APPOINTMENT OF SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES

Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to move the motion which stood in my name yesterday with reference to the select standing committee on railways and shipping, substituting the name of Mr. Munn for that of Mr. Hanbury. This suggestion has come from the other side, and I therefore move as follows:
That standing order 63 of the House of Commons relating to the appointment of the select standing committees of the house, be amended by adding to the select standing committees of the house for the present session a select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, to which will be referred the accounts and the estimates of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine for the present session, for consideration and report to the house.
Provided however, that nothing in this resolution shall be construed to curtail in any way the full right of discussion in committee of supply and that the said committee consist of Messrs. Beaubien, Bell (St. Antoine), Bothwell, Cantley, Chaplin, Duff, Euler. Fiset (Sir Eugfme), Fraser (Cariboo), Geary, Gobeil, Gray, Munn,
Hanson (York-Sunbury), Heaps, Kennedy (Peace River), McGibbon, MacMillan (Saskatoon), Manion, Power, Rogers and Stewart (Lethbridge) .
Motion as amended agreed to.



THE PUBLIC SERVICE


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to state that owing to the indisposition of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), he will be unable to move the motion standing in his name and I should like to have it stand.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of my right hon. friend if I am correct in understanding that before this resolution can be proceeded with in committee of the whole at least one day's notice will have to be given to the effect that on such and such a day the motion will be considered and that the resolution has received the approval of His Excellency.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understood that the
resolution had been brought forward by the Minister of Finance in terms to conform with the rules of the house. ^ was not present when the resolution was placed on the order paper.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As to that His Honour can advise the house. My understanding is that the resolution is in the correct form, but before it can be proceeded with at least one day's notice must be given.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The motion will be that the house at its next sitting resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider this resolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize deductions of ten per cent from the amounts of certain salaries or other compensations or indemnities payable by the government of Canada during the fiscal year 1932-33.
And to provide for payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of all current contributions payable under the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act in respect of the salaries payable during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1933, of all employees who receive not more than one thousand two hundred dollars per annum.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the
Recording oj Pairs

subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) advise if he has received the report of Sir Alexander Gibb in regard to the harbours of Canada.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: Not yet.



RECORDING OF PAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime
Minister (Mr. Bennett) will permit me to speak, I would direct the attention of the house to a statement made last evening just before adjournment by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) as follows:
May I add that in view of the pairing which took place this afternoon an adjustment was made of the pair of the right hon. leader of the opposition, so that the opposition wras not deprived of that \j>te.
It has always been the practice of the house that any vote once it is cast cannot be changed nor can any record of the house be altered. Hon. members will recall that several years ago the then member for Nelson, Mr. Bird, inadvertently voted the wrong way; he forgot his pair and there was the utmost condemnation of his action. Mr. Bird rose in his place and attempted to rectify the mistake but it was then ruled that it would be impossible for him to change his vote once it was cast. I should like to ask the Prime Minister how he was able to rectify the mistake which he claims was made yesterday afternoon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that a
mistake had been made yesterday afternoon. I noticed that the language in which the arrangement for pdirs was made did not cover a private member's motion, but in view of the fact that I observed after the voting that pairs were being announced, I at once made the statement to the house. I spoke to the chief whip on this side, but not to ask that my vote should be changed, it having been recorded, nor was any effort made to change it. If the hon. gentleman will take the trouble to look at Hansard he will find that my vote 
is there; no change was made. He is deliberately, or otherwise, making a statement, presumably-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -for reasons entirely beyond the understanding of any hon. member, on this side of the house at least. It will be found that in the adjustment of pairs, a matter of which the house takes no notice, it was provided that the vote of the right hon. gentleman should be paired against one of the hon. members on his side, so that the opposition was not deprived of its vote in consequence of the pairs having been respected as they were. The language of the document covering pairs did not cover private members' resolutions.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No change has been made in the vote as recorded and the hon. member has no reason to pursue the matter further.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I did not charge
that the vote of the Prime Minister had been changed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member did;
he asked how it was done.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, on a
question of privilege; I did not charge that the right hon. member's vote had been changed. I have Hansard before me and I know it has not been changed. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not he altered the records of the house with regard to the statements made concerning pairs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I do not
suppose it is the duty of anyone who happens to be in my position to answer a question of that kind; however, I can say that there were no records to alter and none were altered. The arrangement of the pairs is a matter of which this house takes no notice, it is a matter between the whips, and that arrangement was made in order that there should be no misapprehension. It was a private member's motion and having seen a large number of pairs respected I desired immediately that the right hon. gentleman's vote should count as being paired with one of our members. I had no desire in any sense to change the record. The whips arrange the pairs according to the practice in this house.


Mr. YOUNG:: How could they do that?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, the
pairs-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines


James Shaver Woodsworth: -are recorded on page 384 of Hansard.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
stated his case. The record is clear and if he will read Hansard he will see that nothing irregular has been done. There is no necessity for further discussion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I
would call your attention-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -to the fact that on page 384 of Hansard there is a record of the pairs. I ask whether that record was furnished before or after the Prime Minister asked that it be altered.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Neither the Prime Minister nor anyone else is under any obligation to answer the question; and I would ask the hon. member to keep order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish
to add to the discussion, but I notice as reported on page 384 of Hansard I am paired with the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Smith). I have no doubts as to the estimable character of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, but I have never had a pair with him. I understand, however, from what the Prime Minister says, this was an arrangement made to offset the pair that I have with my right hon. friend. To avoid the possibility of mistake, may I just ask my right hon. friend if he does not understand by the pair which we have that it extends to any motion on which the house divides obviously on party lines, whether that motion is introduced by a private member or not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was the difficulty,
and I took the trouble to read to the house the language of the document under which my pair with the right hon. gentleman was arranged. This is what I said on that occasion :
My agreement with the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) was that we were paired on the following conditions: Our pairs to be in force on all matters introduced by the government or for which the government assumes responsibility-
That is, any affirmative measures taken by the government for which it assumes responsibility.
-also in connection with all matters introduced by the official opposition or by any member on its behalf, and to apply also when the Speaker is in the chair as well as in committee of the whole house on such matters. My understanding is that that arrangement does not apply to pairs of this kind, but if my interpretation is not correct I ought not to have 41761-28
voted. I should like to discuss the matter with the right hon. gentleman and ascertain if it is not his view that our agreement does not apply to pairs of this kind, this being a vote on a motion introduced by a private member. Whatever rule may prevail I desire to observe. I mention that so that there may be no misunderstanding.
It will be observed that those were the conditions under which the pairs were arranged at the beginning of the session and they were in the form of a written instrument signed by the right hon. gentleman as well as by myself. There is no provision for a case such as that which arose yesterday which was on a motion by a private member and not by a member of his party. It did not occur to me that there wa3 any doubt about the matter until I noticed some hon. gentleman opposite had observed pairs. When I asked the chief whip about the matter, he told me that pairs had been observed by the hon. gentlemen and 1 immediately made the statement to the house. Certainly what transpired yesterday does not come within the language of the document which we signed; but if it is desired that it should, I am only too willing to assent.
Mr. M. F. HEPBURN OVest Elgin):	In
view of what occurred with respect to the vote of yesterday, I might say that I was paired with the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton) and I respected that pair; otherwise I would certainly have voted to allow the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) an opportunity to introduce his bill, and further, had I had an opportunity, I would have voted for the bill.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. MeINTOSH (North Battleford): I should like to ask the Minister of Railways a question in regard to the St. Walburg - Loon Lake - Bonnyville - Ashmont branch of the Canadian National Railways, north of the North Saskatchewan river and linking North Battleford and Edmonton. I understand twenty-five miles of that road towards Edmonton is graded and ready for steeling and forty-four miles south of the Beaver river towards North Battleford graded and ready for steeling. Has the Minister of Railways, considering all phases of the problem, looked into the question of steeling on those sixty-nine miles in order to supply railway facilities to the people along that line and also as an aid to the solution of the unemployment problem in North Battleford?
[Stage Direction]
C.N.R.-Branch Lines
Robert James Manion: I hope the hon. member means "steeling" with two e's.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I would not accuse the minister of the other.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman informed me yesterday he was going to ask this question. I am told by the railway management they have not made any recommendation towards the continuation of that work at the present time any more than they have towards the continuation of any of the branch line work on other branches throughout the country because of the very serious financial situation of the -railways and because of the continuous decrease in the earnings of the railways even as compared with last year. It is in exactly the same position as other branch lines throughout the country, and so far as we know at the present time no further work is likely to be done on it. There is quite a wide space, I think thirty-six miles, on which nothing has been done yet.



BULWARK-AIRWAYS BRANCH LINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: I should like to ask the Minister of Railways if the same answer will be given to the proposed branch line from Bulwark, Alberta, to a point called Airways, where a grade has been made?


Robert James Manion: I do not just know about the line to which the hon. member refers, but I shall look into the matter.



MAFEKING CUT-OFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: Before the Minister of Railways considers completing the line referred to by the hon. member for North Battleiford (Mr. McIntosh), will he consider the Mafeking cut-off?


Robert James Manion: I do not think anybody else need consider the Mafeking cut-off when my hon. friend is giving so much attention to it.
ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE On the orders of the day:


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if any provision has been made for the employees of the photographic branch of the Air Service who were dismissed last Saturday?


Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of National Defence):: I cannot give a definite answer a.t the moment to that question.



CANADA GRAIN ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he contemplates bringing down any amendments this session to the Canada Grain Act?


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Subject to any unforeseen matters that may arise during the session, no.



SHELBURNE INDIAN DOCTOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yar-mouth):: I want to call the attention of the Minister of the Interior to question No. 24 which was answered yesterday, and to point out to him, if he will permit me at this stage, that the answer to question No. 6 is not responsive to the question. The question reads:
On whose recommendations did the Department of Indian Affairs make the change?
The answer reads:
On instructions issued by the Superintendent General.
That is not what was asked. Will my hon. friend take -the matter up with his departmental officials and supply me with an answer to the question?



SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF JUSTICE

['Mr. Speaker, the time available for the discussion of this bill, scarcely five minutes, will hardly permit any detailed analysis, and I do not purpose to attempt to do so at this time. Lest the time elapse before I have an opportunity of stating my view of the bill I shall reverse the ordinary procedure and, before giving my reasons, state that I am opposed to the principle of the bill and I shall vote against it. It is with some regret that I find myself holding the view that I cannot support a bill introduced by my good friend and colleague the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon), but there is a principle involved of very wide application.\nThe bill divides itself into two parts. One provision is that all civil service appointments, outside of appointments at Ottawa, shall be removed from the operation of the Civil Service Act. As to the remainder, that is to say, the appointments to the service at Ottawa, even in those cases the right of the commission to make such appointments is very considerably curtailed.\nWith regard to outside appointments, if this bill were enacted as introduced, what would be the practical effect? It would then devolve upon the member for each constituency, with such advisers as he may gather around him in the way of an executive, to recommend from time to time persons to fill vacancies. It would not be complimentary to other hon. members of this house to urge that, from whatever constituency they may come, they would not use good judgment in such matters or that they would not be competent to make good selections. The dangers from that point of view would seem largely theoretical. I believe that an hon. member faced with the duty of recommending a person for any position in his constituency would be guided by the merit of the individual who might be recommended. It may be urged that it is only natural that a member would nominate someone from his own political party. Perhaps that is quite true, but as I am quite prepared to concede that a Liberal member repre-\n\nUnemployment-Mr. Reid\nsenting a constituency can find among bis followers men worthy of being nominated for positions of honour and trust, so I think they will concede that we on this side of the house can find such men among our own supporters.\nTherefore it is not primarily the question of appointments in respect to which I am apprehensive, but it is the effect upon the service itself. If the political be the first consideration in the matter of appointments, when you come to a change of government the supporters of the member then representing the constituency in question, remembering that certain appointments were made first because of political considerations, will demand, and press that demand with considerable force, that, the new government having the right to exercise discretion and make a change, the change be made. In very large measure the principle will apply that "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword."']
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) I beg to move that you do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Speaker, I want at this stage to take up the question of unemployment in Canada and before I conclude I intend to move the following amendment:
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
That whereas the present Prime Minister of Canada in appealing for support in the election of 1930 made the following definite promises to the electors, in regard to unemployment:
At Victoria, B.C.-"You have my promise that if the Conservative party is returned to power that as soon after July 28 as possible parliament will be called together to deal with the problem of unemployment by providing, not

Unemployment-Mr. Heenan
doles, but work." "Is there any excuse for Canada to have hard times if the government is discharging its duties as it should."
At Calgary, Alta.-"I propose that parliament shall formulate a definite plan for permanent relief, and that parliament shall deal with this national problem and provide amelioration for the conditions in order that next winter the Canadian people may not be facing the crisis that is upon us without having a remedy at hand." "I am convinced this unemployment has now ceased to be local and provincial and has become national in its importance."
At Edmonton, Alta.-"I spoke of unemployment last night at Calgary," the Conservative chieftain declared. "We must face it absolutely at once." ... "I accept the challenge and I say again that I will call parliament together, at the earliest possible moment to provide at once the remedy-employment for all who can and will work."
At Moncton, N.B.-"The Conservative party is going to find work for all who are willing to work, or perish in the attempt. It is going to call parliament at the earliest possible date, after July 28 and take such steps as will end this tragic condition of unemployment and bring prosperity to the country as a whole."
At Moncton, N.B.-"I promise to end unemployment."
At Sarnia, Ontario: "Someone is responsible for unemployment; not individuals, but governments. Governments by their majorities in parliament are responsible for enacting all legislation."
At Quebec, Quebec: "There was no necessity for a conference on unemployment," he continued. "The solution was too apparent. What you want is work," he exclaimed, "not conferences, and you are going to get work.
"Unless his promises to the people of Canada were kept if elected to office," Mr. Bennett said, "he wanted Quebec and other members of his party to vote him out of office;"
That whereas notwithstanding the government demanded and received from parliament unlimited authority to use the resources of the treasury of Canada to such an extent as the government deemed expedient for the purpose of relief of unemployment, the measures taken by the government to eliminate unemployment have proven wholly inadequate and ineffective;
That the measures adopted by the government have involved an expenditure of public moneys out of all proportion to the employment provided;
That owing to lack of proper supervision and organization there has been partizan administration of the moneys provided by parliament for the benefit of those who were the most in need of work;
That notwithstanding the promise that these problems would be dealt with on a national basis, the government has shirked responsibility in that respect, by making a large part of the assistance provided to relieve unemployment, conditional upon contribution by provinces and municipalities, and has thus rendered abortive the relief which was solemnly promised to be granted on the basis of a national obligation;
That the giving of these solemn assurances, the using of them to secure support at elections and their violation after the attainment of office reveal a flagrant disregard of political 41761-28J
honour and tend to lower the standard of public life;
That the failure of the government to implement its pledges and promises has caused privation, want and suffering amongst thousands of Canadian citizens;
That in the opinion of this house the provision of employment for our people is the most pressing problem before the present government, and immediate measures effectively to relieve the serious unemployment situation should be presented to parliament by the government without further delay.
It will be observed, Mr. Speaker, that there are two features to my motion. The first part is a condemnation of the government for failing to fulfil its pledges to the electors. The second part calls upon the government to bring in immediately measures that will effectively deal with the situation. I want to offer my sympathy to the government at this time because any man or any party of men that undertakes to do a job with which they are not familiar and fails to accomplish it really needs sympathy. I know that my hon. friends on the other side are all recently converted to the idea of doing something for the workingman, but I once heard a prominent statesman, in fact, it was the present Prime Minister, say: Never trust a convert to do anything he is not used to doing, because he will always make a mess of it. On the other hand, there is sufficient of the milk of human kindness in my make up and I want to throw out a life line to save anyone who is sinking. To my mind the present government resembles a disabled ship at sea, tossed about on a wild ocean, drifting about aimlessly, but with the crew hoping that some chance wave will wash them safely ashore. If it were not for the fact that there are some few poor souls aboard that ship one might deem it a derelict. A derelict, as hon. members know, is a ship half sunk, without a soul on board; it is a menace to all other ships which are making progress. Unfortunately in the present case there are a few souls aboard this old ship, and I wish to throw out a life line to them. I wish them to heed the pleadings of their leader who said at Quebec during the election: If I do not carry out my promises to the electors, then I ask all the members from the province of Quebec and other members sitting behind me to vote me out of office.


Mr. ERNST:: The trouble with the hon.
gentleman is that he had to walk the gang plank.


Peter Heenan: The captain of the Conservative party, the present Prime Minister, is a gallant captain. He hesitates to leave the ship, and he stands on deck and says: Save yourselves, my boys; I will go down

Unemployment-Mr. Heenan
with the ship; it is quite evident, Mr. Speaker, that hon. gentlemen opposite will not reach out to grasp any life line that may be thrown to them. I am very much concerned with respect to some of my hon. friends opposite. I would like to save them if I could, and in proposing this motion I am giving them an opportunity to do the very thing which their own captain asked them to do when he pledged himself before the electors of Canada that if he failed to redeem his pledges he would ask his followers to vote him out of office. Here is one opportunity for my hon. friends opposite to carry out one of the government's pledges to the electors, by voting it out of office, for we all remember that the government said that it would end unemployment or perish in the attempt. There is no member, I am sure, supporting the government who will dare to stand up in his place and say, at least he cannot truthfully say, that unemployment in this country has been ended. On the contrary, the government's own reports indicate that unemployment is on the increase. There is no question in anyone's mind with respect to that because the government's very latest report states the fact plainly. Indeed, there is evidence of many other kinds to show that unemployment is on the increase, and those evidences are manifest to anyone who is observant. Railroad earnings used to be taken as a fair barometer of the condition of trade and employment within the country. Look at railroad earnings to-day, or at the number of cars loaded and the tons of freight moved, and you will find that the business of the railroads has decreased practically to the point where, so far as railroad men are concerned, they do not know but what they will be out of a job at the end of every trip. When the railroad companies were presenting their views to the Board of Conciliation and Investigation which inquired into the recent decrease in wages they stated in a public document that they had hoped for some improvement in economic conditions but that now they *were without hope, and in order to carry on they claimed that they must have a reduction in the wages of their employees. So the railroads, whose business used to be taken as a fair barometer of trade conditions generally throughout the country, have confessed publicly that their hopes for improvement have not materialized to any great extent, that they are hopeless of any improvement, and accordingly they have decreased the wages of railroad men in this country. I was at a meeting of railroad men not so veiy long ago, and I heard one gentle-

man say that at his particular terminal they used to have nine freight crews. To-day they have not one freight crew in the whole terminal, and the freight and way freight package business is being done by a mixed train. In my home town of Kenora there are engineers old in seniority who to-day are back working as firemen. To-day many old conductors are working as brakemen, and some men who have had many years seniority are entirely out of work, because they are not able to hold a position. Practically in every railway terminal in Canada shop men, maintenance of way men, car repairers and all sorts of railroad men are not being used. There is no question that conditions are becoming worse instead of better.
The relief measures adopted by this government have proved wholly inadequate. I recognize that in my part of the country men have been given work on the highways, and many are working for 30 cents an hour. As I pointed out time and again completion of the highway under construction was promised by the Ontario government to take place in 1926 or 1927. It would seem that at last some work is being done on that highway and I am glad. While I am speaking of inadequate measures, I should like to point out to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) that the residents in northern Ontario are being discriminated against. From the road work the people resident in those communities are receiving only two weeks' work out of each month while, on the other hand, those labourers sent into the district are working full time. I should like the minister to review that condition and see that the residents in those localities get a fair share of the work provided under employment relief measures.


Mr. McGIBBON:: May I ask a question?


Peter Heenan: Certainly.


Peter McGibbon: Does not my hon. friend admit that the expenditures made on the highway practically all remain in that community, the roads are all left there, and at least half or more of the work goes to the people in that part of the country.


Peter Heenan: I am afraid my hon. friend will have to get his wind up; I cannot hear him.


Peter McGibbon: Very well, I shall repeat my question. Will the hon. member not admit, first, that the product of the work is all left in northern Ontario, secondly, that the money is largely left there, and, thirdly, that a great part of the work is given to men in his locality?

Unemployment-Mr. Heenan


Peter Heenan: I am not talking about that at all; I am talking about the residents in my hon. friend's district as well as those in mine and in every other part of northern Ontario who are not getting a square deal.


Peter McGibbon: I will look after my own.


Peter Heenan: They are not getting a square deal. They get only two weeks' work every month while on the other hand those men sent into the district are working full time. Only 30 cents an hour is being paid, and 40 cents should be paid.


Mr. COTNAM:: Go out and tell the farmers that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not say 50 cents?


Peter Heenan: If I said 50 cents my hon. friend would leave the chamber, because he never heard of anybody getting 50 cents an hour in his part of the country. The Ontario government has made a contract to provide food and provisions for the camps. Generally speaking, these contractors are bringing in their meats and other foods from the large centres, they are not purchasing hogs and beef from the settlers in that district, as was originally intended. When unemployment relief measures were brought forward by this government they promised that such measures would be directed towards helping people in communities requiring relief. In that promise, therefore, they have fallen short.
While I am speaking about wages I should like to point out to the government, and particularly to the Minister of Labour, that with respect to unemployment relief we have now a new principle announced in our fair wages policy. Throughout the world, so far as my knowledge goes and in every instance with which I am familiar, the fair wages measure has been considered as providing for a minimum wage. In fact, after attention was drawn to the matter by hon. members on this side of the house, the present government, in its regulations of 1930, establish a minimum or prevailing rate of wages. But what do we find in the new agreements? They provide for a maximum, not a minimum wage. For the information of hon. members I think it would be worth while to make a comparison of the two regulations. In 1930 the regulation was as follows:
All agreements made with provincial or municipal authorities involving the expenditure of any portion of the moneys appropriated by the act for public works or undertakings shall contain provisions for the payment of fair wages and hours of work in accordance with the intent
of the Fair Wages and Eight-Hour Day Act, 1930, and the fair wages policy of the government of Canada as set forth in order in council P.C. 1206 dated 7th June, 1922, and amendments thereto.
That is the prevailing rate of wages and the principle which has been announced and adopted by parliament on many occasions. At the present time however there is an agreement providing for a maximum rate of wages, and providing that the provinces and the municipalities cannot pay more than the federal, government is paying for work of a similar type. That represents a complete turn over. Whether or not it was done to fool the people, I do not know, but in order to have it on record I think I had better read it.
Fair and reasonable rates of wages shall be paid by the province and municipalities, but such rates shall not be in excess of the rates required to be paid by the federal government for the character or class of work in the district.
As I have said, this clause represents a complete turn over of principle as proclaimed in fair wages or minimum rates of wages regulations in any part of the world. Whether or not deception was intended, I do not know. There is one class of people however which is not deceived, and that is the working people of Canada. I should be pleased if the Minister of Labour would make an investigation so that proper adjustments may be made in rates of pay, and so that the working men of northern Ontario-because they are the men for whom I am speaking particularly-may receive rates of wages provided by this parliament and by the laws of Canada.
A few days ago I asked the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) a question as to the wages paid to labourers on federal public works in the constituency of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon). The minister very kindly sent me the information, and I find that in hi3 constituency labourers are paid 40 cents per hour on federal public works. I say to my hon. friend that so far as I am concerned I consider tihe workmen in my part of the country, in fact tihe workmen all through northern Ontario, just as good men and as much entitled to 40 cents per hour as the workmen in his constituency. Again I would ask him to see that the workmen of northern Ontario ibe given a square deal in that regard.
When we complain of these matters on the public platform or in the press, wthat do we find? We had the spectacle yesterday of the representatives in this house of the labour men of Canada being denied an opportunity

Unemployment-Mr. Heenan
to apeak. When the local member for Kenora and I complained of these things we aroused the ire of the Minister of Lands and Forests of Ontario to such a degree that at a board of trade banquet at Kenora he threatened the local authorities that he would spend the money appropriated for that district in another part of the country where it would be more appreciated if they did not officially repudiate what their elected representatives had said. Talk about intimidation! Could a Minister of Lands and Forests go into a constituency in any other part of th5 world and threaten the board of trade and the town council in that manner?


Robert James Manion: Can the hon. member quote anything to prove that statement, instead of just making it?


Peter Heenan: Yes, I will prove it.


Robert James Manion: Well, go ahead and do so.


Peter Heenan: I will prove it by no less an authority than the newspaper owned and edited by the defeated Conservative candidate at the last provincial election. It is all on the front page, but maybe the heading will be sufficient.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it all.


Peter Heenan: This is the heading:
There is lots of work to be done here, if we all work together. Will otherwise spend money where it is appreciated.
That will be found on the front page of the Miners' News of July 15, 1931.


An hon. MEMBER:: What does the writer say? Never mind the headlines.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Peter Heenan: My hon. friend over there does not seem to grab hold of the life line yet.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not from you.


Peter Heenan: I admire 'his spunk-stick to the ship until the last.


An hon. MEMBER:: Your faith is not
very great.


Peter Heenan: My faith in this government, to use a witticism, was dead long before it ever became a government. I have criticized working conditions in the road camps. True, those conditions have been improved since my criticism. I notice in the speech of the Minister of Lands and Forests to which I have just referred that he stated he intended to pay 50 cents a day in northern Ontario but because of some of us he had to pay a higher rate, so I am not ashamed of the position that I have taken in the matter.

I can prove every statement that I have previously made or make now with respect to working conditions in northern Ontario. However, I am glad to see that the great highway is in course of construction-the highway that we have been promised by our Conservative friends at every provincial and federal election since 1921. But instead of building one mile here, three miles there, half a mile somewhere else, just so many detached pieces of road, the work should have been proceeded with in a systematic manner. Goodness knows if any of these detached pieces of road will ever be connected together.
This government undertook to deal with unemployment as a national obligation. But in their very first bill they adopted a different principle entirely; they declared that unemployment is "primarily a provincial and municipal responsibility." In their last measure for unemployment and farm relief, the provinces and municipalities were required to share the larger portion of the burden.
I have not yet consulted the rules to see whether or not I am entitled to reply, but the motion speaks for itself.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member is not entitled to reply. He is not limited now as to time; he can go on as long as he pleases.


Peter Heenan: This	government has
reversed everything since it took office. Instead of giving work to the unemployed in the spring, summer and fall, they left them to sleep in the parks and to beg for a living or go hungry, and then they commenced their various relief undertakings in the winter time when the work could not be done in comfort by the men and with profit to the country. Then they have denied the workmen fair wages; they have instituted a maximum instead of a minimum rate of wages; they have given the residents in some parts, particularly those in northern Ontario, work on a half time basis, while newcomers are being given work on full time. Instead of dealing with the question of unemployment on a national basis, they have granted federal relief conditional on contributions being made by the provinces and the municipalities, and these contributions represent by far the greater portion of the burden. In short, while they pretend to give the provinces and the municipalities assistance with one hand, they are withholding it with the other; that is, they are withholding necessary public works that could have been undertaken at a fair rate of wages. They promised the electors that if they were returned to power they would treat old age pensions as a federal obligation. The cost of this to the treasury was estimated

Unemployment-Mr. Gordon
at one time to be 824,000,000 annually. Up to the present time the government have paid about $8,000,000 this year. Therefore they have been robbing the provinces of
816,000,000 annually. Here is another case where they are contributing with one hand and withholding with the other.
The government passed an act known as the Technical Education Act amid a great blowing of trumpets and beating of drums, but they failed to pay to the provinces the money authorized by this legislation. Is it any wonder that the ship is sinking? Now, when it is sinking, the government, not knowing where to turn and having failed to reach the port for which they set out, have turned to the civil service of this country, making them contribute in order to help them out of their dilemma. Last year they say they contributed $20,000,000 to the provinces, and in the estimates which have been presented this year there is a saving of about $43,000,000. The public service of Canada is suffering, and these civil servants who depend on their salaries for a living have to pay in order to make up the deficit caused by the mismanagement and bungling of this government.
So in moving this amendment I should like to point out that it is not only a condemnation of the government for its failure to live up to its promises; it is also a request for immediate measures adequately to provide for the employment of workmen in this country. We do not want the government to dilly-dally, as they have been doing, wait week after week and then at the last moment before prorogation bring down a bill asking for a blank cheque with nothing to prevent that money being sent out again and used in a partisan way.
In conclusion I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I hope every hon. member from Quebec on the opposite side of the house will heed the pleadings of their captain, take hold of the life line and vote the government out of office. Then they can go back to their constituents and say, "At least we carried out one promise to the electors of this country." Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), .the amendment I read at the beginning of my remarks.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow this occasion to pass without making some observations with respect to the address just given by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan). I do not forget the time immediately prior to the election of 1930, when I think almost every thoughtful man in
this country recognized the fact that things were not as prosperous as they had been in previous years, and while it is not my desire or my habit to go into the past in order either to build up a defence or make an attack upon my opponents, yet in the light of what has been said I think it would not be out of place to say a word or two with respect to the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite in the early part of 1930.
In the first place, the government became accustomed to the prosperity with which the world was visited during the years prior to 1930, and it was difficult if not impossible for them to realize then that a change had taken place and that this country was entering upon a period of decreasing business and lessened prosperity. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) then Prime Minister, in dealing with the subject would not go further than to say that there was an alleged condition of unemployment. But I remember quite well when the right hon. gentleman made his pilgrimage across western Canada. Each successive hundred miles seemed to impress him more and more with the seriousness of the condition before this government took office, until by the time he reached the Rocky mountains the right hon. gentleman was indeed convinced that we were in the midst of a depression.
What was the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite at that time? They did not recognize the condition, or were unwilling to admit it. As I remember the debates in this house, from reading them in the press and subsequently in Hansard, the substance of the remarks of hon. gentlemen opposite was that no one in Canada could expect a helping hand from the federal government unless their political views conformed to the views held by the administration of that day. That was the declaration made at that time.
There were a number of factors which contributed to the condition obtaining at that period. Some of those factors were entirely out of the control of any government or any individual, or of industry or agriculture. Some of them, on the other hand, were capable of being controlled and disciplined by governments, and I will ask hon. members to pardon me if I dwell once more on one subject with which I was very familiar at that time, I refer to the sulbject of immigration. I aim not unmindful of the fact that this country has two great railroad systems, with three transcontinental lines, two of them conceived about 1908. To-day I thank there is no thoughtful man Who will not admit that we are over-railroaded. So let us bear this in

Unemployment-Mr. Gordon
mind, that by reason of our projection of railroads across this country, whether we like it or not, we must get over to the positive side of immigration, because we must have more people if we hope to pay off the debt with wihich ten million people are loaded at present by reason of the railroad problem on our hands. That may not be a pleasant thought to those of us Who entertain a more modest and homely idea of our country, that is, that a nation is only a collection of happy, prosperous, Christian homes, and that its strength may be measured by the number of such homes within its boundaries. It is not a happy thought for those of us Who entertain that conception of our country, but whether we like it or not, if we are going to pay off that huge debt we must get over to the positive side of immigration as soon as we can. That opens up a serious problem as to where we are to get people who will be acceptable to this country and who will be easily assimilated into our national life.
What was the situation during the months just prior to this government coming into office? I think I am stating what was in the mind of every man who travelled within Canada when I say that the late government, not recognizing the condition that was becoming all too apparent, did not take any steps to curb the undisciplined flow of immigrants into Canada, which had been carried on for three or four years prior to 1930. I want hon. members of the house to remember this: During the sixteen months ended July 31, 1930, 221,561 people were brought into Canada, 99,367 of whom were adult males. This factor contributed largely to the unemployment problem which is facing this country today because if the figures are analysed it will be found that a large number of these people did not go into the open spaces of the country and engage in agriculture, where they could at least support themselves, but drifted into industry in the cities. There is abundant evidence of this fact in all the large cities in the country. It has been found that thousands and thousands of men and women have been here only a short time, many of them having entered the country immediately prior to the coming into power of this government. We are taking care of these people; they are not starving, no matter what anyone may say to the contrary. Immediately after this government came into power it took into consideration this one factor which was contributing to our difficulties. This problem was tackled in a determined and vigorous way. A vast system had grown up through the years to induce people to come to Canada;

connections had been made all over the world, particularly on the continent of Europe. The transportation companies were fully organized to bring people to this country and other associations were acting towards the same end. It was not an easy thing to curb this flow of people without creating some hardship and injustice, but this government did it, although in doing so it was subjected to a good deal of criticism.
The transportation companies did not like it at first, but since November, 1930-for the first time, as far as I have been able to determine from the officials of the department and from those who have engaged in bringing migrants to Canada-the transportation companies, both on the ocean and within Canada, have been working in harmony with the department in an effort to colonize at home and to clear up the mess which was left to this government by those who preceded us. The result has been that some 44,000 souls have been taken from the industrial centres and placed upon the land. This has not been accomplished by a state-aided system of colonization but by using the organizations of the two great railway systems and our own department. That large number of people are off the unemployment lists, largely through the efforts of the present government. I contend that that is not a mean contribution towards relieving the situation which confronts us, and it has been made without expense to the country.
The depression was easily capable of being identified in the spring of 1930, but as time went on it became something more than a local depression. While the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) may be twitted from time to time, as he has been in the past, for the speeches which he made during the elections, I say-of course hon. gentlemen may laugh and will probably sneer a.t my statement- that any normal depression would have been cured by the measures adopted by this government. However, no one could possibly have foreseen the world depression with which we are confronted. On top of that we were faced with the disaster which overtook parts of the western provinces, mainly in Saskatchewan. This government had to and was glad to go to the rescue of the people in western Canada. It was a great burden to bear, but that burden will be discharged by the government.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) has said that the government has done nothing to assist people to carry on through this period. Just as soon as it was possible to do so, this house was convened. A measure was passed permitting the govern-

ment to use the sum of $20,000,000 to take such steps, in conjunction with the municipalities and the provinces, as were deemed desirable and necessary to relieve unemployment and to assist the destitute and needy people of this country. That measure resulted in a total expenditure of $70,472,832-the federal government's share being $17,372,848 -on various useful works and the employment of the requisite number of men.
I feel convinced that if we can divorce ourselves from political partisanship, and I hope we can at a time like this-probably the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) can do this if he tries-


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: When that does happen, it will be very much appreciated.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: As time went on it was
apparent that further measures would have to be adopted in order that those in want might be given such employment as would tide them over, and the result was the legislation of last session. Under that legislation, 334,301 persons have been given employment up to January 31, 1932, the total number of man-days being 7,415,973. The total commitments necessary to carry on the work to February 22, 1932, amounted to $76,426,387, the federal government's share being $32,822,847. This work is still proceeding. The figures I have given will be subject to some slight variation when the report is tabled, which I trust will be shortly.
Reference has been made by the hon. member for Kenora to the matter of the wage scale, and it has been suggested that this government has not adopted a course best calculated to preserve to the labouring man the standard of living and wage scale which had heretofore obtained. I would point out to the hon. member that he is losing sight of the fact that there is a vast difference between relief and wages. I am sure that this government will never adopt an attitude likely to destroy that which the labouring man has sought to build up through all the years, namely, a fair and honest wage and a decent standard of living. I think I can speak for labour just as competently as can the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, because I have been associated with labouring men all my life. In fact it was labouring men who sent me here and I expect they will send me here again. I know them; I am acquainted with their difficulties. For over a quarter of a century I have lived my business life right in the country of which the hon. member speaks, and I certainly do not propose to allow the statements made by the hon. member to pass unchallenged. I believe I was in that country actively engaged in various busi-
23, 1932
Unemployment-Mr. Gordon
ness avocations before the hon. member was, and I do not think I am boasting when I say that for many years I took an interest, as actively as my capacity would permit, in every public movement throughout northern Ontario, and not from a political standpoint. Anyone who lives in that part of the country knows that I had no thought of entering into politics.
In order that there may be no misunderstanding about the situation with respect to relief in northern Ontario, I should like first to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of October 26, 1931. He is said to have made this statement:
"Never have I heard of nor seen such a gigantic political machine as the Conservatives have built up in northern Ontario," emphatically declared Hon. Peter Heenan, M.P., former minister of labour, addressing an enthusiastic political rally under the auspices of the Elm-dale Ward Liberal Association in the Knights of Columbus Hall, Spadina Avenue, Saturday evening. "Patronage has run rampant there and actually free speech is being prevented on political questions."
I do not think it is possible that the hon. member ever had his capacity for speech curtailed. He continued:
"Men and women are being discriminated against, intimidated and persecuted for their political beliefs; and that all under the British flag," Mr. Heenan averred.
The hon. member quoted from the Kenora Miner and Nation. Let me quote from the same journal in its issue of October 21, 1931, from an editorial referring to the criticisms of the hon. member with respect to the work in that locality. The journal from which the hon. member quoted and from a subsequent issue of which I am now quoting, makes this statement:
No more unfair or untrue statement has ever been issued by a public man than that given out by the Hon. Peter Heenan to the Fort William Times-Journal, October 13th. It could only be conceived by a mind filled by jealousy at the success of the measures taken by the provincial and Dominion governments to relieve unemployment in this district.


Peter Heenan: Who is the editor of that paper?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It is the same journal as that from which my hon. friend read.


Peter Heenan: He is t'he defeated candidate.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: These statements that were made by the 'hon. member on what I am told was his only visit to northern Ontario since the election-


Peter Heenan: That is not true.
Unemployment-Mr. Gordon


Wesley Ashton Gordon: -of course came under the review of the responsible minister at Toronto who has this work in hand, and at the risk of tiring hon. members I should like to ask their indulgence while I read the minister's statement as reported in the Toronto Telegram of October 30, 1931. This statement was published widely and copied in the press, not only throughout Ontario but throughout other provinces. It is headed:
Northern Development Work at Kenora i Some statements recently appeared in the Canadian press from Hon. Peter Heenan claiming that the relief work being carried out by the Northern Development Department at Kenora is being conducted in a partisan way. Mr. Heenan is in the habit of making extravagant and reckless statements, and in this case he may have some excuse because he has only been in his constituency a few hours on one occasion in the last fifteen months. Anyone who is familiar with the situation knows that the statements are entirely false.
Last year Mr. Heenan and Mr. Hutchison, the Ontario member, made some similar charges, and, for the purpose of answering them and clearing up the situation, the Hon. Mr. Finlay-son, Minister in charge of the Department of Northern Development, went to Kenora at the beginning of this season's work and a public meeting was called in the town hall at which the mayor, the members of the board of trade, and a large gathering of citizens were present. Mr. Heenan did not attend the meeting but Mr. Hutchison did.
Mr. Finlayson fully explained the working of the system there and the local people were entirely satisfied. _ Mr. Hutchison sat through the meeting but did not make a single complaint or attempt to answer the minister. The citizens generally expressed their entire satisfaction.
The district of Kenora is the only district in northern Ontario where there is a member opposed to the Ontario government, and, notwithstanding that fact, last winter Kenora had more of Northern Development money spent in it than any other district, and the highest rate of wages in northern Ontario was paid in Kenora. This season, 1931, the rate of wages was made uniform throughout all northern Ontario, and Kenora is one of the districts in which the largest expenditure has been made.
On account of the large amount being spent on the construction of the trans-Canada highway in the Kenora district, we were able to take care of practically everyone in the district and also to send in a large number of men from southern Ontario for work on the trans-Canada road in that district. The department have felt that tins is a national work and the present situation calls for sympathetic treatment without regard to nationality, politics, or creed. In Mr. Heenan's constituency on the 24th of October, this department were employing 5,013 men on road work. As the total population of his constituency is given as 26,315, it will be seen that the employment is on a very generous scale. By far the greater number of these men are being paid half by the Dominion government. This is in marked contrast to the conditions that existed when Mr. Heenan was Minister of Labour and the Dominion government were not making any contribution of this kind. 
As to the selection of labour, this is done through the municipilities and is under the charge of the district engineers who are professional officers on the permanent civil service list and have had a great deal of experience and success in this work.
The department wish to assure the public that this work is not being conducted in a partisan way and is entirely above and beyond politics. Perhaps the best answer to Mr. Heenan is to quote three messages from responsible bodies in his own district who know far more about the circumstances than he does.
This is from the town council of the town of Kenora:
"The members of the Kenora council can truthfully say that as far as is humanly possible all detail in relief administration in the town is being carried out without regard to the applicants' nationality, creed or politics, and peace and harmony prevail among the workers, of whom fully ninety-five per cent are at work. We realize Engineer Lyons has a gigantic undertaking in the administrating of the work in our district, and are fully aware he is carrying it out as fair as is humanly possible, and we appreciate his efforts fully.
We regret that the Hon. Peter Heenan should have seen fit to give this untrue and unfavourable report to the press.
W. S. Carruthers,
^	Mayor."
. From the Canadian Legion at Kenora: "Be it resolved that the executive of the Kenora branch of the Canadian Legion of the B.E.S.L. deplore the statements made in the press that returned soldiers in the district are denied positions by the Ontario government rightfully belonging to them, and this executive are not aware of any such case and have received no complaints.
F. Gray, President."
From the Kenora Board of Trade: "Be it resolved that this council express its genuine appreciation of the much needed unemployment relief work being carried on by the government m the Kenora district and express our satisfaction on the non-partisan manner in which said work is being distributed by the association to those in need.
We also deplore any attempt at this time to create an impression that administration of unemployment relief in this district is otherwise.
J. Allan Sherrett,
Secretary-Treasurer."
I deemed it necessary in view of the very serious charges which the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River had made-because statements of that character, particularly when we are passing through a trying period, are only calculated to stir up anxiety, distrust and irritation amongst both those in affluence and those in obscurity, those who have plenty and those who are needy, creating in their minds, and very, very wrongfully so, the impression that those who are endeavouring to discharge the affairs of this country have their eyes solely on the next election-in view of these charges I deemed it my duty to cover other parts of Ontario.


Peter Heenan: May I ask the minister a
question?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Peter Heenan: I think my hon. friend
wants to be fair. He should at least have read all the correspondence and shown that the telegrams-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Peter Heenan: Are there no doctors over there to prescribe for those boys? If he had read all the correspondence it would have shown that those telegrams were in response to a telegram sent by the Minister of Lands and Forests.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. If the hon. member wishes to ask a question or correct an inaccuracy it is open to him to do so, but he is not in order in reopening the debate.


Peter Heenan: I was not reopening the
debate, Mr. Speaker. I was simply asking the minister if he would not explain that those telegrams were sent in response to a telegram sent by the Minister of Lands and Forests.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I deemed it my duty, Mr. Speaker, as one of the members for northern Ontario, to make inquiries from responsible people in other parts of northern Ontario, because I may say that the wholesale charge that was made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River gave me a great deal of anxiety. I confess that I was persuaded that he was probably carried away by the enthusiasm created by the ward Liberal association meeting which he was attending, but at the same time his charge was too serious to pass over. I therefore communicated with the centres where, if there was discrimination, if there was all this partisanship and persecution of the people, it would be most easily identified and known, namely in the mining centres. So I wrote to Timmins, to try to get a letter from the mayor of that town. I did not know who the mayor was, but I recognized him when the letter came back. His name is George Drew, a well known and very responsible man in that large town. I am told, although I am not sure of this, that he is a veTy strong Liberal-I hope he has changed his views. This is his letter from Timmins, dated November 14, 1931, addressed to A. F. Kenning:
Dear Sir,-
With reference to our conversation of a few days ago in regard to work being done by the department of northern development, I am very pleased to state that I have never heard any complaints or any reports of preference being given in the work due to party politics. I might also state that party politics has never
Unemployment-Mr. Gordon
received the slightest consideration in any rebel work which we are doing in Timmins, or when choosing the one hundred men who were taken from here by the northern development branch.
Yours truly,
George Drew,
Mayor.
I have another letter dated November 9, 1931, from Thomas McDonald. This man I know very well. He is president of one of the Liberal associations in the riding of North Cochrane, so I am sure that the hon. member for North Timiskaming will recognize the gentleman and probably be able to add some eulogy as to his party activities:
Dear Mr. Kenning,-
Re your conversation with me over the telephone regarding discrimination between Liberals and Conservatives being employed by Mr. Lough, district engineer, I absolutely cannot see any discrimination or favouritism shown to either party. Political affiliations have no bearing whatever in the securing of jobs in the electoral district of South Cochrane.
Yours truly,
Thomas McDonald,
Mayor.
I find another letter dated November 9, 1931, signed by the mayor and clerk of the town of Matheson. The mayor is the same gentleman who wrote the letter which I have just quoted. His letter is as follows:
With further reference to our telephone conversation of the 7th instant I have been unable to discover one single act of discrimination in regard to the employment of men in the northern development branch in Mr. B. Lough's district, and I am quite satisfied that it does not exist and that employment is given without any regard to anyone's political affiliations, but as far as possible on the particular capacity of the party applying.
Then I have a letter from the mayor of the township of Teck. Some of you may not appreciate the significance of the township, but it is in that township that the very large gold district of Kirkland Lake is located. Most of the larger gold mines are in the township of Teck. This letter is dated November 9, 1931, and reads as follows:
Dear Sir,-
Mr. J. W. McBain-
McBain is the municipal clerk in one of the largest gold-mining camps.
-has just spoken to me and asked if I had had any parties complaining to me that in giving work to the unemployed political discriminations were being made and that certain parties were being refused work by reason of their political affiliations. For your information I beg to say that no such complaint has ever been made to me by any person whatsoever.
Yours truly,
M. G. Hunt.
Unemployment-Mr. Gordon

Mr. Hunt is a very prominent Liberal in that mining camp and hopes to be a candidate some day, he says, although I still believe he will vote Conservative.


Mr. JACOBS:: Will the hon. gentleman
explain to the house how it is that there are so many Liberals in high authority in northern Ontario?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I can answer my hon.
friend. There are many, many thousands of Liberals in northern Ontario, but they all vote Conservative.


Samuel William Jacobs: By the same token, I suppose all the Conservatives vote Liberal.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Going a little further south I caused a communication to be directed to the mayor of the town of New Liskeard. This town, as many of you know, is located in what is known as the clay belt, the farming belt of northern Ontario. While they are having a little difficulty in connection with the prices of products from their farms, yet I hazard the opinion that there is not a district in all of Canada-I do not say this in a boastful but in a thankful way-that presents a finer farming opportunity than that part of Timiskaming. Its fertile areas, thousands and thousands of them, fortunately have not passed out to speculators, but are still held largely by the crown, and are adjacent to such great markets as the mining camps afford. I thought I had written to the mayor of the town of New Liskeard, but I find that he wrote to me. His letter which is now before me is dated November 14, 1931, addressed to myself and is as follows:
I have noticed in the press certain statements said to have been made by Honourable Peter Heenan relative to political interference of men being employed on road construction in northern Ontario, and while I have no wish to enter into any political discussion, these alleged statements by Mr. Heenan are so untrue, in so [DOT] far as this particular section is concerned, that I felt I should write you stating the situation in so far as this municipality is concerned.
First of all, we were asked to register the names of the unemployed. Following this a representative of the northern development branch interviewed me, and in view of the fact that the municipality was to receive government assistance to carry out certain municipal work to provide employment, it was agreed that if the municipality would take care of their own married men the northern development branch would undertake to find employment for the single men.
This plan has been followed out, and is still being followed. As men apply for work at our municipal office, they are being employed in this manner: The unmarried men have been taken on without question by the northern development branch, the only requisite being [Mr. Gordon.}
that they present a paper signed by our town clerk certifying as to their place of residence. Certainly polities has not entered into this in the slightest manner.
I have further investigated sufficiently to positively say that so far as our residents are concerned there has been no political interference either before or after the employment of these men. Neither have I heard of any interference with men from other municipalities.
The arrangement has worked out very satisfactorily, and the government should be much complimented rather than criticized for their endeavours in this connection.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) H. W. Sutcliffe,
Mayor.
Then, I pursued the situation a little further and made inquiries from men whom I met as to the situation with regard to the work being carried out in that great country. As a result I can state to this house with a great deal of confidence that while there are some men out of employment, probably more than there would be in normal times, although owing to the seasonal nature of occupations in that country there are always some out of employment-the work in that part of the province is being properly administered, so far as it is humanly possible. The utmost efforts are being made to see that the work is given only to those who need it, and is carried out efficiently, and that the money goes the farthest.
While some people say that the town of Cobalt is on the down grade, I still think it has a long life before it. It is however a great centre for working men, especially miners, and a great deal of work is carried on in that town. On November 2, 1931, a letter was addressed to me by the mayor of the town of Cobalt. I do not know what his politics are, but I expect he voted for me. The letter is as follows:
Honourable Sir,-
I have read with surprise and much concern certain statements attributed to Honourable Peter Heenan in the Ottawa Citizen of October 26, 1931, and which embody sweeping denunciations of governmental administration of works in northern Ontario.
While I have no direct know-ledge of conditions in the western part of northern Ontario I can speak with a reasonable degree of confidence concerning the conditions as they are in this section since I have, owing to unemployment conditions, been in fairly close touch with road work and other development here. The w-ork is going forward apace and I have not found that political affiliations have been an impediment to the employment of any man or class of men otherwise qualified.
I feel further that the majority of people in this part of the province are satisfied with the conduct of affairs as at present administrated.
It is true and in the very nature of things that in the opening up of northern Ontario to travel and transportation and in the develop-

Unemployment-Mr. Woodsworth
ment of our vast virgin resources the demands of local authorities on both governments are great and in all likelihood you will find these authorities rapping at the door of the government for some time to come but that is no indication of lacking appreciation for the sympathetic consideration of our appeals and demands in the past.
It is quite conceivable that a continuous harangue of unfair criticism may find willing ears in some directions but what I consider more unfortunate is that the wholesale charges voiced in the article above referred to may tend, if persisted in, to dampen the enthusiasm of those ministers of the government whose ambition has been to open up northern Ontario and lay open to development the potential resources of which we are so proud.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) R. L. O'Gorman,
Mayor.


James Layton Ralston: That is the reason for
the letter; there is a fear that the ministers of the crown may withdraw their assistance.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Cheap.


Mr. HANSON (York Sunbury):: The reason for the letter is my hon. friend's colleague over there.


James Layton Ralston: It is certainly unsolicited testimony.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Cheap; petty stuff.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I ask hon. members to
pardon me for having quoted at such length from these various letters and papers. Sometimes very little is contributed to debate by everlastingly referring to quotations, from here, there and everywhere. At times I have thought it would be more refreshing if an hon. member were to develop an idea of his own and let us have it. Whether or not we could agree with it, at least it would be original.
So far as the government is concerned, working in harmony among themselves and with the authorities both provincial and municipal, with the industries and transportation companies, with anybody who has confidence in the future of Canada-and he who has not, I am afraid, is not the type of citizen who will get anywhere in any country-this government will proceed to coordinate its efforts, with all its various influences, in one joint effort to see, first, that the needy and the worthy are taken care of, and that there is no destitution in this land; and, secondly, that through a persistent effort we will bring this country back to normalcy faster than any other country in the world.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much indeed that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) should have introduced this resolution in the form in which he has, because, as was almost inevitable, it has led to a discussion along party lines. From the cheers which I hear in the lobby outside it would seem that we are to understand that there has been a great victory by the Conservative party because the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) has answered uhe charges of the former incumbent of that office (Mr. Heenan). I am afraid however that in the midst of this partisan debate we are forgetting the original purpose of the resolution, namely, that something should be done at the present time for the unemployed in Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not the purpose of the resolution; it is designed to make political capital.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Someone has just said that they are making political capital.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I did not say that. I said the purpose of the resolution was not to help unemployment, but to make political capital.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hear the statement of the member.


Mr. HOWARD:: Was that a question?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, a
statement of fact.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. gentleman opposite will recall very distinctly that two years ago in this house my colleague from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) introduced a resolution with regard to unemployment that led to a debate of some six days, and placed the then government in a very embarrassing position. Indeed, I have sometimes thought that the Labour group must assume some responsibility for the defeat of the Liberal government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Don't fool yourself.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We did call the
attention of the house and the country at that time to the failure of the Liberal government to tackle this great problem of unemployment. The Conservatives made a bid for votes by promising that they would cure unemployment. I will not say that they could possibly do so. I think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) is quite right when he says that unemployment in Canada is part

Unemployment-Mr. Woodsworth
of a great depression that is world wide in character; but I think in fairness he should have pointed out that that depression was already setting in when the Liberals were in power. It was already in existence when the Prime Minister, speaking across the country, promised that he would cure unemployment. At that time the Prime Minister did not recognize the world-wide character of the disease.


An hon. MEMBER:: Did you?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I don't know
whether we did or not, but I think a reference to the debates of recent years will show that we came a great deal nearer to recognizing the real position than did the majority of members at that time. All through these debates we have been stressing the economic character of our social difficulties, we are continuing to do so, and I am very glad to say that a large number of the members are beginning to recognize this aspect of the case. Certainly we did not then realize that the disease was going to spread as rapidly as it has, and I do not know that anybody else did. But we are pointing out to-day what I think is not yet recognized by the government-that this disease is not cured. In the speech from the throne the government is trying to persuade us that we are on the upgrade, that we need not expect to face any very serious difficulty in the future. We in this corner would like to point out that it is quite possible there may not be a return to the normalcy to which the Minister of Labour refers, and in any case it is not likely that any such return to prosperity will occur within the next few months. I do not know quite what the Minister of Labour meant when he referred to "normal depressions." It is most unfortunate if we have to concede that our present economic system postulates periods of prosperity succeeded by periods of depression. I am afraid that that has been more or less the case in the past, and it was for that reason that during the past few years we have endeavoured to point out the necessity of providing some form of unemployment insurance, so that when these depressions do come we would be able to safeguard the interests of the workers. Capital takes very great care to have its reserves, and I do not see why labour should not have its reserves also. Now, unfortunately, we have no time to prepare the machinery necessary to set up a scheme of unemployment insurance; we face a crisis which must be met within the next few months. As I understand the situation, the legislation which was adopted last session runs out in the course of a few days, and so [Mr- Woodsworth.]
far the government has given us no indication whatever as to what measure it proposes to bring down to meet the needs of the coming year.
One other point in the speech of the Minister of Labour that I should like to comment upon is that he distinguishes between relief and wages. I know perfectly well there is a theoretical distinction between the two. It is supposed that relief is something given by the community more or less in the form of charity, whereas wages are supposed to be that portion of production to which the employee is entitled. But I would point out to the minister that if relief wages, that is, wages paid on relief jobs, are lower than the normal rate, it is simply a question of time until the ordinary wages are dragged down more or less to the level of the relief wages. That has been very cleai-ly recognized by labour for a number of years, and under the predecessors of the Minister of Labour it was conceded that an attempt should be made to give wages on the scale then prevalent so that there should not be that danger. But apparently the minister has abandoned that plan and is content to allow wages to be paid on relief works that are much lower than those current in the various communities in which those works are being carried on. I say that such an arrangement is prejudicial to the interests of labour in this country, because if we have this pace set for the lowering of wages in one class of work, it will inevitably reflect itself in the other class.
The minister has said that the government has cooperated with the various provinces and municipalities. That is quite true, and I have nothing to say with regard to the charges which have been made as to the working conditions on relief works in northern Ontario. Possibly the scheme as a whole has been working fairly well. There have been abuses; some of those are not the fault of the federal government, but rather of the municipalities or the provincial government. But it is not that aspect that I wish to emphasize to-day. It is rather this, that something must be done in the near future, as the plan adopted last year has not been altogether satisfactory. For one thing, I do not think it is possible to carry on that plan for another year by reason of the financial state of the provinces. Several of the provinces are almost on the verge of bankruptcy. In my own province of Manitoba only a few days ago the provincial savings bank-which ought to be the most secure institution in the country-had to close its doors. I understand it has assets which ultimately will be realizable, and that the

Unemployment-Mr. Woodsworth
accounts have been transferred to chartered banks. But it seems to me a most serious thing that our province is in such a bad condition financially that we have had to close our savings bank. How can we go on applying relief in Manitoba when the province is in that situation? In defending a certain policy the premier of another western province recently said to me, "I have to take this action whether I like it or not; I hate to be the first to declare bankruptcy." When the provinces are in such a shaky condition as that I do not quite see how we can go on with an arrangement which will call upon the provinces to contribute a very large proportion for relief purposes.
If the provinces are in a bad condition financially, the municipalities are in a worse condition. Many rural municipalities in the west are virtually bankrupt. Some of our cities-if the truth has to be told-have very considerable overdrafts at the bank, and they hardly know how to meet their expenses during the next few weeks, or how they can possibly balance their budgets. So I do not see how it will be possible for the municipalities to continue to carry the load they have carried in the past. Again, private agencies have up to the present given considerable assistance. People have been willing to contribute to charitable agencies; old clothing has been distributed; rentals have been paid; in some cases Christmas baskets and even steady food supplies have been furnished by private agencies. That is particularly true in eastern Canada, but the treasuries of these charitable agencies are becoming depleted, and more than that, owing to the general depression those who usually have given through those charitable institutions now are no longer able to contribute. So that is the situation we face, the private agencies not able to do so much, the municipalities, in the west at least, almost , on the verge of bankruptcy, and many of the provinces not knowing which way to turn and even having to come to the federal government to get help in order to carry on from day to day.
Now let me direct attention for a few moments to the actual situation which exists in my own city of Winnipeg, for example. The report of the unemployment committee for the city council for the week ending January 31, 1932, shows that on relief, as of February 1, there were 5,299 married men, an increase of 186 over the previous week; 5,145 single men, a decrease of 167 as compared with the previous week, and 598 women, married and single, an increase of 20. The relief spent
during the week amounted to $76,000. The relief to single men was not included in this amount, nor was the cost of looking after transients; that was the amount spent upon those having recognized claims upon the municipality. That is an enormous burden for a small city to carry, and that city cannot possibly continue to carry such a burden for much longer.
Notwithstanding the long drawn out depression an attempt has been made to treat the people resident in Winnipeg fairly well; at least I can say they have received a good deal better treatment than has been given in some other municipalities. But at the meeting of the city council on February 1 the rates were cut down; previously a small family received $3.49 a week for food, and that was cut to $3 a week. I believe that works out to 41 cents, or less than 5 cents a meal for each small family. I cannot see how any family can exist on 5 cents a meal, even though at present vegetables may be cheap and the farmer not getting a very high price for his products. In the parliamentary restaurant we have to pay 75 cents or $1 for a meal, and there are other restaurants in the city where each individual meal costs $1 or SI .50. This amount of 5 cents a meal is for a whole family, a man and his wife and perhaps a small child.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Someone across the way thinks this is a great joke. I can hardly see how any man who has a family of his own can laugh when I am discussing a matter of this kind, affecting the welfare of thousands of our fellow citizens. They may say I am a joke, if they like.


Mr. SPOTTON:: We do not think it is a
joke; we did not hear it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There was a laugh went up, and I do not propose to let derisive laughter pass unchallenged during the discussion of a matter of this kind.
Then there is another thing. In my own city a committee of women, in cooperation with the Department of Health, have been making some sort of survey, and it has been found that in some 1,500 homes a child is expected within the next few weeks. These homes have been able to provide nothing whatever for the care of the baby when it arrives, and the good women of Winnipeg are setting about making some effort to provide some infants' outfits in order that the babies may be wrapped in something when they are born. In a number of the homes they have nothing

Unemployment-Mr. Woodsworth
for that purpose but newspapers, and some of the women have taken the ground that under these conditions the only thing is to attempt to have some method of birth control, because they say children should not be allowed to be born into the world where there is no provision made for them. When that position is taken by reputable women of the city of Winnipeg I say we in this house can hardly afford to laugh at the condition of some of these people who are faced with such a desperate situation.
In my own city recently they went further and adopted what I think is an altogether unjustifiable attitude. I am not blaming the federal government for this; I just want to set out the facts of the case. They asked each recipient of relief to sign the following agreement to repay:
In consideration of advances made or to be made to me, by or through the city of Winnipeg or any relief department thereof, by way of relief, I agree to pay to the said city on demand the amount of such advances, and I agree that a certificate by the treasurer of the said city shall be final and conclusive evidence against me as to the making of such advances and the amount and value thereof, and I hereby charge all my property and assets with the repayment of such advances of the value thereof.
That simply means that under the duress of starvation reputable men and women are being asked to sign a bond which places them in serfdom forever, because these people will not be in a position to repay even when they are working again. The normal wage of this country is not sufficient for that, so a great many never will be able to repay. The more conscientious will object to signing this document and will try in every possible way to avoid receiving relief. The waster, the man who does not care anything about his word, of course will sign, so it is really no guarantee that the city will receive payment, though it has a tremendously bad effect upon the recipient of relief. He feels that in his dire distress he is being forced by the city of his adoption to sign away his rights. If he has any little property that he has gathered together in the last few years it must be hypothecated to the city.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we treat the poor in an altogether different way from that in which we treat the well to do in this country, and this is the point to which I had reference in an earlier debate in this house, when I called to the attention of an hon. geptleman opposite the fact that when we were granting bonuses by way of tariff concessions to the great corporations, because of the depressed condition of the country or because of something in the industry that

the owners claimed would not allow it to compete with that of other nations, we did not insist that the amount given them should be later repaid. In this country we have given bonuses and tariff concessions to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. There is no doubt of that. We have given to large corporations during the past years, we have been giving enormous bonuses and concessions within the last few months, and we are not asking that ultimately they repay us; rather we take the general view that it is to the good of the community that they be allowed to carry on their business. But when it comes down to the workingmen of this country, who have no resources other than their labour power, we hold them up at the point of a gun, as it were, making them sign this document promising to repay. I do not think a document of that kind could be considered as legal; I do not think moneys given under these conditions would be recoverable. But that is what the working people of this country are faced with.
If all of us were poor, then I should not mind. A newspaper of my own city called attention to these things, while in another column they referred to the condition of the banks. For example, the dividend of the Bank of Montreal in 1891 was 10 per cent; it was increased ini 1919 to 12 per cent, and has remained at that rate while bonuses have been paid -from time to time. The Bank of Nova Scotia paid 8 per cent prior to 1900, when it was raised to 9 per cent; in 1916 the rate was raised to 16 per cenit and has remained at that rate. The Bank of Toronto rate was increased in 1911 to 11 per cent; in 1919 to 12 per cent, and has continued at that rate while bonuses have been declared from time to time. The Bank of Commerce rate was increased in 1906 from 7 per cent to 10 per cent, and at the present time the same rate prevails. The Royal Bank of Canada rate was increased in 1903 to 8 per cent; in 1919 it was increased to 12 peT cent, and has remained at that rate. The Imperial Bank of -Canada rate was increased in 1899 to 9 per cent; it was raised to 12 per cent in 1911, where it has remained while bonuses have been declared from time to time. I could continue to read these figures, but we are all more or less familiar with the -facts revealed in the annual statements of our banking institutions.
Many of our industrial concerns -have passed their dividends but some are still paying a very good rate, not being very far behind the peak of two or three years ago. As long as there exist in this country such lairge reserves

Unemployment-Mr. Woodsworth
of wealth, I see no reason why the poorer people who are suffering from the depression should be given such miserable pittances or should be asked to mortgage their future.
During the war we were told that there had to be equal sacrifices, but many men took advantage of that period to grow rich. Majny purchased tax-free bonds and have been drawing very good revenues since that time; with the deflation of money which has occurred they are drawing to-day twice as much as they are legitimately entitled to. As long as there are these sources of wealth, the poor in our community should receive the first consideration.
In my own city a large number of people are receiving relief and this number is increased by farmers who have come in from all over the province to try to obtain relief. I have had them come to my own door in the last stages of destitution. These men have not been able to make a success in the country and have drifted into the city in the hope that with the larger population and more charitably inclined people they would have some chance.
What is true of Winnipeg is true largely of the other western municipalities. Just before coming to Ottawa I visited Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary and Edmonton, and everywhere it was the same story. Municipalities and the provinces are almost at their wit's end, and no prospect for the future.
I receive letters almost daily from the industrial towns of Ontario-I do not know whether or not other hon. members receive similar letters; perhaps as a Labour member I receive more than my fair share-and in all these industrial towns there are large numbers of unemployed who complain bitterly of the amount of relief they receive. I spent last week end in the city of Montreal and met some of those connected with the granting of relief to girls. This is almost a new phase of the matter to me, because while we have some women and girls unemployed in the west, there is nothing like the number which exists in some of the eastern cities. Large numbers of girls are .registered in Montreal-I had hoped to have the figures here but they have not come through-and a very small amount is being given in the form of relief. The social workers complain that these girls are practically being driven out into the streets and forced to adopt all sorts of questionable means to obtain a livelihood. That is a disgrace to a country as rich as we are told Canada is, a country which is rich when viewed in the light of the statements of our banks and financial corporations.
I had a letter only the other day from Halifax describing the unemployment situation there. I do not think it is as bad proportionately in the maritimes as it is in the west, but large numbers of sailors are unemployed in Halifax, some of them having been dismissed from our own Canadian National steamships. They are wondering what they are going to do next. These sailors have reinforced the number of the unemployed already in that municipality.
From time to time we have urged upon the government the necessity of a definite plan to meet this kind of thing. Unemployment insurance has been mentioned and the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has promised that this would be brought into force during the lifetime of his government. I should like to ask him whether or not any scheme is being prepared, or is he going to adopt the attitude that because of the hard times it will be impossible for him to implement his promise. I do not put forward unemployment insurance as a cure for unemployment; that has never been done by us; it is merely a palliative. However, I contend that the insurance schemes in existence in Great Britain and on the continent are a better way of handling the situation than is the scheme adopted in this country. This unemployment insurance has been referred to as the dole, but there is no dole so demoralizing as the dole given at the doors of our mission houses and soup kitchens where some of our people have to apply for help. The other has some semblance of dignity; a man who contributes when he is working feels that he has some right to the insurance. When your house burns down you feel you have a right to the insurance for which you have paid. The methods adopted here regarding relief to the unemployed are of the most haphazard nature that could be imagined, and I hope the government has not in view the carrying forward for another year of any such scheme.
I should like to deal for a moment with the demoralizing effects of charity without work. It may be that some of the higher-ups can accept a large salary for a nominal job- there are certain sinecures which exist even yet-without experiencing any demoralizing effect, but I am a bit doubtful. When a man spends day after day looking for work without success, when he is forced to hang around the unemployment agency, when he spends week after week and month after month visiting the soup kitchens, he is not only unemployed but usually becomes unemployable. But what about the wife at home? She is worrying over whether or not there will be a sufficient supply of food for her

450	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Woodsworth
family; she is faced with the necessity of having to go to some charitable institution to obtain supplies and having to submit to the inquisition of a charity visitor. Such visits may be very necessary from the standpoint of the municipality, but from the standpoint of the home, it is absolutely demoralizing. Yet this is the plan we are carrying out in this country.
The present arrangements will run out within a few days but no indication was contained in the speech from the throne or in any utterance of the Prime Minister as to what is being proposed for next year. The estimates indicate that there is an increase in the vote for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, a very sinister thing. It is quite possible that part of this increase may be accounted for by the fact that we are taking over the policing of Alberta. It is barely possible that some may be accounted for because of the proposal to take over the policing of other places. That I do not know, but it looks very bad to me that our police force, which is practically a military one, should be increased at this time. Surely the government is not taking the position that the way to settle this unemployment question is to shoot down those who are unemployed. Is that what this means? I see one or two of my hon. friends opposite shaking their heads. Probably they think this is not what it means, but what else are we to infer from these increased figures? If the force were increased and if at the same time there were any provision for increased constructive work, I might not be so apprehensive; but when we have no constructive measures and when, on the other hand, we have an indication of repressive measures, what am I to think? Last year when the military estimates were under discussion, I said that we had come to the point in this country where we had to recognize that the military were here, not for repelling some foreign enemy, but in order to shoot down our own people.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How does the hon. member then interpret the cut of several million dollars this year in the military estimates?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I understand that
is chiefly in the air force, and I would point out that a part of the air service in any case has been used for civil work.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: The hon. member knows there is a much greater reduction in the agriculture estimates than in the military.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes. Just on this very point, I think the air force is the only 
part of the force that has been used for civil work, and it is precisely that part which is being cut down. That does not interfere with my statement that on the whole the military forces of this country are being maintained not to repel some foreign enemy but to shoot down our own Canadian people.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nonsense 1


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame!


James Shaver Woodsworth: Some hon. members say "no" and "shame."


An hon. MEMBER:: Nonsense.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Hon. gentlemen
repudiate this, but let me read what was said by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) before the League of Nations on September 9, 1931. He said:
We maintain only such military, naval and air forces as are necessary for the maintenance of law and order within our own border.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That was said by
the Minister of Justice before the great assembly of the League of Nations.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Read the rest of it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have the rest
under my hand. It was right along that line.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it is not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Those are the
words of the Minister of Justice, which the Minister of Trade and Commerce does not contradict.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What does the hon. member want us to contradict?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will read the
statement again.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of Justice
made one of the most eloquent appeals for peace that was made at the assembly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, he made an
eloquent appeal for peace. I heard him deliver it. He said: We in Canada do not want to repel any foreign enemy; we do not have to have a military force; we have no enemies east or west; we have a friendly republic to the south, and so on. He said: We do not need any forces for defence purposes in Canada, we are not like some countries in Europe, and then he said this:
We maintain only such military, naval and air forces as are necessary for the maintenance of law and order within our own border.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is the hon. gentleman
opposed to that view?

Unemployment-Mr. Reid


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is not the
point in question. I shall deal with that when we come to the military estimates.


Mr. MORAND:: The hon. member speaks
every day. We hear the same thing again and again.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I shall speak every day if it pleases me, when under the rules of the house I have the right to do so.


Edward James Young: If the Prime Minister permits the hon. member.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, if the Prime
Minister permits me; but let me point out to some of his followers opposite that their leader was elected from the constituency of West Calgary and I was elected from the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre, and constitutionally, whatever may be the practice in the house, I have the same rights on the floor of this chamber as has the Prime Minister. Those who object to my speaking so often may well turn and ask how far their leader monopolizes the business of the house.
I want, however, to come back to this point which I think is worthy of consideration. I had, indeed, no intention whatever, until I was interrupted by hon. gentlemen opposite, of saying anything with regard to the tactics of the opposition, but when I am interrupted I am forced to resort to that. What I want to emphasize is this, that so far the government has given us no indication of any constructive measures.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Neither has the hon.
member.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not according to British practice that the opposition should be called upon to formulate policies. We are given no opportunity of doing so. The government, I think they will admit, do not accept them when we do advance them.


An hon. MEMBER:: You have none.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, we have
policies. I have suggested one of them to-day as a palliative, that is, an unemployment insurance scheme instead of the present method of dealing with the question. My colleague the other day suggested another palliative, namely, a shorter work day. That was not accepted. We have suggested that instead of raising money the way we do, we should raise it by a steeply graded inheritance and income tax. That proposal is not acceptable to hon. gentlemen opposite, and so they tell us that we have no policies. I suggested that if we are to cut down the wages paid to the civil servants and to labour generally, 41761-291
there was no reason why the wages of capital should not be cut down. Supposing we cut down the wages of capital by 10 per cent; immediately there is an uproar from the other side of the house because they do not accept our solutions, our constructive suggestions. I should like to see-


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Lawson):: I would direct the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that his time has expired.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this amendment in connection with unemployment, and I am sorry the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) is not in his place. I wish to refer particularly to the relief measures in British Columbia under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act which was passed at the last session of parliament.
As hon. members will remember, the question of the seriousness of unemployment throughout the dominion was stressed at various times by many hon. members on this side, and in passing I might say with regard to this that rather an unfair statement was made to one of the municipalities in my constituency when, in answer to their request to Ottawa for financial aid and as to what steps were being taken to combat unemployment distress, they were informed on July 29 of last year:
Parliament has been sitting roughly five months and seldom has there been so much talk, so much obstruction of public business at a time when action was so badly needed. Happily the end of the session draws near.
These remarks were very unfair and uncalled for to be made in reply to the municipality of Burnaby when it was asking for further aid.
I wish to speak with particular reference, however, to the operations of the act affecting British Columbia and the serious condition of some of the municipalities which have been endeavouring to cope with an unemployment situation such as never was contemplated since their formation as municipal areas. When parliament met in 1931 unemployment was not a new issue. In the session of 1931 figures were given and many instances cited to show that unemployment had indeed grown much worse. I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) was seized of the acuteness of the distress and the general discontent prevailing throughout the dominion, and at his request parliament voted an unnamed sum of money in the form of a blank cheque, as the Prime Minister said it was not known just what sum would be required to meet the unemployment situation. He assured the house how-
Unemployment-Mr. Reid

ever that no one in Canada would be allowed to starve. The undue burden which had been placed on various municipalities up to the session of 1931 had been many times drawn to the attention of the government. It will be remembered that from the beginning of 1930 up to the session of 1931 both this government and its predecessor had maintained that it was primarily the duty of the municipalities to take care of their indigent poor. The situation in British Columbia by August of last year had assumed alarming proportions. Thousands of unemployed had congregated in coast cities like Vancouver and were living under conditions which were not at all good either for themselves or the cities. Immediate action was demanded by the cities and municipalities, which already had spent every dollar in an effort to relieve the situation. They had reached the end of their financial resources, and they besought both the dominion and provincial governments that further financial aid be given, or in the alternative they asked these governments to take over the burden of the unemployment situation. While no definite promise was made to any municipality as to what help would be forthcoming, I am of the opinion that the statements made by the right hon. the Prime Minister, which were given wide publicity in the press, with respect to the assistance which the various municipalities could expect and the proportions which the dominion and provincial governments would contribute, were relied upon. I have here a copy of the statement that was published throughout the province on September 5, purporting to give the exact words which the Prime Minister had telegraphed to Premier Tolmie of British Columbia. It reads:
Prime Minister Bennett wired Dr. Tolmie as follows:-
Then follow the exact words of the Prime Minister:
"As there appears to be some misunderstanding regarding the relative responsibility of the Dominion and provinces for relief measures, may I again point out that any effort on the part of the Dominion to undertake the direction of purely provincial or municipal undertakings would be in derogation of the constitutional rights of the provinces."
"We have indicated that we are prepared to make most generous contributions, subject to effective supervision, to enable the provinces to provide employment for large numbers of persons. We have further concluded that in addition to our responsibility for purely federal undertakings and assistance direct to provincial undertakings, we will contribute one-half the cost of approved relief undertakings, in British Columbia cities and towns, and will loan to your province the additional one-half, leaving to you the responsibility of making satisfactory

arrangements with such cities and towns as to their contributions, on the assumption that they will deliver to the province their bonds as security, and that treasury bills of the province will be delivered to our government for the one-half thus loaned."
"We are particularly interested in immediate action being taken to relieve the unemployment in large centres. Please advise what undertakings are now under way, and the number of men employed."
Some responsibility must be accepted by the Dominion government in this matter. * The government was well aware of the acuteness of the situation prevailing at that time and also of the financial condition of many of the municipalities. Knowing all this, and the government having received a blank cheque for any amount necessary for the purpose of relieving unemployment, it was felt that the promise of aid should have been carried out; but that it was not carried out is very evident in many districts of British Columbia. Later I shall cite a particular case in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, namely at Burnaby; and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not the only municipality that finds itself in financial difficulties due to the great burden cast upon it in the matter of handling unemployment relief work. As to unemployment relief works carried out by the provincial government, I intend to leave that matter till another occasion. At this time I wish to speak with particular reference to conditions generally.
An agreement was signed on August 19 of last year by Hon. S. F. Tolmie, representing the province of British Columbia, and the Hon. Gideon Robertson, then Minister of Labour, representing the dominion, and was subsequently approved by order in council. It specified the proportion that would be paid by the dominion government on unemployment relief work and on relief work jointly undertaken as between the province and the dominion, and also the various amounts as between the municipalities and the dominion, showing in each instance the proportion which the Dominion government would contribute to all such undertakings. With that agreement I can find no particular fault, but I do say, Mr. Speaker, that the Dominion government should have accepted the statements and assurances given by reesponsible dominion cabinet ministers to some of the municipalities and to the province of British Columbia. The then Minister of Labour was the one member of the cabinet who was in closest touch with the situation, and it was generally recognized when discussing agreements with him that any recommendations that were acceptable to him would be approved by the cabinet. That certain promises of work and

Unemployment-Mr. Reid
schedules of work were given approval by the then Minister of Labour there can be no doubt. It would certainly appear that there was some grave misunderstanding in this matter which persists even now, notwithstanding the remarks of the present Minister of Labour.
I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour to the fact that some of these agreements were approved, but not signed, in the presence of the Minister of Public Works for the province of British Columbia and the then Minister of Labour, the Hon. Senator Robertson. I will mention three or four of them in my own riding. There was the agreement with Richmond municipality which was approved by the then Minister of Labour and the province of British Columbia, involving an amount of $100,000. There was the city of New Westminster agreement, which was approved by the then Minister of Labour, involving an amount of $200,000. The Burnaby municipality project was approved by the then Minister of Labour in the presence of the Minister of Public Works at Victoria to the amount of some $400,000, although in all instances the schemes which had been proposed by these municipalities were almost 25 per cent and in some cases 50 per cent greater than the schedules agreed to by the then Minister of Labour. To show that I am not alone in my contention I should like to quote a letter sent out by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities to the right hon. Prime Minister, dated January 27, 1932. It reads:
Representatives of thirty-five British Columbia municipalities of the lower mainland and Vancouver island met provincial cabinet at an all-day session re unemployment. Provincial ministers allowed us to peruse all correspondence between Dominion and provincial governments from the time Senator Robertson, Minister of Labour, made certain arrangements and agreed to certain undertakings with provincial government.
I have read that first part and shall probably read the whole of the telegram sent to the Prime Minister to show that I and the municipalities in my riding are not alone in understanding that the agreements were signed or approved by the then Minister of Labour.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, some cities and municipalities had met the then Minister of Labour in company with the Minister of Public Works of British Columbia, Mr. Bruhn, and presented for their approval projects and estimates of relief works proposed to be undertaken by them. I say again that the Dominion government should have honoured these approvals, even if they were given in
only a verbal way; because if there was one minister capable of representing the Dominion government at that time, and especially capable of making agreements with any province or municipality, surely it must have been the then Minister of Labour, who, as I say, was more thoroughly acquainted with the acute condition prevailing from one end of Canada to the other than any other member of the cabinet.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce, another member of the cabinet, had been interviewed, and so far as I can learn he did not object to the schemes put forward. He also gave some assurance that so far as he was concerned he would do all within his power to have the projects sanctioned. He said he believed he had the support of his colleagues at Ottawa. The general impression was-and there were ample grounds for such an impression-that the work would be begun immediately as a relief measure for the thousands of unemployed in that province. It would appear that the provincial government had every assurance that public works on a scale never before seen in British Columbia would be proceeded with by the provincial government. About 170 camps were constructed throughout the various parts of the province. Tools, equipment, machinery and supplies were purchased in a lavish manner. As I have already indicated, however, that is another story of which undoubtedly more will be heard.
While there is no doubt that the schedule or program of work had been submitted by the various municipalities to the province of British Columbia and had been in its hands for some time, it did not reach Ottawa until October 2S. The Dominion government must have had some knowledge that relief works had commenced, and it was well known by them that there was acute need throughout the province. In fact, in some districts feeling was running so high among the unemployed that the urgency of the situation demanded some action by way of relief work.
A shock was received in British Columbia when the schedules for work submitted by the province, which included not only provincial projects but municipal projects as well, were not accepted. At least the federal government should have accepted those undertakings which had been accepted by the provincial legislature on behalf of the municipalities.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: May I call the hon. member's attention to the rule which prohibits the reading of speeches?
Unemployment-Mr. Reid


Thomas Reid: Mr. Speaker, I am merely fallowing my notes. It may well have been that the program of works and relief measures which had been commenced by the provincial government, and for which large expenditures and commitments had been made, did not meet with the approval of the Dominion government. I am of opinion that perhaps there was some justification for that attitude; but I say that so far as schedules or relief works submitted on behalf of the municipalities were concerned, there should have been an acceptance in full. I say the full program of undertakings should have been accepted by the Dominion government or the Dominion authorities. The various municipalities in my opinion were in that regard unfairly treated, because in the first instance they were led to understand that if unable to carry out any relief projects the Dominion government would come to the rescue by giving them 50 per cent of the cost of all relief work, and 33$ per cent of direct relief expenditures. At the same time loans would be made to the provinces to enable municipalities to take care of the 25 per cent of the proportion which, under the agreement entered into, they would have to meet.
After submitting their program of works and in some instances going the length of enacting by-laws, the municipalities were in the majority of instances informed that the total sums as submitted and agreed upon could not be granted. This information was given to them after the Dominion government had stated clearly to British Columbia that the total amounts as submitted for all relief purposes were too great. The municipalities were informed that the amounts as agreed upon could not be proceeded with, and that their schedules of work would have to be amended.
Before I pass on to further subjects I should like to draw to the attention of the government the fact that many of these municipalities had gone the length of submitting by-laws to their people. One municipality I have in mind, that of Richmond, had been given an assurance of a total expenditure of $100,000, and had spent the sum of $54,000 before they were told that their total allotment would be only 50,000. The municipality of Coquitlam in the constituency of my hon. friend for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) had submitted a by-law providing for the sum of $34,800. That municipality had purchased equipment and made all arrangements to begin work before they were informed that their program must not exceed an expenditure of $19,000. The municipality of Burnaby,
TMr Speaker.]
which in the first instance hoped to expend $780,000 under its unemployment work, and received permission from the then Minister of Labour to expend the sum of $400,000, were notified that their expenditures must be cut to $380,000. The city of New Westminster, which had submitted a program involving an expenditure of $400,000, of which the sum of $200,000 had been agreed to, were notified that their program would have to be cut down to $95,000. That city was hit particularly hard because it had made contracts for the buying of material, and had launched out on a program of work with the clear understanding, -and with at least some semblance of authority-that their claim for $200,000 would be granted. As I have said, after their program was under way and material had been contracted for, they were informed that their total expenditure must not exceed S95,000.
One cannot go too extensively into this subject because all the details of transactions, have not yet been placed upon the table. When New Westminster approached the provincial government asking why their expenditure had been cut they were told that Ottawa was responsible because a bridge was to be constructed in the locality of Ladner the erection of which would necessitate the engagement of about 1,500 men. As that project was to be proceeded with, therefore New Westminster would not require $200,000 for unemployment relief. Telegrams and communications concerning the erection of the bridge were shown to a delegation from the city council of New Westminster who visited the city of Victoria, asking why their grant had been cut.
I say therefore that the Dominion should have accepted the agreements entered into in good faith by the municipalities many of which had been given approval by the then Minister of Labour whilst in the city of Vancouver. The municipalities cannot be blamed for going ahead with the work. The distress of the people was of primary importance, and if the government had been taking any note of what was being done in that province they would have realized that when the schedules were rearranged a drastic cut had in some instances been made. Reductions to the extent of 50 per cent were common, while, on the other hand, other municipalities were permitted to proceed with the programs first submitted by them. Further, some cities and municipalities had their allotments actually increased. So that if the government's intention was to cut down British Columbia's allotment, that object was not fairly achieved on the schedules

Unemployment-Mr. Reid
as presented by the provincial government, because these schedules, as I have said, cut certain municipalities and cities in some instances more than 50 per cent, other municipalities were allowed to proceed with their original program as O.K.'d by the provincial authorities, and others again were actually given an increase over what they had originally asked for. In due time some explanation should be given by the Minister of Labour or by some other member of the government as to why British Columbia was limited in the manner I have shown. It was fully expected that between $7,000,000 and $8,000,000 would be spent for the relief of unemployment in the province, as it was contemplated that at least 20,000 men would be given employment, although over 50,000 men had registered. And they registered under oath. I have before me a copy of the oath if any hon. member would care to see it.
I now desire to confine my remarks to the misunderstanding that exists between the provincial and the federal government. It has affected unemployment relief work in the province and has caused considerable grief in some municipalities. When British Columbia b program of work was rejected it came as a bombshell and the premier of that province could hardly understand the decision reached by the federal authorities. His statement in the Daily Province of October 27, 1931, was that Mr. Jones, the provincial Minister of Finance, was then on his way to Ottawa. I might quote his own words when he was informed that Ottawa had not accepted the province's program of work. Mark you, this information came to him while Mr. Jones was on his way to Ottawa and had not yet reached the capital. Premier Tolmie said:
Mr. Jones has in his portfolio documents to prove definitely that the province did not embark on its present program and did not announce plans for extending the Pacific Great Eastern railway without full authority for doing so.
This government insists that the federal government, through Senator Robertson, Minister of Labour, and Hon. H. H. Stevens, Minister of Trade and Commerce, insisted on an early start on work and promised to pay half the cost. In one telegram the federal government said it would not accept any responsibility for further delay in public works.
The newspaper makes this comment:
It had been known here for some time, and announced in these columns, that the federal government regarded the British Columbia works program as too large though this was denied officially in Ottawa. What staggered the provincial government to-day was the report that, having summoned Mr. Jones to negotiate, the federal government had announced that it had rejected his plans before his arrival. This
was incomprehensible to the provincial authorities and made them wonder what would come out of Mr. Jones' mission.
Regarding that misunderstanding, I am going to cite one clear cut example-its effect on the municipality of Burnaby. The municipality were given to understand that before they started work they would be financed either by the province or by the dominion. They were told on good authority to formulate their plans and that a loan would be made them up to any amount which they cared to take. With this understanding they approved a program of $400,000. I have not time to place on Hansard the number of telegrams that passed between the municipality, the provincial government, and the Dominion government, but the size of the file I hold in my hand will give hon. members some idea of the number of messages sent. So bad did the situation become that the bank told the municipality they would not accept the word of the provincial government in regard to finances. On receiving this intimation the municipality shut down the work. The municipality financed the whole project, although given to understand that if they contributed 25 per cent the provincial government would give bonds to the Dominion government for their proportion. The municipality have spent a total of $311,000 on that program, towards which they have received only $132,125 up to the 21st of this month. They are spending a thousand dollars a day on direct relief, and have been called upon to bear the whole of that capital expenditure. Their council have been almost distracted in their endeavour to cope with this embarrassing situation. That some misunderstanding does prevail is evident from a telegram sent to the reeve of the municipality by the Hon.
S.	F. Tolmie on January 21, showing that not only he but his Minister of Finance were under the impression that the money sent by the federal government had been intended for some other purpose, and not to pay any share of the municipality's proportion of the relief work undertaken. The premier told the municipal authorities that as soon as he received a cheque from the federal government the municipality would be paid. He has told them that all the vouchers have been sent to Ottawa and that the provincial government has borne any expenditure which has been made by the municipality. In spite of the statements made by the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) a few days ago to the effect that over $2,500,000 dollars has been spent, the provincial government still assert that they are awaiting payment from the
Unemployment-Mr. Reid


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton South):: His Honour the Speaker, has been called away for a few hours and has asked me to preside in his absence, and in doing so I ask the indulgence of the house.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gagnon for the second reading of Bill No. 14, to amend the Civil Service Act.
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, a few evenings ago when the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) moved the second reading of this bill, I expressed some astonishment that such a proposal should come from a member of the Conservative party, the party chiefly responsible for the placing upon the statute book of the Civil Service Act. It is to the credit of that party that it has always shown unswerving allegiance to the merit system. I am tempted to ask the question: What is the attitude of the government to-day towards this particular measure? It is well known that last year the attitude was adverse, but I am not so sure what it is this year; although it is almost unthinkable that that party should reverse its well known policy.
During his remarks the hon. member for Dorchester stated that certain doubts which had existed as to the attitude of the government towards this bill had been removed. What was the doubt as to the attitude of the government which has been removed? Was it that the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) intended to have this bill go to the committee with the appearance of having passed the second reading, when in fact it had not passed? I do not know what was meant, but

Civil Service Act-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
there is a sinister sound in the suggestion tha:t the attitude of the government has changed. I sincerely hope that it has not changed.
I was disappointed in hearing the hon. member draw Doctor Grant into the discussion as being a supporter of a measure of this kind. Doctor Grant of Upper Canada college has been a supporter of the merit principle all his life. He has fought for it unswervingly for many years and the attempt to use any writings or sayings of his in support of a bill of this kind is nothing but a misrepresentation of his position. I have since secured copies of the articles from which the hon. member quoted, which quotations I challenged at the time. If any hon. member will read Doctor Grant's statements he will find that there is not one single line or sentence which challenges the merit principle of the Civil Service Act. All that Doctor Grant does is to challenge the administration of the act under the present commission.
I share many of the views held by Doctor Grant in that connection. I would point out that this bill does not in any way alter the position of the commission. The hon. member does not suggest what Doctor Grant has suggested, a one-man commission; he asks that the commission continue with abbreviated powers, that it shall administer to a certain degree the inside service but that the work in connection with the outside service and in connection with the merit system generally be put aside.
The hon. member alleged that this bill embodied the recommendations made by the Senate committee of 1924, known as the Beique committee, and by the Malcolm committee of 1923. When the hon. member made that statement I realized that he had not read the reports of these committees, much less the evidence upon which they were based. The only possible similarity between either of these reports and the bill is the second paragraph of the bill, which repeats almost word for word one section of the recommendations of the Senate committee of 1924. I could find no similarity in the Malcolm report. The Senate committee's recommendations were made in an effort to cut down the number of civil servants and not to jeopardize the principle of the Civil Sendee Act.
In discussing the general administration of the act the hon. member gave one or two pithy illustrations which seemed to amuse the house at the time. Hon. members who were present will remember his reference to the recent vacancy of the position of chief page of this house. To the intense amusement of those hon. members around him, and I regret to say of some to my right, he told a story of how candidates were asked to write an essay on the League of Nations, which story was received with loud ridicule. I have made it my business to secure a copy of the examination paper, and I have it before me. It is a perfectly understandable and comprehensive examination for a position of this kind. The hon. member did not explain that the position of chief page in this house is one of some little responsibility, as it concerns the comfort and convenience of the members of this chamber. The chief page must be able to direct the minor pages where to secure the necessary material which may be required by hon. members, and he must have some knowledge of what hon. members are talking about. In order that it might be assured that an efficient person should be in charge of the pages of this house, the commission submitted the following examination paper, upon which I challenge any hon. member to cast ridicule. The first question is:
Tell what you know of any three of the following:
It is significant that the hon. member was not quite accurate in his statement; he said the candidates had to write an essay on the League of Nations, whereas they could select any three of the following subjects upon which to write:
The recent activities of the League of Nations; the present British government; Remembrance Day; shipping wheat via the Hudson bay route.
That is perhaps the only ridiculous item. The question continues:
The National Service Loan; the 1931 census.
The second question is a collection of names and numbers which are to be arranged in alphabetical and numerical sequence. Questions 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are problems in simple arithmetic; surely this qualification should be required of the chief page. Question No. 8 is as follows:
(a)	How- many members are there in the House of Commons?
(b)	How is the number of members for each province determined?
My French Canadian colleagues would certainly agree a question like that might well be asked of any page of the house, much less a chief of pages. Then there are these questions:
9.	(a) What is the seating arrangement of the House of Commons?
(b) On which side of the speaker's chair do the government members sit?
10.	Who is the speaker in the present House of Commons? the government leader? the leader of the opposition?
458	COMMONS
Civil Service Act-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
Surely these are intelligible questions to ask.
11.	Give the names of five cabinet ministers and the departments they administer.
An examination of this kind might well be one of the qualifications for a member of 'the House of Commons, and especially for some civil servants; because I had in my office one who claimed he had been sixteen years in the civil service and he did not know the name of the Minister of Immigration in the last government.
12.	Explain briefly any five of the following with reference to parliamentary procedure: mace; quorum; division; adjournment; prorogation: dissolution; legal limitation of duration of parliament.
Therefore I submit the hon. member for Dorchester has completely failed to make any case on the basis of his facetious remarks about the League of Nations and the chief of pages of the house.
The next reference he made was one that could have been made only by a man who did not acquaint himself with the facts but who relied on hearsay evidence or statements of some persons who had filled him up with stories of this kind. I am quoting from his speech in connection with a vacancy for the position of expert mechanic in the marine signals branch in the Department of Marine at Quebec. He said:
One of the three men who were appointed to act as examiners was the janitor of St. Patrick's church in the city of Quebec.
Surely the hon. member could have verified that before he made the statement. A person who was not a friend of the Civil Service Act must have prompted the suggestion, and my hon. friend used it. As a matter of fact the following is what took place, because I inquired of the commission about the matter in order to verify the facts. The applicants for this position were orally examined by Mr. F. V. Moffatt, superintendent of Lights of the Department of Marine, Quebec, and the Reverend Brother Germain, Director-not janitor -of the Christian Brothers' Commercial school, Quebec, as the commission's representative and a representative of the Canadian Legion. It was a fairly good body of examiners, as the result shows. What was the result? The applicants were rated on their experience, intelligence, personal qualifications and physical fitness, and as a result of the ratings Mr. J.	J. Kiley, a returned soldier with extensive experience as mechanic and fitter, was selected for the appointment and has been found by the department to be satisfactory in every way. A certificate in favour of this gentleman was furnished prior to the examination by Mr. B. J. Kaine, marine agent at Quebec.

That disposes of the pleasant little canard with reference to the janitor of St. Patrick's church or any other church in Quebec.
The hon. member also cast ridicule upon the present method of appointing postmasters and submitted-imagine an intelligent member of the house doing so!-that a member of a constituency is better fitted than the Civil Service Commission to appoint postmasters. What are the facts? We all know from our personal experience the pressure that is brought to bear upon us from every quarter. We know very well that sincere and hardworking individuals, meeting hard times, will come and say: Look here, Garland or Jones or Bennett, I am up against it; my crop has failed this year; my family is growing up; I have to have some money; I am tired of the farm anyway and I would like a job as a postmaster or a boiler mechanic or something else; cannot you get me into the service? The pressure is unrelenting, persistent under the patronage system. The average member has little idea of the qualifications required in a postmaster, and if he has the giving of the appointment will on many occasions give it to a friend without regard to his qualifications. But what is the position under the merit system? Let us say that under the merit system a vacancy has been created or has occurred. The position is advertised. The people in that district may apply. Applications are sent in. An examination is held by the post office inspector of the district. This gentleman is a man who has worked himself up in that branch of the civil service until his decisions are certainly entitled to be regarded as having some authority and weight. He gives the applicants a thorough examination in regard to the following qualifications:
1.	Training and experience.
2.	Personal qualifications.
3.	Standing in the community.
4.	The location and accommodation he is willing to offer for the post office.
The fourth is a technical qualification. The post office inspector then rates the applicants in the order of merit and submits the list to Ottawa. The Civil Service Commission then verifies the facts as set forth, especially with regard to qualifications and soldier preference, and having verified the facts, awards the position. That is an infinitely preferable situation for the sake of both the member himself and the whole service, to throwing the outside service, including postmasters, into the hands of the distributors of the old type of political patronage.
The method adopted by the Civil Service Commission in connection with outside

Civil Service Act-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
appointments, technical or otherwise, is to appoint a local examining board, one or more of whom shall be representative directly of the commission. For example, supposing an architect is required, let us say in Winnipeg. This is a technical position. What is done in such a case? A board is appointed consisting of a local architect, a man well known in his profession, the district architect of the Department of Public Works and a third architect. Such a board is certainly far more capable than a member of parliament to pass upon applications for a position of that kind.
I might not know the qualifications of an architect; in fact I am quite free to admit I would not. This bill takes no recognition of that; it would exclude the entire outside service from the Civil Service Commission and throw it once more into the hands of patronage. I wonder if hon. members know what that means? Before I tell them what it means, let me make this citation to the hon. member. He called in as witnesses on his behalf, but he did not show how they were witnesses, the Beique report and the Malcolm report. Both of these reports come out stubbornly and definitely for the merit system. The Beique report states:
Your committee is convinced that the method of appointment and promotion by competition (usually known as the merit system) is preferable. in every way, to advancement by favour or influence. In support of this principle may be cited the findings of a number of committees. extracts from which wall be found in the appendix to this report.
This bill is certainly not following out the Beique report in that regard. Then the Malcolm report has this to say:
Your committee is of the opinion that the two fundamental principles of the Civil Service Act are the merit system and the system of appointment by competitive examination, and that both these principles must be preserved.
Again I ask my hon. friend to substantiate his claim that this bill is modeled after either or both of these reports. It was a ridiculous assertion and had no foundation in fact. The passing of this bill would throw the whole civil service of Canada back to the period of 1908 and you would again have the same old struggle against the hordes of patronage until you established a worth while, businesslike civil service act. Do not let me be misunderstood. I believe there is incorrect administration of the present act; I am not satisfied with it. Sufficient has come to my attention in the last three or four years to convince me that the government is on the right track when it proposes a committee of investigation. But that is an entirely different thing from passing a bill to sabotage the entire merit
principle. I am utterly against the bill and am absolutely in favour of an investigation. This bill should be defeated and the committee appointed. We can then, as a result of the committee's findings, determine what amendments, if any, are necessary to the Civil Service Act, and what reorganization of the Civil Service Commission is necessary if a reorganized commission is decided upon.
Secondly, this bill will radically alter the whole method of promotion. It will leave in the hands of the ministers and deputy ministers-and in their hands alone, mark you -the whole power of promotion even within the inside service. Imagine what a hopeless position the whole service would be in if it is to be again subject to the miserable, petty, personal elements which prevailed for so many years before the Civil Service Act came into force.
Lastly, but among the most important of all considerations to which I direct the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite, the passing of this bill will almost completely destroy the effectiveness of the returned soldier preference in respect of at least thirty thousand positions. Why do I say that? This bill does not say that the returned soldier preference shall be abolished, but it does exclude from the operation of the Civil Service Act, under which the soldier preference has existed, the entire outside service, including also, by modification, the merit system with respect to the inside service. What has happened that would justify my statement that this would mean almost the entire destruction of the returned soldier preference? That is a point upon which I wish to dwell; for I am satisfied that no hon. gentleman opposite, on being acquainted with the facts and faced with the actual conditions that will arise, will support this bill. I therefore press this particular point upon them in view of their protestations in the past.
The Veteran, the official organ of the returned soldiers, some few years ago made an analysis into the operation of the soldier preference in respect of positions excluded from the operation of the act. Hon. members of this house who were here in past years will recollect that the late administration, much to its discredit and much to my disappointment and over my adverse vote and speech, did exclude from the operation of the Civil Service Act some 18.000 odd positions. More than that, 12,000 positions were excluded from the operation of the act in one order in council alone. The Veteran decided to make an examination, and they found out this, and
460	COMMONS
Civil Service Act-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
published it in the form of two tables. The first table shows the number of male appointments to the civil service by the Civil Service Commission for the years from 1920 to 1924, both inclusive, as follows:
Veteran percentage
of total
Year	appointments
1920		 49'4	-
1921		 50-21
1922		 53-18
1923		 57-85
1924		 59-2
Average percentage of veteran appointments under the Civil Service Act, 53-97 per cent.
Now take the positions that were excluded from the operation of the act. The Veteran published a table showing appointments during 1924 to positions exempted from the Civil Service Act as reported to the Civil Service Commission. It is as follows:
Veterans	  829
Non-veterans	 7,116
Women	 313
Boys	 4
Total	8,262
Percentage of veterans-	Per cent
Of males	 10-434
Of total	 10-033
So there you have a reduction from 53.97 per cent to 10.03 per cen-t. It is a fair contention, then, with the evidence in front of us, to state that this bill will largely destroy the effectiveness of the returned soldier preference.
When this bill was up the last time, I referred to the attitude of the Conservative party in regard thereto, much to its credit. The great battery of Conservatism for this bill was Sir Robert Borden, and to him stands the credit for having ultimately forced the issue in this house. I think it was in 1907 that he secured the acquiescence of the entire party in the Halifax platform, which included the following:
A thorough and complete reformation of the laws relating to the civil service, so that future appointments shall be made by an independent commission acting upon the report of examiners after competitive examination.
Speaking on that occasion he said:
I need not dwell on the importance of this. Of necessity some appointments must be left to the responsibility of the executive. Appointments to the judicial bench and certain other high public offices are of this character, and the people have it in their power to compel an honourable and decent performance of this great public duty. There are also many minor appointments which could not for the present be brought within such a system.

But for the rest, I prefer a competitive system of appointment to the present partisan system.
Three-fourths of the time of members supporting a government is occupied in dealing with matters of patronage. Party patronage and party service have more weight than character and capacity. The public service is cumbered with useless officials. I am convinced that we shall perform a great public duty by establishing in this country that system which prevails in Great Britain under which a member of parliament has practically no voice in or control over any appointment to the civil service.
That became the fixed policy of the Conservative party. Sir Robert Borden says that the Halifax platform became the policy of 'the Liberal-Conservative party, which was thus committed to the principle of civil service reform upon the lines above set forth.
Later on, not satisfied with the general announcement of the fact, the late Sir George Foster rose in the house in the year following, 1908, and moved the following resolution:
That the civil service system of Canada should be based on merit and character alone and all the appointments thereto should be made from candidates whose competency has been established through open competitive examinations conducted under a non-partisan civil service commission.
On that occasion Sir Robert Borden said:
I again repeated my conviction that appointments, both in the inside and outside service, should be based upon results obtained by competitive examination and that the system prevailing in Great Britain should be adopted in Canada.
So the issue was joined. But the battle continued, and Sir Robert Borden said that it was impossible to secure the passage of this effective legislation which we have in the Civil Service Act so long as only one party was in office. It was not until the Union government was formed in the war years that it became possible in 1918 to put over the act. Now only a few years later, comparatively speaking, we have the proposal from the Conservative ranks to destroy the splendid work of all the preceding years and to render almost impotent the Civil Service Act.


Mr. DUFF:: What did the Borden government do after its return in 1911?


Edward Joseph Garland: That was a long time before 1918, before the passing of the Civil Service Act. I have no doubt that my hon. friend is bitten by the same dog that is now biting those people over there. He has not the opportunity of patronage, whatever little there is in it.


William Duff: That is not an answer.

Civil Service Act-Mr. Chevrier


Edward Joseph Garland: So long as the party system continues in this country it is essential for the character and efficiency of men in the public service that men of all political parties shall have nothing to say as to appointments to the civil service. Both appointments and promotions should depend upon the merit system, should depend solely upon the merit and capacity of the candidates who offer themselves. If I had the time at my disposal I could continue quoting from the eloquent speeches of the great leaders of the Conservative party. Right Hon. Arthur Meighen made some of the most pronounced and courageous statements in regard to the maintenance of the merit system. The present Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) made an eloquent plea in support of the merit system. The right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) no later than 1928 made an eloquent speech on the same subject. Speaking in this house on May 8, 1928, he said:
It-
Referring to a resolution aimed against the act.
-means the recurrence of the patronage system, which should not be tolerated in this country. It is not conducive to good service or to the public weal. While there have been many defects in connection with the administration of the civil service the fact is that it is a great advance over anything we have had heretofore in this country. We protest, against any effort being made to return to the old condition of patronage.
I echo his words to-day and protest against any attempt, either through private bill, resolution or committee of this house, to return to the old days of patronage.
Not content with that, the Prime Minister -of course at that time he was not Prime Minister-speaking on May 16, 1928, is reported at page 3221 of Hansard as follows:
I do not propose to trespass upon the time of the house further than to say that it is essential that we should maintain in its integrity the principle of appointments to office being made by the Civil Service Commission.
Could anything be clearer or more sharply defined than that? The present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) is reported at page 3169 of Hansard as follows:
Undoubtedly the patronage system had more evil attached to it than merit. Appointments under the patronage system are made for the purpose-I think I can put it simply and plainly -of giving jobs to those who are in favour of the ministry of the day, whatever ministry it is. ... I am opposed to this bill to the extent that it departs from the principle of appointment by the Civil Service Commission.
I think it is only fair to give the statement, one which is certainly well worth
giving, of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion). Hansard of May 15, 1928, at page 3173, contains the following:
Because of this strong public opinion in favour of the merit system under the Civil Service Commission, I think the minister should hesitate long before going back to a system which, rightly or wrongly, has become discredited. On the whole I believe the Civil Service Commission have given the country reasonably satisfactory service, and whatever faults they may have-and no doubt no commission is perfect-those faults are few and slight compared with the condition of affairs under the old system.
I thoroughly agree with the minister's statement, and sincerely hope his views have not changed since then. I hope he and his colleagues, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Prime Minister, and his colleague in the Senate, the leader of that respectable body, will reject utterly the proposal of the hon. member for Dorchester.
Again, time limits me; had I time I could quote resolutions piling in to myself and other members opposed to this bill, coming from every branch of the civil service in the Dominion of Canada. I could quote reports of commissions and committees which have been appointed within the last fifteen or twenty years, every one of which was opposed to the very principle embodied in this bill. Mr. Speaker, if this house does itself justice -justice not only to its own conscience and intelligence, but to the cause of the civil sendee in general-it will reject the bill. I purpose voting against it.


Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Ca'han) mentioned my name as one member to sit on a committee which, among its other duties, would have to consider this bill. At once the house must recognize the very difficult position in which other members of that committee and myself are placed. According to the interpretation of the rules of the house, if I vote for the second reading of this bill I shall have committed myself to the principle of it. If I vote against the second reading and the second reading should carry and the bill be referred to the committee of which I am a member, I should be placed in the same embarrassing position. Therefore at this stage I cannot address my remarks to the merits, if any, or the demerits of the bill now before the house. I may add, however, that if ever there was a bill-I do not think I am saying too much-which should have been used for the purpose of establishing the precedent which was established yesterday, this is the bill.

Civil Service Act-Mr. Heaps
Mr. A, A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg): Mr. Speaker, I should like to make one or two observations concerning the bill now before the house. I believe every member ought to be in favour of maintaining an efficient civil service. The question arises as to how we are likely to effect that end which, I think, ought to be the object of every member of parliament. In my view it is impossible to have an efficient civil service if we revert to a system of patronage and fill vacancies in the civil service at the request or bidding of members. Consequently I feel constrained to oppose the measure now before the house.
At this time I am wondering who is asking for the change outlined by the bill. I have yet to find from any source whatsoever any indication as to who is seeking these changes. I do know, however, that from many sources throughout the length and breadth of Canada there is a strong feeling of resentment and opposition to this measure.
I am one who believes in the merit system; I realize fully that the moment patronage creeps into the system of appointments merit goes by the board. I believe employers and employees recognize that in the filling of vacancies there are two principles to be maintained, namely merit and seniority. In all my experiences as a public representative I have always attempted, when I have had to deal with the filling of vacancies, to be guided by those two factors. As a rule one does not go far astray if he observes those principles. On more than one occasion when I stood as a , candidate for public office I have taken the stand that I refused to act as an employment agent for my constituents. I have refused to approach department heads asking for employment for those who happened to be within the boundaries of my constituency. I am of opinion that from a political point of view, the handling of patronage by members of the house does far more harm than good. The obtaining of a few privileges for a constituent does not necessarily make friends for a member. I have found that members who have been able to obtain positions for a favoured few have, as a result of their activities, made more enemies than friends.
One of the chief reasons which has prompted me to rise in my place this evening was a statement made by the hon. member who introduced this measure to the house. He said he would like to have an extension of the patronage now existing, and made reference to the appointment of postmasters as one reason for a change in the Civil Service Act. I have not had as long an experience in
[Mr. <~!hevrier.J
this house as have some other hon. members. One incident however came under my observation to which at this time I feel constrained to refer. The hon. member who introduced the measure urged that if appointments were left to the discretion of hon. members of the house-which, of course, would mean hon. members on the government side-better appointments would1 be the result. To-night there occurs to my mind one appointment which was made and to which I shall make special reference at this juncture. Through a vacancy which occurred in the city of Winnipeg an appointment was recommended by a member of the party in power. For obvious reasons I shall not refer to any names. I learned that a certain gentleman was to be appointed to a responsible position, and to my amazement I was informed that the recommendation made by a Conservative, was in favour of a man who 'had a criminal record and whose family's record was no better than his own. This man was actually recommended for a responsible position.


Peter McGibbon: The appointment would come under the Civil Service Act?


Mr. HEAPS:: No, it did not. I should like to amend the act so that we may obviate things of this character. To my astonishment the appointment was made, although people in the district had signed a petition in protest and transmitted it to the minister, and I myself protested emphatically the objectionable nature of the appointment. I told the parties responsible for the appointment, "I do not mind your appointing a Conservative to the office, I expect you to do it, but in the name of decency and common sense appoint an honest Conservative."
May I point out further that the individual so appointed was handling His Majesty's mail. A few days after the appointment his son was released from the penitentiary, and very soon afterwards complaints came from my constituents that this person was also handling the mail. I protested to the responsible minister, but I could not make the slightest impression. Later when I came to Ottawa I called on him and told him that unless something was done to cancel the appointment I would feel obliged to raise the matter on the floor of the house when his estimates were under consideration. Then I received a promise that action would be taken. What happened? On the first of October last a change was made-the daughter was put in her father's place. Now the house is being requested by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) to extend the patronage system in order that we may get a

Civil Service Act-Mr. Bourassa
more efficient civil service! At the time the protest to which I have referred was being made against the appointment the chief of police of Winnipeg was asked for the man's record; this was submitted to the minister but nothing could be done to cancel the appointment. I said to the local postmaster, "Go down to the police station and make inquiries in regard to the character of this man." He did so, and was told, "That man's reputation stinks to the sky." Yet he was appointed to this responsible position in the city.
We have been told by the mover of this bill that the Civil Service Commission is at the bar of public opinion. Nothing of the kind, Mr. Speaker. What is now at the bar of public opinion is the action of members of this house in regard to this bill. Are we going to return to the patronage system, or shall we put more power into the hands of the Civil Service Commission. If the personnel of the commission is unsatisfactory, then it does not seem to me that we have to repeal the act; the logical thing to do is to change the personnel so that any defects of the commission may be remedied.
I move, seconded by Mr. Coote:
That the word "now" be left out, and the words "this day six months" added at the end of the question.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a certain confusion between the administration of the Civil Service Act by the Civil Service Commission and the object of this bill. That reform should be made in the operation of the act and perhaps certain amendments incorporated in order to make it more effective I think is conceded on all sides. But to adopt the principle of this bill and revert to the old patronage system would be a step backward that would stamp the parliament of Canada very unfavourably in the eyes of all civilized nations that have reformed their civil service system. I know something of the operation of the civil service in England, and I think there is unanimity of opinion among all public men there as well as among all other people that civil service reform has been one of the greatest political and administrative reforms adopted in that country in the last century.
With regard to the outside service, the withdrawal of which from the Civil Service Commission is the main object of this bill, to a certain extent I agree with the member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon). No doubt the idea of giving, theoretically,-I insist on the word and I am going to explain its application -of giving, theoretically, authority to three gentlemen in Ottawa to make appointments to
every petty office, such as the postmastership in a small village or the caretakership of a small public building, is preposterous, because they have to rely upon somebody to advise them; and that is what they do. The idea that these three gentlemen could always appoint the proper men to every small post office from Sydney to Prince Rupert is out of the question. But to say that these appointments should be handed back to members of parliament is something on which I cannot agree with my hon. friend. He says that the member representing the constituency is better informed than any other man with regard to the qualifications of persons for such appointments. Well, if by that he means any member representing a constituency it may be so. But then is he prepared to recommend to the government, and are his friends who uphold his views ready to recommend to any government, that they take the advice of every member of the house, to whatever party he belongs, to the same degree as they would take the advice of their own friends? Maybe he could secure such a promise verbally, but human nature being what it is, he knows very well that in every constituency represented by an independent or an opposition member there would be an uproar among his own supporters if that promise were redeemed; they would complain that the patronage was in the hands of the opposition. I have found that to be the case time and again. I will not insist on that aspect of the question.
The suggestion I make is this. I think all those who would stick to the principle of the Civil Service Act, who think that we should not. revert to the evil of patronage, should vote against the bill. But at the same time that does not prevent the committee proposed by the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) going into all the aspects of the situation, and if they think proper, they might recommend certain amendments to the act in order to give an opportunity in every constituency for people at large, municipal councillors or others, to advise the responsible heads of the department in the appointment of petty officers. I would have no objection to that. Certainly some changes should be made.
May I say in that regard that the patronage system has not proven effective, even from the point of view of my hon. friend. Take the narrow point of view as stated by the hon.
' member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps)- and that is very old history-members of parliament have suffered much more by the exercise of patronage than they have gained from it. Naturally when they have just won an election they feel the elation of victory, and
464	COMMONS
Civil Service Act-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)
they like to show a little of the spirit of domination in their county; but that does not last long. As was stated by Mr. Louis Frechette, the poet-he was a- member of parliament for a short time-for every appointment recommended by him to the government he made one ungrateful person and a hundred others furious against him. He never gained anything thereby. But that is a small aspect of the question.
From the purely administrative point of view my opinion is that much more authority and freedom of action should be left to the permanent heads of departments, not to the ministers. I think ministers themselves are much too bothered with questions of patronage as it is. They should have enough confidence in their deputy ministers and the heads of the various branches of their departments to rely upon them in all that concerns promotions and appointments from a list prepared by the Civil Service Commission, based on the technical merits of the candidates.
That is with regard to the inside service. As far as the outside service is concerned I may tell the house that the method I generally adopted, even in the old days, was to inquire from the people of the community which place was best suited for a post office, and what person was most capable of rendering service to the people. I recommended the person designated by the people of the community, without regard to politics. I would find it hard to say, of all the recommendations I have made, whether they concerned Liberals or Conservatives, for the very good reason that most of them vote for me no matter what may be their politics.
However that is beside the question. I repeat that a greater opportunity should be given the people concerned in local appointments to express their views, and those views should be accepted by the department. Much more responsibility should be given the permanent heads of departments, just as in large corporations like the Canadian Pacific railway, the president and board of directors do not concern themselves all the time with the appointment of employees. They rely upon certain responsible heads of various departments to choose their employees according to their requirements, and the employees are promoted gradually under the two standards indicated by the hon. member for North Winnipeg, that is, seniority and merit. Then they are largely protected through their labour organizations. Now that the civil service has organized itself on a proper basis, some suggestions of that kind might be studied by the committee, and I think the object of my good 
friend from Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) might be served. I know him well enough to be sure that his object is not simply to exercise political patronage. Then the committee could report to the house and the house might take action, of course under the guidance of the government, without having to accept the principle of this bill to which, for my part, I am utterly opposed.


Mr. W. W. KENNEDY (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the time available for the discussion of this bill, scarcely five minutes, will hardly permit any detailed analysis, and I do not purpose to attempt to do so at this time. Lest the time elapse before I have an opportunity of stating my view of the bill I shall reverse the ordinary procedure and, before giving my reasons, state that I am opposed to the principle of the bill and I shall vote against it. It is with some regret that I find myself holding the view that I cannot support a bill introduced by my good friend and colleague the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon), but there is a principle involved of very wide application.
The bill divides itself into two parts. One provision is that all civil service appointments, outside of appointments at Ottawa, shall be removed from the operation of the Civil Service Act. As to the remainder, that is to say, the appointments to the service at Ottawa, even in those cases the right of the commission to make such appointments is very considerably curtailed.
With regard to outside appointments, if this bill were enacted as introduced, what would be the practical effect? It would then devolve upon the member for each constituency, with such advisers as he may gather around him in the way of an executive, to recommend from time to time persons to fill vacancies. It would not be complimentary to other hon. members of this house to urge that, from whatever constituency they may come, they would not use good judgment in such matters or that they would not be competent to make good selections. The dangers from that point of view would seem largely theoretical. I believe that an hon. member faced with the duty of recommending a person for any position in his constituency would be guided by the merit of the individual who might be recommended. It may be urged that it is only natural that a member would nominate someone from his own political party. Perhaps that is quite true, but as I am quite prepared to concede that a Liberal member repre-

Unemployment-Mr. Reid
senting a constituency can find among bis followers men worthy of being nominated for positions of honour and trust, so I think they will concede that we on this side of the house can find such men among our own supporters.
Therefore it is not primarily the question of appointments in respect to which I am apprehensive, but it is the effect upon the service itself. If the political be the first consideration in the matter of appointments, when you come to a change of government the supporters of the member then representing the constituency in question, remembering that certain appointments were made first because of political considerations, will demand, and press that demand with considerable force, that, the new government having the right to exercise discretion and make a change, the change be made. In very large measure the principle will apply that "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword."



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Guthrie for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Heenan.
["Mr. Speaker, I direct your\nattention to the fact that it is eleven o'clock."]
Thomas Reid: When the house rose at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was telling of an incident that occurred in my own constituency in connection with patronage under relief work being carried on by the federal government. I was induced to refer to this because of the remarks of the Minister of Labour with regard to patronage in another district.
A grant of some S6.300 was made for the construction of a wharf at White Rock, and when I visited the job I found that the names of the men employed had been furnished by the district engineer. On making inquiries of the district engineer I was informed that he had been given these names by the Conservative association. Despite the fact that he had been notified, as hon. members were notified, that in all work carried on for the relief of unemployment, federal or otherwise, no discrimination was to be shown, he had deliberately gone to the Conservative organization and obtained the names of the men who were working on that federal relief job. On his own word he confessed it. I asked the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) to take serious note of this, because patronage may be bad enough in ordinary times but it becomes terrible in times of stress when only those be-41761-30
longing to the party are given a chance to participate in the grant.
I have just received another telegram from the municipality of Burnaby. I received one on Monday last and again to-day, and before quoting them I will state that they are contrary to the advice given to me by the department. I was told that in connection with the $2,500,000 sent to the province of British Columbia, vouchers would not be required to be O.K'd before payment was made to the municipalities. I transmitted that information to the municipality which immediately got in touch with Victoria, when the information was given that such was not the case. The telegram which I received on Monday reads as follows:
Total amount spent on direct relief to January 31, $65,844, total payment received to date, $32,681. Cost of direct relief shared equally by municipality, province and dominion under unemployment relief acts, 1930 and 1931.
The telegram continues:
Total expenditure on unemployment relief works, $341,000; total of vouchers already submitted to Victoria, $310,935. Total payments received to date, $132,125.
They were advised that Victoria was waiting for funds from Ottawa before paying out any money. The telegram I received to-day reads as follows:
McGeough advises that Victoria has received one million dollars. Phoned Deputy Minister of Finance at Victoria who states he can only pay provincial and municipality's share; is still awaiting authority from Ottawa to pay Dominion's share. Instructions received by Victoria forbid them to release Dominion's share till Ottawa passes the vouchered accounts and issues an order for payment. Believe this is the cause of conflicting reports. Payment will be held up indefinitely until this is cleared up.
I would direct the attention of the hon. Minister of Labour to the seriousness of this situation. As long as these conflicting reports exist, the buck will be passed from one government to the other and great distress will be caused to the municipalities. Conditions are somewhat similar in other districts. Last week I received a telegram from the city of Femie, in the constituency of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), advising that similar conditions exist there. Other municipalities are feeling the stress of this unemployment problem, and I would like to quote a portion of a telegram sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) on January 27. This telegram shows that the municipalities had an idea that the government had agreed to pay over the money as soon as the

Unemployment-Mr. Barber

agreements were signed by Hon. Senator Robertson. The telegram, in part, reads as follows:
We now find municipalities in desperate circumstances owing to work programs being curtailed so that now relief work has practically ceased and municipalities appear to have no alternative but direct relief. We now apply to you to have work relief programs as originally presented and agreed to by Senator Robertson put into force so that we can have work completed as therein laid out. To cease unemployment relief work at this time will not only cause hardship to unemployed but will be uneconomical as many works would be left unfinished. We are distinctly opposed to spending municipal moneys on direct relief as no returns to taxpayers accrue. Other municipalities not included in previous work programs have to care for local cases and want some consideration given at this time to their requirements, and to make conditions worse, provincial road work has ceased. Municipal taxpayers are in no position to finance any undertakings to take care of these situations as the ability of taxpayers to pay was fully demonstrated last year when in many municipalities only sixty per cent of 1931 tax levy was paid. Any additional increase will mean many will lose their home.
Union of British Columbia Municipalities.


Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this debate until the last speaker, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) wandered away from his own district and encroached upon one of my municipalities. Speaking in support of this motion of want of confidence in the government, the hon. member cited the case of a political friend of his, the reeve of a municipality in his district, who has had some trouble in obtaining assistance in the matter of unemployment relief from both the federal and provincial governments. I listened carefully for forty minutes to the hon. gentleman, and after hearing him read many letters and telegrams I came to the conclusion that this was entirely a misunderstanding. The hon. member mentioned a municipality in Fraser Valley constituency and referred to it as being in the same plight as this almost notorious place, Burnaby, of which we have been hearing so much this session. I have received a letter from the reeve of Coquitlam, in which he draws to my attention some trouble which he had had but which proved to be a misunderstanding. This letter is addressed to me, and the first two paragraphs read as follows:
As a result of a meeting with the hon. Mr. Bruhn,-
Mr. Bruhn is the Minister of Public Works in the provincial government. The letter continues:
-at his room in the Vancouver hotel at the time of the visit of the Hon. G. Robertson,
fMr. Reid.]
federal Minister of Labour, I was made to understand that our municipal proposal under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, amounting to $34,800 would meet with approval on the basis of 50 per cent federal contribution, including labour and material, and 25 per cent provincial contribution for labour only.
On the strength of this verbal assurance we submitted a money by-law to our ratepayers for the balance, for their approval.
I took up this matter with Mr. Hereford, the dominion director, and his letter in reply explains this case. It is addressed to myself and reads:
I am directed by the Minister of Labour to acknowledge yours of February 10 regarding unemployment relief matters for the district of Coquitlam.
The agreement with the province provides for an expenditure of $19,000 for Coquitlam to which the Dominion government contributes 50 per cent.
With regard to the reeve's statement that at the time of the visit of the Hon. Senator Robertson to Vancouver, the reeve was made to understand that the amount which the Dominion government would contribute would be $34,800, I am quite satisfied that the Senator did not intend to convey any such impression as the Senator knew quite well and invariably stated that all submissions were subject to the approval of council.
The undersigned accompanied Senator Robertson on his trip to British Columbia last summer and I have been present during hundreds of interviews, both at Ottawa and all over Canada, and observed that the Senator invariably made it clear that however much he might personally favour a proposal, and however far he was whiling to go in recommending it to the government, it was always subject to the approval of council. I cannot, therefore, understand why the reeve should have submitted a money by-law on the basis of what he himself describes as a verbal assurance which is apparently not implemented by the actual agreement.
That explains fully the case of Coquitlam as well as Burnaby, because we find on the tenth of this month the hon. member for New Westminster moving the adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the situation that has arisen in the municipality of Burnaby in the province of British Columbia where hundreds who have been employed on unemployment relief work have not, as he states, received wages or payment for work so performed. In the course of his remarks he points out that they had visited Victoria, had waited on the representatives of the federal government and had certain understandings that a specific sum of money would be forthcoming. The hon. gentleman moved the adjournment of the house on the tenth of this month. The other day he read a telegram stating that these conditions were still serious; that nothing had been done for Burnaby. I have under my hand a clipping from a paper published in the hon.

Unemployment-Mr. Barber
gentleman's constituency, containing a special despatch from one of the districts in Burnaby under date of February 8, or two days before the hon. member moved the adjournment of the house. This clipping is headed:
Burnaby gets $16,000 cheque from Victoria.
That is two days before he told us in the house that those men were still without their pay; that their wages had not been paid, and he tried to compel the federal government to take some action in the matter. This clipping from Edmonds, which is dated February 8, or two days before he moved the adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, states:
With the receipt from Victoria of a cheque for $16,000, the Burnaby financial situation has eased somewhat. Wages due to municipal workers of the outside gangs and arrears due to relief workers were paid this morning. This afternoon Treasurer R. Bolton will go into the matter of paying January salaries to the municipal hall staff and teachers. He is of the opinion that with the money received from the government and advance payment of taxes, there will be sufficient funds to make these payments.


Thomas Reid: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Harry James Barber: The hon. gentleman also . represents another municipality. The reeve of Burnaby, as I said before, is a very strong personal and political friend of the hon. member for New Westminster. In this case we have another-the reeve of Surrey. This is under date of January 9.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What
paper is that?


Harry James Barber: A Westminster paper.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Which
one?


Harry James Barber: The Columbia. There is only one that I know of. It has supported my hon. friend on many occasions. This is from a correspondent at Cloverdale in the hon. gentleman's district, and this is what Reeve Brown says:
Surrey did well despite depression.
Splendid financial report is presented by Reeve Brown.
Reeve Brown, who is a Liberal, absolved the provincial government of all blame in connection with the unemployment relief trouble. There were two sides to every question, he said, and fair judgment must be passed.
That is the situation as regards Burnaby. I do not know that I have anything further to say in that regard; in fact, that covers almost all the hon. gentleman's remarks in his forty minutes. There is just the question of the general situation in British Columbia. I am not going to undertake to discuss the details of that situation.


Mr. MUNN:: The hon. gentleman knows better.


Harry James Barber: The hon. gentleman says I know better. I have been long enough in the house to know this is not the place to thresh out the domestic or other little troubles of one of the provinces. The hon. members for New Westminster and Vancouver Centre spent some time in a provincial by-election in British Columbia and perhaps it is on this account they claimed a scalp for their belt, but the whole result was they were successful in returning a Liberal in a strong Liberal constituency.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By two to one.


Harry James Barber: The situation is altogether too serious for one to indulge in the cheap political claptrap that our hon. friends have been handing out in the house on more than one occasion. The financial situation as it exists in British Columbia and other provinces is not what we would desire. The finances of our province as well as that of others, of the dominion as a whole and of other countries, have been adversely affected by the worldwide economic depression. The people of British Columbia will agree that the present financial troubles in that province do not all lie at the door of the Conservative party. We had a Liberal party in power in that province for twelve years and to a great extent they are responsible for the financial situation just as the former Liberal government in the federal parliament were responsible for the railway situation that we have at the present time. As I said, we had a Liberal government in British Columbia for twelve years, and it is interesting to recall that during the twelve years they were in office we had only two small surpluses aggregating $452,124, compared with ten deficits aggregating $17,109,399, or a net deficit during the period, of $16,657,275. The expenditures during that period rose from $9,349,000 per annum in 1917-18, to $26,580,400 in 1928-29.


Albert Edward Munn: Tell us about the crowd in power in British Columbia now.


Harry James Barber: The people do not and will not forget for a long time the government that was in power in British Columbia for twelve years. They increased the public debt in that province from $25,521,860 in 1917 to $117,452,558 in 1928. That is the record of the Liberal government in that province, and during prosperous times. While any business man or business government would have made some provision for a rainy day, they kept on with their extravagant expenditures, their

Unemployment-Mr. Barber
great land deals, and if I wished to trespass upon the time of the house to go into provincial matters, hon. members would be astonished to hear of some of the deals that were put over by the Liberal government during those days.


Albert Edward Munn: Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question? It is not a political one. Knowing the situation as well as he does and as well as I know it in regard to unemployment in British Columbia, does he contend that everything concerning the unemployment situation in that province is being properly conducted?


Harry James Barber: I think it is the opinion of the people of British Columbia that the situation in the province is being honestly handled, and that it would not be very much improved if the previous administration were in office, having regard to their record. But I am not *going into that question because it is being investigated at the present time in the legislature of the province of British Columbia. That is the place to air the whole question. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) says no, that this is the place. But here he cannot meet those directly responsible for the situation. Let him go on the platform with those men who are carrying on that work in British Columbia, rather than take advantage of their absence from this house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have
done so many a time. I did it a month ago and will do it again.


Harry James Barber: I have corrected the statements my hon. friend made with regard to Burnaby, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member has been more or less misled by the reeve of that place, a friend of his, who I understand, according to the press, is a real example of a one-man government. The council of Burnaby called a meeting the other day and insisted upon appointing a committee to run the unemployment relief work rather than leave it all in the hands of the reeve. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the hon. member will take kindly the criticism I have offered.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: Before
going into details of the administration of the unemployment relief money in the province of New Brunswick and especially in the county I have the honour to represent, I wish to refer briefly to the speech made this afternoon by the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon). I note that he claimed that the unemployment relief system as now admin-

istered has proved a huge success, and he quoted figures to show that some three million days' work had been given to the unemployed in Canada. He gave the number of unemployed receiving the opportunity of doing this relief work as 300,000 odd. But if we dissect those figures, Mr. Speaker, we will find that they mean on an average 23 days' work for
300.000	or 350,000 unemployed, or if you place it on a yearly basis of employment, it means the giving of work to only 25,000 out of
350.000	unemployed, and that at a cost of $70,000,000 to the Dominion of Canada, to the provinces, to the municipalities and to the two railways which took part in providing unemployment relief work. If that is a huge success in administering unemployment relief under the act that was passed in September, 1930, then I would like to know what success really means in that line.
Having dealt with that phase of the minister's argument let me now refer to other parts of his speech. He produced evidence in an attempt to prove that the ex-Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) *was not telling the truth in connection with the administration of the unemployment relief fund in northern Ontario. But if you will carefully examine the proof, Mr. Speaker, which the hon. gentleman produced you will find that it was all negative evidence. Not one individual could the minister produce of his own personal knowledge to prove the contrary of that which the ex-Minister of Labour had alleged in this house. I was astonished to think that a gentleman occupying the position which the Minister of Labour does at the bar could find no other evidence but negative evidence to substantiate his refutation of the charges made by the ex-Minister of Labour. Negative evidence has no weight in court, and it should have no weight in parliament. The strongest proof that the minister could produce in refutation of what the ex-Minister of Labour had stated was quotations from a newspaper, the editor of which was a defeated Conservative candidate in the last provincial election in Ontario, and of course, being a Conservative attempting to defend a Conservative administration at Ottawa he would not be in any way biased; we can readily understand that. The attempt made by the minister to belittle the ex-Minister of Labour and to lessen the force of the charges of mismanagement of the situation by quoting the evidence to which I have just referred will not in any way lessen the esteem in which my colleague the ex-Minister of Labour is held by every workingman in this dominion. I think the Minister of Labour should have hesitated before

Unemployment-Mr. Veniot
violating the rules of the house in quoting from newspapers in an attempt to prove that statements made by an hon. member on the floor of this house were not in accordance with the truth. But he was so far lost for argument that he had to violate the rules in his attempt to prove that the ex-Minister had not stated to the house the facts as they were.
Let me now deal in some detail with the administration of the unemployment relief fund in the count}' which I have the honour to represent. I shall discuss that question under two heads: first, the expenditure of public money for unemployment relief purposes under the federal Minister of Public Works; second, the expenditure of unemployment relief money in cooperation with the provincial authorities in New Brunswick.
In taking up the first division of the subject, the expenditure of relief money under the direct supervision of the Minister of Public Works, I wish here publicly to pay my compliments to him and to thank him for the interest he displayed when complaints were laid before him as to the manner in which public money was being expended in the county of Gloucester. I want to thank him for the very determined stand he took when those complaints were laid before him to see that there would be no political discrimination, to see that those who got the money were really in need of it and that it would not be earned in the county of Gloucester by men who had bank accounts and did not require relief work to see them through the hardships of the winter.
On the 24th of October last year I happened to be in Ottawa. Previous to that I had visited certain of the works being carried on in my county, and after seeing the work I came to the minister and made my complaints. Why was I prompted to make those complaints? Because from personal investigation and personal knowledge I learned that the money voted by this parliament to be expended under the direct supervision of the federal Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) to help the unemployment situation was not being expended in the manner the minister and the government had promised.
I found that not only was the foreman of work at Grande Anse employed on the work but his two sons *were working also. Within a gun-shot of where he and his two sons were working, unemployed were crying out for bread for their families, and could get nothing. When applications were made to that man by unemployed men who had nothing in their houses for their families to
eat, his answer was, "You are on the wrong side of politics." I came here and complained to the Minister of Public Works, and as a result he issued from his office instructions to the district engineer in St. John to proceed not only to Grande Anse but to Petit Rodher and Caraquet, concerning all of which I had complained. Instructions were issued to the foremen in charge at those places that if they did not carry out the directions of the department they would be dismissed. A government engineer investigated and found that as far as Grande Anse was concerned my representations were well grounded. After his visit to Grande Anse conditions changed and those men who were not entitled to unemployment relief were put off the work and replaced by men in dire need of means to keep the wolf from the door.
The engineer was not as successful at Caraquet as he had been at Grande Anse. He visited Caraquet on Wednesday and found that wealthy fishermen, as the term goes ire that section of the country, men who had' money in the bank, were employed on relief work. He found that not one man working" on the Caraquet wharf needed unemployment relief to keep him through the winter, but men who lived from hand to mouth had! been refused work. The foreman promised that on the following Monday he would make a change, and would endeavour to comply with the regulations or instructions issued by the minister through the engineer. Monday arrived, but no change was made; Tuesday came and passed; Wednesday came and passed and no change was made. I reported the matter to the district engineer, who sent his assistant to Caraquet and found that the superintendent in charge was not carrying out instructions. As a result work was stopped, dismissals were made and the instructions of the minister complied with, when work was resumed. At this time I wish to thank the federal Minister of Public Works for his action.


An hon. MEMBER:: That shows what a good government we have.


Peter John Veniot: I cannot say as much for my hon. friend across the way, the official government interrupter, who has Said that the action of the minister shows wfhat a good government they have. I say it shows the type of officials distributing the moneys this house voted; that is what it shows.


Mr. SPENCE:: Those partisan officials belonged to your own county.


Peter John Veniot: They were Conservatives, that is the worst of it.

Unemployment-Mr. Veniot


James Houston Spence: They are all alike down
there.


Peter John Veniot: If they did not stand as
well in public opinion as do my hon. friend and his associates from Ontario, I would pity them.


James Houston Spence: I do not think you ever
will.


Mr. GOTT:: There are 86 Conservative
members in the legislature-


James Houston Spence: You are just playing politics the year round, that is all you are doing.


Peter John Veniot: If my hon. friend from
South Essex (Mr. Gott) would only attempt to control that large tongue of his which is wagged by such a small brain, he would be better off.


Eccles James Gott: Very clever, very clever.


Peter John Veniot: I know it is clever; that is why it hurts so much. I said I had not as great a compliment to pay to the late federal Minister of Labour (Senator Robertson) as I had to the federal Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart). To some extent I think the present Minister of Labour should bear the responsibility.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In other words, prepare
for the worst.
Mr. ST-PERE: Yes, the worst is yet to come.


Peter John Veniot: I state from my place in
this house and on my honour as a member that in the county of Gloucester the unemployment relief money during the progress of a by-election was made the greatest campaign fund which possibly could be used in any county.
I make that statement advisedly; I am prepared to stand by it, and if the government chooses to appoint a federal commission I shall be able to bring before such commission evidence to substantiate every word I have said.
I made complaints to the Minister of Labour, and on September 30, 1931, I received the following letter from Mr. Harry Hereford, the Dominion Director of Unemployment Relief:
In the absence of the Minister of Labour from Ottawa on official business. I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of September 24, in which you complain regarding political discrimination in connection with work being carried out on provincial highway near your home.
I have investigated this matter so far as I was able to with the details you furnished, and I am advised by the provincial authorities that an individual was appointed at Bathurst to (Mr. Veniot.1
register the unemployed. This individual worked in conjunction with the Poor Commissioner who is appointed, as you are no doubt aware, through the county council, and that the same method is being followed in Northumberland,-
I do not know why he referred to Northumberland.
-and assurance is given that those needing employment most have been given work regardless of political or religious affiliation.
Who was the gentleman appointed to register the unemployed in the municipality of Gloucester? He was a man living in the town of Bathurst, having an office in an incorporated town which had nothing to do with a matter of unemployment relief. No man could enter the office for registration without having to take part in a discussion of the political situation. As to whether or not the individual received work depended greatly upon his comments along political lines.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the
hon. member know that of his own knowledge?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, "of his own knowledge."


Richard Burpee Hanson: You were not there; what you are stating would be only hearsay.


Eccles James Gott: You know a lot about Ontario, too.


Peter John Veniot: I know nothing about
Ontario, and I am only mentioning Ontario in reply to the interjections of my hon. friend -and I think I know enough about him to qualify those interjections as they should be. Now, sir, let me go one step further. On October 16 I sent this night message:
To Hon. Gideon Robertson,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa.
Doctor W. H. Coffyn, provincial government candidate in by-election now being held in Gloucester county publishes a call to the electors in which he makes the pretence that registration for unemployment relief comes through him as the government candidate. Speakers on government side do not hesitate to tell our people that the amount of relief money to be expended in this county depends upon the election of Dr. Coffyn. In many cases relief money is being earned by people who do not need it, and many who do need it badly are left in the cold. Relief money is being utilized as a vote getter and not as relief, and therefore I feel it my duty to enter a strong protest. The election takes place October twenty-sixth. A dirty canvass is being used that if Coffyn is defeated the relief work will be stopped. Has he any authority by which he can have relief work stopped in this county. Please wire me reply.

Unemployment-Mr. Veniot


Wesley Ashton Gordon: May I ask the hon. gentleman who sent the telegram?


Peter John Veniot: I did.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Oh!


Peter John Veniot: I knew the truth of what I was saying, every bit of it. I got no reply to that telegram one way or the other. What happened? On the first day of December-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Stop.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, in order that the same privilege of debating this question may be accorded to me as to other members,
I ask that you take the necessary action to establish peace and order, perhaps by expelling some of these members.


Finlay MacDonald: Order.


Peter John Veniot: Now, sir, I received no
further word from the Minister of Labour until December 1, 1930. On that day there arrived in Bathurst two gentlemen, Mr. J. B. Carter and Mr. Trottier. They called on me at three o'clock in the afternoon and told me they had been instructed by the Minister of Labour to proceed to Gloucester county and investigate the relief work that had been carried on in that county, based on complaints that I had sent to the minister. I said to Mr. Carter, "It would have been far better had the minister sent you at the time I made the complaints. Then you would have found the people at work against whom I complained in my telegrams and letters, and you would have had first hand information." "Well," he said, "they did not send me then; I am here now." I went to my home and compiled five pages of complaints and submitted the original -this is a copy-to Mr. Carter. He undertook to investigate the complaints. He was some eight or nine days in the county of Gloucester. What was the result of his investigation? I asked that his report be placed on the table of the house. Here is what I received as that report:
Memorandum to Dominion Director
In reference to attached newspaper clipping,-
I want the house to note those words, "newspaper clipping."
-you will note that the Honourable P. J. Veniot is reported as saying "At a place six miles from his home," he said, "twelve men with money in the bank were employed under the unemployment relief scheme, and riding back and forth in cars, not one of which cost less than $1,200."
Then he goes on to say that he investigated this and he did find that cars were being used by these gentlemen-gentlemen labourerswhite collar workmen, men who although they had money in the bank were taking a bite from the mouths of starving children in the vicinity for the sake of making $2 to add to their bank account. But the curious thing about the whole business is that at the end he says:
This work was not paid for under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931.
Then why did he investigate?


An hon. MEMBER:: Because you asked
him.


Peter John Veniot: I did not ask him to investigate. If he chose to take a newspaper clipping and act upon it, and then found that this was not unemployment relief work, what right had he to make that report to the minister? Why did he not report on my complaints with respect to the work on the old Bathurst road leading from East Bathurst for five miles out towards Chatham? Why did he not report on the investigation he made of the unemployment work in the parishes of New Bandon, Bathurst and Beresford? He investigated those. He had the evidence of thirty or forty people before him. Why did he not submit a report of those cases to the minister? That is why he was sent down to Gloucester county. Moreover, in my presence-and there is no mention of it in his report-in reply to the question: How was it that work done in the month of October had not yet been paid for on the fourth day of December?-one of the district engineers replied that the pay sheets were being held up because there were irregularities in them. The engineer under investigation had to admit that on the 26th of October there had been placed on the pay sheets relating to the East Bathurst road and South Bathurst road no less than two hundred names of men that never worked a minute on the 26th day of October. Mr. Carter has that evidence in his possession. Why did he not report it to the minister?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Is it not true that Mr. Carter found on inquiring into the complaints made by the hon. member that the works complained of were being carried on by the province of New Brunswick and not by the Dominion government?


Mr. SHORT:: Absolutely.


Peter John Veniot: Absolutely no. The hon.
gentleman does not know what he is talking about. I have here, sir, in my possession, the returns from the Department of Labour submitted by the hon. minister three or four

Unemployment-Mr. Veniot
days ago. I find in 1930-31 there was no less than $47,000 of federal aid, besides the $47,000 of provincial aid, expended on roads and bridges in the county of Gloucester. If what Mr. Carter says is true, that this is all provincial work, then this document is false.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Oh, no.	.


Peter John Veniot: 'This document must be
false because that money was spent in the county of Gloucester. The hon. Minister of Labour accepted the projects as they were submitted and the money was paid to the province of New Brunswick. There was over $750,000 worth of projects accepted by the Minister of Labour for the whole of New Brunswick. Of that amount something like $50,000 was to be spent on roads and bridges in the county of Gloucester. I saw the instructions which listed the work on the East Bathurst road as unemployment relief work under federal cooperation, so I know what I am talking about.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: One more question and I
am through. How much money was spent on the East Bathurst road?


Peter John Veniot: I cannot say, but I do know that part of the money spent for unemployment relief in Gloucester, with the cooperation of the federal and provincial governments, was spent on the East Bathurst road. Mr. Carter investigated an irregularity in the pay sheet, and on October 26, the day of the election, he found that not one man on that pay sheet had worked one minute. I know that because I stood at the poll where at least 125 of them voted.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: What sort of
people have you down there?


Peter John Veniot: They are no worse than
the grafters in your province, and heaven knows there are enough of them.
Now let us go on. Part of the unemployment relief money was spent at Blue Cove, and not only was part of that money used politically during a provincial election, but certain candidates for municipal honours who were supervisors of roads used the influence of that money to help their election to the municipal council.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is
wrong with that?


Peter John Veniot: 
Wesley Ashton Gordon: Is that in New Brunswick, where a man earns that much?


Mr. YENIOT:: Yes, it is in New Brunswick, and the same thing has happened in other parts of the dominion. Here is the case of another boy seventeen years of age whose father is employed the year round as a railway man. Here is the case of two sons of a foreman earning so much a day on the work, while the father earns $4.50 per day himself. Here is a case where the father is a carpenter on the work and the son is employed also.


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: Have you the
names?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, I have.


Walter Davy Cowan: Give them to us.


Peter John Veniot: No, I will not. If an investigation is ordered I will give the names then.
I could go on at much greater length, sir, but in conclusion let me say that the statements I have made to the house regarding federal public works have been borne out by the resident engineer for the province of New Brunswick, and again I want to thank the Minister of Public Works for the attention he gave those complaints and the method he adopted to rectify matters. I say now, however, that Mr. Carter did investigate work that was done through the cooperation of both governments, and that he has the evidence of the padding of pay sheets on October 26, which affected 200 men who never did a tap of work. Further than that, I have it from Mr. Carter himself, and he showed me a list of names which he had gathered during his tour in Northumberland. His investigation in Gloucester county disclosed that the work slips which each man had signed contained names which had no right to be there because the individuals were not in need of unemployment relief. He told me that he would report the matter to the minister and have those names struck off the pay sheets and that the province would have to assume entire responsibility for the payment of those amounts. When I asked that that report be laid upon the table of this house I was told that the work was not unemployment relief work. Why did
Mr. Carter make that report if it was not in connection with unemployment relief? Why did he go and take photographs of the cars? Why did he obtain evidence as to the age of those cars? It was for one reason, and I hate to suspect that reason. The hon. minister attempted to belittle the member for Gloucester who was attempting to defend not only his own people but the government of Canada. I pointed out that the act passed by this house was being violated; why did they send Mr. Carter down there if it was not intended that this matter should be investigated?
These are the conditions as they exist in the county of Gloucester. When replying to the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) this afternoon, I was surprised the minister did not tell the house that he knew the scheme had not worked well, that the system had not brought about the results which had been anticipated. With that knowledge within his breast, I was surprised that he did not take the house into his confidence and state what steps the government would take this session to remedy the situation. A statement of that nature would have carried more weight in the country than the attempt he made to belittle the former Minister of Labour.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I would not attempt to take up the time of this house in a discussion of this question were it not for the speech just delivered by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot).


Peter John Veniot: The hon. .member always mentions me.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There has been much ado about nothing. I am going to take the house into my confidence and state the truth of the matter.
On October 26 last there was a provincial by-election in the hon. member's county, and for the first time in twenty years he was trimmed, and trimmed to a frazzle. That is why he has attempted to-night to explode the bile which has been gathering in his system ever since that election. After what he has said about his own fellow citizens and his own electors I feel that someone should rise in his place in this house to defend the reputation of the people of the fair county of Gloucester. I do not believe they are nearly as bad as the hon. gentleman would have, this house and the country believe. If they are bad, it is because of the tutoring they have received from the hon. member for Gloucester.
I have some knowledge of the unemployment relief situation in the province of New
474	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Hanson (Sunbury)
Brunswick. I have taken special interest in this work in my own constituency, where, I am glad to say, the condition is not quite as bad as prevails in other parts of the province. I happen to know that in connection with the expenditure of unemployment relief moneys in the province of New Brunswick, the Deputy Minister of Public Works, under whose immediate caire the expenditure takes place, has issued specific instructions that unemployment relief is to be granted without regard to politics, race, creed or religion. Those are the instructions sent out in the signed manual of the Deputy Minister of Public Works, and I know they have been observed to the letter in the constituency of York-Sunbury. The hon. gentleman will not find one single complaint of the administration of the unemployment relief fund in my constituency, and this applies to direct relief and the relief granted by the municipalities in cooperation with the provincial government.
I do not pretend to have any first-hand knowledge of the situation in the county of Gloucester, but if the truth were known I have just as much first-hand information as has the hon. gentleman. I venture to state that ninety-nine per cent of the assertions which he has made to-night are based on hearsay evidence. In the very nature of the cases themselves it could not possibly be otherwise.


Peter John Veniot: It was a personal investigation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If what
somebody else told the hon. gentleman is not hearsay evidence, then I do not know what is hearsay evidence.


Peter John Veniot: I saw the work being carried on and I know of individuals who had no right to be working.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That may be true; there may have been men there that should not have been employed, but I am not in a position, nor is the hon. gentleman, to say whether this or that man has a bank account. If he is in a position to state that, then he is sticking his nose into somebody else's business, something which he has no right to do.
With respect to the specific complaints made to the department by the hon. member for Gloucester, he admits that as soon as those complaints were made, and because they were made by him as the member for Gloucester, they were immediately investigated. The information I have received from the authorities in the province of New Brunswick is that in all these cases the works being carried on 
were not unemployment relief works conducted by the province and the dominion jointly, but were purely provincial works. What right has this government to investigate such works? I say to my hon. friend in all kindness, he is in the wrong court. If he has the courage of his convictions, he will have some of his henchmen from the county of Gloucester lay a charge and stake their seats in the provincial legislature.


Peter John Veniot: They are going to.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I venture to say that not one of them has the courage to lay a charge and stake his seat on the outcome.


Peter John Veniot: Did they not do it last
winter?


Eccles James Gott: I thought the hon. member did not like interruptions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: My mind
goes back to 1919 when the hon. gentleman was Minister of Public Works in the provincial government, and when the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Smith) was a member of the provincial legislature. The latter hon. gentleman laid charges with respect to the Shippigan road, and an investigation was held. Charges were laid in connection with the administration of public moneys in respect to this road in the county of Gloucester, and who do you suppose held the investigation? The Minister of Public Works. That is the method he adopted when he was Minister of Public works, and I should like to contrast it with the method adopted by this government. The investigation disclosed that there were boys of twelve years of age who were on the payroll and drawing a man's pay. There was one child of eight years drawing a man's pay. That is not denied; in fact, it never was denied. I was present at the investigation and the hon. member did not take any part in the hearing.


Peter John Veniot: Because I had no right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the fact. I never made any fuss about it because the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton was present, and he was quite capable of carrying on the investigation.
With these few observations I should like to conclude by saying this, that in New Brunswick, so far as I have 'any knowledge, either personal or by hearsay, there has been an economical expenditure of the public moneys under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act. I have personal knowledge of the direct expenditure that was made by the Dominion government through the public

Unemployment-Mr. Bradette
works engineer, and I venture to say that not a dollar of that was wasted and that it went where it was most needed. That is what we on this side of the house undertook to do so far as it was humanly possible. I believe that has been done in the majority of cases and I would hate to think the fair county of Gloucester was any exception.


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timiska-ming):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is my duty
to speak on this matter of unemployment in order to give at least the viewpoint of the riding which I have the honour to represent.
I was astonished at the reply given by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) and at the attitude he has taken in bringing into the political field this question which is a matter of importance to Canada as a whole. It is not my intention to defend the actions of the ex-Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan), but I believe they do not need any defence; they were judged by the country as a whole during the five years he was in office. The regulations that he has been instrumental in having passed in regard to labour questions will be remembered for many years to come by our Canadian workmen. I might also mention that by his constructive criticism he has been helpful in remedying the bad situation that existed in northern Ontario in previous years, and he should be given praise by the labour men of northern Ontario for bettering their living conditions. I appreciate the love the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) has for northern Ontario and his faith in that section of the country, but I believe the settlers and all the citizens there love that district; they make it their home, they believe in its future. But again let me state that to the constructive criticism that was made on the hustings and in this house by the ex-Minister of Labour, and even in the Ontario legislature, is due the better accommodation afforded to the men working on the trans-Canada highway in northern Ontario.
I do not wish to open up old sores, but I have clearly in mind, and I believe the people of northern Ontario as a whole remember very distinctly, the words that were uttered by the leaders of the Conservative party during the last general election. Their motto was: What Canada needs is a policy that will provide jobs. The majority of the people believed that statement. The Conservative leaders told the people in northern Ontario most emphatically that if the Liberals were put out of power and the Conservatives elected in their place, they would find work overnight. I am not going to fight all the old battles, but I wish to bring this question up from
another angle, so as to make my point clear. In the dying hours of last session we gave the present government a blank cheque as a result of which the people of Canada as a whole expected that there would be no more unemployment throughout the country. During the whole of last summer ministers o! the Ontario cabinet and of the federal government went up and down the country telling the people that every man who was unemployed would find employment at once.
I am no sob sister, but I must say that in the section which I represent there are many people who are still unemployed and a great number who are near to starvation. The Minister of Labour said this afternoon that there was no starvation in Canada. There is a great difference between prosperity and enjoyment of the ordinary comforts of life. He knows that section of the country and in the rural districts settlers who came in there fifteen or twenty years ago are to-day receiving S7.20 per week. They find it impossible at that wage to have the comforts of life to which they are entitled. I mention these facts because again I must say very sincerely I regret the attitude of the Minister of Labour in his opening remarks.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: When the hon. member was in northern Ontario first, about fifteen or twenty years ago, did he have the comforts of life that he now has?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Fl'teen or twenty years ago we were certainly more prosperous than we are to-day. The situation is not getting any better; in fact, it is getting worse.
The Minister of Labour mentioned the question of patronage. We have suffered from patronage in northern Ontario in the past; indeed, I and my family have suffered from it. But because we aroused public sentiment and educated the people to realize that there was no such thing as Liberal or Conservative money; that every settler and every citizen in our section, whether Conservative or Liberal, was entitled to get a share of the money, I must admit that under the leadership of men like Mr. Tackaberry of Kapuskasing, Mr. Alex. Sterling, Mr. Tom Ripley and Mr. Law of Matheson, officials of the Northern Development Branch, who are active workers, we have no patronage under the present distribution of federal money through the provincial government. But I do not believe the head men of the Northern Ontario Development Department are always familiar with the situation. There are some minor officials who will go so far as to say that no Liberal will be given employment on road work. Once the situa-

Unemployment-Mr. Bradette
tion is known to the authorities, the present sitting members in the Ontario legislature, Mr. A. V. Waters and Mr. A. F. Kenning, no political nomination will interfere with a man working for the Northern Ontario Development department. I gladly make that statement.
My view is that there are three things which are holding back the prosperity of northern Ontario and which are also incidental to the prosperity of Canada as a whole. First of all is the question of agriculture, and I am going to reserve the right to speak on that matter when the agriculture estimates are presented to the house. There is a question I wish to ask of the Minister of Labour to-morrow or a few days hence in regard to the scheme which he mentioned this afternoon and has mentioned on several occasions, in connection with which the party received a great deal of publicity, having to do with the placing of thousands of people on the land in the last eighteen months with the help of the transportation systems. Last year I asked a question in the house and I received no reply. But again following the footsteps of the present Minister of Labour, I wish to speak of the wonderful rural districts in my constituency which are well suited for agricultural purposes. The districts of Cochrane are among the finest rural districts in Canada, showing an increase of 800 per cent in the last eighteen years, but I have yet to see a single person who has been placed on a farm there under this scheme mentioned by the Minister of Labour. I am going to ask the minister, how many people have been placed on the farms in North Timiskaming under the federal government scheme?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I shall be very glad to
look up the figures for the hon. member, but I do not have them before me at the moment.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It has also been stated that this scheme did not cost the federal administration a penny. Everybody knows that the transportation systems are not going to help finance the settlers further than bringing in their effects. I say as a settler myself, knowing the situation as it is in the rural sections of the country, that it is absolutely ridiculous-that is the proper word-to put anybody on the land unless he is going to receive assistance from the federal or provincial government. There should be a special grant. It is not sufficient to place those settlers on the farms; they must also be helped. The Minister of Labour knows his section of the country as I know mine, and he knows perfectly well that if you take

a man from Ottawa, Toronto or any other industrial centre and place him on a farm in northern Ontario, he cannot succeed unless he is helped by the federal or the provincial government. To-day we have not merely dozens but hundreds of families in our section of the country who are near starvation. I intend to take this matter up when the estimates are under consideration. Like the minister I have at heart the settlement of northern Ontario, but I repeat, it is not playing the game with our future farmers to place them on land in northern Ontario, old Quebec or the western provinces unless they get sufficient financial support from the provincial or federal authorities to enable them to carry on at least during the initial years of farming.
I wish to say a word about the pulpwood question. Naturally we have no quarrel with the east or the west. We settlers in northern Ontario have been very glad to see the western farmers getting from ten to twelve million dollars through the bonus on their wheat. In northern Ontario we are in an unhappy situation in that we cannot even give away the primary product that we have on our bush land. If the government find it possible to bonus the wheat grower they should also find it possible to bonus the settlers who have pulpwood for their first crop. In our section outside of a limited market, all pulpwood dealers are at present offering pulpwood at $3.50 a cord, and at that price, as every hon. member knows, it is absolutely impossible for them to butter their bread. One of the planks that was included in the platform of the Conservative party at the last general election was the prohibition of the free export of pulpwood. They declared for a policy that would prohibit the free export of pulpwood so as not to allow it to be shipped to keep American mills operating while Canadian mills are working part time. That statement was made during the last general election not only by my hon. friend from East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) but by Mr. Finlayson, the Minister of Mines and Forests for Ontario and by the federal Conservative party as a whole; and by reason of those declarations the American market which we had for our pulpwood was entirely disrupted. In my constituency there are three large newsprint mills with a daily capacity sufficient to supply the requirements of all the newspapers of Canada, and under those conditions it is absolutely necessary that we find an outside market for newsprint.
There is another angle to this situation. These mills must necessarily buy within a certain radius of their mills. The mill at

Unemployment-Mr. Bradette
Iroquois Falls, for instance, cannot buy pulp-wood east, west, north or south at a further distance than one hundred miles from the mill; consequently the farmers who are outside that area must find an outside market for their pulpwood. The only logical market we have for that pulpwood is the American market. During the last general election every American buyer in the Hearst district along the Canadian National, the Algoma Central, was withdrawn on account of the threatened restrictions on the export of pulpwood if the Conservative party came into power. I speak of my own knowledge. Our rural population are absolutely relying for their existence on pulpwood as the first crop while they are opening up the land, and unless they are able to dispose of that crop they cannot remain on the land. I hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) will come out with a clear-cut statement and say that no restrictions will be placed on the export of pulpwood to the United States. Some people may say that there are no restrictions now. That may be so, but the threat of restrictions has disturbed the equilibrium of the pulpwood situation in northern Ontario. Persons competent to speak on this matter made that statement to me several times.
The other day, during the discussion of the potato situation in New Brunswick, we were told that the potato growers were given special freight rates so that they could market their potatoes in Ontario and Quebec. Unluckily for us in northern Ontario there are no preferential freight rates for any of the products that we produce. Last fall I was told by a pulpwood dealer that a contract for fifty thousand cords of pulpwood was turned down because on applying to the Canadian National railway board for a special rate it was denied the freight rates as applied in 1914. I maintain that it is the duty of this government to make the rulings of the railway board flexible enough so that in times of emergency like the present we may be granted special rates which would enable us to market our pulpwood in the American market.
I want to say a word about the trans-Canada highway, which is all important to northern Ontario. Every Conservative and Liberal candidate in the last election declared in favour of it. They were an absolute unit. The only difference of opinion between them was that some were not going far or fast enough. Some visualized the complete construction of the road within three years, others
within ten years. The people of northern Ontario remember, whether they heard it from the lips of the present Minister of Labour or the Conservative or Liberal candidates in northern Ontario, that they were all a unit for the building of the trans-Canada highway through that section of the country to provide a connecting link between the east and west, a road that would go through all Canadian territory.
Last year at Winnipeg or Regina the present Prime Minister made a statement that the trans-Canada highway would be routed over the Ferguson highway. The hon. member for East Algoma has also promised us a compromised highway, which I think has been pretty well accepted by the province of Ontario, so far as the route is concerned, but to my regret no work has been done over that section of the Ferguson highway except to straighten and widen some parts of it. South of Hearst in the Coppell section we were hoping that they would commence work on the road building towards Kenora, Fort William and Port Arthur, north of the great lakes. The government owes it to itself as well as to northern Ontario to carry out the promise which was distinctly made, and which the people clearly understood, to commence work on this trans-Canada highway. It ill behooves any member of the Conservative party to come into our section now and say that the Conservative party did not make any such promise. The promise was distinctly made. It is true that there are divergent opinions as to the route. The Minister of Labour himself was outspoken as to the route. It was a foregone conclusion that it was to be over the Ferguson highway. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) has also spoken of the trans-Canada highway going up to Fort William. Nevertheless the fact remains that the government should come out with a clear cut policy in this matter. Before the present High Commissioner for Canada in London left this country he made the statement, in the fall of 1930, that the routing of the trans-Canada highway rested entirely on the shoulders of the present government. So far no government, either provincial or federal, has dared to commit itself as to that routing. I may tell the present government that the people in northern Ontario are becoming impatient, but are hoping they will receive fair treatment. I repeat that during the last election campaign all candidates were in acoord so far as the building of the trans-

Unemployment-Mr. Bradette
Canada highway was concerned and its going through northern Ontario.
This afternoon the Minister of Labour quoted several letters dealing with the present situation. I also am going to quote certain articles from a Conservative newspaper. Fortunately in my district there are three good weekly newspapers, the Kapuskasing Tribune, of Kapuskasing, the Northland Post, of Cochrane, and the Porcupine Advance, of Timmins. Those three newspapers have the prosperity and advancement of northern Ontario at heart. The Minister of Railways and Canals tried to create the impression that the unemployment situation was not acute in northern Ontario. To refute that statement I am going to read some of the articles written in those newspapers. Turning to the Porcupine Advance of November 12, 1931, I find the following under the heading "Fair Play Needed":
Apparently the powers that be do not realize the seriousness of the unemployment situation in the north land. There are still hundreds of unemployed at Timmins, at Kirkland Lake, at Cochrane and at other places in the north, and up to the present moment nothing material has been done by the government of Ontario to relieve the situation. In the case of Timmins, one hundred men, out of a thousand or more, have been provided with employment in the past few weeks. What is to be done with the others? Press reports suggest that Hon. Mr. Finlayson indicates that the municipalities will be expected to care for their own married men. Such a suggestion is like Tim Buck's revolution it doesn't mean what it semes to imply. According to Tim Buck revolution isn't revolution but rather a state of mind. Hon. Mr. Finlayson's suggestion that each town should care for its own unemployed does not mean that at all, but rather it implies an inferiority complex or a pain in the neck. It should be remembered that Timmins, for instance, has already cared for all its own and a thousand over. There is not an industry or business or concern in Timmins that is not employing as many as a year or more ago. No men have been thrown out of work in Timmins during the past year or two, practically speaking. Instead there have been fully two thousand men come in here and fully half of these have been absorbed. That means in other words that Timmins has cared for all its own and a thousand besides and now the suggestion is made that the town care for a thousand others from the ends of the earth. Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa, Winnipeg and scores of other cities have had industries close down or go on part time. Are these cities caring for their unemployed? Thousands of men have been taken from the south and a few from northern centres to work on the trans-Canada highway, but not a man has been moved from Timmins, or Cochrane, or Kirkland Lake to the trans-Canada work. Where is the sense or the justice or the fairness behind the attitude adopted? Who is responsible? There is a growing belief that much of the trouble rests with Hon. Mr. Finlayson. If this is a correct guess, there will inevitably develop a demand that Hon. Mr. 
Finlayson be replaced by a man with some sympathy for the north, or at least one willing to give this section of country something like a fair deal. The town of Timmins is very willing to do its share and more. It has already contributed more than its fair share to unemployment relief. The government has approved a .$60,000 program of necessary work planned by Timmins but even though this is actually designed to relieve unemployment of outsiders who have drifted to Timmins and are now out of work themselves or have displaced Timmins men in employment, the government apparently is seeking to evade its responsibility for these outsiders and to lay the whole burden on the town. Though approving the whole $60,000 worth of work for relief, the government is ready so far to contribute a share of only $20,000 of the amount. The attention of the government is directed to the fact that the people of Timmins are not able to shoulder the burden thrust upon them. There are literally hundreds of people here who find it a hardship to meet tax bills as they are now. Some are unable to pay their taxes at all. The general conditions and special circumstances are felt by many in serious way. Is it fair or right to overburden the taxpayers of Timmins to support the unemployed hundreds who are clearly and surely the responsibility of the province, not the town?
I wish to say a few words concerning statistics which have been recited by the Minister of Labour. He stated this afternoon that as a result of unemployment relief measures, some 334,000 people have been given work. I do not doubt his figure, but all sorts of stunts can be done with them and I should like more elaborate statements. I should like to hear the number of hours worked, the occupations, and so on. I have in mind hundreds of people in my own riding who have only ten or twenty days' work during the year, and who receive S2.40 per day for their work. Married men are allowed to work only three days a week, making only about 8360 in a year, if they could find employment for the whole year. Worse than that, however, a single man is allowed to work only two days per week, and in that new section of the country we have a great number of unmarried men who have come among us to hew out a living. I can see no reason why there should be such a restriction against single men.
When the Minister of Labour mentioned that at the large salary of S7.20 per week there is really no starvation I was tempted to think that those people must be near starvation. In my own riding I know that there are families who have not the clothing to go to church or to mix with their friends, and because of that are even deprived of fresh air. I know of people eating potatoes three times a day, and who have been doing so for the last three months. These are facts; and if possible I should like some government

Unemployment-Mr. Bradette
official to go to northern Ontario, particularly to North Timiskanaing, and see for himself the conditions existing up there in some of the rural sections.
' I believe the Minister of Labour is sincere in his statement. I well remember that last summer during the provincial election campaign in the province of Quebec he told the settlers in that province that if they wanted roads they ought to come to Ontario. I am glad to learn that in his opinion the settlers in South Timiskaming have all the roads they require. I want to say to him that in my own riding there are settlers who have been on their places for the last fifteen or twenty years and who still have to pack the provisions for their families on account of lack of roads. If they have all the roads they require in South Timiskaming I hope the minister, out of his kindness of heart, will use all influence with the federal and provincial authorities to see that the settlers get work on the roads to which they were entitled a number of years ago. I took the statement he made in the province of Quebec at par value; I wanted to believe it represented the actual fact; I hope that every settler in those northern constituencies will have all the roads they require in the very near future. May I say, however, that in this year of grace 1932 in North Timiskaming there are hundreds of settlers who have not the road facilities to which they are entitled.
At this point may I refer to some comments made in the Porcupine Advance of December 31, 1932:
Anyone who gives any particular thought to the matter will regret to note the sad failure made by the province of Ontario in dealing with the unemployment problem. The Dominion government attacked the problem in a big way and left the path open for the province to deal effectively and successfully with the difficulty. Instead of extended work on a broad scale, the province seems to have been overwhelmed by the situation and the effort to right matters has been spasmodic and panicky. Most of the battle has been left to the municipalities and even the towns and cities have not received the support deserved. In the case of Timmins, for instance, while all the program planned by the town was approved by the commission in charge, only part of it came in for assistance from the government, though the whole program was designed for the relief of people who are clearly a provincial or dominion responsibility and not a local one. The camp is employing over a thousand men more than two years ago, and yet had a thousand men out of work, this meaning that all the unemployment here was caused by men drifting in from other centres. In the apportionment of men for work on the trans-Canada highway there has been no quota from Timmins. Towns and cities where the unemployment has originated have been helped unduly, at the expense of other centres that were ready to
care for a proportion of the unemployed of other places. Only a hundred men have been taken from Timmins for work at the special camps of the northern development department. The first hundred men have been returned and another hundred taken in their place, the matter thus resolving itself into a part time employment at a wage rate too low for decent living even under steady employment. With a number of public works very necessary for the advantage of the country-such as the road connecting up the mining camps of Sudbury, Shining-tree, Elk Lake, Matachewan, and Porcupine

it would be possible to provide work for all, to the general advantage. It may be argued that there is not money for these works. In case of such an argument there will be a general demand to know where the money has all gone, and also if there is no money for public works under which men may preserve their independence and the country receive some benefit, there is yet money for direct relief. Indeed a premium is placed on direct relief by municipalities, the government giving a larger grant for such relief than for the better form of relief-the only sensible form of relief-work for the unemployed. The people of Canada do not want relief of the charity type. They simply want some of their own money, and for this they are willing to work for the common benefit.
Hundreds of men out of work in Timmins, though the town has done more than its share for the relief of unemployment by the providing of work! Hundreds out of work in other towns of the north, and elsewhere throughout Ontario! All this after the government has had months to prepare and arrange affairs!
The government should turn over a new leaf for the new year. There should be earnestness and efficiency shown in the work of the relief of the unemployed. Had it not been for incidental matters that provided employment; had it not been for the work undertaken by municipalities; and had it not been for the remarkably mild weather this year, the province would have more serious hardship for a large number of men than the amount that has been encountered. and that amount has been altogether too much.
In the new year the government should take up the unemployment question in a different attitude altogether. No thought should be given to the preservation of profits for any who have already made big money from the resources of the province. There should be no care for the feelings of the high finance group. There should be system and efficiency established, with the sole idea in mind of relieving unemployment by means of providing necessary and valuable work that will benefit the country and people.
The Dominion government has a blank cheque for the relief of unemployment. This blank cheque has been passed on, as it were, to the provinces. Should there be more money spent than the people think has been possible in Ontario from the comparatively small amount of relief provided, and if the end of Ontario's share is in sight, then the province can safely come to the people for more funds. It is certain that the people in general are absolutely opposed to the idea of anyone starving to death, or even suffering hardship. There is a very general feeling that unemployment must be relieved. There are only two ways to relieve it, the one being by direct relief and the other by providing work. The system of direct relief is

Unemployment-Mr. Bradette
against all the ideas of tlie people of Canada. To the average Canadian the only sensible plan seems to be to provide work. In this the government will receive the fullest support. The government should start the new year right by getting some system into its relief work program and seeing that the ordinary run of men get a fair deal.
Having regard to the severity of the unemployment situation in northern Ontario I desire to give the viewpoint of the rural population. The Minister of Labour said in reference to the letters that he had received from the various organized municipalities that the local authorities were prepared to look after the relief work. But we must not lose sight of the fact that most of the rural districts of northern Ontario are not organized. Consequently all the responsibility for attending to relief work in these sections falls on the provincial government. There are sections in my own riding that have been opened up for settlement for the last twenty years, but they are still unorganized, and up to date the people there have not received anything by way of unemployment relief. In this connection I desire to read to the house a letter I received this morning from the president of the local settlers' association of Mattice. He writes under date of February 20, 1932:
Yours of the 1st inst., duly came to hand, and we greatly appreciate your loyal support to relieve distress in this section, although this is not altogether under the direct control of the authorities at Ottawa. However being aware that you have done all in your power, and in turn we have not pointed out to you the general injustice felt, as we had hopes that a change was to take place locally, in accord with promise made by the engineer in writing; however no change took place and nothing is being done yet to relieve conditions locally. With this in mind we feel that we should draw your attention to the following facts:
1.	Relief was demanded for reason already stated, and nothing has been done although promises were made.
2.	The northern department of development undertook to complete the gravelling from Mattice, starting at mileage 103 to Opesatika by trucks.
3.	Married men were given employment at the gravel pit three days during week and single men two days during week, and the number of men is very small and not providing for a fair revenue to those without revenue.
4.	Regular employment on this job, was given to mostly all men from outside (men from Hearst and Cochrane), and Mattice could have provided for some of this employment; why was it not done?
("A" They brought in a man from outside to cut wood for stoves, a single man. Men couMhave been found at Mattice for this job.
"B" They brought in a man from outside to keep fire going in the camps during the night. Men could have been found in Mattice for this job.

"C" They brought in a man from Cochrane to check gravel at the other end, when there is a man already doing this, in this case we feel it is duplicate work for nothing.
"D" They brought in men from outside to put up a small garage with lumber and a little tarred paper. Men in Mattice could have done this work.
"E" All trucks are employed six days during the week. Though this comes under the necessary relief to relieve local distress, all these men are from outside.
"F" They have a man to operate a tractor for snow ploughing who is more or less idle but on regular weekly pay. This same man has a truck of his own running on the roads hauling gravel, but employing another man in its place, this man is a single man and the son of local road inspector at Hearst.)
5.	We understand that relief money voted by the federal authorities was to be spent in the interest of localities affected and in need of work for his own people and the provincial authority was to administer these funds. At Mattice, Fryatt. MacBay, and Reesar, nothing is done to give work to settlers in need.
6.	If it was necessary to gravel the road for automobiles from outside, for which settlers have no use, why employ trucks altogether. This work could have been done on a fair basis by permitting the trucks to gravel the long distance travelling east and permitting the teams from settlers to get on and gravel the short distance travelling west, as understood and promised by the provincial authorities, this on about December 1st. At that time they were aware of our need and promised the work: since then nothing has been done to give to the settlers a little revenue. We are in need of revenue by the means of work, if they knew of our need. How long will it take to overcome the distress? Promises do not give a man on a lot something to eat for his family and permit him to meet his obligations.
We have already a case of a settler on a well settled farm, owing to the fact he could not get work for his horses, and not being able to afford to feed his two horses all winter doing nothing, he decided to kill the poorest one. Will this last much longer?
I feel it is not necessary to enter into very many details of this sort, for you know our general conditions. It would require very little to help us to see the year over, and this we ask and must obtain in the form of work.
In a few days now many many teams will be done hauling the little pulpwood there was to haul, and what are we going to do?
We understand that some men made the statement that the settlers in this section were well off and did not need relief work. Why this statement? I presume it is in the form of punishment which is not needed, for we have enough of the actual distress without allowing such statements to be made and taken as granted that we are not in need of work. These statements is merely made by the man or men as their personal views, and are not correct.
My dear Mr. Bradette, is it not possible apparently to obtain satisfaction within our needs? By good will we all urge you to bring up our cause to the proper authorities again, and if necessary take the matter up in House of Commons of Canada. We are Canadians and we want to be Canadians. Through you, our representative, we demand action.

Unemployment-Mr. Fournier
Previous to the last election during the debates in this house certain ho'n. members put the onus on the government of relieving unemployment on the ground that it had become so serious that it was a national matter. During the last election the Conservative party stated that unemployment was purely and simply a federal matter, and if they were returned to power it would be so dealt with at once without any red tape. I know that the Hon. Mr. Finlayson, Minister of Lands and Forests in the provincial cabinet, has been down to Ottawa on different occasions, and the officials of the northern development branch have told the settlers in my section of the country, and rightly so, that if they did not get the relief work they were entitled to it was because the federal government had not made the necessary grant to the provincial authorities. The Canadian people are alive to the situation and are giving the fullest latitude to the government to apply adequate remedies. On January 31, the Mail and Empire contained the following despatch from Ottawa:
Ontario Asks Funds For Highway Work
Request for Further Appropriation Presented to Federal Cabinet Finlayson in Ottawa
Ottawa, Jan. 31.-The Dominion Cabinet has under consideration the request of the Ontario government for further appropriations to make it possible to continue work on the trans-Canada highway. Hon. William Finlayson, Ontario Minister of Lands and Forests, was in Ottawa on Saturday, when he laid before some of the ministers the need for additional appropriations.
Hon. William Finlayson, who was in Ottawa Saturday conferring with the Dominion government regarding further finances for the trans-Canada and other Northern Ontario road relief projects, stated last night that he expected a definite reply from Premier Bennett to-day on the situation.
Mr. Finlayson declined to say what appropriation is required to carry the road work on until April as originally scheduled, or what the province had asked the federal authorities to contribute further in this regard.
Premier George S. Henry to-night stated work on the trans-Canada highway in Ontario had progressed with unexpected speed owing to mild weather prevailing throughout the areas in which construction camps are situated.
The result, he said, had been that more money was already spent than officials had anticipated. The original estimates provided funds to carry work on until April 1. The province and the dominion provided the money on a fifty-fifty basis. Mr. Henry said he could not immediately determine the amount of money remaining from the original appropriation, nor the length of time it would be possible to carry on the work without calling for more funds. Eventually, he said, more money would have to be appropriated.
I know the Prime Minister is anxious to relieve unemployment, and therefore I make this statement to him that on the first of April all the money distributed for unemployment relief in the province of Ontario will have been spent, but there will still be unemployment. This is the worst time of the year for our settlers in northern Ontario, for if they are not able to earn sufficient money to buy seed grain and keep their families in food and clothing they will have to abandon their holdings and come down to the already overcrowded urban centres. I make an earnest appeal to the government-and if the Minister of Labour were in his seat I know he would cooperate with me, because he knows the situation as well as I do-I make an earnest appeal to the government that more money be appropriated for the unemployed in the rural and industrial sections of northern Ontario, that more road work be undertaken so that it may be carried on well into June and July. I am making this appeal in the hope that the government, being now familiar with the seriousness of conditions in northern Ontario, will devise a plan to relieve the pressing necessities of the population there, otherwise they will find it impossible to remain on their holdings or keep their property. In the name of my constituents, in the name of the fine type of people of whom the Minister of Labour spoke this afternoon, I make this fervent appeal to the government to take such measures as will enable them to carry on their work of opening up for Canada and for the world that wonderful section of the dominion that we call northern Ontario.


Mr. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Hull):: I
shall be very brief in my remarks, Mr. Speaker, but I was induced to speak on this motion after listening to the remarks of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), who quoted figures to show to what extent the government had helped to relieve unemployment throughout the country. He stated that in 1930 no one knew exactly how long this depression would last or what its intensity would be, and he also said that if it had been a normal depression the measures adopted by the government certainly would have had a good effect and would have relieved unemployment to a greater extent.
The minister stated that 870,570,080 was spent in 1930 throughout the country on relief work, and that the share of this government was about $14,000,000. He also stated that this provided work for 332,000 individuals. He stopped his figures at that point, but I think he should have gone further and stated how many days these 332,000 people had

4S2

Unemployment-Mr. Fournier
worked. It would have been found that they had worked only a little over seven million days. Going further, we find that during 1930 these people worked an average of 23 days during the entire year; that was the extent of the relief given the unemployed by relief work. If we were to calculate the amount spent as compared with the number of individuals receiving relief, we would find that each working day given these people cost the municipal, provincial and federal governments about $10, and in 1931 the figures were not much improved. Up to January 1 of this year $60,000,000 was spent on relief work, giving work to 285,000 people, who averaged 11 days work per person. The share of the federal government in that relief work amounted to about $28,000,000.
It must be remembered that in addition to relief work the government gave money for direct relief. In 1930 this amounted to about $2,000,000, according to the Financial Post of January 20. This amount helped some 430,770 heads of families and single people, so that the $2,000,000 spent on direct relief, together with the $5,000,000 provided by provincial and municipal governments for that purpose, helped more people than were helped by the relief work which has been carried on at much greater cost.
After the minister said that no one knew how long the depression would last or what intensity it would reach I was tempted to ask what measures the government would have taken had they known this depression was world-wide; I was anxious to learn what other means they could have employed to relieve conditions. The minister was silent on that matter; he only stated that people throughout the country were kept from starvation through the actions of this government. I must remind the house that when this depression started in 1929 the revenues of the country were going down, so the money spent for relief had to be borrowed. This $70,000,000 was secured in that way and added to the funded debts of the municipal, provincial and federal governments, so there must be added to our obligations a further amount of about three millions, being amount of interest on that borrowed money.
The largest part of this money was spent on public works, such as buildings, highways and bridges. We did not actually need a great many of these buildings and highways, or at least they could have waited for normal times when the cost would have been lower. Surely some other scheme to aid unemployment could have been devised. I still believe the government should have helped 
by direct grants to the provincial governments and the municipalities, because in that way more people would have been assisted.
As to local conditions in the city of Hull, I may say that we have about two thousand people unemployed or employed on part time. The different industries in Hull are working on part time, and since we have also a certain number of civil servants, we will suffer still more if the proposed bill concerning civil servants is passed. Since September 1 last we have spent nearly $75,000 on direct relief, which amount has been contributed by the municipal, provincial and federal governments, but every day we have unemployed persons stopping us on the streets or calling at our houses for food. They are so destitute that they have not the pride that enables people to bear up under this depression. Hull is not a very rich city; it is composed in the main of labourers, and when our few industries close theiir doors necessarily these people must rely on help coming from the different governments. Of the two thousand people I am told that about four hundred received one week's work out of four in the city.
As to the city of Ottawa, where unemployment should not be known, I riiould like to quote from the Citizen of a few days ago. The article is headed "Work for Ottawa Women", and states:
Yesterday in Ottawa some devoted members of the Local Council of Women opened a workroom where destitute women can be given an opportunity to earn a few dollars weekly. The plan is to give out sewing and mending work. On the first day more than 130 women applied. Some were receiving temporary relief through the welfare bureau, but they are women who want work rather than a charitable ration of food.


Eccles James Gott: Mr. Speaker, I direct your
attention to the fact that it is eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, February 24, 1932