously the matter of supplying work to necessitous people. It is a very bad thing, as he knows, for persons to remain idle; idleness is the mother of all vices. It is important for the men who are employable, who are able to do something, to have an opportunity to work, and it is necessary for the welfare of the state that that opportunity should be given them.
Reverting to what I said a minute or two ago, I regret that the work which was done by a single member of parliament, with his secretary, was not done by the employment commission, when upon that commission were men like Arthur Purvis and Tom Moore. I regret it very deeply. The work they did was useless, and I threw that report on the floor of the house because there was not a waste-paper basket near my desk. These are the men who are supposed to give us lessons in matters of welfare and relief. No, sir! There must be order among the unemployed; there must be order among every other class of Canadian citizens; there must be order in the distribution of relief. I hope that the Minister of Labour will stay long enough in the department to carry out the policy which .is necessary for the welfare of the country.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I did not intend to say anything on this bill, but since so much has been said in the house in the last few days with reference to the question of relief I feel it my bounden duty to say something in connection with farm assistance and relief.
I have had the honour for the last eleven years to live in the constituency of Wood Mountain and to represent in this house the people who live in that riding. That constituency has had the misfortune during those eleven years to have but one crop out of eleven. Ten crops were lost, all but one through drought. One crop was lost because we had too much moisture and the crop was ruined as a result of rust. Last year we had the first crop in eleven years. The result has been that a prosperous and thriving community of farmers who had been well off have found themselves almost destitute and have had to live on relief. If anyone knows what it means for farmers to live on relief, I ought to know as well as anybody in this house, because the farmers in my constituency have a reason for being on relief. They have been living in the centre of the dried-out area of western Canada. I have seen them all around me, on all sides, having to go to municipalities, to the province and to this government for assistance.
Let me say on this occasion, in regard to the relief question, what I have said before in this house. In the administration of relief, the conditions are contrary to what some members have said. The hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) made the remark that someone had said, "If you do not vote for the government you may be off relief the next day." That has never been true in my constituency; it has never been true under either the Conservative government or the Liberal government. There has been no politics federal or provincial in the administration of relief. If there has been any politics at all, it has been on the part of the municipality. Sometimes one of the councillors has a friend living next to him and has been lenient in giving him relief.


Mr. BROOKS:: The hon. member is speaking of Saskatchewan?


James J. Donnelly: Yes, I am speaking of the district that I know, "in the province of Saskatchewan. Sometimes the municipal officer has a neighbour whom perhaps he does not like very well and he cuts down on his relief.
How is relief administered? As far as we are concerned as a federal government, we have nothing to do with the administration of relief. Relief is first of all a matter for

Unemployment Relief
the consideration of the municipality. The municipality is supposed to look after its indigent, those who are in want. It is their responsibility and duty to look after all such people, and when they are not able to discharge that duty then they come to the province and ask for assistance. If it is a small matter the province assists, as it has done in the past; but when it involves anything of magnitude, as in the past ten years, spreading over a large part of Saskatchewan, affecting seventy or more municipalities, then it becomes too large a problem for the province and the province asks for our assistance. It gets that assistance and this bill is for the purpose of meeting that need.
But we as a dominion have nothing to do with the administration of relief. It is administered entirely by the province and the municipality. If a farmer needs relief he goes to the municipality and applies for it. He signs a request asking for relief, and then either the council as a whole or a committee of the council will consider the application and decide how much relief should be granted or whether there shall be any relief. The province has a relief officer who looks after several municipalities. He will come to the municipal office and go over the relief orders with the council or a committee of the council, and the committee or the council and that relief officer have both to sign the order before the man can get relief. If a man is not getting enough relief, as some people have complained, it is the fault not of this government but of the municipality and the relief officer. The councillor living next door to the man knows quite well how much relief he needs or whether he needs any, and they decide how much will be given. They are the ones to whom complaint should be made. It has been that way all along. There has been no change. It is no use coming here and blaming this government because people are not getting enough relief. It is no use saying it is this government's fault. It is the provincial government, with the relief officer and the municipality above all else, who is to blame, if there is any blame.
Some peculiar men in the haw corner have read letters from their constituencies. One man read a letter about a school-teacher who, he said, had had to put up with various insects, the worst being bedbugs and fleas. What has that to do with relief? What is the hon. member trying to do? Is he trying to advertise the district? Perhaps he is advertising it for tourists. I am sure the people who live in that district must be proud to have it branded in that way by a member. But that has nothing to do with relief, as
everyone knows. The same man says something about the school district. He says they are unemployed, there is no chimney in the building, the chimney is falling to pieces and they have no well. W'hat does he want? Do those people want this government to tax people in Nova Scotia or in eastern Canada generally in order to dig wells for them while they sit around and do nothing because they are unemployed? Why do they not dig their own wells and fix their own chimneys? Why bring up that sort of thing in this house? Why read such letters? I do not think the reading of letters in this house should be allowed unless the names of the writers are disclosed so that the complaints may be investigated. We have investigated a number of these letters from Saskatchewan and we have always found that there was a nigger in the woodpile, that the municipality knew better what should or should not be given.


Mr. PERLEY:: You are running true to form.


James J. Donnelly: I think I am giving
pretty nearly what is right.
Then we heard a good deal about schools, but that has nothing to do with this bill at all. Even a school-teacher should know that the local school districts have charge of the schools and the hiring and firing of the schoolteachers. The province gives a grant, and then some of our school-teachers say they have not received their grant for three or four months. Well, even a school-teacher should know that the grant is not hue until the end of June. It is based upon the number of pupils attending the school up to that time, and it cannot be paid until then. Part of the grant is paid on January 1, on the basis of the attendance since the beginning of the school year, and it is impossible to know how much to pay until that time has elapsed. These grants are paid when they are due. And the school-teachers should know that if they wish they can compel the province to pay the grant to the teachers for their salaries, because that money cannot be used for any purpose other than the salaries of the teachers.


An hon. MEMBER:: Try and get it.


James J. Donnelly: You can get it if you
go after it in the right way, and a schoolteacher should know how to do that. Even preachers know that.
Then I come to the remarks of the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden). I am afraid some of the medical men and the hospitals in his district would not be very proud to hear what he said in this house. He told us about a man in his district who
90S
Unemployment Relief

suffered from an acute attack of appendicitis, but who was refused admittance to a hospital because he had no money.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


James J. Donnelly: You said it; it is in
Hansard. You said it was reported. Where was it reported from? What was the district? Who was the man? From whom did you hear it, and where?


George Hugh Castleden: Read what I said.


James J. Donnelly: You insulted the whole medical profession and all the hospitals throughout our country when you said they would not look after a man because he did not have the money with which to pay. I have never heard of a hospital in the whole Dominion of Canada that would refuse to take in a man suffering from an acute attack of appendicitis, and I defy anyone to tell me of any such instance. I never knew of a medical man who would refuse to attend a person suffering from an acute attack of appendicitis. We have heard several attacks made on the medical profession, but if I say so myself there is no profession in the world that does as much charitable work as the medical profession. I practised medicine for a number of years, and in all that time I never refused to attend a case when I possibly could attend, whether or not they had the money. That, I believe, is true of practically all medical men throughout the country.
To hon. members in the far corner who talk about the medical attention given to people on relief, I want to say that while we have had no crops in our district for ten years, our people are better attended medically than ever before. I can give a practical illustration of that. Prior to 1929 practically ninety-five per cent of our women were confined at home and were lucky to have a doctor at all; or, if they had a doctor, not one per cent of them would have a trained nurse assisting. What do we find to-day? Now ninety-five per cent of our women are confined in hospitals, with all the attention that is given in those institutions. Let hon. members investigate and they will find out for themselves; this is no hearsay. I could tell the committee where these people are, who the medical men are, and all about the matter. From 1929 to the present time our people have been better attended and better looked after, from the medical point of view, than ever before.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: In the Wood Mountain constituency?
TMr. Donnelly.]


James J. Donnelly: Yes, right in my home town, in Kincaid, Saskatchewan. There they have a municipal doctor, and they are looked after in that way at the present time. Then I hear people say, "Oh, it is terrible the way the children are suffering without proper food." A couple of years ago the dominion government sent fish, cheese and other articles to our people, and they had to send instructions to a great many of them on how to prepare this food. They did not know how to cook it or how to look after it. They saw more varieties of food than they had ever seen before.


James Alexander Marshall: Will the hon. member permit a question?


James J. Donnelly: You made your speech. There has been so much talking from over there that we are all deaf. Sit down.


Charles Edward Johnston: The
accounts were all guaranteed by the municipality and the province, so the doctor did not lose very much.


James J. Donnelly: I want to tell my hon. friends that as a rule we find more of these underfed and undernourished children in the families that are better off, the richer families. A great many children are underfed and undernourished, not for lack of food but because of the kind of food they get and the way in which they are fed. That is well understood in the medical profession, and it is just as true to-day as it ever was. Frequently it is lack of the right kind of food, not lack of food itself, that causes many of these conditions.
Not long ago I listened to the hon. member for Temiscouata .(Mr. Pouliot) when he spoke of the amount of relief that had been handed out to Saskatchewan. I just want to say to him that Saskatchewan is not the only province which receives assistance in looking after unemployment. It is true that we have had farm assistance out there. We have had to have it because of the great disaster that has overrun our province for ten years. I doubt if any other district or country in the world could have looked after its people as well as our people have been looked after during that time. We were ten years without a crop. It is a wonder they are not worse off than they are to-day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That
includes from 1930 to 1935, I hope?


James J. Donnelly: Yes, I said from 1929 to 1939. As far as that is concerned, the people were well looked after under both Conservative and Liberal governments. None

Unemployment Relief
of our people died of starvation; none of them froze to death and many of them lived comfortably. But I never saw a man who admitted that he had enough relief; I never saw a man who admitted that he had enough money, and it is just the same thing. Probably there are some who did not get enough, and I must admit also that some got too much, under both governments. We do not hear about those people at all. I have seen them; I know many people who got too much, just as I have seen some who got too little. Very often it is the best citizen who gets the least money, because he does not want to ask for relief all the time. When relief is being given out, he is not the first man there to ask for it. Those are our best citizens, and unfortunately they are the ones who suffer most.
The hon. member for Temiscouata referred to the amount of money that had been given to Saskatchewan. I should like to refer to what was mentioned a little while ago by an hon. member from the far corner of the house. I turn particularly to page 40 of the report of the commissioner of unemployment relief, where I find a recapitulation of the grants given to the different provinces. It will be seen there that the other provinces are getting a good share of the money. It is indicated that Ontario is getting $90,000,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: 


James J. Donnelly: Saskatchewan is getting $56,000,000 and Quebec $61,000,000.


Robert Fair: What did Alberta get?


James J. Donnelly: It got less, because I want hon. members to understand that so far as Alberta and Manitoba are concerned, although they did have dry years, as a matter of fact Alberta was blessed by pretty fair crops each year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And they had Aberhart.


James J. Donnelly: And they were not exerting themselves a great deal to pay a great many of their debts, because Mr. Aberhart said, " I am not going to pay a great many of our debts."


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Aberhart never said any such thing.


James J. Donnelly: And I guess with that kind of legislation, and with fair crops they must be thriving pretty well. So far as Manitoba was concerned-


John Horne Blackmore: On a point of order, the statement of the hon. member concerning Mr. Aberhart is absolutely and unqualifiedly false.


James J. Donnelly: Oh, sure, sure! I
expected that.


John Horne Blackmore: I am asking the hon. member to withdraw, because the statement is false.


Ernest George Hansell: Withdraw.


John Horne Blackmore: No member of this house can make such a statement.


James J. Donnelly: I will tell the committee this: I will withdraw, as soon as Mr. Aberhart starts to pay his twenty-five dollars a month.


John Horne Blackmore: The statement that Mr. Aberhart has said he will not pay his debts is false.


Ernest George Hansell: Withdraw.


James J. Donnelly: Then, in all the years, only a small portion of Manitoba was affected by the drought. Saskatchewan, however, has been unfortunate. In the last ten years there has been no crop at all in the great bulk of Saskatchewan. Its chief product is wheat, and the farmer in Saskatchewan must depend on the production of wheat. We do hope that we will not need that relief in the future, that in years to come we will have crops again, and that we will begin to prosper.


John George Diefenbaker: Section 3 of the bill with which we are now dealing reads:
The governor in council may enter into agreements: (a) with any of the provinces respecting the alleviation of unemployment conditions and of agricultural distress therein and to assist those in need-
And so on. About an hour and a half ago I endeavoured to secure from the minister an answer respecting the amount to be allocated to Saskatchewan in the coming year. I am asking him again whether he will let the committee know what the anticipated amount will be, so that the argument now being used in that province may be met, namely that the cut in relief is on account of the fact that the dominion government is cutting the allowance given to the province this year.
When I spoke some time ago I mentioned that the people in Saskatchewan were appreciative of what was being done and what had been done since 1930 in the matter of assistance for the alleviation of conditions there prevailing. The hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) has admitted today something which I think he would not have admitted between 1930 and 1935, namely, that during those years, too-and often in the face of strong opposition from hon. mem-oers of the opposition-assistance was given to Saskatchewan in particular, by reason of the conditions there prevailing.
Unemployment Relief

As the hon. member for Wood Mountain has pointed out, the difficulty in Saskatchewan, so far as relief is concerned, has been accentuated by drought. That condition made it necessary to make expenditures of large amounts of money in that province, moneys over and above amounts which had to be spent to meet conditions prevailing as a result of unemployment elsewhere throughout the dominion.
The hon. member has said there is no control by the dominion government in respect of expenditures made by the provinces. I would suggest, therefore, to the minister that some system should be adopted whereby the multiplicity of inspectors and officials administering relief would be substantially reduced. The hon. member said that the responsibility for the cutting of relief has been on the municipality and that the responsiblity for relief measures is that of the municipal council. He very well knows that on each occasion relief is granted, it can be granted by the council only with the consent of the relief inspector, who is the representative of the provincial government.
When the hon. member says there has been no political influence in connection with the administration of relief, all I can say is that in the provincial election of 1938 there was political influence. Men and women in Saskatchewan were placed in a position where, while direct threats were not made, they were made to realize that it would be diplomatic to be known outspokenly as a supporter of the government. To be fair I must add that during the last federal election I saw no political influence.


Mr. EVANS:: Where did that happen?


John George Diefenbaker: I have the sworn evidence, and I shall deal with it, in answer to the question raised by the hon. member. I have before me sworn evidence' in a trial in the rural municipality of Fish Creek, situated within the provincial constituency of Rosthern. If necessary, I can give reference to the page of the evidence. Some days prior to the provincial election of 1938 it was bruited about that relief was going to be cut after the election, and relief vouchers were issued before the election and five days in advance of the usual time. Do hon. members know where they were distributed? They were distributed at ithe polling station on election day, as individual voters went into the polling booth to cast their votes.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Would the hon. member permit me a question? I do not wish to interrupt him, but I think it must be recognized that the matter of administration is
fMr. Diefenbaker.]
purely provincial. The hon. member may say, "Well, why not cover this point in your agreement with the provinces?" In reply I would point out to him that in respect of all dominion-provincial agreements concerning material aid, it is clearly provided that no person's eligibility for assistance shall be affected, either through discrimination against that person or by favour, by reason of his or her race, religious views or political affiliations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No doubt that principle is in the agreements, but let me tell the Minister of Labour that it is not carried out in actual practice. There should be a close inspection on the part of his department, but that has never been done and abuses do exist. Make no mistake about that.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is not the' evidence just recited by the hon. member for Lake Centre the evidence taken in a case where persons were prosecuted for using relief money in a manner in which it was not intended to be used? I understand that is a case where the province was prosecuting persons for having misused relief funds.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the Minister of Agriculture knows the circumstances of the case. When this government hands over money to the provinces to be expended by them, there should be some system of inspection and control so that we may be sure that this sort of thing will not happen. Referring to what the Minister of Agriculture has said, may I say that for seven long months the director of relief of this particular municipality continued to issue false relief certificates which were made out to non-existent individuals. There was no check-up whereby that could be found out. It was discovered only when the relief certificates commenced to come back from the wholesalers four, five and six months afterwards. The agreements referred to by the Minister of Labour should be enforced and followed up with a system of control by the dominion government.


James Garfield Gardiner: What proportion of the money expended by Duck Lake municipality came from the federal government?


John George Diefenbaker: According to the evidence of the inspector of relief, 40 per cent was paid by the federal government, 40 per cent by the provincial government and 20 per cent by the municipality. Here is an excerpt from the evidence of the inspector of relief:
Q. So that the man primarily responsible for the checking of direct relief is yourself?
A. I would not even admit that.

Unemployment Relief
Q. So that your entire cheek consists of accepting the figures given to you by the reeve and members of the council of the municipality?
A. Yes, certainly.
There was no check-up, either provincial or federal. The conditions there were very bad, but they were not found out until some time later. In certain parts of the municipality, relief vouchers were distributed by being left, duly filled out, on the counters of certain merchants. The recipients picked up the particular vouchers they wanted. That continued for several months. There should be some control on the part of the federal administration to ensure that politics shall not enter into the administration of this act in any way. There would be little need to reduce relief payments to individuals if the administration costs were cut by the appointment of nonpolitical relief administration.


An hon. MEMBER:: Like 1930 to 1935.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman refers to 1930 to 1935. During that period we had that system in Saskatchewan and there was no suggestion of political interference.


James Garfield Gardiner: Does my hon. friend not know that during that period there were relief dealings with about 200 municipalities, in one year, and about 300 in the other.


John George Diefenbaker: No one expects that we can check up on the petty grafter who takes advantage of the farm placement scheme, but a municipality should not be permitted to expend money in this manner over a period of five, six and seven months. When 40 per cent of the money comes from the federal government, there should be some check-up. In this case $92,000 was expended in twelve months upon relief in an area where, according to the government inspectors, only ten per cent of the people receiving relief should be receiving it. Will the minister tell the committee how much will be paid to the western provinces during the present year? Recently cuts have been made in the relief grants, and in consequence many people in the province have been placed in a most unfortunate position. The people in the drought areas have been forced to live under conditions which are absolutely unfair, unjustified and unconscionable. It is said that the dominion government made this cut. As a result these people have had to accept less than they had been receiving in the past, and in many instances their mode of living has dropped to below the sustenance level. The minister is courteous at all times and I feel sure he will give me an answer. I want to know the amount that it is anticipated will be paid to the provinces.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Is the case to which the hon. member is referring, the Wakaw case?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. gentleman was the defence counsel.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister wants to know about the administration of relief in Saskatchewan. Let me point out to him what happened in connection with employment upon public projects in Regina. The provincial member for Regina took the stand that unless a man had been able to get his application for work initialed by the president of the Liberal association or, better still, by the Liberal member, he could not obtain employment on a public project.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is true all over.


Grote Stirling: Not only in Saskatchewan.


John George Diefenbaker: The slogan, "To the victor belongs the spoils " was altered to, " Without initials you shall not have work."


Roy Theodore Graham: May I ask the hon. member another question?


John George Diefenbaker: One minute, please. Surely there should be some control, so that this sort of thing could not happen. The very suggestion even of any political influence should not be permitted to exist.


Roy Theodore Graham: Is it not a fact that the premier of Saskatchewan repudiated categorically and completely any such suggestion as was alleged to have been made by the member for Regina?


John George Diefenbaker: He repudiated it, yes, some two days later, after a public furore arose all over the province. I point this out as indicating, first, the necessity for control, and, second, the necessity for an assurance from the minister that the amount which will be paid in the western provinces has been determined and some indication as to the amount which has been determined upon.


Norman Alexander McLarty: In reply to the request which the hon. member made some time ago and which he has just now renewed as to the actual amount allocated by this government to Saskatchewan for material aid, I tell him quite frankly I have not that information. I think, in fact I know there has been no definite agreement arrived at between that province and the dominion. All I can do is to repeat that the amounts which will be set will be on the same basis as are set in all other provinces where material aid is granted, and we shall contribute our 40 per cent. I say
Unemployment Relief

without hesitation that we have not advised the province of Saskatchewan that we will diminish the percentage of our contribution to their relief. We are prepared to meet our share on the same basis as we have before. If the hon. member would care to place his question on the order paper, I shall be glad to give such information as soon as it is available.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister not bring it down voluntarily?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I shall be glad to bring it down if we have the information. As to the matter of administration, as my hon. friend knows, that has for some time been under the direction of the province. It illustrates what has been complained of, namely, the unfortunate situation that exists when the dominion contributes the money and the province has the administration. As my hon. friend knows, not only is his recommendation one that has been brought to the attention of the department at the present time, but the dominion-provincial commission have made a similar recommendation. It is a matter that I think deserves consideration, but it could not receive consideration in time to be incorporated in this bill.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, in rising to discuss this particular section, I should like first to express my thanks to the minister and the officers of his department for dealing so promptly with all the problems which I brought to their attention. By telegram and airmail they have communicated with the proper authorities in Saskatchewan with respect to these cases, and I assure the minister that I appreciate that very much. In spite of that, reports still come to me from my constituency indicating that people on relief are going to be cut off. Just this morning I received from a relief recipient in my constituency this mimeographed sheet which was attached to his relief order for the month of June. It reads:
This notice is to advise that the grocery order for August will be the last one issued to you.
Northern Areas Branch.
The individual to whom this was sent is living under the northern reestablishment plan. Regardless of how good a crop there might be or how good the price might be. I consider it would be quite impossible for these people to live through the next year on the returns from their farm, and I feel sure that the minister will continue negotiations with the province of Saskatchewan in order that the people who have no way of getting through the next few months will not have to live under the threat of having their food cut off.

While I am on my feet I should like to refer to some remarks that were made by the hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Blair) in discussing this bill the other day. He said:
Western farmers have talked until I am tired of listening to them.
As one member who has spoken of the problems of the west, I assure hon. members that so long as there is a single individual in my constituency who is going hungry in this land of plenty, my voice will continue to be raised to see that the necessary action is taken to remedy that situation. The hon. member for Wellington North went on to say:
The Ontario farmer is tired of listening to that sort of speech, and I say to western farmers, "The time has come when, if you cannot live in the west, you had better get out. If you are dried out year after year, get out and go somewhere where you can live."
I am sure the members of this committee realize that a suggestion of that sort cannot be taken, seriously. The evidence placed before this committee by the minister indicates that there are thousands and thousands of people who would be affected by such a suggestion; and if I were to ask where would these people go, I am sure the hon. member for Wellington North would be the last man to say that in his constituency there are places where these people might become selfsupporting in a few years. Speaking a year ago, the same hon. gentleman, discussing another aspect of this unemployment relief measure, and speaking of the unemployed, said:
But when I go to your city bums from the street I cannot get a man in fifty. You might think you could, but just you go and hire some of these yaps on the streets and you will see what you have got. In the country I can get men that have a spine, but I cannot when I pick up these travelling transients.
Observations of that sort with respect to the unemployed, with respect to people in western Canada who have been asking for assistance, are doing a great national disservice. I tell the hon. members of this committee that the people in western Canada do not want charity. They are not asking for something for nothing. The chairman of the Alberta wheat pool, speaking a year ago at the conference in Winnipeg under the chairmanship of Premier Bracken to discuss western problems, pointed out that all you had to do was to travel through western Canada, view the farm homes and draw your own conclusions. He said:
You city dwellers, take a trip by rail or highway through the west, and as you go along note every farm home you see, and figure out how many of those homes appear to you as places in which you -would like your family to live. Look over the average farm home

Unemployment Relief
and visualize what it would take to put it on the same basis of comfort and convenience as the average city home.
Mr. Hutchinson pointed out to the conference what is obvious to anyone who travels through western Canada.
During this century the people of western Canada have produced untold quantities of new wealth. But what have they now? Heavily mortgaged farms, worn-out equipment, very little of this world's goods.
The hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) spoke a short time ago. I am very glad to hear that the people in his constituency are living as well as he indicated. I should like him to come to my constituency to see some of his former friends who, through no fault of theirs, have been forced to move north. As he spoke, I recalled one of his old neighbours, a man who a few years ago had a fine farm in the hon. member's constituency. One day a United States farmer who was coming to Canada to settle drove into this man's yard when his golden grain was waving in the breeze and offered him $40,000 cash for the farm with the crop. At that time there was not a cent of debt on the farm. The farmer had a family of young people. They had a conference. To them, $40,000 seemed a great deal of money. They said, "Will we sell or will we not? If we sell, what shall we do?" The farmer did not want to move with a growing family to a town or a city, and he knew that if he sold his farm and went to buy another, he could not better himself. He said to his visitor, "You have given us a good offer, but this is going to be our home, we are going to stay here." Through no fault of his, adversity came to his community. He is now up in my constituency living in a log house. He came north without one cent of equity in that $10,000 property.


James J. Donnelly: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes.


James J. Donnelly: Is that the fault of
this government?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I made it quite clear
that through no fault of this man he is now in a position where he is not in possession of a S40.000 farm.


James J. Donnelly: I asked if it is this government's fault or any other government's fault? It is the weather conditions-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member
made a speech a short time ago without any interruption on my part. I am pointing out that this man, who formerly had a good farm in the constituency of my hon. friend, is now reduced to a position where he has had to
ask the government for assistance. I saw him during the week when he first went to ask for government assistance, and I know it was a bitter pill for him to swallow.
I want to point out to hon. members that thousands and thousands of farmers in western Canada have been compelled, through no fault of their own, to ask for relief. I do not blame the present administration; I want to make that clear; but I point out that these people who need food and clothing.-yes, and medical services; yes, and educational services-have a right in this day and age to receive them. I submit to (he hon. member for Wellington North, who is not present at the moment, that when we ask, on behalf of our people in western Canada, for assistance for those who are unemployed through no fault of their own, we are not setting any precedent.
In the case for Manitoba which was presented to the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations, there are statistics on page 19 showing what the people of Canada have paid as a result of tariffs. In only two provinces of the dominion have the people on the whole benefited as a result of tariffs. This is a table, as presented in this brief, showing that seven of the nine provinces have carried a load to benefit a small group of manufacturers:
Net annual
Province	loss per
capita
Prince Edward Island	 $17.88
Nova Scotia	 12.28
New Brunswick	 11.67
Manitoba	 13.25
Saskatchewan	 28.16
Alberta	 29.93
British Columbia	 22.33
Only two provinces have enjoyed a net profit as a result of our tariffs. Their net per capita gains per year are:
Net annual
Province	gain per
capita
Ontario	 $11.03
Guebec	 15.15
On page 22 of the same volume there is a table indicating what the average farmer has paid in respect of farm operations as a result of our fiscal policy:
Automobile equipment and fuel. .. $ 27.19
Machinery, implements, etc	 18.45
Building material	 7.16
Household equipment	 12.60
Clothing	 24.41
Food	 20.57
Total	$110.38
Assuming that there are 290,000 farmers in the three prairie provinces, the added cost borne by western farmers as a result of tariffs
Unemployment Relief

would be about $29,000,000 a year. I suggest that such remarks as those of the hon. member for Wellington North and the hon. member for Wood Mountain, indicating that we are asking for more than our share, are not conducive to the building up of national unity.
The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) is not in his seat at the moment, but I want to express my agreement with him when he says that the people of his constituency who need help should have it. I do not believe he wished to be unfair to Saskatchewan when he suggested that we have had a great deal of money. Possibly the sum of $56,000,000 for Saskatchewan in a ten-year period sounds like a great deal of money. But if in a province or a community there are families where the children go to bed hungry, I do not care how many millions of dollars have been given in the past ten years; I believe it is the concern of this government to see that the necessary policies are carried out so that the provincial government can take steps to see that children do not go hungry. I like to think of Canada as a great family.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the hon. member allow me a question? I am distressed to hear him say that children go to bed hungry. Will he state that at any time during the last ten years, since relief was first instituted by the Bennett government, in September, 1930, anybody in Saskatchewan has starved or has been in actual want? I would be disturbed if that were the case. I know it was not the intention of R. B. Bennett and his government that anybody in Canada should be in want, and I cannot for a moment believe that it is the intention of anybody on the other side of the house since 1935 that anyone shall be in actual want. I can scarcely credit such a thing. But what I do believe is that there should be a tightening up of the whole position; there should not be any question of playing political favourites or of vote-catching in connection with this matter. That is something which distresses me, too. Human suffering should never be made the basis for the bartering of votes. I want to say that just as emphatically as I know how.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I appreciate very much the remarks of the leader of the opposition, and I really believe that members of this house do not know the conditions that exist in my constituency. I do not believe the Minister of Labour has any idea of the suffering in northern Saskatchewan. There are many people in the cities who really do not

know what it means to have a budget such as the hon. member for North Battleford has had for several months. Speaking the other night she gave the government the benefit of the doubt in telling of the allowance for their family, and I want to say most emphatically that at the present time there are in Saskatchewan not one, but hundreds, yes, thousands of people who are not getting enough food for their children. I have two letters to which I might refer. The hon. member for Wood Mountain objected to my reading letters from my constituents, but I do not think I am doing my duty unless I let the committee know the conditions that exist in that section. This is a letter here from a married woman who worked in England in a munition factory for four years during the last war. She and her husband live in Canada. She tells me that on the day she wrote there was no flour in the house. She has offered her services again for work in a munition factory, but so far she has received no reply. I know she would not be accepted anyhow, because she is not physically fit for such work. She would not have a chance in the world.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think my hon. friend is aware that the provincial government proposed sending an investigator and asked the labour department's representative in Saskatchewan to cooperate. I wonder if the hon. member would give these names to the investigator so that we can make a definite check on it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: When I began my remarks I expressed my appreciation of the cooperation which the minister and his officials have given, and I have already submitted this communication. As a matter of fact, the minister's department took the matter up at once and telegraphed to Saskatchewan, but the leader of the opposition asked me if I had any specific cases and I felt obliged to refer to this matter. I do not wish to take up the time of the committee by dealing with specific cases, but I had these two that had been attended to at once by the minister's department. I assure members of the committee, speaking from a wide experience over a period of ten years in northern Saskatchewan, that the people who are being reestablished from our cities and southern Saskatchewan are not having proper clothing. If hon. members had the privilege of spending a week or a month in those northern areas they would be surprised. While in Hudson Bay junction, I wrote to friends in eastern Canada and sent them pictures which I had in the house the other day, and with the greatest possible speed they sent generous

Unemployment Relief
consignments of clothing and all sorts of things. I know, therefore, that if the people really had the facts, action would be taken.
I am concerned that the minister should see to it that the present emergency throughout the world will not be used as an excuse for pressing down relief allowances in northern Saskatchewan, because those allowances are already far too low. I hope the minister will see that those responsible for the administration of relief in Saskatchewan are advised to make sure that no person is deprived of food and clothing in this day and age.


Roy Theodore Graham: Have the cases to which the hon. member has been referring been submitted to the provincial authorities of Saskatchewan?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am glad to answer that question. One of these cases was referred to the department in charge in Regina. I am sorry I have not the reply with me, but my advice was that commencing the. first of June this particular allowance was cut down to $14 a month as a result of the coming in of gardens


Roy Theodore Graham: Will the hon. member give me the name of the municipality?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: This is in an unorganized district.


Roy Theodore Graham: Will the hon. member give the name of the district in which the person resides?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In the northern reestablishment area, in the Erwood district. I shall be glad to give my friend the name and the correspondence from the department in Regina. The minister's department is investigating this case. I did take the matter up with Regina, and they advised me that the allowance was reduced to $14 a month at the beginning of June as a result of gardens coming in. This woman replied that they cannot expect garden stuff until July, and she says that the allowance is only $12. I am sure the minister will investigate to see whether it has been cut to $12 or whether it is $14 as the department in Regina says.


James Garfield Gardiner: This discussion has been wide of the section now being considered. Much of the discussion that has taken place to-day, and the discussion that took place previously, has had to do with another matter which will come up later on. The term "northern settlement plan" has been referred to time after time. In my estimates there is a vote for the northern settlement plan, and all the work under that plan which is done by the provincial government is done as a result
of arrangements made under that vote and not in connection with this bill. All the discussions in connection with that, I presume, will take place again when we come to the estimate of $250,000 to be used in the different provinces for that kind of work, the greater part being used in Saskatchewan. The settlers spoken of are settlers who, as the leader of the opposition will remember, were moved into that country under a plan started by Mr. Bennett in 1932, whereby the municipality paid $200, the province S200 and the federal government $200, to move people, many of them from Saskatoon and Moose Jaw and some from other districts into the northern areas of Saskatchewan. They were given this $600 to buy equipment and building materials to take with them in order to start farming. Many of these people had no farming experience or knew very little about farming in bush country. Some had worked the greater part of their lives on the railway. Eventually the plan was dropped. Some of these people lost their live stock; some lost other supplies that had been sent up as a result of securing the $600. Most of them had to be placed on relief, costing the province and the government of Canada and others at least as much as they were costing where they came from, and, in many instances, more.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The suggestion being that they were not qualified to farm.


James Garfield Gardiner: They had not the equipment for farming, or they were put on bush farms when they were acquainted with nothing but the open prairie. Moreover, in that country it cost as much as $40 an acre to break the land, and when a person goes on the land in some of these areas it is a long time before enough is cleared to produce sufficient to pay the cost. In the last four or five years the government, with the assistance of the federal authority, has been helping these people to break some land, actually buying tractors to help them to break up the land at a lower cost. I shall have the figures when the estimates are down in connection with my own department, indicating the number of those persons taken off relief as a result of the activities of the provincial government and the federal authorities working in cooperation. That is being carried on not only in Saskatchewan but on a smaller scale in New Brunswick. It is also being done to some extent in British Columbia and in Alberta, but by far the greater part has been done in Saskatchewan. That is another story altogether but one that has been mixed up with this bill from time to time.
Unemployment Relief


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: At page 14 of the report I see an item, No. 20, with reference to the reestablishment of settlers, $250,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: That does not include northern settlement work, or it may have included such work prior to four years ago when it was changed from the Department of Labour to the Department of Agriculture; or if it is there, it is merely an account of the work in order to make the report complete on assistance.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It is for the last year.


James Garfield Gardiner: This bill would not have anything to do with the northern settlement end of it.
There is another point. Much of the discussion that has taken place has had, to do with an entirely different expenditure, one not under this measure or under the northern settlement plan. In the years when the drought was bad there was no legislation to deal with it, and what the government did under those circumstances, while Mr. Bennett was in power, and under this government as well, was this: When those conditions arose in the middle of the summer and there was no legislation on the statute books, the money was produced by warrant, and we had to come into this house session after session and vote millions that may not be in these records at all. If they are in the records, they are not related to the bill.
When you say Saskatchewan borrowed so much money and got so much more under this legislation, you may not have all the figures. Very substantial amounts of money have been spent in Saskatchewan under warrants which have been issued, and the greater part of that money has been spent through the Department of Agriculture and not through the Department of Labour. There was something over $20,000,000 in 1937-38 spent through the Department of Agriculture under these warrants, because of the fact that we had drought on which we had not counted when parliament was in session.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And for which there was no financial provision.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is correct. That was reported at the next session of parliament; the house agreed that the money should have been spent, and passed on to another year. Many of these matters are dealt with, not through this legislation but in other ways.
I should like to say a word with regard to one other matter which has come up time after time in these discussions. It was brought

to my mind by the newspaper clipping, I think it was, read by the hon. member for Mackenzie a few moments ago, stating that somebody had notified some individual that after August they could not depend upon further relief allowances.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: This notice was sent out with the June relief order, from the northern areas branch.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will explain that. I think a notice which covers three months is a fairly long notice. These notices say that after August there may be no relief issued. This is not something happening for the first time this year. I understand the matter fully; I have dealt with it for many years, both here and in the province. No government, either federal, provincial or municipal, intends to pay relief one day longer than it must.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
right.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think that is proper. They intend to pay relief just as long as it is a necessity in order to assist people.
Now may I say this. No matter what our wishes or feelings may be, there is no government, municipal, provincial or dominion, whatever may be its name, that is going to do for individuals what those individuals would like to do and would do for themselves if conditions were such that they could look after themselves without assistance from the government. No government is ever going to be able to satisfy all the people to whom they must give assistance. I do not think it makes any difference what form of government you have, or under what name the government operates; that will be the situation. People will 'never get from a government what they really require in order to live as we all believe people should be able to live. It has always been found difficult to bring about that condition with government assistance, and I think that will always be the case.
Having said that, I should like to mention how the system has operated. This has been stated a number of times from the opposite point of view. We have said that the municipality has the first responsibility, the province the next and the dominion the next; and we say that when the municipality cannot meet the situation, it is up to the province or the dominion, or all three combined. Look at it in this way. The municipality is the first authority upon which is placed the responsibility of saying whether or not there is going to be any further relief. For that very

Unemployment Relief
reason the municipality is asked to pay 20 per cent of the cost of relief. Somebody, some time, has to begin to stop it; after the municipality has had its say, the province has its chance, and this government, as well as the previous government, has in most instances accepted the statement from the municipality, plus the statement by the province, that something ought to be done to assist these people. We make the municipality assume responsibility by finding 20 per cent and the province by finding 40 per cent. Now we are in June, and there may be a very fine crop standing. I drove through my hon. friend's district last August, and I saw the finest crop I have ever seen in my life.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Not in the Erwood district.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps I should have said in the district of the hon. member for Melfort, (Mr. Wright), which is right alongside, and even starting from Foam Lake, or just north of Yorkton, and continuing north in the constituency of Mackenzie, there was a pretty fine crop last year. In the district north of Tisdale there was the best crop I have ever seen at any time anywhere in the world. That is immediately tributary to the district where these people are settled.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: A hundred miles away.


James Garfield Gardiner: I say in the district right around the edge of the country to which I am referring, and where the crop is, you will find many of these people.


Mr. WRIGHT:: The biggest percentage of these people have no land under cultivation at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then they are under the northern settlement plan, with which I am not dealing at all. Here we are in the month of June, and the municipal councils see fine crops growing. Do not hon. members think they are showing good judgment when they give notice three months ahead that if those crops continue to grow, there will be no further relief after September 1, when harvesting will be in progress? That notice is given now in the statements referred to, but if in the meantime there are no crops; if they are dried out or frozen or hailed out, then the provincial government, the federal government and the municipality will come back into the picture, as they have ever since we have had relief.


Percy Ellis Wright: May I ask a question?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is just about six o'clock, and I should like to finish what I have to say.


Percy Ellis Wright: I just wondered if the minister knew what percentage of those people were settled in municipalities and what percentage in unorganized districts.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will have those figures when I bring down my estimates but I believe the percentage in the organized districts will be lower than in the unorganized.
Every year the agreements that have been entered into under this act have run out on April 1. We have extended them month by month and have indicated that if conditions were better as we got into the season, the agreements would be cancelled entirely. But along in August or September we have entered into our new agreements. Between April 1 and September 1 every governing body has called the attention of the people to the fact that they might be cut off relief and probably would be cut off if conditions justified that being done. Most people hope they will be able to go off relief, and they are all trying to cooperate towards that end. So I suggest that if a provincial government, as in this case through the northern settlement plan, have given three months' notice of their intention to cut people off relief, they have given fairly good notice; but if there is no crop in the meantime, the people will have relief just as they have always had it. No one will deny it to them.
The municipal council is the first body that must act. I suppose we might as well admit here, as we admit elsewhere, that it is only human nature to pass the buck a little. When a man is cornered and asked, "Why aren't you going to give us relief?'' the municipal man may say, "Oh, the province is not going to help us," and the province may say, "Well, the federal government is not going to help us." Our view has been that if we are absolutely satisfied that they should not be helped, we will not help them, and I believe the province would say exactly the same thing. But the municipality with the assistance of the province and the federal government will carry them along until all are satisfied as to whether they should be helped. This bill is to make the help possible. I think my hon. friends will agree with me in this, that in the ten years we have gone through, the great majority of people, irrespective of party or irrespective of any government with which they might have been associated, and irrespective of any municipality with which they might have been connected, have been trying to do the best they can for the people who have been having very difficult times.
Unemployment Relief

If there was only one court case of the kind described by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), then I think there can be no great criticism. I say that because when between three hundred and four hundred municipalities are in difficulties and only one court case has resulted, the condition cannot be too bad. I would hope that there have
not been other cases, and that generally the conditions were much better than that one case would indicate they might have been.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) the house adjourned at 6 p.m.



END OF VOLUME I.

[Stage Direction]
mftt mmem. nous*
Canada,
«*[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
.

[Stage Direction]
itouge of Commons!
[Stage Direction]
debates!
Thursday, January 25, 1940.

[Stage Direction]
The parliament which had been prorogued from time to time to the twenty-fifth day of January, 1940, met this day at Ottawa, for the dispatch of business.