Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved:: That the following members do constitute a special committee of this house, pursuant to the motion adopted by this house on the 25th day of February, 1932, to consider and report upon appointments to and the control and direction of the civil service of Canada, and generally the administration and operation of the Civil Service Act, as in the said motion more fully set out; viz.:	Messieurs Lawson, Bowman,
Laurin, Ernst, Chevrier, Vallance and Woods-worth; with power to the said committee to send for persons and papers, and to examine witnesses, and to report from time to time to this house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the serious situation of the farmers of Manitoba in regard to lack of feed for cattle and of seed grain, and the fact that no satisfactory arrangement for relief can be arrived at with the government.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member for
Lisgar (Mr. Brown) was good enough to give me a copy of his motion in advance, and I have had an opportunity to consider it. I must hold that the application is not in order, that it is an application for the adjournment of the house in order to discuss a matter for the discussion of which the motion to go into committee of supply or other appointed business will afford an early opportunity. The motion to go into supply, or the resolution on the order paper to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, will afford an ample and early opportunity for the discussion of the question which the hon. member now seeks to bring up.


John Livingstone Brown: I suppose I will have to
bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but this is a matter of such prime importance that on other occasions I have brought it to the attention of the house. Horses and cattle are dying-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is not that the matter is not of importance; I have so ruled because, as I have said, there will be ample opportunity to discuss the question under the appointed business of the house.


John Livingstone Brown: All I can say is that horses and cattle are starving to death.



STEEL INDUSTRY AT SYDNEY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. FINLAY MacDONALD (South Cape Breton):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). I am in receipt of a telegram from Sydney, which states that conditions are very serious due to the prolonged idleness of the steel works. We have been hoping that the situation might be bettered by a rail order from the Canadian National Railways. We all recognize the financial condition of the road-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Finlay MacDonald: I ask the indulgence of the house for a moment while I explain my point. The rails are needed, and the order would be of great help to us just now. Perhaps I may not be in order, but I should like to ask the minister if he might anticipate his statement on the railway question, and give us some information now as to whether we might hope to get an order for rails from the Canadian National Railways.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: The hon. gentleman was good
enough to mention this matter to me yesterday, and I have made inquiries in the interval. I knew the road would not require very much in the line of rails, but according to the information given me with regard to the railway estimates, which will be tabled in the course of a few days, from ten thousand to fifteen thousand tons of rails will be required in the Atlantic region, which probably will affect the mill mentioned by the hon. member. That is the best information I can give him at the present time, and I doubt very much if there is any hope of getting that amount increased, for the reason he mentions, that is, the financial condition of the railway at the present time.



ONTARIO INDIANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to

Ontario Indians
ask the Prime Minister or the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs if the attention of the government has been directed to certain reports appearing in the press with regard to what would appear to be a lamentable condition prevailing among the Indians in parts of this country through lack of sufficient care and food. The statement is to the effect that the situation has been brought about in part as a consequence of the cutting down of the appropriations made for the proper care of the Indians. Perhaps my hon. friend the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs is in a position to make a statement.


Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Superintendent General of Indian Affairs):: The right hon. gentleman has couched his question in such general terms that a definite answer is rather difficult to give. I do not know whether he refers to any particular district or to any particular group of Indians, or whether his question applies to all Canada. If he could make his point a little more definite I would be in a better position to answer his question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand the reference is more particularly to the northern Ontario region.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: This matter was drawn to my attention, I may say, by an article which appeared in the Toronto Globe with particular reference to that portion of northern Ontario known as the district of Patricia, and the charges outlined in the article were to the effect that the Indians were not being properly looked after. This district, as my right hon. friend knows, is isolated and without means of communication other than by air-plane, by canoe or travel overland. The Indians in that territory are few in number, and in matters of relief we deal with them through the factors of the Hudson's Bay Company and the various missionaries in that area.
In answer to the right hon. gentleman's question I might read portions of a couple of letters which have been received by the Department of Indian Affairs in connection with this matter. The first is a letter from the Trout Lake mission, near Sioux Lookout, which reads as follows:
The plane is expected in next week so I am taking tile opportunity of forwarding you my requisitions for medical and school supplies. I am also sending you the statement of my services as dispenser during the past six months as this is our only winter mail. I have not heard yet as to whether there will be another plane call for the Hudson's Bay Company in June, probably there will.	.
Most likely next week we shall receive the dates for your proposed itinerary next summer.
Now comes the important part of the letter:
The Indians here are keeping very well and happy although fur prices are poor. They have an abundance of country food this winter which is by far the most important for their health and happiness. Please excuse this hasty letter. I have been very busy this winter which has been a very good thing for me as it has kept my mind fully occupied on my work.
That letter is dated February 5, 1932; it is signed by the Reverend Leslie Garrett, and is addressed to H. N. Awrey, of the Department of Indian Affairs, the officer who makes the annual payments during the summer. Then I have an extract from a letter written by Mr. I. W. McCauley, Hudson's Bay Company, Cat Lake Post, Narrow Lake Post Office, Ontario. I may tell my right hon. friend that this office is located near the Cariboo Indians, who are referred to in the Globe article, and who are also known as the Nikip band. This is the extract:
AH the Indians are well up this way and doing fairly well this winter excepting the old people and one woman who is very sick. The Cariboo Indians are also all doing fairly well and are very pleased to hear that you are going to pay them at Cedar Lake this summer.
I do not know whether or not this completely answers the question my right hon. friend has in mind; if not, I may be able to give him further information.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Arising out of the question submitted to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy) by the leader of the opposition-I am sorry I was not in my place at the moment-may I ask the minister whether he would consider sending some airplanes in there with some officers to investigate the condition of the Indians in the Patricia district, where it is reported there have been many deaths as well as considerable suffering.


Mr. BENNETT:: There is a letter only
three weeks' old, saying they were very happy.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: In the light of information furnished me by the missionary and the factor of the Hudson's Bay Company, I shall have to receive more accurate information before I consider sending airplanes in at this time of year.



BEAUHARNOIS POWER PROJECT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Now that the order in council has been passed implementing the legislation of last session with regard to Beauhamois, can the Prime Minister give any information to the house as to the condition of the enterprise, the
Petroleum and Naphtha Act

relationship of the government thereto, and perhaps more particularly with reference to the matter of guarantees that may have been given to the banks for financing the works?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman sent me a note
before noon saying that he proposed to ask the question. It is proposed to lay upon the table at an early date the documents in connection with the matter, proclamation having been issued yesterday bringing into force today the statute that was passed at the last session, and orders in council based on the authority of that statute will be laid upon the table by the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) to-morrow. I trust. In the meantime I will look through the hon. gentleman's observations in Hansard and see whether I can make some further statement.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Yesterday a motion standing in my name was moved by my hon. friend from West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart), for a copy of all orders and regulations of the governor in council under chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, for relieving distress and unemployment. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) asked that the motion stand, saying that these orders would all be included in the papers which would be tabled. Now I have on the order paper another motion asking that there be laid on the table all the orders with regard to the maintenance of peace, order and good government under the same statute. May I ask the Prime Minister, before the resolution is proceeded with which he has placed on the order paper for the purpose of extending that statute from March 1 to May 1, that there be brought down all the orders which have been passed thereunder since last year so that we can discuss his resolution intelligently.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is intended to lay upon the table
of the house all orders passed under the authority of the statute to which the hon. gentleman refers. They comprise a considerably large number of orders in council, and the report which the Minister of Labour proposes to table will cover them all. He said yesterday that he hoped to be able to table that report by the end of the week. To postpone until that date consideration of the resolution will work very great hardship upon western Canada. They are dependent upon the ability of the government to enact 
the necessary legislation to make to them advances to permit them to purchase seed grain, the case mentioned by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) being one of them. I propose to make as full an explanation as I think the circumstances demand before seeking an extension of the statute, and if it will be of any interest to the hon. gentleman I may say that I am quite content that every order in council issued under it *should be laid upon the table of the house at the next session of this chamber subsequent to its passing, that is, under the extended order. It is only to meet an emergent situation, full particulars of which we have been endeavouring for weeks to ascertain and which we now have.



DESTRUCTIVE INSECT AND PEST ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 18, to amend the Destructive Insect and Pest Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time and referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue) moved the second reading of Bill No. 20, to amend the Petroleum and Naphtha Inspection Act.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Explain.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: The explanation wras
given on the introduction of the bill. It is very short and if hon. members will take the trouble to read the explanatory note the whole compass of the matter will be apparent. No one objects and it helps everyone.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.
On section 1-Tests of petroleum.
Mr. DONNELLY:: It is provided in section 10 that petroleum shall not be sold if, when tested by the pyrometer, it emits a vapour that will flash, at a lower temperature than 85 degrees fahrenheit. Should not this provision with regard to the temperature be included in subsection (b) ? It appears in subsection (a).


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It was not there before.
I do not know and I do not wish to sail under false colours; I may not know as

Canadian National Railways-Finances
much about temperatures as does my hon. friend, but I do know that the passage of this bill will permit a certain class of petroleum to be used. I was not a member of the house when this act was passed and I cannot of my own knowledge give the information asked for by the hon. member.


James J. Donnelly: If this provision does
not refer to clauses (a) and (b), then the bill is all wrong. We know that when gasoline is heated it weighs much less, and when it becomes chilled it increases in weight.


Mr. YOUNG:: I understand the purpose
of this amendment to be to make possible the sale for illuminating purposes of a product which has not been sold in the past for that purpose. Has any scientific test been made as to the illuminating qualities of this new product? Those who burn kerosene complain that they are unable to obtain the quality which they used to get and these people are anxious to know whether this amendment is to result in an improved or deteriorated quality of kerosene.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am not in position to answer the hon. member. If he is acquainted with the provisions of the act he knows the conditions which have been in force. This bill will eliminate the cutting of petroleum with gasoline; it will provide for the production of a good product without the necessity of going to that trouble and expense.


Edward James Young: I suggest that this bill
should stand over until a test has been made to determine whether the quality will be improved or deteriorated.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The chemists in our
department have done what the hon. gentleman asks should be done, and they have reported that the change will be of benefit.


Edward James Young: Benefit to whom?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I must rely upon that
information.


Edward James Young: It may be that this bill
will benefit some but it may not benefit others. This is a technical matter; we are not qualified to decide whether or not this proposed amendment will improve the kerosene. I suggest that this is a matter for scientific experts, and we should wait upon their judgment.


Mr. VALLANCE:: The point raised by
the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) is well taken. The explanatory note reads in part:
The proposal to amend the act to permit the marketing of this product has been submitted to experts of the Department of the Interior and of the Department of National Revenue, who have agreed that the proposed amendment can be made without increasing fire hazard or otherwise interfering with the objects of the act.
Is this amendment to be to the advantage of the consumer or is it to stimulate production? There must be something behind the bill. If the experts have done as the explanatory note says they have done, the minister should be in a position to say who is going to benefit.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: As the explanatory note says, the experts of the departments of National Revenue and the Interior have pronounced in favour of this amendment. I do not pretend to be an expert in this matter and I must rely upon the officials of the departments. If the hon. gentleman or any of his friends have special knowledge of this matter, let them tell the committee wherein this bill fails.


John Vallance: It is not a matter of
having knowledge, it is the lack of knowledge which we want to supply.


Mr. ERNST:: The hon. member has that.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: The hon. member started with that.


John Vallance: The explanatory note
states that the experts have this knowledge and it should be available to the committee. I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Weyburn is well founded.
Progress reported.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved tlhe second reading of Bill No. 21, respecting the Canadian National Railways, and to authorize additional provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during tlhe calendar year 1931.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill in effect is a supplementary estimate and it is hoped that some time next week we will be aible to bring down the main estimates for the Canadian National Railways. At that time I intend to make a general statement on the railway situation but at the moment I should like to have this bill referred to the special committee on railways and shipping. Then, any
66S	COMMONS
Criminal Code*-Cheques Without Funds
discussion which the house may choose to have on this matter may be undertaken next week when the main estimates are brought down.
Mr. RALSTON:: Can the minister state to the house whether or not he is able to lay upon the table the report of the Canadian National Railways for 1931? I take it that he must have the information because he is asking for the passage of a bill which provides for the actual operating deficit for last year.


Robert James Manion: I have made inquiries and I find that it, has never been the custom for the Canadian National Railways to bring down their report earlier than about March 15. They are working on it at the present time, but in the meantime they have given me sufficient information to draft this bill; they need this $11,000,000 immediately, and the annual report can be discussed by the special committee and by the house, if it so chooses, when the regular estimates are being considered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committe on railways and shipping.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 22, to amend the criminal code (cheques without funds and grand juries).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Hugh Guthrie: This bill is an effort to remedy a difficulty which has been felt for some time, particularly among the commercial people of the country, in regard to cheques issued on banks but dishonoured by them on presentation, in most cases there not being sufficient funds to meet the cheques. The only provision at present in the criminal code which applies to such matters is section 404 which we know as the section respecting false pretences. Under that section it has been very difficult in prosecutions to obtain convictions. It has been held by many magistrates and judges sitting in various courts of the provinces that so long as a man has to his credit in the bank any small sum, he is relieved by that fact of any implications of having obtained money on false pretences, and the number of dishonoured1 cheques has grown to such a tremendous amount in recent years that it is thought some attempt should be made to remedy the difficulty. I think I am 
safe in saying that I have had representations from every province and from every representative board and association asking that some amendment be made to section 404 in an endeavour to obviate this difficulty. The number of cheques which were dishonoured last year by the banks is upwards of 70,000. I received a letter to-day from an hotel manager in Ontario stating that the amount of defaulted cheques which had been received at his hotel last year was $130,000. Subsequently the larger proportion of that amount was of course recovered, but the cheques were actually refused, dishonoured, at the banks. I mention these things to show the extent of the grievance from which the commercial community at the present time suffers.
A bill was introduced last year and a good deal of discussion took place with regard to it, but it wias felt that the bill was not in the best form and the matter was allowed to stand. Since that time the law officers of the Department of Justice have given their best attention to the proposition and have drafted a clause which may to some extent meet the difficulty. The amendment proposed in this bill provides:
In any prosecution under this section-
That is, under the section in respect of false pretences.
-if it be shown that any thing capable of being stolen was obtained by the accused by means of a cheque which, when presented for payment within a reasonable time, was dishonoured on the ground that there were no funds or not sufficient funds on deposit in the bank to the credit of the accused, it shall be presumed that such thing was obtained with fraudulent intent by a false pretence, unless it be established to the satisfaction of the court that when the accused issued such cheque he had reasonable grounds for believing that it would be honoured if presented for payment within a reasonable time after it was issued.
The presumption in such a case is that the issuing of such a cheque was fraudulent, but that presumption may be removed if the accused can establish to the satisfaction of the court that when he issued the cheque he had reasonable grounds ito believe that the bank would pay it. I think if this section is adopted and1 the act is amended and given a fair trial, it will to a very large extent avoid the difficulty from which the commercial community has suffered for so many years. It will not, I am sure, cure every case, but it is a step in the right direction.
The other section of the bill relates merely to the province of British Columbia. The government of that province has asked that

Criminal Code-Cheques Without Funds
wiiat we know as the grand jury system be abolished so far as British Columbia is concerned. .


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Has the minister received any representations from any other bodies than the attorney general of the province?


Hugh Guthrie: I think only from the
Attorney General of British Columbia. In the prairie provinces I believe the grand jury system has already been abolished, and British Columbia no doubt is following the lead of the prairie provinces in that respect.


Mr. BRASSET:: I would suggest that the
following words be inserted after the word " that " in the second line:
Any payment of any account.
This is to cover the case of a man who runs a bill in an hotel, for instance, and pays any account with a worthless cheque.


Hugh Guthrie: This bill is not directed
against cheques issued in payment of debts; it is intended to cover cheques issued for the purpose of obtaining goods. However, when the bill goes into committee, I shall be able to explain it more fully.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I am in full accord
with the first section of the bill, but frankly, I have grave doubts as to the propriety of the second section and I would ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) that, if possible, at a later stage of the bill, he would be good enough not to rush it to completion in order that we may have an opportunity of communicating with various interested bodies in British Columbia. No one knows better than the Minister of Justice the grand jury is an ancient and honourable institution and it provides splendid safeguards in connection with the administration of justice. In addition to the preliminary step of finding a true bill or no bill, our grand ' juries on every occasion in British Columbia make exhaustive investigations into the public institutions of the main centres, and their recommendations have very frequently been adopted as the basis of action. Would the Minister be good enough at a later stage to defer the final stages of the bill in order that we may get in touch with boards of trade, labour organizations, law societies and the bench in British Columbia with regard to their attitude toward this particular section?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
On section 1.-Obtaining by false pretence.
Hugh Guthrie: Before I overlook the
matter, let me say in reply to the suggestion made by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre, that I shall be glad to let the bill stand for third reading until he has had an opportunity of communicating with the various bodies in British Columbia whom he mentioned. Personally I am strongly in favour of the grand jury system, and I hesitate very much to agree to its abolition in any province. Yet we must remember that the administration of justice is left in the hands of the provinces and the various provinces make representations that the cost of the grand jury system is very serious, particularly at the present time. I liked the old grand jury of twenty-four, now reduced in the province of Ontario to twelve. That reduction took place for the purpose of saving expense. Now the proposal in the west seems to be to do away with grand juries altogether. I think that they were a valuable part of the administration of the law, and not only in regard to the administration of criminal justice, but grand juries took a general survey of their immediate surroimdings and of the public institutions in their neighbourhood and their reports to judges, and afterwards to governments, were very often very valuable sources of information. I for one do not like to see the system abandoned, but when a responsible officer of the government of a province makes a request for the abolition of that system on the ground of the saving of expense I think perhaps it is our duty to give serious consideration to that request, and as grand juries have been abolished in the prairie provinces, perhaps it would not be unreasonable to grant the same request in British Columbia.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Did they ever have grand juries in the prairie provinces?


Hugh Guthrie: No, they have never been adopted there, and the administration of the law seems to be quite satisfactory there without them. Perhaps it would be reasonable to grant the request of British Columbia. However, I shall be only too glad to let the matter stand until we hear from various public bodies in British Columbia as to what they think of the proposal.


Maurice Brasset: The point I wanted to
raise a little while ago was this: This morning I received a letter from a client of mine saying that someone had received money to give to his client, and instead of turning that money over to his client the individual put the money in the bank and made payment by cheque. Later when the cheque was presented
670	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Cheques Without Funds
for payment there were no funds in the bank to meet it. That happens quite often. I think there should be some provision in the law covering such a practice.


Hugh Guthrie: I am afraid that this
proposed amendment would not cover the case cited by my hon. friend. That is a case where a man obtains money without cheque at all and subsequently issues a cheque to cover the debt. The clause before us applies only to persons who obtain any property that is capable of being stolen, and obtain it by the issuing of a cheque which subsequently turns out to be bad. The mere fact of giving a worthless cheque in payment of an old account does not injure anybody.


Maurice Brasset: This was not an old
account. Suppose a lawyer receives the sum of one hundred dollars to give to a client of his, puts the money into his bank and makes payment by cheque, and the cheque later is not accepted by the bank. There should be a provision in the law to cover such cases.


Hugh Guthrie: That is already covered
by our law. That is the conversion of property to his own use, which is a criminal act on the part of the lawyer. But he did not obtain the money by means of a worthless cheque.


Ernest Lapointe: I remember well that
one of the bodies that were most active in asking for legislation of this kind was the hotelkeepers' association. The hotelkeepers always represented that in various states of the American union the hotelkeepers are protected against N.S.F. cheques, but if I read the section aright, the hotelkeepers will not be protected by the present amendment because when a man issues a cheque for his board at a hotel, it is not in payment of something that is capable of being stolen at the time he makes payment because he has already eaten his board when he gives the cheque. So this will not meet the case, if I understand it aright.


Hugh Guthrie: No, I think it is very
doubtful if it will meet the case of a hotel bill, any more than any other bill. This only covers an actual transaction where the goods are obtained by fraudulent means through the issue of a worthless cheque. A man who has run up a board bill for a week or two, or a month or two, and settles with a worthless cheque is not obtaining goods on false pretences; he is refusing to pay for them.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: There have been criminal prosecutions for that.


Hugh Guthrie: There have been prosecutions. A man was charged with defaulting on his hotel bill. He was charged with obtaining a certain amount of tea, sugar and meat under false pretenses, not intending to pay, but that man was an absolutely worthless fellow who had no responsibility. He was more in the nature of a tramp, and he was convicted under that section.


Mr. JACOBS:: Was it because he was
a worthless fellow?


Hugh Guthrie: Because the presumption was that he never intended to pay, and that he obtained a certain quantity of tea, sugar, meat and bread on false pretences.


Mr. FACTOR:: The man who obtains goods at the present time on a oaA basis and issues a cheque therefor can foe convicted1 of a criminal offence if the cheque is no good, but would a man wiho purchases goods on credit and makes a down payment by means of a worthless cheque be affected by this section?


Hugh Guthrie: It is only where he obtains goods by reason of a bad cheque. If a man purchased goods and pays part caA, and subsequently, when the bill comes in, he issues a cheque that is no good, he did' not obtain those goods on the strength of that cheque, and that is not a criminal offence. The offence is when the cheque is issued, and as a result of the cheque the goods are obtained, and the cheque is no good. The presumption then is that the transaction was fraudulent.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is not that plain theft under our criminal code now, without any amendment?


Hugh Guthrie: No, because our courts, not the superior courts, but -many of the minor courts, have held that if the accused can show that he had any credit balance in the bank the presumption is that the transaction was not fraudulent because 'the man felt in his mind that his cheque would! be paid.


Mr. HOWARD:: If that as the case I think the minister should be willing to delete the words in line eleven "or not sufficient funds," because to leave those four words in changes the whole effect.


Hugh Guthrie: No, because these cheque operators do leave a few dollars in the bank, and they do it for the purpose of protection.


Samuel William Jacobs: But there are cases where the party gives a cheque and the bank honours it, and then out of whim or caprice

Criminal Code-Cheques Without Funds
tihe bank decides that they are not going to honour any more of his cheques, and the man thinking at the time that his cheque would be honoured makes himself amenable to the law.


Hugh Guthrie: In that case the man
would (have to satisfy the court that he had reason to believe that his cheque would be honoured. That is his safeguard.


Mr. BRADETTE:: What is meant by the words "reasonable grounds" in the sixteenth line of the section? That is a very wide statement. A man may keep fifty cents in his savings account at the bank, and the cheque may come took N.S.F., and he could be sued for a criminal offence. The phrase "reasonable grounds" is altogether too vague. I would like the minister to enlarge upon that.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the word "reasonable" is a term that is understood certainly by all Lawyers. It is a term that is used to express a condition which appeals to any ordinary man as being reasonable. We speak of reasonable grounds, and in this section also we speak of a reasonable 'time. What are reasonable grounds and what ds a reasonable time depends upon the circumstances attendant upon each case, and that must be determined by the judge who is hearing the case. What is reasonable under any given set of circumstances? What would appeal to 'the man of a reasonable mind? That is a fair test.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I do not beLieve it is a fair test because I know how the thing works out in actual practice. I remember several cases where, os a matter of fact, the parties interested had only a dollar or fifty cents in their savings accounts. In such oases suit could be lodged and it would be within the discretion of the jury ot the judge to define "reasonable grounds." I maintain the proposed section is altogether too vague. The minister is opening a wide gap to anybody who wishes to work a scheme to avoid paying a bill. When an act is formulated there should be a clear definition of what is meant so that an accused when he appears before a police magistrate or any other court may know his ground of defence. I make that statement because the expression "reasonable grounds" is not explicit enough to bring a man before a police magistrate's court.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, I should
like to say-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Probably the hon.
member will permit the minister to answer.


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot agree with the
hon. member who has just taken his seat. I
say the term is expressly stated in legal language, and is used in many sections of the criminal code. What are reasonable grounds? -reasonable doubt; reasonable time; those are reasonable grounds. I should not like to change the wording, because that now before us is well understood legal phraseology.


Ernest Lapointe: It is for the jury to
decide.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have in mind another set of circumstances. A man may say, "I have no money, but if you will sell this article to me I can pay at the end of the month by giving a cheque for so much, and another cheque payable the last day of the next month." In the meantime he does not receive the money he expects, and when the cheque is presented to the bank he has no funds. The merchant has agreed to accept such cheque. Under the circumstances, has an offence been committed?


Hugh Guthrie: Under this clause, the circumstances outlined by the hon. member would not constitute an offence. He has described a case where a 'man has obtained credit on promises to pay, not on the issue of a bad cheque.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have no quarrel with the word "reasonable" but I know from practical experience that when we attempt to define "reasonable time" we will strike a snag. We will suppose that a man doing business in northern Ontario has to send a cheque to Montreal. Under such circumstances what will be "reasonable time"? Will it be the regular schedule of time for all cheques, namely about forty-eight hours? These are important matters.


Hugh Guthrie: The statute already provides for that. Whatever time a judge or jury would think reasonable for the cashing of a cheque issued in northern Ontario and payable in Montreal, would apply. The Bill of Exchange Act makes express provision for such circumstances.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: But it is not applied.


Hugh Guthrie: The test is: what is
reasonable under the circumstances of each given case.


Ernest Lapointe: There cannot be any
fixed delay.


Hugh Guthrie: The court will consider
all the circumstances and will not act unreasonably when it must act reasonably. Section 165 of the Bills of Exchange Act provides:
672	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Cheques Without Funds
A cheque is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank, payable on demand.
To determine reasonable time within the meaning of the proposed section regard shall be had to the nature of the instrument, the usage of trade and banks in each particular case. The court has to make the decision.


Samuel William Jacobs: We will suppose the maker of a cheque asks that it be held for fifteen days before presentation. Is or is not that a reasonable time?


Hugh Guthrie: That is an agreement to
hold a cheque. When a cheque is issued the presumption is that it is payable on demand and will be paid on presentation. If however at the time of the transaction the vendor or the seller of the goods is notified that he must hold the cheque for fifteen days, he then has direct notice that at the time of the issuance of the cheque it has no value, and he is giving credit to its vendor. He is not selling goods on the strength of such a cheque. The same applies to a post-dated cheque, which is nothing more than a promissory note. It is not a bill of exchange, at all.


Samuel William Jacobs: The law would not apply to cases of that type?


Hugh Guthrie: No.
Mr. BURY I should like to ask a question concerning words I find in the third line of the proposed subsection, namely:
by means of a cheque which, when presented . . .
That would cover not merely a cheque issued by an accused person but would cover a cheque negotiated by the person wishing to obtain the goods. Lower down we find wording which would indicate that the cheque must be from the person seeking the goods, I find the words:
unless it be established to the satisfaction of the court that when the accused issued such cheque . . .
and so on. I wish to call attention to the fact that the first part of the proposed section would cover not merely the accused's own cheque, but a cheque negotiated by the accused, and I should like to know whether it is the intention that the act shall be so wide?


Hugh Guthrie: It covers only a cheque of the accused himself.


Mr. DENIS (St. Denis) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident by the discussion which has taken place that the wording of this section is far from being clear and that it will, in the future, give rise to numerous prosecutions. Might I not suggest to adjourn

the debate in order that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) may be given an opportunity to submit a section which would preclude discussion and not open the door to legal proceedings in the future.


Mr. DURANLEAU (Translation):: I think, sir, that my hon. friend is in error when he states that this section is not clear; on the contrary I think it is very plain.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	Not
quite so.


Alfred Duranleau: The
only difference is that it allows one to establish a prima facie case against the accused, and that is quite clear, there is no ambiguity in this respect.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Then why all this discussion if the clause is so explicit?


Alfred Duranleau: The hon. member does not quite understand.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: There are many who do not quite understand, even lawyers.


Alfred Duranleau: I state that the clause is absolutely lucid because it allows one to establish a prima facie case against the accused.


Mr. BOURASSA (Translation):: In other words, the law is reversed.


Alfred Duranleau: The
law is not reversed, we simply presume a prima facie case against the accused, because it has been shown that it is always difficult to prove the bad faith of a debtor or one that obtains goods by false pretences through the means of a worthless cheque. In the present case, the maker of a worthless cheque will have to explain to the court why the bank did not honour the cheque. Judging from past experiences I think that this provision is absolutely just and will prove a protection to the business community as a whole.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am engaged in business myself and I frankly state that this bill is in no way clear. According to the provisions of the bill, trades people are in no way protected. Judging from my own experience, conditions will be worse than they are now. I am sincere and convinced in saying so.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	Hear,
hear.	,


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am sorry the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) did not speak in English, because he made it clear that this short text of law is much more important and

Criminal Code-Cheques Without Funds
capable of more far reaching consequences than most members realize. Of course, it may be very impertinent for a layman and an ignorant fellow to interfere in a discussion between legal lights. However, in my few years of the study of British law I have understood that the basic principle of penal legislation, both in Canada and Great Britain, has been that every accused man shall be held innocent until he is proved guilty, and that the duty of the government or-may I enlarge the word-the duty of all representatives in authority, whether in legislative or judiciary capacities, is, not to protect crooks, but at least to give accused persons a fair chance.
Under the proposed new text of law I find the following most striking expression:
any thing capable of being stolen . . .
I suppose that means any thing that is not too heavy to pick up and carry away?


Hugh Guthrie: Oh no.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: To be carried in one's hands, or trunk, or truck?


Hugh Guthrie: Those words are in the criminal code.


Ernest Lapointe: Probably it would refer to a stove.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: My Scottish friends would be reminded of the heroic deeds of old Scotch caterans. A trader from a village below Quebec was coming back home from that city with his truck loaded with goods, but when he arrived he found his truck was empty because the goods had been stolen all along the road. So almost everything is capable of being stolen.
But that is not the important part; what I object to most of all is that it shall be "presumed" that such thing was obtained with fraudulent intent. That is the point which I think deserves consideration, and to which I object. Since the war, probably because in this country as elsewhere the war enhanced the activities and energies of many people, many fraudulent processes have developed; and I realize the desire of the government and especially of the Minister of Justice to help honest people protect themselves against crooks. On the other hand, however, in this as in other respects let us beware that the remedy does not open the door to worse evils than those we wish to correct. I think the old British principle of not unduly protecting the accused, but of at least giving him a chance to defend himself, is one from which we should not depart without much hesitation.
It happened that while I was on the train yesterday I heard a country merchant dis-41761-43
cussing this very bill with his friend. That was the first I had heard of it. "It is all very well to protect people against crooks, but it is very dangerous to expose honest people to blackmail," this man said to his friend. "Here is what happened to me a fortnight ago. I received a cheque for $500 from one of my clients, and I deposited it in my bank. I then purchased goods from a wholesale merchant in Montreal and, relying upon the cheque which I had deposited, I issued a cheque against my own account in favour of my creditor. It happened that the cheque which I received was not honoured, so the cheque which I had issued was not honoured either. It was sent back inscribed 'not sufficient funds.' Supposing the wholesale merchant to whom I gave that cheque wanted to make use of the law which is proposed, I could have been arrested."


Mr. NEILL:: No.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, of course he could have been arrested, under the presumption that he had1 obtained those goods with a bad cheque, and the onus of proof would have been upon him. I suppose in that case he might have cleared himself, but as I said before you throw back upon the acoused the whole onus of proof.
I do not wish to pursue that point further; I simply say that this matter deserves some consideration. We have been too apt, both in administrative matters and in the changing of our criminal law in the Last few years, to endanger the basic principles of those laws that for several centuries have been the adopted practice for the protection of the subject.


Samuel William Jacobs: I should like to diireot the attention of the minister to the words "unless it be established to the satisfaction of the court." What is the meaning of that? Would mot the section be improved by striking out those words? We are not taking into consideration the jury which might sit on the case.


Hugh Guthrie: The word "court" covers a jury.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why not strike out the
words "to the satisfaction of the court" and make it read "unless it be established."


Hugh Guthrie: It must 'be established to the satisfaction of somebody.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am not so certain the word "court" covers a jury. I know it does in many oases, perhaps sometimes a little too effectively.

674	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Cheques Without Funds


Hugh Guthrie: It means the trial tribunal, whatever it may be. I do not think the argument of my bon. friend that we aire changing -the burden of proof in some way is quite sound. It is only a presumption, which is rebuttable, and English criminal law is full of such presumption. In connection with the possession of stolen property the presumption is -that it is stolen property, and you can be convicted on that and nothing more.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: But it must be proved that the property is stolen.


Hugh Guthrie: I say the law is full of such presumptions.


Samuel William Jacobs: It certainly throws on the accused the onus of proving his innocence.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the onus can be easily met by an honest and innocent man.


Samuel Factor: I do not doubt for a moment the intention of the Minister of Justice to strengthen the criminal code with regard to cheque artists, but I submit that under present conditions -this section should not be passed.
Same hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Samuel Factor: Hon. members may laugh, but I say that in all sincerity. I know of families to-day who will issue cheques for little gas accounts of $3 or $4; those cheques may be returned unpaid, and those poor fellows can be .prosecuted under this section.


Hugh Guthrie: No, they would have time to make it good.


Samuel Factor: I beg to differ; unless they can show reasonable grounds for believing the cheque would be paid they can be convicted under the section, as I read it.


Hugh Guthrie: I think an honest man would be able to escape any penalty.


Samuel Factor: That is not the point; a man issuing a -cheque under circumstances such as I have mentioned can be arrested and prosecuted. He may appeal to the sense of fairness of the judge and -be let off with suspended sentence, but I could tell you of men who have issued cheques for little grocery bills that have been returned unpaid, because under present conditions the poor fell-ows who were earning small salaries could not meet the cheques in time* I say in all sincerity that under present economic conditions this section should not be passed. I think the law is too stringent, -not only 'because it shifts the onus of -proof to the accused, but for other reasons as well. I quite agree with the minister -that there are many places in our

code where (the presumption is put on the accused, but that has not been so in -cases of this kind, and under present conditions this amendment should not pass.


Mr. SANDERSON:: As a layman I should like to get some information from the minister with regard to the present law. The minister said he received representations from hotel keepers in regard to this amendment. Supposing a man stays at a hotel for a day, a week or a month, and then pays his hotel bill with a cheque; if the cheque comes back marked "not sufficient funds" after the man has left, cannot that man be arrested and prosecuted under the law as it now stands?


An hon. MEMBER:: Under section 407.


Frederick George Sanderson: Then how would this amendment help? What difference would it make to the law as it stands now?


Hugh Guthrie: There is a special section of the criminal code dealing with cases of that kind. It is a subsection of section 407, and it provides:
Every one is guilty of an offence and liable upon summary conviction to a fine of one hundred dollars and costs or three months' imprisonment who fraudulently obtains food, lodging or other accommodation at any hotel or inn or at any lodging, boarding or eating house; and proof that a person obtained food, lodging or other accommodation at any hotel or inn, or any lodging, boarding or eating house, and did not pay therefor, and made any false or fictitious show or pretence of having baggage, or had any false or pretended baggage, or surreptitiously removed or attempted to remove his baggage or any material part thereof, or absconded or surreptitiously left the premises, or knowingly made any false statement to obtain credit or time for payment, or offered any worthless cheque, draft, or security in payment for such food, lodging or other accommodation, shall be prim^ facie evidence of fraud.
He is liable under that section to a charge of fraud.


Frederick George Sanderson: Let us take a case
apart from hotels altogether. Suppose I issue a cheque in payment of a small bill: under the law as it stands now, if that cheque comes back as having not sufficient funds, can I be arrested and prosecuted?


Hugh Guthrie: Does the hon. gentleman mean a cheque issued in payment of a purchase made at the time, or a cheque issued for a monthly account, say?


Frederick George Sanderson: It might be for a bill which is running, but suppose it were a cash transaction?


Hugh Guthrie: If the cheque is issued
in payment of a former purchase there are no

Criminal Code-Cheques Without Funds
false pretences. The position of the creditor is not affected in that case; you do not make it worse. You have simply given him a bad cheque. But if you obtain goods by issuing a cheque for which there are no funds you are obtaining those goods under false pretences.


Jean-François Pouliot: A person cannot be tried
on summary conviction in this case. This is a crime. When a man is arrested on complaint, under the criminal code the matter cannot be settled civilly. The person defrauded would have to take civil action to recover his money. Suppose a man sent a cheque for three or four dollars in payment of his gas account; under this bill he is guilty of a crime.


Hugh Guthrie: No. If he gets a bill for gas and sends a cheque, even though the cheque is bad he is not guilty. But if he goes to a gas station and buys gas and gives a worthless cheque in payment he is guilty.


Jean-François Pouliot: Taking that view, that
man can be arrested and it is a criminal matter. If the gas company or other con-qem that supplies the goods wished to recover, they would have to take civil action in addition to paying the costs of the preliminary inquiry. That is how I interpret it. If they have a man arrested for obtaining goods under false pretences, a preliminary inquiry takes place and the complainant has to pay the costs of the witnesses, the stenographer, and the legal costs of a clerk of the court.


Hugh Guthrie: Not in our province.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is the situation in Quebec. If the complainant wishes to recover his money from the person who issued the cheque, he does not get it on his complaint but only after he has taken civil action against the man, having spent about fifty or seventy dollars for the costs of the inquiry. After he has paid those costs he has to start anew to recover.


Mr. MERJCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: The objection one often meets with before the courts in matters of this kind is that the criminal courts refuse to allow themselves to be used as collection agencies. In this case it seems to me that the accused is placed at a disadvantage. The ordinary evil-minded man, the criminal, steals a certain sum of money from someone and is brought to trial and all he has to do is to sit back and the crown has to prove his guilt, whereas in this circumstance a man might be of the most innocent mind and might issue a cheque on 41761-431
the strength of one deposited from someone else. That cheque is returned from the bank as having no funds, and the cheque he has issued is therefore no good. He is haled before the courts and has to defend himself, and the presumption is against him, the same as in automobile cases, in the province of Quebec at least. A man charged with a breach of the automobile law has to prove that he is not guilty. This legislation is of the same kind. A man, whether he is innocent or not, is taken before the courts and has to prove that he had no intention of fraudulently issuing the cheque, whereas the ordinary criminal, as I have pointed out, has nothing to do but to sit back and allow the crown to prove its case against him. I have heard several inquiries as to who asked for this legislation, and I should be glad if the minister would inform the committee.	.


Hugh Guthrie: It has been asked for
very generally throughout Canada by the retail merchants' associations in the various provinces, some chambers of commerce and some boards of trade. Innumerable correspondents have asked for it, including the hotelkeepers' association. I have had only one or two letters, not from the association but from hotelkeepers; my colleagues have also received letters, and I know that my good friend who brought the matter up last year has been deluged with them. The object of the bill is, if possible, to put a stop to the issuing of worthless cheques. I do not think that the people who issue such cheques should be encouraged or surrounded with all sorts of safeguards. The honest man will have no difficulty whatever under the bill. The man who parts with his goods or services should have some recourse. I think the bill should be given a trial. In spite of it the practice will continue, but I think this legislation will help. At any rate, the idea is, as far as possible, to put an end to what is a very reprehensible practice. As regards the criticism that this is a bad time to enforce it, I do not think that we can ask the merchants and gas dealers of the country to bear the costs of providing for those who are in need at the present time, and that is what this argument amounts to. A man goes into a store and obtains certain goods, and no matter how hard up he may be, if he gets the purchase on the strength of a cheque which he knows is not going to be honoured he is guilty of a transaction which no one can justify. You cannot ask the retail merchant to bear the loss. If the purchaser is honest and has reason to believe that the bank will honour the cheque, if he has a balance and has a right
676	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Cheques Without Funds
to overdraw, all lie has to do is to explain that to the court and that will constitute reasonable grounds and he will be acquitted.


Samuel William Jacobs: The plea was made only for the gas stealers.


Hugh Guthrie: A bill would be rendered for the gas. If a cheque is issued in payment of the bill it is not an offence.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I do not think this legislation is necessary. Section 404 of the criminal code defines false pretences. In this definition the first paragraph contains all the elements which we need to cover in this act. The definition is this:
A false pretence is a representation, either by words or otherwise, of a matter of fact either present or past, which representation is known to the person making it to be false, and which is made with a fraudulent intent to induce the person to whom it is made to act upon such representation.
The issuing of a cheque by a person is the representation of a fact present. If the definition in the first section is not sufficient, a slight amendment might be made stating that the issuance of a cheque returned ns.f. is to be considered as false pretences.


Hugh Guthrie: We want to give the
"man some chance.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He will have the
chance; he will be accused of false pretence? and it will be up to him to explain.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, it seems to
me to be a professional obsession of every legal man to look at these matters from the point of view of the crook. Do they never consider it from the other side? Do they never think of the small store-keeper who ha? been stung by this wholesale and widespread system of extortion? We all know that the ultimate sufferer is the general public because the expenses of the store-keeper must be paid. A great deal of the objection to this bill has been raised by those who innocently or perhaps inadvertently ignore the provisions for the protection of the accused. To my mind the words "reasonable grounds" should take care of most of these objections. The popular conception of British jurisprudence is, as has been stated, that a man must be considered innocent until he is proved guilty. That has a fine sound, somewhat *similar to the demand for British justice which we hear at times. My experience has been that when a man demands British justice he is often after something more than is coming to him. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has said, our laws are full of provisions whereby a man faced with
IMr. Guthrie.]
a set of condemnatory or suspicious circumstances has to give a reasonable explanation. This morning the marine and fisheries committee was dealing with the amendment to an act, which provided time and time again the onus of proof shall be placed upon the accused. The same applies to our provincial liquor acts and to the criminal code.
The provisions of this bill will not apply, as some people seem to think they will, to the small business man who draws a cheque inadvertently or who believes that his bank will give him one more chance. That man can quite readily and without any trouble prove his innocence, but the intention of this bill is to get at the fly-by-night who makes it his profession-call it that if you will- or occupation to go around from town to town passing worthless cheques. This man generally comes to the store-keeper on Saturday afternoon; he is always well dressed and has every appearance of having millions behind him. He goes in and buys an article without kicking about the price, gives a cheque in payment and receives the balance in cash. This is the sort of man it is intended to get after.
Let us forget the crook for a moment and consider the 70,000 bad cheques which were issued last year. What were the protest fees alone on those cheques which the storekeeper or individual had to pay? We should consider the upset to business which this sort of thing brings about. Hon. gentlemen have asked if there has been any demand for this amendment and the minister has indicated that he has received a number of letters and petitions in connection therewith. Never since I have been in parliament have I received so many letters and applications from individuals and organizations requesting legislation. These have come not only from my own province but from the maritime provinces as well. I have received letters from Montreal, Quebec, and Winnipeg and other cities throughout the dominion. The writers stated that they noticed I was taking up this bill, and they wished me God-speed. They urged the extreme necessity of this amendment and stated that there would be no danger of injustice being done.
There is a great need for this amendment. The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) quoted a section of the criminal code which he thought applied. I have not the section before me but as I understand it, the section under which offences of this kind are tried only requires the accused to say that when he issued the cheque in question he

Unemployment-Mr. Fournier
hoped that some unknown benefactor would pay money into his bank account before the cheque was presented. He might know perfectly well that he had no money in his account or that he had only a few cents, he might know perfectly well his credit was beyond redemption in every way but, under the present act, it is not necessary for him to prove anything, all he has to do is to sit back and say, "When I issued that cheque I had no intention of defrauding." The prosecution has to prove what was in that man's mind at the time he issued the cheque, and that explains the small number of convictions obtained.
Perhaps this bill does not go far enough, but I believe it takes ample care of the man who innocently overdraws his account, as I have done myself. It makes an attempt to stop the practice of issuing bad cheques. This practice increases when times are bad, because then a man will go into forms of crookedness which he would not otherwise consider. The evil is growing and protection should be given to the store-keeper, and in that way we will help poor people because it is the store-keeper to whom we turn when we need a little credit. For the protection of all we should deal vigilantly with these professional crooks.


Mr. HEPBURN:: Mr. Chairman, as one
who has been on many occasions the victim of these cheque artists, I believe I can speak feelingly on this subject. I am in agreement with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) and I assure him that his bill will meet with the general approval of the people whom I represent in this house. The time has arrived when we should stop this ever-increasing practice of issuing worthless cheques. I see no reason why fraud should be condoned, particularly by this parliament.
A situation has developed in the rural sections in connection with the marketing of goods. Previously, the farmer sold on established markets but at the present time truck drivers go up and down the back concessions buying farm products and issuing worthless cheques in payment. These men take the goods they purchase to a nearby market and obtain cash but the farmer finds himself possessed of a worthless cheque. If he desires ta enforce payment his only recourse is the civil courts.


Mr. VENIOT:: Why should he take the
cheque?


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: This sort of business is being encouraged by the present act. We know that times are bad but no one honestly
can make a compassionate appeal on behalf of the man who issues a worthless cheque. Perhaps the only cure for our hard times is a change of government, but I would not want to see the minister change this bill in any respect. I am sure it will meet with the approval of the people throughout the dominion.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Guthrie for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Heenan.
['In my opinion the nays have it.\nMotion negatived.\n\t,']
Mr. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, just before the adjournment of the house last Tuesday I had reviewed briefly the different means by which the government had tried to relieve unemployment. I mentioned relief work, direct relief, raising of tariffs and economy. By the first means the governments throughout the dominion spent the sum of $70,000,000 in 1930 to relieve unemployment, the federal share of this amount being around $18,000,000. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) stated that this amount of money had helped 334,000 people during 1930. The people that were helped received a little over
7,000,000 days of work. By going a little further we find that each person who was helped received from this fund of $70,000,000 about twenty-three days' work in 1930. By dividing the amount spent by the number of days, we find that each day's work given during that year to the unemployed cost the country $10.
It is estimated that the amount which will have been spent in 1931 will be $60,000,000, the share of the federal government being about $28,000,000. This has helped 285,000 people and given them to January 1, 1932, eleven days' work per person. If you make the same division you will find that in 1931 it still cost the government $10 to give one day's work to each of those 285,000 persons who obtained relief work. In those two years there has been spent on relief work the sum of $130,000,000.
The second means by which the government tried to relieve unemployment was direct relief. I have no figures for 1931, but I have found figures concerning 1930. In that year over $7,000,000 was spent for direct relief, helping 438,777 single men and heads of families. The amount contributed by the federal gov-
Unemployment-Mr. Fournier

ernment was $2,174,000. I would like the house to note that in 1930 more people benefited under relief or the dole than by relief work.
The third means which the government had in mind to help relieve unemployment was the raising of tariffs. Tariffs were raised during the sessions of 1930 and 1931. Their effects cannot all be known at the present time, but one thing is sure and that is that unemployment, instead of decreasing during those two years, kept on increasing. Not only did general unemployment increase, but we find that employees in manufactures were less numerous during those last two years than they were before. I have under my hand figures showing the employment situation in manufacturing in the month of October for different years, as follows:
October	Employment
1926	 104-6
1928	 115-7
1930		 107-8
1931		 91-8
This was the third means used by the government to relieve unemployment.
The fourth means was economy, which was to be practised along the whole line. Economy may be practised in various ways to relieve unemployment, but the way it should be practised is rather to keep people who have jobs working than to have them lose their positions. These four means were tried throughout the country and to-day we can to a certain extent judge the results so far as employment is concerned. In September, 1930, after the Minister of Labour had made an inquiry concerning the number of unemployed in Canada, it was found that 117,000 people were out of work. In 1931, after this legislation in regard to unemployment was put into force, it was found that the number of unemployed had risen from 117,000 to 350,000, and certain papers state that this year the number of unemployed has risen to 450,000.
May I say a few words concerning the city of Hull just across the river. In September, 1930, after the inquiry was conducted there, it was found there were 1,500 people unemployed, and during that year the municipal council, the provincial government and the federal government spent some $350,000 to relieve unemployment. This year they are spending $500,000, of which the provincial and federal governments are furnishing 80 per cent. These amounts were spent on public works just to create jobs without bringing into being any new wealth in our city. It was just a kind of dole given under the form of work. By direct relief we have spent this year some $75,000, part furnished by this government and part by the municipality and the provincial government. Are there any more employed

in the city of Hull? The last figures available show that during the month of January the number of unemployed was 2,000, and of that number about 400 were working for the city one week out of four, leaving the balance of about 1,600 people without work or working only a few days a week. No industry in Hull is working full time at the present. The largest industry is the E. B. Eddy Company which works only three or four days a week. Other industries, such as J. R. Booth Limited, Woods Manufacturing Company Limited, and Grant-Holden-Graham Limited are working on the same basis. Surely the government could find some means to help these unemployed at the present time.
Instead of the number of the unemployed decreasing, we are suffering from another ill which is created by the government itself. I am informed that lately notice has been sent by the Department of Public Works to seventy or seventy-five pepole that their services will be no longer required after the first of April of this year. Yesterday I received a visit from one of those men who was employed by the Public Works department. He had been working there for the last eight years. He is the father of nine children. Although when he got this job it was not permanent, he was a good enough employee to hold it for eight years. He had bought a little home in the city and had paid for it in part. He stiE owes on that place about $1,200 under a mortgage. Yesterday he received notice that his services would be no more required after the first of April. What is he to do now, under present conditions? On Friday the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), speaking on the resolution in regard to reducing salaries, began by stating that the civil service was overmanned. The next day orders were given, I suppose to every department, and! especially to the Department of Public Works, to throw out this surplus of men. I would just ask the government if the time is weE chosen to dismiss from the public employ people who have small jobs as labourers ,or as tradesmen. I sought information as to whether this man was doing useful work at the department, and it was stated that he was at work every hour; he was occupied the whole time. It is hard to believe that there is any reason for throwing out at the end of this month some seventy-five employees. I wonder if the matter was ever considered on its merits, if it was ever thought that these people might have families to look after and that the married ones might be given a chance instead of perhaps keeping on some single men.

Unemployment-Mr. Fournier
Another case came to my knowledge of a man who has been working thirty years with the Public Works department. He received notice yesterday that from ithe first of April next his services will not be required. In that department alone the dismissals are going to affect seventy-five families in the cities of Ottawa and Hull. Just add that figure to those I have already cited and you will realize that the help we have received from this government for the unemployed does not amount to very much.
The schemes that I have mentioned for helping the unemployed would seem to be very costly. If this country has to spend ten dollars for every day's work it provides for an unemployed man, I really think some other way should ibe found of giving help to those who are needing work. We must remember that when these schemes were put into operation trade was diminishing and revenues were falling, and we did not have sufficient revenue to carry on the whole administration. It was necessary, therefore, to borrow money to put these schemes into operation. The sum of $130,000,000 which I have mentioned-borrowed money-was added to the indebtedness of Canada, plus nearly $6,500,000 for interest which will have to foe paid.
In the city of Ottawa one would think -that unemployment would Ibe unknown, but in February last, I read the following news item in the Ottawa Citizen, written to show that this plague of unemployment is prevalent in every city and town, and that Ottawa is no exception. It reads:
Work For Ottawa Women
Yesterday in Ottawa, some devoted members of the Local Council of Women opened a work room 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 are receiving temporary relief through the welfare bureau, but they are women who want work rather than a charitable ration of food.
It is surely a reflection on established things in Canada, in this capital city where the political wisdom of the nation is regularly assembled, that there should be decent Canadian women so beset, so trapped near the margin of existence. Many have vainly applied, day after day, at the employment office: some are bravely trying to keep a home together, to provide for young children.
The city council has granted $1,500 for the work, for the purchase of material and the payment of wages. It is a pitifully small amount; but the minister of public works, Hon. H. A. Stewart, has granted the use of a vacant work room. Ottawa has cause to he grateful to the thoughtful women of the local council who have started this measure of relief.
This welfare bureau, opening up some sort of room to give mending and sewing to women,
had 130 women apply the first day for work. That will give some idea of conditions in the city of Ottawa, where so many people are in the employ of the government-or were up to this time; for soon there will not be so many. There are nearly fifteen thousand civil servants in Ottawa, and their dependents number from fifty to sixty thousand, yet we find women having to go to the welfare bureau for food or work, though naturally they prefer work to charity.
In September, 1930, the government thought that this would be a normal depression. As my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) said, we do not yet know exactly what a normal depression is, or even an abnormal one, but by this time the government has certainly found out that this is no ordinary depression. The Minister of Labour stated last Tuesday that it was not a normal depression; that if it had been, the measures adopted by the government would have cured unemployment and the depression. Now that the government knows that this is not a normal depression we are waiting to see what means it is going to adopt to deal with the situation. We do not believe they will go on borrowing money for two years up to $130,000,000 to carry on schemes that do not seem to be sound, because remember that more than half the unemployed did not receive any assistance at all. There are certain classes of the unemployed who did not come under any of these schemes. The labouring classes and trades people were helped, but what about clerks in stores and bookkeepers and office help employed in commercial houses? These people received no assistance at all under any of the different schemes of the government, and they are suffering probably more than the labouring classes. If the civil servants in this city are to be thrown out of employment at the rate of seventy-five or one hundred a week they will help to swell the ranks of the unemployed, and they can hardly do the work that the ordinary labouring man has to do. So I say, Mr. Speaker, that we are very anxious to know what steps the government is going to take in the near future to cope with this situation.
May I as a new member humbly suggest that the government give more assistance to those who desire to go back to the land, and that before they do so they let them know that they are not going on a farm to commercialize agriculture as it has been commercialized in the west.
The farmers in the province of Quebec are not suffering as much as they are in other parts of this dominion, it is for the simple reason that in our province a farmer living on the land has this in mind: first to find
Unemployment-Mr. Fournier

sustenance for his family and himself and, secondly, if there is anything left over, to give a little education to his children. He does not go on the farm with the idea of getting rich quick. He wants to make a comfortable living on the land and to provide his family with a certain standard of living, but he has not in his mind what I seem to notice in certain members from the west who come from rural constituencies. They have only one idea in agriculture and that is to raise wheat. Outside of wheat they sow nothing, and when the wheat crop fails or they cannot sell their grain, they come to the government and say: We want a bonus of five cents a bushel. The eastern members have not raised their voices on this five cent bonus. We think the western provinces should be helped, but in the province of Quebec we have not been asking for five cents a bushel bonus on potatoes or on oats. We are holding up our heads in this depression. Some day we might find it necessary to come here and ask for five cents a bushel on some product or another. What we are asking now is for a little more help for those who have no work at all. If you cannot give them work, you are going to give them charity. I do not care what the Prime Minister says about the dole, but people must not be allowed to starve. If they are not given work they must be given some sort of dole or assistance, and if they are going to starve, they will put up some fight. Every Saturday in the city of Hull some seven or eight hundred people gather at the city hall asking first for work, and when they cannot get work they ask for something to eat. If they cannot get something to eat for themselves, they ask it for their children. Certainly during this session there will have to be some new scheme on the part of the government to help us a little more. I am not painting this picture any worse than it is; I am not saying that everybody in Hull is starving, but I am attempting to show that those people are waiting for action from this government because it said it would do something for them. They have been led to believe that they might expect help. I believe, it would be the proper time for these unemployed to repeat some of the statements made by the leaders of the present government before July 1930. I quote:
They play with the lives of men and women. What for? Do they realize there are lives that they are playing with, food for wives and children, hunger?
And this also:
However blind he may be to your future and deaf to your present needs, surely he cannot stop his ears with smug complacence and self esteem to the cry that carries across
[Mr. Fournier.}
the nation-the cry of the destitute and hungry, the cry of mothers and fathers and little children who call for us as Christians and as Canadians to heal their pain.
I do not know if those words were true in 1930 when the statement was made; they were not true at that time in my city. It is true to-day, however, in the city of Hull, and I beg this government to take some steps to alleviate the situation.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, with the last remarks of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier), I quite agree. The first consideration of this government, and of all provincial and municipal governments, should be to relieve the situation in congested cities by inducing as many people as possible to go back to the land, provided -and I insist on these two conditions-provided the proper kinds of lands are made available, and that the people sent to the country are capable of making a living on the land. Otherwise any such movement would be waste effort.
My purpose in rising this afternoon, contrary to my original intention, is to explain, in case I am not here when the vote is taken, why I cannot associate myself with the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan). After the general elections of 1930, I came back to this house more than ever decided to dissociate myself from any party movement directed for the sole or main purpose of creating party advantage. I quite understand the state of mind of my Liberal friends. No doubt they were defeated owing to circumstances and conditions over which they had no control and, may I say, to the shameless exploitation of those circumstances by their opponents. But now, in the year 1932, the people of Canada are expecting from all of us, whether we be Liberal, Conservative, or Independent, something greater than bickerings over the past election. There will be ample opportunities for my Liberal friends to bring to task their opponents. At the present time, during this session, the people of Canada expect from us something practical by way of economic reconstruction.
Turning to this motion-I was going to say this speech in the form of a motion- proposed by my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River, I must say that with the sole exception of the last paragraph I find it contains nothing which will help either parliament or the people. I pass over the recital composed of quotations from speeches by the present leader of the government. If I am not mistaken those same quotations were

Unemployment-Mr. Bourassa
used at least three times by the leader of the opposition; they are on record in Hansard, and the people of Canada no doubt have read them. I do not think, however, they would be disposed to read them very often. With all due respect to both sides of the house, may I say that to some people those quotations appear senseless enough, and others believe that the leader of the opposition has said enough about them. The press of the country, irrespective of party, has shewn its keen sense of criticism-and I use the word "criticism" in the proper sense-by omitting in their reports of debates the reproduction of all those paragraphs. My hon. friend from Ivenora-Rainy River and his associates might learn that even as a vote-catcher these fourth-time recitals of quotations from speeches do not carry very much weight.
Let us now analyze the motion, paragraph by paragraph.
First, I read the following:
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;
Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is too far-fetched. If the statement had been made that the measures were not as effective and as adequate as they might have been, and if the criticism had been directed to a certain laxity or abuse in the administration of enactments arising out of the indefinite powers granted by this parliament last year, I might have agreed. But to go the length of saying that everything the government has done in the last twelve months has been "wholly inadequate and ineffective," is going beyond the measure of justice, fair play and truth; and I do not think such sentiments will be endorsed by fair minded people in Canada, to whatever party they may belong.
Therefore, let us pass over that clause and come to the second:
That the measures adopted by the government have involved an expenditure of public moneys out of all proportion to the employment provided;
Again we find here partial exaggeration. Undoubtedly a great deal of the moneys spent by this government, as well as by various provincial and municipal governments, to cure or relieve unemployment, has been lost or misapplied. What proportion of federal, provincial or municipal funds has not been used to the best advantage I am not prepared to say, and I do not think any hon. member, not even the hon. member for
Kenora-Rainy River, is capable at the present time of stating the amount of money misspent by various bodies.
I now come to the next paragraph, and my statements in connection therewith will apply also to the following one:
That owing to lack of proper supervision and organization there has been partisan administration of the moneys provided by parliament for the benefit of those who were the most in need of work;
This is absolutely true, Mr. Speaker. There has been a partisan spirit evinced-I will not say by the federal, the provincial or municipal governments, but by some representatives of those three authorities. Of such abuse, the city of Montreal offers to-day a most striking example. As the citizens of Montreal are proud to boast, that city is the largest in Canada, and therefore the one containing the largest number of paupers and unemployed. The municipal government of that city is headed by a man much discussed, but certainly very clever and energetic; I refer to Mayor Houde. He is a Conservative in politics, the late leader of the provincial opposition in the Quebec legislature, and now on the eve of his reelection, if he' can secure it, as mayor of Montreal. The federal government is represented in Montreal by a federal commissioner, Mr. Gravel, and the provincial authorities by their own commissioner, Mr. Perrier. We may view the whole situation as it was painted or exhibited last week by a meeting between the authorities. The provincial commissioner, Mr. Perrier, made the charge, point blank, that the aider-men were making use of the administration of relief funds for purposes of reelection in the month of April, rather than to alleviate the sufferings of the people. There may be some truth in that. Then the mayor launched a furious attack against the federal commissioner, Mr. Gravel, charging him with attempts at corruption in order to have contracts made in favour of friends of the federal government, and to those charges Mr. Gravel issued a denial.
How much is true in any of those accusations I do not know. This I know, however: at. the present time, in Montreal, there are works and contracts, worth some $500,000, which are paralyzed because of this partisan, narrow-minded attitude of the representatives of the three governing bodies. But I am not prepared by my vote to charge this government with being solely responsible for that state of things, although heaven knows I am not particularly friendly with them as a government.
I do not like to introduce small, county politics into this debate: but there are un-

Unemployment-Mr. Bourassa
employed people in my constituency. Relief works have been started by the federal and provincial governments. I cannot blame this government for having made it a previous condition to the granting of federal aid to local works that, first, the municipalities and then the provinces should share in the cost, and I fail to see that my Liberal friends can throw stones at the government for having done that. I well remember, when sitting on the other side and, occupying towards the Liberal government about the same position I occupy to-day towards the Conservative government, only with a little more sympathy, hearing the Prime Minister of that day, the present leader of the opposition, state that not only the main but practically the sole responsibility for the solving of the problem of unemployment was on the municipalities and the provinces. In those days he was right. I then told him however that he was blind to the rapid growth of the evil which was soon to get beyond the power of 'Solution by either municipalities or provinces.
In Canada, at the present time, as at every other time past or to come, no government can shelter itself behind a narrow interpretation of the law in order to avoid the fulfilment of a national duty. I agree with the statement made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River that this is a national duty; but national duty in Canada must be performed according to the broad spirit as well as the rightly interpreted letter of the constitution. In Canada we have three powers, the federal, the provincial and the municipal. In a matter of this kind a national duty cannot be effectively performed unless those three authorities cooperate in the solution of the problem. Things should not be done in order to help the mayor of a certain town secure reelection, to help the government of a certain province secure the confidence of the electors, or to help friends of the federal government make use of their influence to secure contracts in different places. Public good and general results should be the sole aim.
Accusations have been launched, and others probably will be made during this debate by Liberal members, that some representatives of the Conservative governments, the federal or the provincial in Ontario or British Columbia, have made use of this relief act and these relief funds to help their friends. As a counterpart to that, I may tell the house that I have received letters from most reliable men in my constituency-which I may say covers two provincial divisions-complaining that in the carrying on of work subsidized by

the Conservative government at Ottawa no Conservative voter need apply, because the patronage is under the control of the provincial Liberal member. I know that personally I suggested a certain piece of work, useful in itself and capable of rendering service not only this year but for many years to come, in a certain municipality. I was told by the director of national relief at Ottawa that he was prepared to recommend that work to the minister, provided the province of Quebec approved of it. Application was made to Quebec, but that application was refused because the local member did not like the people who advocated this work. Mind you, those people were Liberals, but they were not orthodox Liberals in the eyes of the local member. The Quebec government did not approve the suggestion; therefore the money from Ottawa was not sent; therefore the people are unemployed and living on charity. This all happened because of political partisanship, but this time on the part of Liberals.
So I think it is about time we in this house, who seriously wish to accomplish something for our country, should cease to talk about this grave matter from the narrow point of view of political partisanship. Mind you, I do not reproach either my hon. friends to my right or my hon. friends to my left with being party men. They have been elected as such. But I do claim that there is a time to advocate party measures and a tame to forget them. It is done every day on other matters; why should it not 'be done in connection with this matter, which has been rightly called by the bon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, and is so described in the motion, .the most important problem we have to solve?


Jean-François Pouliot: If we give suggestions in all earnestness and the government refuse to accept those suggestions, what can we do?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That is not the question;
I was speaking about the paragraph in the motion having to do with partisan administration, and I was proving that there is partisan spirit in the administration of the federal funds, of the provincial funds under the government of the dear friend of my hon. friend from Temiscouata, Mr. Taschereau, and of the municipal funds in Montreal under Mayor Houde. I have given names; I have given foots, and1 that is all I have to say for the present in that regard. Under such a system, perhaps unavoidable with our political organization, there is bound to 'be a large degree of maladministration in the distribution of those funds and in the approval or disapproval of certain works.

Unemployment-Mr. Bourassa
Now let us consider what works should be undertaken. In this regard there is bound to be a great variety of opinions. For example, my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River, last year and again this year, strenuously advocated the construction of a national highway in order to give work to the unemployed. I did not approve then, and I do not approve now, of that idea; it is one of the things for which I would be disposed to blame not particularly this government, but the governments of Ontario and Quebec as well. The view I 'have expressed both inside and outside this house-more particularly outside-with regard to this work is, that although we have as our immediate object the alleviation of unemployment, something else has to be considered. First, we cannot hope to cure unemployment, or to end unemployment, by government aid only. That sort of talk may be used at election time, but we do not talk seriously all the time during an election. Now, however, that we are attempting to do something serious, we can alleviate unemployment by giving work of a temporary nature or of a permanent nature, work capable of producing some good now but of doubtful use in the future, or work capable of being useful for years to come. I claim, sir, that the spending of millions on the construction of a great automobile highway from the Atlantic to the Pacific is largely wasting money. First of all, the construction of roads in winter time in a country like ours takes three times as much money as the construction of roads in summer; and this applies to the construction not only of that great road but of all roads that have been built in the province of Quebec under the joint approval of the federal and provincial governments. Secondly, we have to consider the whole problem of transportation. A commission has been appointed by this government with a view to solving the great railway problem of Canada; and while our railways are complaining of the competition to which they are subject from highway traffic, this government and the two provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec are spending millions to increase that competition and decrease the earnings of the railways, thereby rendering more difficult the solution of this problem, one of the most difficult which faces this government or any government that may succeed it. I claim that in this regard all that should have been done-and it is not too late yet to consider that humble but more practical solution of our highway problem-was to help, in all the provinces, the various small sections of the country that have no proper communication
with the railway centres to carry their produce over good roads to the railway stations and to bring back what goods they import over the railways; in other words, to reduce the cost of local transportation. That would have been far better than building a highway at a cost of millions upon millions of dollars to attract American tourists, who in any event would not deprive themselves of the pleasure of coming to Canada and enjoying the hospitality of our various liquor commissions. They would not, I say, forego that pleasure merely because they could not drive straight through from Prince Rupert to Sydney, but might be obliged to make crochets, going through from one dry state to one free .province, and from one free province to one dry state. I am sure they would enjoy, their trip all the more, taking that roundabout course, and there would be less danger to passersby than if they started from a wet province and went all through the continent, east to west or west to east, from one wet province to another.
The same criticism I make against that great and costly highway project, as a competitor with our railways, I make against the project first launched in the Montreal city council and then approved of by the provincial authorities and finally endorsed by this government: I mean the building of a boulevard from one end of the island of Montreal to the other. There will be spent on this the sum of perhaps ten million dollars-to whose profit? To the profit of speculators who some years ago purchased land which they were not able to sell before prices were slaughtered and who, having these vacant lands, are now getting them expropriated by the municipal council to be paid for by the province and the dominion. And they call that a relief of unemployment, while at the present time, in that great city of Montreal, we have at least 75,000 human beings, men, women and children, who are living under conditions that are not fit for animals! Instead of devoting ten or fifteen million dollars to the building of a boulevard for the sake of land speculators and for people who are in a hurry to traverse the whole length of the island at forty miles an hour, would it not have been better to spend this money, municipal money, provincial money and federal money, in improving the permanent conditions of the poor people of Montreal, the dwellings, so that after this time of depression had passed, they might be in a condition, mental and physical, that would enable them to be of service to the city, to the province and to the state?
Unemployment-Mr. Bourassa

I cannot lay the blame for this piece of foolishness, for this social crime, at the door of this government. The first guilty party was the municipal council; the second guilty party was the provincial government; and I will admit the third guilty party is this government-guilty of having granted a share of federal subsidies to that scheme.


Alfred Duranleau: Is the hon. gentleman sure that the federal authorities are subscribing a share in the purchase of the land needed for that boulevard?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No, oh no.


Alfred Duranleau: We are contributing only to the labour.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite so.


Alfred Duranleau: Should the provincial government or the municipal authorities see fit to build that boulevard, then we contribute a share in the cost of labour.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite so. When Mr. Houde and Mr. Taschereau have made an arrangement to steal the horse, my hon. friends opposite supply the money to saddle him. I admit that the share of responsibility of this government is a minimum.


Alfred Duranleau: There is a small difference.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, a small difference; you are all partakers in the misdeed, though in varying degrees. I leave the hon. gentleman to settle that himself or to submit it to some board of arbitration. But I cite that as an example to show my unwillingness to support the resolution as it stands; because if we undertake now-and I do not think it is the proper time-to pass judgment upon all that has been done in the way of misappropriation or misapplication in regard to relief funds, then it is not just to take only one of the parties concerned without the others.
I may say in passing that this would be ample justification for the acceptance by the government and by the house of the suggestion twice made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), that this whole question, broad as it is and involving as it does, not only moral responsibilities, but the financial support of the various authorities who have no jurisdiction one over another, should have been placed in the hands of a national commission to which appointees should have been nominated by the federal government, by the provincial government and perhaps by some of the larger municipalities.
Coming now to the question of wages, I am afraid I must differ both from my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan)

and from my friends who represent labour in the house. Speaking generally, I agree with them that it is dangerous to allow, under circumstances such as we are faced with at present, the possibility of lower wages becoming an established fact. But then I invoke again the old axiom, salus populi suprema lex esto. There is no law which does not call for exceptions at times. Now, what is the need at the present time? Everyone is agreed on that. It is to enable the largest number of people to work for their livelihood instead of living by alms, by hand to mouth charity. Given that condition, I ask my hon. friends who represent the Labour party to consider a municipality in the mountains of the province of Quebec-and there are hundreds of such municipalities-where the people can get food, lodging and fuel at about one-quarter of what it costs individuals who are waiting for work in Montreal, Quebec, Sherbrooke and Three Rivers. Are the people in such districts in any worse position if they are paid a wage which will enable them to purchase the necessities of life on the same margin, as between money earned and money spent, as the man in Montreal? What does it matter so long as they get the same in quantity and quality for their maintenance? A man earns three dollars and spends it in the purchase of what he and his family need. Another gets only two dollars, but with those two dollars is able to purchase exactly the same quantity and quality of staple goods required by his family. What difference does it make? That is the situation. I take full responsibility, before my Labour friends and before the labourers and farmers of my constituency, for having strongly advised the representative of the federal government, the director of the relief fund, to change the regulations last year.
Let me give an illustration. In my constituency there is a fairly large village where there were some forty or fifty unemployed. These men used to go to the shanties to work six or eight months and then come back to the village and perform occasional work for the remainder of the year. Last year, those men were idle; so the municipality applied to the provincial government for relief, and a certain piece of work was approved. This suggestion was sent to Ottawa, where it was approved by the federal authorities. The municipality then made a calculation to see what it would cost to make use of the federal and provincial help, and found out that it would cost more than it would cost them unaided to help their own people in their own way. Appeals were made to the people in the village that they do everything to help. They were asked to

Unemployment-Mr. Bourassa
give work to a man for eight or ten days although they had no special need for it. They were told if they paid so much, the council would pay so much and the taxation rate would remain at its then level. Had they subordinated the scheme to the conditions imposed by the provincial and federal governments, even with the money received from Ottawa and Quebec, they would have had to spend more money and the municipality would have been in a worse condition.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is right, as are others, when he says that the manner in which the relief fund functioned last year has put many municipalities on the verge of bankruptcy. This was an experiment, and the government has improved, although not completeley, the administration of this fund. They are not imposing the same harsh conditions upon the municipalities as were imposed last year; and because of that I am not prepared to fully condemn the government.
The next two paragraphs of the amendment deal in a most virtuous manner with the violation of election pledges. I agree with my Liberal friends when they state that many foolish pledges were given by Conservative candidates and by the Prime Minister which have not been redeemed; but if the leader of the opposition will go back to the first days of the special session, he will remember that when he warned the Prime Minister that he and his friends would look to the government to keep its pledges, I strongly protested. I said:	For heaven's
sake and the country's sake, we must prevent them from keeping their pledges! Had this government endeavoured to redeem all the pledges made by its candidates during the elections, Canada would be bankrupt.
The Prime Minister delivered last night one of the most eloquent and interesting speeches I have heard in my political life. He said that in spite of all theories he had a primary responsibility in dealing with the financial situation, and that was to save the credit of Canada. He stated in effect, that it would be better to be, what we term in French slang a "blagueur" than to ruin the country.
After forty years of parliamentary experience and some reading of parliamentary history of England, the United States and France, I have come to the somewhat cynical conclusion that all parties live in glass houses and should be very careful in the expression of indignation at their opponents for having broken pledges. I remember the elections of 1896 and the pledges given in Quebec by the Liberal party that they would restore the
Catholic schools in Manitoba. Pledges were given in the past by the Conservative party that they would never impose conscription during the war. I remember the pledges of the Liberal party that the moment they came into power they would eradicate the last vestige of protection. Yet the wind blowing from the south, the north, the east and the west has carried all these pledges into the deepest abyss of political oblivion. Could not, from the depths of that abyss, come the faint vapour of indulgence and political forgiveness to all parties?
The Liberals are not entitled to bring their opponents to task for this reason. The time may come when they will endeavour to prove to the people of Canada that their opponents are unworthy of the confidence reposed in them; and it may be that I, even in my old age, will put up a fight with them in an endeavour to convince the people of Quebec of that fact. But now, in dealing with this acute problem. I say, speaking with friendly candour, that my Liberal friends have been very ill advised in their present course.
The last paragraph, the one for which I would have been prepared to vote, reads:
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.
Had the amendment contained only this paragraph it might have been accepted by the government. It may be said that being an amendment to the motion to go into supply, it would have been a vote of want of confidence in the government. I take issue with that view. Different governments, both in Canada and in England, have accepted amendments to the motion to go into supply when the amendment moved has been simply a suggestion of a policy which the government felt it could undertake. My mind goes back to 1901, when the Liberal government accepted a motion of this nature moved by Mr. Russell, then representing Hants, and now a retired justice. This amendment dealt with preferential tariffs, and the then Minister of Finance, the late Mr. Fielding, accepted it as being a suggestion of policy which the government was prepared to put into effect.
If the opposition had contented itself with pressing upon the government the necessity of adopting some practical method to relieve unemployment, and if the Prime Minister had stood up and accepted the suggestion in the same broad spirit, I think the country would have been better off, both morally and
Unemployment-Mr. Bourassa

politically, than it is at the present time, or than it will be after this amendment is voted down.
I am not going to vote against this amendment merely because it will be voted down; my past record is there to be seen. I have enough, I will not say of Irish blood but of Irish spirit in me, to induce me generally to be against rather than for the government. However, there is a limit to opposition; and as far as I am concerned, prepared as I am to criticize the government upon many of its acts of administration, prepared as I am to denounce the government at the next general elections should they not make more efforts to redeem those of their pledges which are capable of redemption and which would be for the benefit of the country, I am not prepared at this juncture, while we are still in the midst of a crisis, to vote for a motion of want of confidence which smacks so much of the party spirit as does the one now before the house.
Mr. E. C. ST-PERE (Hochelaga) (Translation) : Mr. Speaker, the question of unemployment is to-day of world-wide interest. It is known that the number of unemployed has actually reached 20,000,000 and the consequences of such a state we are told by certain economists have not yet been all felt. The outlook is really serious and of a nature to disturb the economic equilibrium and social order.
The motion of the hon. member for Kenora (Mr. Heenan) is of interest to workers. It will bring home facts that will elucidate the situation by showing them unemployment under its double aspect, international and national.
At the last session of the international conference held at Geneva, from May 8 to June 18 last, Mr. Albert Thomas, the director of the International Labour Bureau, made the following statement when he presented his report, and the workers of the city of Montreal as well as those throughout Canada will certainly be the gainers by closely reading the contents of this report:
Mr. Albert Thomas first pointed out the extent of the crisis which has deprived of work
20,000,000 people throughout the world, its serious side and persistence. Indeed, the crisis persists. There might have been a question, before the International Labour Conference could take up the subject, whether the situation might not have righted itself. Alas! no.
Recent statistics point out, it is true, that in some countries a slight improvement has taken place. However, it does not go beyond the seasonal fluctuation. In other parts, notwithstanding the seasonal influence, the crisis remains on the same level and at times even is worse. Notwithstanding Charles Gide's con-[Mr. Bourassa.l
tentions, this crisis is actually a fact. It not only exists in the minds of people who have been seized with a contagious fright. While the psychological element may play an important part, it is not the sole determining factor. The sufferings of the working masses deprived of work are truly a real tragedy which one cannot despise. In a word, the crisis has taken an international character. No doubt there are national crises, which have assumed specific features, such as the American, British and German crises. . . . But the depression is no less worldwide. Each country has its own troubles, but there is also a kind of universal depression which has spread everywhere and aggravates the troubles of all. Hence the necessity of an international remedy and the question which naturally presents itself is this: what is the International Labour Organization doing in the grip of such a crisis? What can it do?
Whatever may he the initiative it takes, Mr. Albert Thomas harbours no illusion on the dangers with which it is confronted. On the one hand, there is the appeal of those who demand immediately efficacious remedies: there is also the appealing confidence of labour centres, which expect almost salvation from the International Labour Organization and are tempted to ask more than it can give. On the other hand, there are those who remind us that the powers of the organization is limited, those who ridicule the long drawn out procedures of meetings, commissions, considerations and deliberations. . . . But is there in international life some means of evolving solutions by cooperative effort other than meetings to deliberate and forming commissions and conferences or in a general assembly? "We shall be compelled to have recourse to our system," states Mr. Albert Thomas. "After all, if we thoroughly organize our forces, perhaps, with such a system shall we make some headway in the present crisis.
However, the director specially points out that in such matters there cannot possibly exist an unique remedy. There is a whole series of solutions and remedies that should be classified, weighed and seriated: there exists no such thing as "the solution."
My intention in the present circumstances, like that of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), is not to consider the unemployment situation, as it appears to-day, by restricting it to my constituency and commenting on it solely for political purposes. However, it is a well known fact, namely, that at the last session of the Liberal regime, our leader (Mr. Mackenzie King), now the leader of the opposition, clearly explained that unemployment as it existed in Canada was simply the result of international conditions. He stated on many occasions that no special solution could be found to this problem which interests, among others, that class of workers to which appeal demagogues, fluent speakers but nevertheless devoid of sense, and who, in every constituency, endeavour at times to stir up trouble as between the classes. I represent, sir, one of these constituencies and in this I differ from my hon. friend from Labelle. The working classes in my electoral division satis-

Unemployment-Mr. St. Pere
fied that the present government would find work for them, relying on the assertions put forth by our opponents that the problem was purely a national one, that we were not suffering from a crisis entirely international in character, but from an endemic crisis, voted to some extent against me; the policy of the government that I supported was approved by my constituency but a large number of the electorate deemed this criticism well grounded and believed the contentions of our friends opposite to be sound.
Let us examine the program set forth then by our opponents to prove to the country that the unemployment question was only a national one. Let us probe into the arguments they put forth at the time, and let us ponder whether the policy advocated by them, counter to all reports submitted to the League of Nations and the International Labour Bureau, at Geneva, were not contradictory to the findings of these various commissions. This government, no more than the former government, must take it for granted that the findings of the commissions organized at Geneva under the aegis and protection of the League of Nations should be set aside by all nations. What do we find in the reports of these various commissions? All without exception maintain that if the tariff walls erected at present in all countries were to disappear the unemployment crisis would be half solved. If we are to reject, sir, the findings of these commissions, let us wipe out from our estimates the amounts that we yearly vote to have Canada represented at the League of Nations.
Viewing the matter in the same light as the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) does, when he asks that under the present emergency, both political parties join their forces to solve the problem, I am willing to agree with him, providing that we agree with the findings which the various countries represented at every sitting of the commissions of the League of Nations have arrived at.
We are told that these are remedies which will improve the situation. They are to be found in social and unemployment insurances, etc. However, to better acquaint the labouring classes throughout Canada and those kind people who send me to Ottawa to represent them at each election, I shall explain to them the situation as it truly exists; for it is more than ever time to cease or to use the expression in vogue in the province of Quebec "to humbug" (emplir) the working classes of Quebec and Canada as a whole. The following is what Mr. Albert Thomas says in his report:
The director does not wish to enter into vague discussions as to whether unemployment insurance is liable to foster unemployment or whether, on the contrary, it can attenuate this scourge by maintaining the power of consumption of workingmen's families deprived of work.
However, he points out two striking facts, one quoted by Mr. Lawson, a delegate of the British government, the other by Doctor Brauns, a delegate of the German government. One always refers to these labour masses condemned for years past to unemployment, and the great demoralization which affects thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of people. It is important to bear in mind, as Mr. Lawson has pointed out, that, among the 12,000,000 people insured against unemployment in England, 35 per cent men and 48 per cent women -that is, on the one hand, more than a third, and, on the other, one-half-have never received any insurance indemnity. It is equally important also to be reminded of the figures given by Doctor Brauns: there are in Germany
5.000,000 unemployed, 17,000,000 are insured, however, two-thirds of the unemployed receiving insurance indemnity find work before completely exhausting their rights to insurance money.
It is but right therefore to remember that notwithstanding all criticisms-because unemployment insurance is indispensable for the future welfare of industry and for both the political and social stability of national organizations-there were, in 1919. about 4,000,000 people insured against unemployment and today. there are nearly 43,000,000 throughout the world."
My views, sir, with regard to social insurances are founded on principles which are dear to Christian democrats. I am in favour of all those social laws, such as unemployment insurance, etc., but on one condition, that they be explained to our people under their true light, that our people be not led to believe in a government's paternal solicitude, but that they be impressed with the fact, as I was, in Quebec, during the general election, that not a single worker, in any country whatsoever where these social laws are enforced, is dispensed with paying, together with the government and the employer, his quota to the unemployment fund. Whatever may be thought or said, we are, to-day, living in Canada under the dole syktem. The dole, as formerly understood in England, was an unemployment insurance based on a tripartite contribution, namely by the employer, the employee and the government. An attempt was made, at the last election, to make people believe that the Dominion government would burden itself with all these social laws and thus relieve the distress of our people during times of unemployment without any contribution on their part.


Mr. GOBEIL (Translation):: No, no, may
I ask a question? Do you contend that the Conservative party, during the 1930 election, advocated a non-contributory unemployment insurance?
Finance Act-Mr. Spencer

Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	My opponent in my own constituency pledged himself to do anything except what had common sense.


Samuel Gobeil: Your opponent was not the whole Conservative party; i refer to the Conservative parity's program.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	Let us now
examine the work carried out to relieve unemployment. Work given to the unemployed is a relief to the situation. I notice that my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau), seems to cast an inquiring glance towards me, may I ask him, as head of an important legal office in Montreal, constantly dealing with contractors and workmen, whether there exists in his city a contractor who can state that more than 35 or 40 per cent of the money voted for work in connection with unemployment went directly to the unemployed? The greater part of that money was used to pay off expropriations or was expended in the construction of tunnels, etc., in the way of material. I may be told that the material which enters into these constructions affords work to a class of workers. I do not deny the fact that some workers benefit by such work.
Since parliament has now undertaken to settle this unemployment question, what are the best means to attain this end, if not to face the problem squarely outside all political considerations? The intervention of Providence in the present problem has often been mentioned; I am in earnest when I state that I believe in the intervention of Providence and, quoting the words of a free-thinker, Clemenceau, the distinguished French statesman, who said some time previous to his death: "If Christians truly practised their christianism, there would be no social problem." I shall go one step further than him and say that if we had always lived up to our Christian principles, there would never have been an economic question.
The problem, sir, which at present interests us-with this I shall close my remarks-is of the utmost importance. The duty of the Canadian government under the present circumstances, is to legislate in the interest of all. Considerations of a private order or personal feelings should not be taken into account. Let us legislate in the best interest of all, and especially, let us not forget to particularly look after the weak and humble, for, as Lacordaire one day said: Between the rich and the poor, between the strong and the weak, it is liberty which oppresses and the law which sets free.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River) moved the second reading of Bill No. 23, to amend the Finance Act.
He said:	The bill that I am proposing to
the house asks for a certain amendment to be made to the Finance Act. The act as it now stands enables the banks and certain of the savings banks to take various securities to the treasury board and obtain, in return, an issue of dominion notes. This privilege, however, is not given to the provincial governments, although I find that two of the various classes of securities that may be taken to the treasury board and exchanged are treasury bills and provincial bonds. On the other hand, the banks of this country, which are private institutions, can take these same provincial bonds to the treasury board and secure an issue of dominion notes for a certain small charge. But the same right is denied to the provincial governments.
To-day we find that some of the provinces of Canada are having a certain amount of difficulty in financing. There are only two ways of getting money. One is by borrowing (a) through an issue of bonds or (b) through the banks; the other is by taxation. Certain of the provinces find themselves in such a position that they cannot issue any more bonds-not because they are bankrupt; we heard from the Prime Minister only last night, that some of the provinces are in very good shape indeed so far as their assets are concerned, but they have not been able to sell bonds. On the other hand, in some cases the banks, for reasons best known to themselves, have set a limit on the amount of overdraft which they will allow the provinces to make. Taxes on account of low commodity prices have been coming in very slowly indeed, so slowly that some of the provincial governments are unable to meet their indebtedness coming due. Some of the provinces are consequently in a very awkward position. I know full well that the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance will tell this house that the federal government has already come to the aid of the provinces in their need. That is all very well. Probably the Dominion government has had to come to the help of the provinces for the simple reason that it preferred to see them carry on

Finance Act-Mr. Rhodes
rather than default, but personally I do not like to see any provincial government put in the position of having to take second place to a private corporation such as our banks are.
The purpose of the amendment is simple It asks that the words "and to any province of Canada" be added to the act, so as to give to the provinces exactly the same right as the banks now enjoy in taking various securities to the treasury board with which to secure an issue of Dominion notes.
I well remember, Mr. Speaker, that when various banking questions were being discussed before the banking and commerce committee in 1928 the then Deputy Minister of Finance was asked by a member of the committee if it was true that the banks could take dominion bonds to the treasury board and get an issue of dominion notes under the Finance Act, and he replied:	Yes, it was. Then he
was asked:	If a private corporation like a
bank can take dominion bonds to the treasury board and get an issue of dominion notes under the Finance Act, why should not the Dominion government itself take the same dominion bonds to the same treasury board and get the same service? The deputy minister answered in this way: "Oh," he said, "that would be bad banking." I agree that that would be bad banking so far as the banks are concerned, because it would probably have some effect upon their profits. Then the deputy minister was asked: But why would it be bad banking? The only answer that he made at the time was: "Oh well, if I did that the Finance minister would fire me." So no real answer was given to the question.
In this bill, Mr. Speaker, I am simply asking that the same privilege shall be given to the provincial governments as is now given to the banks under the Finance Act.
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: This bill, I submit, is so highly
objectionable in principle, if I may say so in all deference to my hon. friend who has moved its second reading (Mr. Spencer), as to border upon the realm of the fantastic.
The hon. member has referred to the fact that the provinces have found difficulty in financing and in selling their bonds. Speaking as one who has had some contact with provincial financing, let me say to my hon. friend that that may be a good thing; because in the past it has been perhaps a little too easy for the provinces to sell their securities. But that is merely by the way.
My hon. friend must realize that the provisions of the Finance Act were designed solely with a view to financial transactions 41761-44
as carried on by the banks. In large measure the Finance Act has taken the place in this country of the federal reserve bank in the United States. Its object was to make for an elasticity of currency from day to day as the needs require, but the very basis of the act was that the currency should be liquid. Now, if my hon. friend means that the provinces should come to the Dominion, and incidentally, I may add, make the dominion their banker, what does he suggest they should come to the Dominion government for? For the purpose of getting funds to be used in their current day to day transactions? If so, bear in mind that the revenues of the provinces must be derived from taxation, and the provinces should live within their income as provided by the taxation levied respectively by them. If any province is embarrassed in anticipating from day to day the receipt of taxation, that is a banking transaction which can be taken care of by the banks without any difficulty. But I submit, sir, that if the purpose of the provinces in coming to the treasury board should be to secure funds for the purpose of locking them up in capital expenditure, they would be doing something which is directly contrary to the underlying principle of the Finance Act and which is therefore doubly objectionable.


Mr. SPENCER:: May I remind the minister that the provinces could not lock the money up for more than one year?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so. However, I have known corporations, municipal and otherwise, to borrow for a year; and what if they cannot pay at the end of that period? It must be borne in mind that in addition to the security which 'the banks provide by virtue of the terms of the Finance Aot, there is a security which could not be given by the provinces themselves. That is provided by section 12 of the Finance Act, which not only gives the dominion the security of the lodged documents but in addition makes the following provision:
All advances of dominion notes made under this part shall be deemed to be an amount due by the bank to the government of Canada and shall be a second charge upon the assets of the bank, payment of a bank's own notes, issued by the bank, in circulation, being the first charge.
In other words, in addition to the security of the documents lodged by virtue of .the Finance Act there is the security of the assets of the bank, save only the bank's own notes in circulation.
If the proposal of the hon. member were sound, that is, if it were open to the province*

Finance Act-Mr. Rhodes

to avail themselves of the provisions of the Finance Act and to that extent make the dominion the banker for the provinces-which, I Submit, should not be-why should not the same principle extend to municipalities, cities and towns which would be in a position to lodge precisely .the same type of security? Furthermore, there is one very grave objection to the extent to which, if this bill became law, we would expand the borrowings under the Finance Act and to that extent indulge in a practice of inflation which .undoubtedly would have a very adverse effect upon the value of dominion notes.
Apart altogether from the objections I have offered to the suggestion of my hon. friend I raise the further point that consideration should not be given to this matter until a time during the next year when the Bank Act will come under review. So highly objectionable is this bill in principle that the mere fact of the house giving it second reading, and referring it to the banking and commerce committee would have an adverse effect upon the security of dominion finances. From every point of view I submit the bill is objectionable and should1 not .be read a second time. I hope hon. members will concur in that view.


Mr. IRVINE:: What would be the real
difference between a municipality depositing its securities with .the treasury board and a oank depositing the same securities for the same purpose?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Apart altogether from the question of expanding dominion securities I think the great objection is 'that neither municipalities nor provinces are in .the banking business, and .the Finance Act is defined purely as a banking transaction.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the house ready for
the question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: All those in favour will
kindly say "Aye."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: All those opposed will
kindly say "Nay."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
	,



SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Guthrie for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Heenan.
["And my hon. friend ought to be in it.\nMr. MaoMILLAN: And I can say without much fear of contradiction that he may find himself there shortly.\nI read now from the evidence of J. H. Marshall taken on oath on examination for discovery at Battleford last year in a timber case:\nQ. Did you endeavour to get a contract direct ?\nA. No.\nQ. You never had?\nA. No.\t'\nQ. During the years 1927, 1928 and 1929?\nA. Yes. In the latter part of the year I called-\nQ. What year?"]
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
the amendment before the house at the moment relates to problems of unemployment as they exist in Canada, and in particular to the measures the government of the day, since coming into office, have brought forward to deal with these problems. I do not think I exaggerate when I say that unemployment in Canada has become a national emergency, and that with respect thereto, the country is confronted with the greatest problem with which it has been faced since the time of the great war. The problem is not one of to-day alone; it has been continuous since the year 1930. Instead of conditions improving, they have become, despite the words of the Governor General's address, continually worse rather than better.
The amendment now before us recites some of the definite promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) during the election campaign of 1930, to the effect that he would end unemployment, and that, if returned to power, he, his government, or the majority behind him in parliament-in fact, he named all three-would see to it that work was provided for all who wished to work. "Work, not doles" were .the words he used1. It has been thought advisable to insert in the amendment some of those very definite promises. They are only examples, but they are sufficient to indicate the grounds upon which my right hon. friend made his appeal to the country, and, I think I am right in saying, the grounds upon which he was returned to office.
The amendment states that the measures the government has introduced are wholly inadequate and ineffective to deal with the problem of unemployment. I do not think I need cite conditions to verify the truth of that statement; instead of becoming better, conditions, as we all know, have continued to grow worse. Had the measures introduced been at all adequate or equal to the situation, there would have been a very great improvement. Indeed, at the time of introducing one of his measures during the special session, the Prime Minister drew attention to the fact that at that time there were about 150,000 unemployed, and stated further that, if the measures then introduced by the government operated

Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
as the government hoped and believed they would, the numbers of unemployed would considerably diminish. Instead of diminishing, however, the figures have run up to 500,000 or
550,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, that was the statement made by the former Minister of Labour (Senator Robertson).


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Robert James Manion: It was denied by him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad to
hear the hon. gentleman say that these figures are exaggerated, but certainly they are those we have been led to believe by the Prime Minister and others represented the numbers who were unemployed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I put it
this way: The Prime Minister has said over and over again that the situation we have today is worse than anything we have ever known. That is strong enough.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said "economic conditions."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, that they were worse than anything we have ever known -and that, despite the measures introduced by his government to improve conditions. The amendment states that, ini the circumstances, it is important there should be other measures introduced to relieve the situation, and, even at this late date, that the government should bring forward something adequate and effective.
If it is necessary for me to refer to the past, it is because conditions as we have them to-day have grown out of the past, and largely out of the policies which have been introduced to meet them. I am not for any reasons of political partisanship going to refer to conditions as they existed at the time of the general election, and the respective attitudes of political parties at that time. My purpose in referring to conditions then existing is to explain to this House of Commons and to the people of Canada the respective points of view from which the problems then existing were faced by the political parties who were obliged to state their policies to the country, and to enable hon. members and the Canadian people to judge whether, even at this late date, policies which were advocated by hon. members who are now on this side would not have been more effective to deal with conditions as they have since existed
than those which, during the past two years, nave been put into force by hon. gentlemen opposite.
First of all, may I make it clear that the Prime Minister and the government have had a perfectly free hand to deal with this problem of unemployment. I do not think any hon. gentleman opposite will say for one moment that the Prime Minister and his government have not been afforded every facility a government could be afforded by parliament in dealing with this great problem. When the elections were over, one of their most important members, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce was defeated. He was permitted to be returned without opposition at a byelection. My right hon. friend desired to strengthen his cabinet by adding to it the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), who, at the general election had not been a candidate. He was not opposed in the byelection necessary to that end; he was allowed to take his seat without opposition. There was not a voice raised in criticism of the government when the special session of parliament was called; the ministry were free to bring in any measures they wished, and, the session having been called to deal with unemployment, the house took a very generous attitude towards the measures then introduced.
I am going to say a word about those measures in a few moments, to indicate whether or not what was said at the time, not by way of mere party criticism, but by way of substantial and constructive comment, has since been borne out by the facts. At the moment, I desire to make it clear that, notwithstanding the session was called to deal with unemployment, and that we were confronted with legislation with respect to the tariff more extensive than any legislation introduced in this parliament in any previous ten years, the government were allowed to put that legislation on the statute books practically without opposition. They were given equal freedom in the matter of the amount of money which they wished to have in order to deal with the situation.
Then the Imperial conference coming on was an important factor, the Prime Minister himself having stated in Toronto that on the success of that conference would depend in part the solution of the problem of unemployment. We offered no opposition to any attitude which he might take at the conference, and, indeed even when at the conference he took an attitude which we regarded as impossible and very wrong, no comment was made, except to have it clearly understood
692	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
that the attitude of the Prime Minister did not represent the point of view of Canada as a whole.
After the Imperial conference was over and before the next session of parliament came on, the ministry again were given a free hand; there was no carping criticism in the country, no criticism from the opposition, or from any grouip. Everyone recognized that the situation was serious, and the ministry were given a perfectly free hand. Last session again the government had an opportunity to bring forward whatever measures they wished, and I would point out that once more they were accorded every facility, but, as we well know, this [DOT] House of Commons was scarcely given an opportunity during that session to discuss the question of unemployment. The only measure respecting unemployment which the government introduced was not brought down until the very end of the session. It was the last item on the order paper during the last week of the session, with the exception of the two orders relating to the committee of supply and the committee of ways and means. If, therefore, the measures which have been introduced have not been effective, it cannot be said that this has been due to any opposition or obstruction which has been offered to the administration; it is wholly due to the administration itself.
Now, Mr. Speaker, may I make clear that this is the third session of this parliament. We are here, for the third time since the present government came into power, to deal with a question which we were told would be settled immediately after the general election. As I have already said, I think it will be generally admitted that the question not only has not been settled, but that it presents a greater problem to the people of Canada to-day than it ever has before, a problem that is growing in seriousness week by week and month by month. No one will venture to say how grave is the existing national emergency. As a matter of fact, there are many of us in this House of Commons today who are very silent in reference to some of the conditions throughout this Dominion, as we have reason to know them to be, simply because we do not wish to create a state of alarm in the minds of the people, and also because we do not wish to embarrass the government in any way in dealing with a very difficult situation. I shall briefly review the measures which the government have taken to deal with this problem, to see how far they have gone in helping to meet the situation.
Mackenzie King.]
May I say that the ministry to-day, as I understand it, do not seek to contend that the problem has been settled, or that they have been able to deal with the situation. The Prime Minister will not say that he has fulfilled his promises. Indeed, the ministry is now stating that, had the conditions through which we are now passing, and through which we have been passing for the last year or two, been like previous industrial depressions, the measures which have been introduced would have been equal to the situation. They are saying that no one could have foreseen the problem which was ahead, and that for this reason, the government ought to be excused for being unable to meet it. May I recall, Mr. Speaker, that in the summer of 1930, and, indeed, in the spring of 1930, when this house was in session and the Liberal government had the responsibility of introducing measures in parliament to meet the then existing and the threatened situation, we pointed out that a certain economic situation had developed, as a result of changes in tariff on the other side of the line, which would necessitate our finding new markets within the British Empire to take the place of markets we were losing in the United States, and we framed our measures accordingly. When we came to the time of a general election, and there were evidences of depression, we made known to the electorate that the country was faced with a depression, though fortunately, at that time Canada was in a better position than other countries of the world. Above all else, what we sought to have the people of Canada understand was that this country, in common with other countries of the world, was facing an industrial depression, and that for that very reason, much as the government might wish to bring forward certain measures, and much as the government of the day might be tempted to make promises to the electorate as to what it might wish to do, the times would not justify anything of the kind.
That was the point of difference between my right hon. friend and myself in our appeals to the people in 1930 with respect to the approaching economic depression. To-day, the Prime Minister cannot shelter himself behind the statement that no one could foresee the depression that was coming on. If he had possessed a little wider knowledge of economic history, it would not have been difficult for him to look back over the century and see that at decennial periods for at least seventy or eighty years past, there have been these periods of depression, growing more serious as the world has become increasingly one. Had he possessed that

Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
economic knowledge and applied it to the situation, he would have told the people of the country, as I told them, that we were face to face with a very serious depression, and that many things he might wish to do, if he were returned to power, he would not be able to do because of the inevitable depression. We took that position, and stated it very frankly to the people.
Instead of the leader of the Conservative party of that day taking, as I believe every member of his party expected he would take, a conservative attitude with regard to a very serious situation; instead of making it clear to the people of the country that he could not think of embarking upon vast expenditures at a time when economy was essential if people were to be spared vastly increased taxation; instead of making it plain that this was not a time when the federal parliament should begin to make anew fresh commitments in the nature of grants in aid to the provinces for all sorts of services in relation to technical education, in relation to old age pensions, in relation to highways and various other proposals;-instead of doing all or any of these things, he should have taken the position very firmly that, faced as we were with the approach of hard times, he could not make any such promises. Such was the attitude of the Liberal party. We made no promises except that we would endeavour to give to the problem of unemployment the best consideration which it could receive-and I will refer to that later on-and that we would seek to follow, in the future, policies which, in the past, had demonstrated their effectiveness in meeting an industrial situation such as then existed. We took and presented that view, and, the more firmly we held to it, the more lavish did hon. gentlemen opposite become in the promises which they made at random, and which, to secure the support of the electorate, they were prepared to make to any extent.
Now I say that we cannot afford lightly to dispose of promises made in that way. It is all very well for individuals, if they wish, to take a cynical attitude towards what is said at the time of a general election; but, if the outcome of conditions of this kind is not kept clearly in the public mind, there is going to be in the years to come no hope of saving the country from the effects of demagoguery as it will be carried on by political parties making their appeals to the people. An appeal to the people in a general election is a very serious matter, and too
much care cannot be taken, particularly by the leaders of political parties, in the pledges and promises they make.
Let me point out that there is a great difference between the promise that is made, the object that is to be attained, and the means by which it is proposed to fulfil the promise and attain the object. My right hon. friend will tell us, no doubt, that he promised that, if returned to power, he would increase the tariff; that if returned to power, he would make expenditures on highways and make grants in aid to the different provinces; that, if returned to power, he would embark on many other ventures involving expenditures of considerable amounts; and he will point to various things that the government is doing in these directions and say, " Am I not doing what I said I would do towards fulfilling the promises I made?" I say, sir, that he is not doing anything of the kind. His promise was that he would end unemployment; that was the promise he made to labour. His promise was that he would give, not doles, but work to everyone who wished to work. To the farmers of the country he said, "I will give you markets"; that was the appeal made to that section of the community. The means to that end were quite a different thing. What, were the means he said he would take ta that end? He said: In order to secure work for you, I am going to increase the tariff* I am going to introduce a protectionist regime in Canada; I am going to do more than that: I am going to spend very large sums of public money. These are to be the means by which I shall attain the end I have in view. When my right hon. friend made those statements, we, who took a different point of view, drew the attention of the country to the fallacy involved in his contentions. We pointed out that, instead of raising the tariff to meet a situation such as we then faced, we should do all that it was possible to do to increase trade, particularly within the British Empire, and therein find the markets which had been lost elsewhere. We pointed out that, at a time like that, no government that had any sense of responsibility could think of embarking upon vast expenditures which would necessitate increased borrowings with consequent vast increase of taxation, at a time when the people were feeling the effects of depression. We asserted that point of view and opposed our policies to his; and to-day this house and the country must judge as to who was in the right and who was in the wrong in the attitude then taken.
The point which I wish to make perfectly clfear is this. When I said that the country

Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
would hold my right lion, friend to his promises, I was referring to his promise to end unemployment and to secure markets. I was not referring .to the means to that end, for I had already said in public over and over again that the means which my right hon. friend was proposing were not such as would prove effective to meet a situation of that kind. May I point out why those of us who were of the Liberal, administration of the day took the attitude we did. It was not taken without real justification.
At the time we came into office in 1921, this country was in a very serious depression. In fact, Canada was suffering from the most serious industrial depression that, up to that time, it had ever known. We had to face that situation. Our government came into office on December 29, 1921. In the previous fiscal year, 1919-20, there had been a deficit of 192,000,000; in the year we came into office-we were in for but three of the twelve months of the fiscal year; nine months had expired before we assumed the reins of poweT [DOT]-in that year there was again a deficit, this time of $81,000,000. That is the situation with which we were then confronted-a period of recurring enormous deficits. The Right Hon. Mr. Fielding, then Minister of Finance, took very strongly the view that, unless we found it possible to balance our budget, unless in some way we were able to make revenues and expenditures meet, the country would be faced with bankruptcy, and he pointed out that we must shape our policies in a manner which would avoid such a condition by increasing the trade of Canada. Did we go about it as my right hon. friend is doing? Did we start by cutting down the salaries of public servants? Did we take measures that tended to reduce the purchasing power of the people at a time when it was desirable that purchasing power should be as considerable as circumstances would justify? Did we put up the tariff to a point where it would render impossible the shipment of goods to and fro across the ocean, making it absolutely impossible to bring in commodities from other lands on the vessels which we hoped to send out laden with our own commodities to distant countries? Did we not rather take the position that the only thing that would help to meet the industrial situation was so to frame the tariff as to reduce the duties on the implements of production in the great basic industries in order that those industries might develop, and the people engaged in them might compete favourably in foreign markets, and that our farmers might find

markets in distant lands? Did we not, in regard to all those things that enter into the family budget, all the necessaries of life, seek again so to adjust the tariff as to make the cost of living as reasonable to the people as the circumstances of the time would permit us to make them? Did we not also, with regard to the expenditure of public moneys, take the view that it was a time to economize: and that, much as we should like to do many things that governments, if they have plenty of money might be justified in doing, yet we could not enter upon such undertakings, but for the time being must retrench along right and proper lines so as to help to make ends meet?
These were the views we took. And with what result? With 'the result that at the end of a year or two we had changed the deficits to which I have referred-deficits of $92,000,000 and $81,000,000-into surpluses; with the result that, while we were in office only eight and a half years, in seven of those years we had surpluses in place of deficits. More than that, did we not take the position that, while it might mean something in the way of increased taxation at the outset we would endeavour so to shape our policies that taxation would bear as lightly as possible on those least able to bear it; and also that the burden to be imposed on industry would be as light as possible, hoping that gradually, thereafter we should be able to reduce taxation year by year, along with a reduction in the public debt. Again, with what result? With the result that in seven out of our eight and a half years, we reduced the public debt and continued to reduce taxation at the same time; with the further result that a new spirit was put into the life of 'the people, a new spirit was put into the industry of the country, and the trade of Canada began to increase to bounds it had never known before.
In other words, our policies were framed primarily with a view to developing trade, because we knew that as trade develops so will prosperity come to the country, and that only as trade develops will it be possible to deal fundamentally with the great problem of unemployment. There may be those who are inclined to put forward one particular nostrum or another as a cure for depressed conditions. In times of depression there are all sorts of theories afloat, all kinds of remedies are proposed such as the making of paper serve the place of gold, and other easy methods of getting rid of difficult problems. The world is not confronted to-day with these problems for the first time; it has been facing economic problems ever since there has been an

Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
economic system in existence, and it has been found that only those policies which make for the furtherance of trade and help to develop the great basic resources and primary industries of a country will furnish ultimate solution to the great problem of unemployment. That is why we take the view which we do with respect to what we regard as so essential at this time with respect to tariffs and in respect of some other matters as to which there are differences in policy between ourselves and hon. gentlemen opposite. It has become customary for some to say:	Why
fight over again these old battles of free trade and protection?-to use the extremes of the issue; why fight over and over again the battle of tariffs? Why fight that battle? I ask hon. members to mark my words when I say that, as long as they live, they will find, not only in this country but in every country where tariffs prevail, the question whether tariffs are serving the people or serving special interests will be the great battle on the economic front. It is because tariffs may be so framed as to further the ends of special privilege at the expense of the great body of the people that this question must be always foremost in the country.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Beauharnois.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the hon.
member for Hamilton (Mr. Bell) will try not to be rude for one evening I shall be obliged to him. As I said a moment ago, we are dealing with the greatest national emergency with which this country in relation to its economic conditions has been faced at any time, with the exception of the period of the great war, and I think it is due to the leader of a political party in this house who has given a respectful hearing to hon. gentlemen opposite to be accorded a like hearing by them. With conditions in Canada what they now are, members of a party who have nothing better to offer by way of contribution to the solution of a great problem than rude interruptions are not going to receive much consideration from the people.
I come now to the means which the present administration has taken to deal with the problem of unemployment, and I will endeavour briefly to trace step by step, the position of the two parties in regard to this all important matter. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to maintain order in this chamber so that I may proceed without interruption.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must say I have not
heard any disturbing interruption.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If Your
Honour has not heard it, I and those on this side have,


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We heard it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In dealing with the problem of unemployment as it presented itself during the campaign, the Prime Minister took the position that, if he were returned to power, he would call immediately a special session of parliament to end unemployment. That was the reason the special session was called after the Prime Minister came into office-it was a special session to end unemployment. What was the position taken at that time by the Liberal party in regard to the attitude of my right hon. friend? It was that a special session of parliament was not necessary to effect the end he had in view, that if it was public money he wished to obtain, he could obtain what was needed by way of governer general's warrant for a limited time, having regard to the fact that an imperial conference was to be held at which the government was to be represented, and that obviously a session of parliament could not last for any length of time prior to that conference. We took the position that more important than a special session of parliament was a conference of those most familiar with the problems of employment and unemployment, a conference representative of those who could best contribute to the devising of the most effective means of dealing with unemployment. Before parliament dissolved, before we went to the country, we had placed in the supplementary estimates a vote for $10,000 to provide for the holding a conference which would bring together representatives of different economic interests to consider what steps should be taken to deal with the problem. I explained in this house before, and I will explain again what we had in view in that connection.
It was intended to bring together, as had been brought together on a previous occasion, representatives of employers' associations such as the manufacturers' association and other employers' associations; of the labour organizations, such as the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress and of other labour organizations; representatives of the municipalities, such as the Union of Canadian Municipalities, representatives of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which could speak for the great trading interests of the country; representatives of the provinces; representatives of the Red Cross, of the great transportation companies and other organizations who would be
696	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
in a position to consider methods of cooperation in furthering employment and make helpful suggestions as to what might be advisable in the way of further steps to deal with this question. When that conference had come together our thought had been, had we been returned to power, to appoint an unemployment relief commission which would deal with this great question on a national scale, a commission which would be removed altogether from party controversy, which would be responsible to parliament through the government of the day, and which if the occasion so necessitated, would deal with the unemployment situation as a phase of a great national emergency.
In taking the step which we had in mind, we were but following what had been found to be necessary at another time of great national emergency, namely, during the period of the war. At that time it was found that while the departments of the government were capable of dealing in a regular way with matters of routine, they were not so manned and organized, and did not possess the expert knowledge or ability, either through the ministers or through the personnel, as to be able to undertake the handling of a great emergency situation, and that something of a special character had to be created. There was the Imperial Munitions Board, which had to deal with the question of the supplying of munitions for the war; there was the food control board, which had to do with the control of food, and there was a purchasing commission which had to do with the purchasing of supplies of one kind and another. As we all know, these different organizations were supplementary to the departments of government and were necessary because those departments were not equipped to handle an emergency situation. We took the position that that would be the proper way to deal with a question of this character, and I intend to show as I proceed that at each session of this parliament we stressed that step as the one which should be taken to deal with existing conditions.
May I point out this fact: We had it in our power, before parliament dissolved and we went to the country, to ask this house to give us one million, ten millions or twenty millions of dollars to enable us to deal with the unemployment problem. We are being criticized to-day because we did not ask for these amounts; we are being told that we were not sufficiently conscious of the nature of the problem because we did not ask that a grant of the kind should be made and then go to the people and

say: We have this money and we are going to spend it in curing your ills and in seeing that everyone obtains employment. We could have done that; but had we done it, what would have been the criticism of my right hon. friend opposite. It would have been that, on the eve of an election, we had taken out of the public treasury a million dollars or many million dollars to bribe the electorate. We would have been told that action of the kind was a reason why we should incur defeat rather than why we should be returned to office. With the knowledge I have of what governed the actions of the cabinet of which I had the honour to be the head, I may say that on the eve of an election we were doubly careful to take no step which was capable of a construction of the kind. We were equally careful during the whole election, whether we were to encounter defeat or victory, not to make to the country a single promise which we had not every reason to believe we would be able to fulfil in letter and spirit if we were returned.
My right hon. friend got his special session. What happened at it? As we know, when the special session met, we were confronted with changes in the tariff more sweeping in extent and higher than anything which Canada had known in the whole of her previous history Those measures were put through practically under a form of closure, because my right hon. friend told us that, if we did not allow them to go through, he would not go to the conference, and everything as to the future of Canada's development depended on what was going to happen at that conference. So those measures were put through. When we are discussing the measures which the government has introduced to deal with the problem of unemployment, we cannot escape from considering those changes that were made in the tariff without rhyme or reason, without advice or counsel from any source, that were made to a degree wholly unwarranted, and that have brought criticism upon the administration even by many of its own manufacturing friends in whose special interests those changes were made. Those tariff changes have had more to do with the problem of unemployment being intensified to-day than any other single factor that can be mentioned.
How can the government say: You must not attribute conditions to the tariff, when they know by the way in which it has been raised, by the way in which it has been manipulated, by the way in which it has been changed from week to week and from day to day, the arbitrary way in which it has been dealt with, that there is no longer certainty

Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
in the minds of aay manufacturer, distributor, consumer or producer as to what the tariff is to be a day or a week hence. Men will not invest their money, will not place orders anywhere, because they do not know what they are going to be faced with when they come to settle their accounts. The tariff measures that my right hon. friend has introduced constitute a great contributing factor to the situation as it is to-day and are responsible for unemployment reaching the extent it has.
If the tariff legislation of the government had been in the least successful, I imagine it would find itself reflected in the trade of the country. Let me give just a figure or two to show how these tariff measures which were aimed at increasing trade, the home market and manufacturers, have worked out, and ask whether their effects are not reflected in the increase of unemployment which we have at the present time. Let us take the figures in three successive years, for one month, that of January, because the latest figures are for last January:
Year, month of January.	Imports
1930		 $84,000,000
1931		 50,000,000
1932		 34,000,000


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Let us see how the total trade of this country for the month of January has been affected by the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite:
Year, month of January.	Total trade
1930	 $160,000,000
1931!!	.. . '. "	 95,000,000
	 73,000,000
Now let us take the total trade of the country for ten months, because I cannot bring it up to the end of the present fiscal year:
Fiscal year
ten months	Imports
1929-	1930	
$1,054,000,0001930-	1931	
780,000,0001931-1932	
485,000,000
Let us see how the exports correspond with the drop in the imports:
Fiscal year ten months
1929-	30..
1930-	31..
1931-	32..
1929-	30..
1930-	31..
1931-	32..
Canadian
exports

Foreign exports passing through Canada . $21,000,000 .	14,000,000
.	9.000,000


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Some hon.
members say: "hear, hear." We reply to them that you cannot have trade all one way, and if you are going to have exports, you must have imports as well. If you are going to balance your budget so that the country will benefit, you are not going to do it by eliminating trade to almost the vanishing point; you must do it rather by expanding trade, and, as a result of that general expansion, bring about the desired] balance. Let us see what the exports were for the same month, January:
Canadian
Year, month of January.	exports
1930		 $73,000,000
Then under the policy which has been in effect since my hon. friends took office:
1931		 $44,000,000
1932		 38,000,000
Then we have foreign exports passing through the country:
Foreign exports passing through
Year, month of January.	Canada
1930	 $1,800,000
1931		 951,000
1932		 696,000
Or taking the total trade for the ten months of each of these years:
Fiscal year ten months
1929-	30..
1930-	31..
1931-	32..
Total
trade

That is the way in which trade has been falling off under the restrictions that have been placed against it in this country.
What about the trend of business generally? Let us take the matter of the number of contracts that have been awarded in Canada:
Month
January, 1930
Amount

Then just at the time of the change of government:
August, 1930	 $49,409,000
I am speaking now of the periods that relate to the effect of the present policies:
January, 1931	 $20,000,000
May, 1931	 36,000,000
September, 1931	 33,000,000
October, 1931	 28,000,000
November, 1931	 24,000,000
December, 1931	 11,000,000
January, 1932	 12,000,000
;	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
This is the way in which, according to the record of the Bureau of Statistics, the contracts awarded in Canada have fallen off.
Let us take building permits:
Year
January
1931..
1932..
Amount of building permits 17,511,000 2,762,000
'No one is going to take any chances on building under a tariff such as we have to-day with variable and arbitrary valuations put on for all kinds of purposes which the government may have in view.
What about unemployment that was going to be ended? Employment was at a lower figure at the beginning of the month of February of this year than at the beginning of any February in years of record. Of 7,766 firms reporting, the payrolls aggregated:
Number of
Bate	employees
January 1, 1932	 837,312
February 1, 1932	 819,175
Let me now give the figures of employment by index numbers, the figure of 100 representing what the employment was in 1926:
August 1, 1930	 118-8
February 1,	1931	
100-7December 1,	1931	
99-1January 1, 1932	
91-6February 1,	1932	
89-7
The figures show a steady drop in employment, not only month 'by month, bant week by week.
Take tlhe figures of all industries, again with 1926 representing 100. On February 1, 1931, the total was 100-7. On February 1, of this year, the employment figure had dropped to 89-7.
On manufacturing, which of all others was the industry which was to be especially favoured iby the tariff, what was the effect? Here is the irony of the situation! On February 1, 1931, the employment figure in manufacturing stood at 96-1, and on February 1 of this year at 85-9. Contrast that with the figures under the Liberal regime. On February 1, 1930, the figure stood at 110-2, and on August 1, 1930, when we went out of power, the figure was 110-2.
I might add that the iron and steel and textile industries, which have received veiy special favours, have also shown, until within the last week or two, a continual reduction in total employment. So far as hon. gentlemen's tariff policies are concerned, as they relate to this question of unemployment, though we were told that those policies were going to 
secure work for everybody who wished to work, ithe actual records of the government show that instead of increasing employment they have decreased employment; instead of increasing manufacturing they have decreased manufacturing; instead of increasing the general business of the country, the general business of the country has steadily declined and trade has steadily and tremendously declined.


Mr. PRICE:: May I interrupt the hon.
gentleman for one moment? Would he kindly tell the house just what the policy of his administration would have 'been to relieve the unemployment situation had he been returned to power? Now just tell the house what you would have done about it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I will. If my hon. friend had been able to hear when I was speaking, he would have heard that already, because I made it quite clear. I stated first of all that we would have had an unemployment relief commission upon which there would have been representatives of the parties who are best informed to deal with these matters, and they would have been given a free hand to deal with them, save that they would be responsible to the government and through the government to parliament. I said also that, instead of putting up the tariffs to umpardonable heights, we would have so arranged the tariffs as to help promote trade rather than restrict it. Finally, I have said, and I come to that point now, that instead of seeking an appropriation leading to lavish waste of public moneys, we would have used judgment in what we would have asked this house to vote.


Otto Baird Price: Not a five cent piece.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say to my hon. friend that it would have been better for him if he had not had five cents to-night.
May I come to the measure dealing with unemployment as such which was introduced by the Prime Minister at the special session?
I want again to impress upon the house the fact that it is impossible to separate, from among the government measures dealing with the unemployment problem, those that relate to the^ tariff and those that relate to the expenditure of public money. I have dealt with the tariff. Let me deal now with the lavish expenditure of public money.
Instead of the measure dealing with unemployment relief 'being brought down the first of all measures at the special session, it was the last measure to be introduced. There was really very little time, no time at all, to discuss it. What was the nature of that measure?

I have a copy of it in my hand. It was simply an act for the granting of aid for the relief of unemployment by a grant of $20,000,000.
May I here point out wherein I think the government has got itself and this country into the deep water in which it is at the present time in the matter of public expenditure? This government at the special session asked the house to vote $20,000,000 for unemployment relief. Remember, the special session was held in September and the fiscal year ends on the 31st of March. It was not necessary at the special session to vote money other than for the period that parliament would not be in session, and, had the rules and practices which should prevail in parliament obtained at that time, the government would not have asked and would not have received from parliament more than sufficient to enable it to tide over the time between that special session and the time at which the regular session of parliament would be called. However, the government asked for that period the sum of $20,000,000. I say, Mr. Speaker, that that estimate was not framed with any regard to what had been done in the past, or to the proper way of meeting the situation. The Prime Minister took a figure that was purely arbitrary, without relation to what was actually needed, without relation to what had actually been expended in previous years for a similar purpose, and had parliament vote that vast sum of money. Having at the beginning asked parliament to vote that vast sum of money, a little later on the Prime Minister was forced to take steps which were still more extreme.
I have said that when we came into office in 1921 there was existing a very serious industrial depression. The year before, the Conservative government of the day laid down a policy with respect to unemployment relief, which policy was: that unemployment relief, in the first instance, was essentially a municipal matter; in the second place, it_ was a provincial matter; and it became a national matter only when the provinces represented to the dominion that they were unable to cape with the situation. The provinces had in 1920 represented to the Conservative government of the day that they were unable to deal with the situation and had asked for unemployment relief. An appropriation was granted by this house for the purpose of unemployment relief in aid of the provinces and municipalities.
When we came into power in 1921 we found that we had to avail ourselves of a similar course of cooperation with the provinces and municipalities in meeting what had become a national need, and we utilized sums
, 1932	699
Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
voted and voted other sums to aid provinces and municipalities in unemployment relief. That was done for two or three years in succession. Whenever during the following years the situation grew sufficiently serious to warrant the step, a sum was voted for that purpose, but the amounts were safeguarded and restricted. Altogether, in the period of ten years from 1920 to 1930 inclusive, there was spent out of the federal treasury in aid to the provinces, to meet the unemployment situation of the dominion, a sum of less than $2,000,000-something under $1,900,000 in the whole ten years, including the period in which the Conservative administration had introduced the method of providing relief which as indicated was followed by the Liberal administration. During those whole ten years there was not a total of $2,000,000 spent out of the public treasury for unemployment relief purposes. Yet in the special session in 1930 the Prime Minister came and asked this house to vote $20,000,000 and secured that amount to meet the situation during that one short winter.
How much of this $20,000,000 did he use during the period up to the end of the then fiscal year? I think $4,000,000 was about all that was used. True enough, commitments were made, on into the spring and summer, of moneys that might still be spent, and in one way or another nearly $19,000,000 of that amount was used up. I submit, however, that if the Prime Minister had followed the example of asking this parliament to vote an appropriation only for the period up to the end of the fiscal year, and had come back for what he needed for the new fiscal year, we might have saved, not one or two million dollars, but anywhere from ten to fifteen million dollars.
An lion. MEMBER:	No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen may have their views, but that is mine. At any rate, it cannot be denied that during the previous ten years not as much as two million dollars altogether was spent from the federal treasury for unemployment relief, in comparison with the twenty million dollars which was requested at that one special session by the Prime Minister for less than as many months.


Otto Baird Price: Well spent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then, having
received this large sum of money from parliament, and having spent it-some hon. member suggests it was well spent

what happens? The Prime Minister comes back

Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
to parliament and says, "I want an appropriation, not for $20,000,000, not for $50,000,000, not for $100,000,000, but I want this parliament to give me a blank cheque, to allow me to take all the money I wish, and to be perfectly free to spend it by direction of the Governor General in Council." He obtained that permission from parliament; that was the second measure introduced. I say, Mr. Speaker, instead of a measure of that kind helping to meet the industrial situation, it has made it infinitely worse. Where is there throughout the length and breadth of this dominion to-day a man or woman suffering want or privation who does not know the Prime Minister has a blank cheque from parliament for an unlimited amount, and that he has been given authority to fulfil his promise that "there shall be work for everyone who wishes to work-not doles." In those circumstances has there not been added an element of poignancy and bitterness to the distress of those suffering to-day through lack of employment and insufficiency of food? First of all, by raising fears in the minds of people in this country as to the extent of impending calamity when he asked for $20,000,000 to meet unemployment, when $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 at the very outside would have been sufficient for the time, the Prime Minister caused capital to conceal itself and its owners to refrain from seeking investments in many quarters. On the other hand, by raising false hopes and stating that anyone who wished to get work would have it where there was no chance of fulfilling any such undertaking, he helped to make conditions infinitely worse than they otherwise would have been.
The trouble with my right hon. friend is this,-and I make the statement to him in all kindness, because in his efforts I think he means to be sincere-he is a man of extremes; he is never satisfied with anything that is not extreme one way or another. If he deals with the tariff, he must raise it higher than anybody else has raised it. If it is a matter of hopes, they must be raised higher than hopes ever before have been raised; if fears, those fears must be greater than have been known heretofore. Through extreme action in one direction and another conditions have been made more unsettled than otherwise they would have been. I say that, first, by arousing the fears of the people throughout Canada as to the extent of threatened unemployment; and, then, by raising false hopes as to employment for all which he has been unable to fulfil; and, now, by going to the other extreme of cutting off salaries, reducing staffs and the like-proceeding from one extreme to the 
other-he has placed the country in its present unsettled condition under which no one will venture to make with any degree of confidence a substantial investment in anything.
What further do we find in regard to the measures of the last session? My right hon. friend was not content to follow the practice other governments have followed in times of emergency and stress, when requests have been made to vote moneys and trust parliament to do the right and necessary thing. He was determined to deal in his own way, to get the whole business of relief into his own hands, and out of the hands of parliament. The measure he brought in at the second session was not that parliament should vote a certain sum but that he should be given powers-when I say "he" I mean, of course, the governor in council-


An hon. MEMBER:: No, "he" is correct.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, of course, as we know, my right hon. friend is more or less the governor in council. I say when he asked and obtained power from parliament to deal with the relief he went much further than any other Prime Minister in Canada has ever gone. At the time of the great war, Sir Robert Borden repeatedly had occasion to come to parliament to have parliament vote millions of dollars to meet war expenditures, moneys necessary for the maintenance of the troops at the front, for the sending of men overseas and the bringing of men back. Did Sir Robert Borden ask parliament to give him a blank cheque?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, not at
all. Sir Robert Borden came to parliament, asked for a specific sum of money, and requested that the money should be voted by parliament for a specific purpose and for a specific time. On no occasion, so far as I can recall, did he get from parliament authority to spend money outside the fiscal year for which it was appropriated. Never did he think of coming to parliament and asking for a blank cheque, but always asked for specific sums. My right hon. friend knows that we on this side of the house pleaded with him not to ask for a blank cheque, not to ask for the right to have moneys out of which commitments could be made beyond the period of the fiscal year. We asked him to have regard for the traditions, usages and customs of parliament. But he would pay no heed to our suggestions, and, at the last minute of the session, brought in and pressed through his measure.

Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
My right hon. friend has talked about cooperation between the parties. What opportunity has been given to hon. members in this house to cooperate with the Prime Minister and his colleagues?


Otto Baird Price: Every opportunity.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What opportunity has his own following had to cooperate with him or to offer suggestions to him? The measure to which I referred and which was brought in at the end of the last session was the last measure on the order paper. It was not brought in until the last week of the session, and hon. members will recall conditions in this chamber at the end of July and the beginning of August when this measure was considered. The whole session went by without the introduction of any legislation to deal with unemployment. Then, when every member was nearly exhausted, when all were preparing to go home, the Prime Minister presented to parliament the demand for a blank cheque. Under a process which very nearly approached closure-because when a measure is presented so late in the session that term may well be applied-he obtained the right, not only to spend all the money he wished, but the authority by order in council to make new offences, to impose new penalties, to borrow money as well as to spend it, and to do whatever he wished with respect to anything which in his opinion related to a solution of the unemployment problem.
Those are the measures which up to the present time have been introduced by my right hon. friend. I think I have already made it clear that, instead of becoming better, conditions have gone from bad to worse. There is one further step, however, which he has indicated it is his intention to take, and is one which makes a consideration of this whole matter at this time so important. The present indication is the only hint he has given us of the step he intends to take to meet the present unemployment condition. What is it? It would seem that he means while parliament is in session, to perpetuate the legislation for which he asked to enable him to deal with the situation when parliament was not in session. That legislation, the bill of 1931 to which I have just referred, was a means to enable the government to deal with unemployment after parliament had prorogued and before another session came into being. On the order paper to-day, appears the following resolution:
Resolved that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of
Canada, 1931, striking out the word "March" in section 8, and substituting the word "May" therefor.
What does this mean? Chapter 58 is the act to which I have just referred. It means that notwithstanding that parliament is in session, notwithstanding that the people's representatives are here assembled for the express purpose of dealing with the great problems of the country and voting supplies in the regular way, the Prime Minister asks this parliament to give to the ministry while parliament is in session the power to do by order in council that which should be done only by act of this parliament and by supply voted in the regular manner. A more audacious or amazing piece of legislation never was introduced to a free assembly by any prime minister. This measure proposes that, while parliament is in session, actually assembled here with representatives from all parts of the country, hon. members shall forego, by the changing of a date in an act of parliament, their whole duty of dealing in the regular manner with the problem of unemployment in what my right hon. friend will tell us is another emergent situation. "We must meet this situation in the west at once; people are starving; people need this help." If we hesitate for a moment to pass the enactment we will be told that we are blocking aid and holding up the relief that is necessary. The Prime Minister comes along with this measure and by requesting an extension of its provisions from March to May asks us to allow him to have this blank cheque to use while parliament is in session, though his reason for fixing the date at which the act should expire was that he expected parliament would be in session at that time, and that parliament would deal with matters from then on in the regular way. Now he says, "Let me have the powers here conferred until the month of May." What will happen then? I think what we will find, if my right hon. friend has his way, is this:	If he can
avoid discussion, and get away from being obliged to bring down any policy with respect to unemployment relief until the month of May, when May comes along we will find this parliament will be adjourned until the fall; we will be told that my right hon. friend and his colleagues have to get ready for the Imperial economic conference, and will need the next two or three months for that. Then there will be no discussion on the relief of unemployment or on the methods by which the problem of unemployment is to be solved, and the unemployed will be left to take care of themselves. I may be wrong, but I believe
"02	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
that is the purpose underlying this legislation,-to get away from any discussion at this time by giving the ministry what it needs for the next couple of months. Then they will adjourn this house for months without any settled policy with regard to unemployment having been arrived at.
Now may I point out to the members of this house the seriousness of the situation. This is the only indication we have had at this session, of the policy of the government in dealing with unemployment, and what is it? It is a continuation of the thing which has made matters go from bad to worse up to the present time. That is the position. There is nothing new in the proposed legislation. The government confesses, by the bill it is proposing, its impotence to deal with the question of unemployment; its incapacity and its total incompetence to offer any kind of a solution to this problem. We know that this measure which it is proposed now to extend till May has been a failure; we know that things have gone from bad to worse under the two acts already passed. The ministry will have to offer this parliament and the country something more than is contained in this measure, before the country will be satisfied with regard to the way the government is meeting the unemployment problem.
It is perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, that the government has no policy for dealing with this question of unemployment, other than the continued expenditure of large sums of public money in the way here indicated. Indeed, the speech of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) the other evening was a pathetic exhibition-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -of complete incapacity to deal with the most important of all existing labour problems. Read his speech and you will see that the greater part of it was devoted to quoting from solicited letters relating to some petty squabble with regard to patronage up in northern Ontario. Two-thirds of his speech was taken up along that line, yet hon. gentlemen talk about- others seeking to make political capital. What was there in the nature of a constructive suggestion in the speech of the Minister of Labour, the only expression of view we have had from the government? What was there? There was not one single suggestion of any course of action other than that the ministry would continue cooperating with the provinces and with the municipalities though, as is stated in this amendment, the government itself is evading the responsibility of this being treated as a

national issue by making what it does conditional upon what is done by the municipalities and the provinces. It was the Prime Minister himself who said that unemployment had become a national question. He made that statement throughout the campaign of 1930, but to-day he seeks to back away from that position, at a time when it is becoming more of a national question -than ever before.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in order that no -one may say that nothing in the nature of a practical suggestion has been made, from this side of the house, may I repeat again to-night a suggestion which I made on behalf of the Liberal apposition, both during the special session and at the regular session a year ago, as to w-hat should be done at this time to deal w-ith this question-what should have been done -then and what I believe should be done now. I -believe that this problem of unemployment is going to be with us not*only for several months yet but, I fear, for another year or two at the least. I believe, if this problem is to be met, it cannot be met in the manner in which the enactments up to the present have sought to meet it, but that something very different will have to be devised. There is no man or woman in -this House of Commons who can devise a plan -that is going to -meet the situation, but I do believe that throughout Canada there are those who, -because of their special knowledge and understanding of industrial conditions, could, if they were brought together and given authority, deal with the great problem of unemployment in a satisfactory manner, or at least a manner as satisfactory as can be expected.
I suggest to the ministry that immediate steps be taken to appoint an unemployment relief commission, or committee, or whatever you may like to na-me the body. Ask the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress to nominate to that body some person or persons in whom they have the greatest confidence; ask other leading labour organizations to do likewise; ask the manufacturers' and employers' associations to name one or two members also; ask the union of municipalities to name a, representative; ask .the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to name its representative; ask the provincial governments, if you like, to lame their representatives; ask the Red Cross, which has had to do with administering relief, to name its representative. Let us have a body of experts and allow them to make recommendations to this parliament of what in their opinion may be necessary in the way of enactments or appropriations. Let them effect the necessary cooperation between the dominion and the provinces and the munici-

Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
palities. We will then have something to guide us and help us to meet the situation. The Minister of Labour himself and his department cannot cope with this situation- and I make that statement with all deference. Already we have witnessed one minister of labour break down completely under the burden; with his own lips the Prime Minister has told us that if there ever was one martyred in his endeavour to cope with a great problem, it was the former Minister of Labour. The preceding Minister of Labour had an experience in industrial problems which, with all due respect, the present Minister of Labour, with all his ability has not had. Is it to be assumed that what Senator Robertson was unable to do while in the position of Minister of Labour the present Minister of Labour is going to do? It is impossible to expect from the present minister and his department any advance upon what we have witnessed up to the present, and it is absolutely essential that the work of unemployment relief should be coordinated in a much more effective way than is the case at the present time.
Having given, some study to the question of methods of unemployment relief, as well as to other phases of the industrial problem, I may be permitted to recall one instance in particular of which I have personal knowledge where a great state, confronted with the problem of unemployment, adopted a course somewhat along the lines I have just been indicating. The method which was adopted contemplated a most effective form of cooperation between the state, and municipalities, organizations and individuals. I should like to indicate what form that cooperation would take in this country if a similar method were applied here. I would suggest that, wherever work is being done in a municipality, the agencies of that municipality should be employed in the first instance to the extent to which they are capable of being employed. Municipalities have those in charge of their road work and work of construction. Allow, or rather oblige the municipality itself to provide its overseers, its superintendents, its supervisors and so on; allow it to provide what may be necessary in the way of equipment, tools, supplies, and the like. Let that kind of thing be done by the municipality. It will feel its interest; it will use economy in regard to its own expenditures. Let municipalities do all that they can do, and, when they have done all that they can, let the provinces come in with their facilities and special agencies for supervising work, for contributing supplies and the like. So far as the dominion government is concerned, let it come in when it has had an opportunity of coordinating the work as between the municipalities and provinces, and contribute its money in such a way that it will be used exclusively to pay the labour that is employed, not one cent of it going for supplies or tools or equipment or superintendence or in payment to contractors engaged on relief work. If that step is taken, the unemployed will get the benefit of what this parliament is voting. In other words, there will be a check as between the municipalities and the provinces, and a check as between the provinces and the dominion. Each will be interested in seeing that it is free from exploitation at the expense of the other, and, if this dominion adopts the policy of granting its moneys for the payment of actual labour, none going to contractors, none going to pay for supplies or equipment or superintendence or anything of that sort, then we shall find that the money which this parliament is voting by millions to help unemployment will provide work for those who are unemployed at the present time.
I offer that as a practical suggestion and I do hope my right hon. friend will accept it, and that he and his government will give it consideration. I submit that, with the Imperial economic conference coming on, and with all the other problems he has to deal with, he and his government have moTe to cape with than they can possibly manage. I give them credit for trying to do their best in the very serious situation of the country to-day; I think they are trying to do their best. But, I submit, they themselves must see that the measures they have brought in, up to the present time, are not adequate to meet the situation; instead, they are only tending to aggravate it. Can they not begin to throw off their own shoulders some of the burdens that are dragging them down, and to trust to others who are in a very favourable position to deal with the problems, giving them a free hand for the purpose? The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) this afternoon spoke of partisanship and playing the partisan game. Surely there is nothing of partisanship m a suggestion such as I have offered; rather, it is a means of getting away from partisanship. And that is what I am seeking to do at -the moment; I a-m trying to induce the government to establish some representative body in which the country will have confidence.


Mr. KENNEDY (Peace River):: Isn't that what is being done?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, not by any means.
704	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly what is being
done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It may be done here and there in connection with some of the relief of rural distress in Saskatchewan, but it is not being done in the province of Ontario. It is not being done in the province of Quebec; it is not 'being done in the maritime provinces; it is not being done in British Columbia. What I want done generally is the kind of thing that the hon. member says is being done with relation to one locality only, but not done by a partisan commission, if I might so say to my hon. friend. The government have 'to take the responsibility for the commission they appoint. If they are unwilling to leave to responsible bodies the naming of persons whom they are prepared to trust, that, of course, is their privilege; they may name their own commission. But I think the country will judge the government in their meeting of this great national emergency by the non-partisan character of the commission they appoint, and the qualifications of those who compose it.
We are not at this stage in a position even to discuss this question as intelligently as it should be discussed because we have not yet before us what the government has done under this very enactment which expires to-day. We have not yet received any statement from the government as to what has been done. And that brings me to the concluding part of my remarks.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen say, "hear, hear." We shall see what they have to say when I finish what I am about to say at this moment.
What is the position to-day with respect to the government's policy for meeting unemployment? No word has come from the ministry since this third session of parliament has assembled. In the speech from the throne there is not a single word with respect to any policy for meeting the unemployment situation. The only statement made there is that conditions are improving, and that is not true. There has not been a word from the Minister of Labour or the Prime Minister in regard to any sort of proposal to deal with the question of unemployment. There was a discussion the other day with regard to expanding the scope of the industrial research council. A suggestion came in the form of a motion by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) that there should be appointed a body similar to the industrial and scientific research council to deal with social and economic questions.

When that measure was brought forward, I repeated this year a suggestion I made last year, that, if the government was not prepared to appoint a commission to deal with thi3 problem of unemployment it might at any rate appoint a few experts, under the powers given in the Industrial Research Act as it exists to-day, and allow them to work in cooperation with the government on the question of unemployment, much as the tariff board did in advising the late government on matters affecting the tariff. I suggested that it would be advisable to have some board of that character appointed. That suggestion I made last year, and the government turned a deaf ear to it. This year I have made it again, and, up to the present time, no recognition has been given it.
Has any committee of parliament been appointed to investigate this great problem of unemployment? How, may I ask, are we to measure the zeal of the government in these matters? My right hon. friend did not hesitate to put before everything else a matter of personal concern to himself and submit it as a subject of investigation by a committee of this house, even before His Excellency the Governor General had been thanked for his speech; and to-day we have a committee of this parliament investigating certain matters that are peculiarly personal to the Prime Minister. Where is the parliamentary committee dealing with the question of unemployment? Where is the committee of the Commons appointed to consider this great problem of unemployment relief? Where has there been at this session a single word by the Prime Minister, who said in seeking office, "I will end unemployment; I will see that everyone has work"-where is the word from him about the distress and suffering throughout the country as a consequence of unemployment after he has been in office a year and a half? I say, no parliamentary committee has been appointed in connection with this matter, the greatest of all problems with which parliament has to deal. Not a word from the Prime Minister thus far this session.
And what have we had from the new Minister of Labour? Not a suggestion in the speech he has made; no suggestion of any policy. Finally, to come to the resolution itself, which is all we have had up to the present time even by way of indication of what is to be expected, I take it to signify an attempt to escape from any discussion of the problem of unemployment, if this is possible, until this session of parliament prorogues. Let me read it:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the Statutes of

Unemployment-Mr. Irvine
Canada, 1931, striking out the word "March" in section 8, and substituting the word "May" therefor.
When was this notice given? It was given just a week ago to-day; that, I believe, was when this notice was put on the order paper. Why was it not put there during the first days of the session? Why up to the present time have we not had a discussion of the question of unemployment? My right hon. friend is not slow in appreciating the significance of every move he makes; but what is the position to-day? Let me read the section which it is proposed to amend. My right hon. friend is proposing that we shall substitute for the word "March" the word "May", in the act passed at the last session of parliament. It is intended to amend, in this manner, this particularly section:
This act shall expire on the first day of March, 1932.
Well, this is the first day of March, and this act has expired or will expire at midnight to-night, so that what my right hon. friend is proposing is that we shall amend a statute that no longer exists. This is his contribution to the unemployed of the country. No suggestion in the speech from the throne, no committee of parliament to investigate the matter, no special committee to advise the ministry, no statement of policy from the Minister of Labour or -the Prime Minister-the only proposal made by the Prime Minister is to amend an extinct enactment, to amend a dead statute. That is what the right hon. gentleman offers in the name of his government to those who are suffering and who are in need. He knows as well as I know that that bill is as dead as Julius Ceasar; it expired last night. He knows that that statute is of no more value than the majority of those passed in the reign of Queen Anne; he knows it is as extinct as the dodo. He comes to this parliament and offers to those who are without employment and need relief the amendment of a statute which no longer exists! What will the unemployed of this country think, what will those who are suffering from need and privation think, of the solicitude of the Prime Minister for them in their present condition?
Listen to what he said when he was appealing for power. Speaking in Vancouver on June 18, 1930, the Prime Minister of to-day, then the leader of the Conservative party, referring to myself, said:
However blind he may be to your future and deaf to your present needs, surely he cannot stop his ears with smug complacence and selfesteem to the cry that carries across the nation -the cry of the destitute and hungry, the cry 41701-45
of mothers and fathers and little children who call to us as Christians and as Canadians to heal their pain.
"Who call to us as Christians," he says: may I remind the Prime Minister that the Pounder of Christendom itself used the words:
Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
And also:
Or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
The women and children who are suffering in this country to-day have asked the Prime Minister for bread, they have asked him for work, but he has given them not even a stone or a serpent; he has given them an extinct enactment, he has given them a dead statute.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, as it is probable that a vote will be taken on the amendment before the house, and since that amendment is regarded in parliamentary parlance as being a vote of want of confidence, and further since it involves a subject which is so important that it cannot be ignored, it becomes essential that the members of the group in this corner should express their view.
The opportunity presented by this amendment for a discussion of the vexed problem of unemployment is not as propitious as might have been desired. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), in 'his usual forceful eloquence, expressed the sentiments of the members in this corner when he decried the fact that this amendment had been offered in a political setting. It is very unfortunate that a question of such profound significance to the people of Canada should be brought into parliament in the manner in which this amendment presents it.
Undoubtedly we are all looking to the administration and to this parliament for a solution of the unemployment question, and as far as I am able to judge of the matter we will require to evolve a twofold policy. One policy will deal with the giving of sustenance to the people of Canada, the providing of support for those who have lost their means of livelihood because of a lack of work. That is the first task to be faced by the administration. The second policy should be designed to bring about an ultimate or fundamental reformation which will remove the economic cause of unemployment. The policy of providing work for unemployed rather than giving charity, was brought up at the last session of parliament, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) has just stated. At that time it appeared to me to be the general opinion of this house that the policy of

Unemployment-Mr. Irvine
providing work for the unemployed was more acceptable than that of the granting of doles. It seemed to be a plausible policy, and I think it was generally agreed that it was the best, but I am not so sure to-day that it was. I have visited some of the relief camps which have been established under the control of the administration and I found them to be very satisfactory. I refer, of course, to the camps established for the building of a highway in northern Ontario. The work was being engaged in by the workers with a good deal of zest, the places where they lived were clean, wholesome and comfortable, and the food provided of an excellent character. If all the unemployed in Canada could enjoy the same conditions I do not think there would be anj immediate cause for objection. However, I believe that such relief projects ultimately will have to be abandoned. I express that opinion reluctantly, but in view of all the circumstances I am afraid that that is what will happen. It is clear that no government has ever entered into any industry similar to that being carried on by private institutions, because to do so would mean that the government so doing would come into conflict with private property and the capitalistic system in general. The activities left to a government to undertake on behalf of the unemployed must be of a class usually undertaken by governments, and this is limited to a certain kind of so-called public works. The most popular kind of public work undertaken by governments in cases of unemployment in this country is that of building roads and highways, because private companies do not usually do that. What is the situation in that regard? We find in the first instance that governments must borrow the money with which to carry on that work, and at the present time such money will be borrowed at a very high rate of interest, thus paying to the bondholders not only the usual but even a higher interest rate than it is customary for them to collect. Next, the work on those highways is frequently given by way of contract, although this has not been done in the locality I visited. It is given in some instances in Alberta, I believe, under contract through the municipalities and the provincial government.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Not in Ontario.


William Irvine: That allows a profit for the contractor. Then the materials are purchased at prices which permit a profit to those who deal in the commodities required. That leaves the lowest figure of wages to 'be paid to the people for whom all the work was originally undertaken, and finally, to cap the climax, as we

sometimes say in popular iparlance, the government has to accept what might be about 60 per cent of the actual work value for the money that it has expended. That is to say, work undertaken on roads and highways in the winter time in this country is very difficult to perform economically and the result usually is that about 60 per cent of what would be done under suitable conditions would be given under the present circumstances. For those reasons I doubt whether the policy of the state providing work to meet an unemployment situation, which has became so serious as to be described by the leader of the opposition a few minutes ago as a national emergency, can be carried on. However, the government must pay the bill. Winter work, as I say, is not an economic proposition, with the result that the government has to pay a very high sum for a very low return, and in view of the present financial situation throughout the world, I doubt whether such a policy can be continued indefinitely. The government of this country, like the governments of other countries, will ultimately be forced to take what may not be the best course, 'but the cheapest course, and under the present circumstances the cheapest course in the last analysis is undoubtedly that of giving doles instead of trying to give work. I am not advocating giving doles; I do not think that is a cure of unemployment, but in view of the financial stringency through which we are passing, the government may be forced to take the cheapest course instead of the best. But in any case I would insist that the people in Canada who have no money or work and thus have no food, shall be fed, clothed and sheltered. To do that, the state must assume the responsibility and must pay the bill. It remains for us to discover the best method by which the state can render that assistance to that part of the population which requires it.
In regard to the other phase of the matter, namely, the ultimate policy, I do not regard this as being an opportune moment to express whatever opinion I may hold in that respect. As the leader of the opposition has pointed out, there is on the order paper a measure which will afford an opportunity for a discussion of that sort, and I have no doubt, before the session ends, the government will furnish-at least I hope it will-an opportunity of discussing this question under more favourable circumstances. But in passing I would say that reformation, fundamental and constructive in regard to the economic problem which causes unemployment, is imperative. That reformation must and will come either

Unemployment-Mr. Irvine
by legislation or by revolution. If parliament wants to prevent the latter, it must see to it that it provides the former. We must provide legislation that will bring the reformation necessary if we are to (prevent disaster in other ways. Parliament and the government must not forget that if we are to avoid the difficulties which we sometimes fear will arise, we must dio something to prevent the necessity for such action being taken. There must be an approach fundamentally different from that made by any nation so far, and from an entirely different understanding of the problem.
In that regard I am constrained to make a reference to the speech which has just been so eloquently delivered by the leader of the opposition. With perhaps this corner in mind, he referred to the nostrums of one kind or another which are sometimes proposed as a cure for the economic ills of our time. I do not of course know that he referred to this corner, but it is probable that he did. I do not think that in that respect this corner has pinned its flag to any particular masthead, although it is true we have advocated a number of things which we believe have an economic bearing on the problem. But leaving that aside, the leader of the opposition says that the economic problem is the same to-day as it has been ever since the world had an economic system. If he really means that, he is announcing his incapacity to lead any modern nation in the circumstances now confronting it; for I challenge his view in that regard and say that never before in the world's history has there been a situation similar to the present one, and that no policy that has been satisfactory in the past can possibly be applied to the present day. It may be all very well for him to say that the lower tariff policy of the Liberal party is going to be good enough for all time. I do not believe that, neither do I believe that the high tariff policy of the Conservative party is going to be good enough for all time. In fact, I would say that neither has been good enough for any time, and I do not think either has a very serious bearing upon the economic problem of the present day.
If we are going to continue industry on the basis of competition for private profit, it is certain that we shall end in disaster. All efforts made to cope with the situation on that basis I regard as being foredoomed to failure. Sooner or later this parliament and country must make a definite decision on that matter. Until that decision is made I am not very much interested in any proposal, no matter what side of the house it comes *41761-45J
from, because I firmly believe that unemployment cannot be cured under the present economic system, and that the first step towards a cure is a definite decision by the government and parliament that a new system must be introduced. Shall we continue to nurse the aged and dying system while youth and hope die for lack of attention? That is the problem as I see it. The decision, as I say, must be made to reconstruct our economic life on a new basis and for purposes very different from those which obtain now. Until that decision is made, I repeat, I have not very much faith in the outcome of any proposal which has in view the ultimate ending of unemployment.
Meanwhile, may I point out that Canada's richest deposits of wealth are being wasted and worse than wasted. Canada's youth is her richest vein of gold. What opportunities have we provided for the armies of young men and women who are coming year by year into the industrial field demanding the right to live by labour? I ask that question of myself and I ask it of every hon. member in this house. Coming up for the year 1932 is an army of bright and intelligent young men and women of Canada. A similar army came up last year, and one the year before; another will come the year following, and they are faced with closed industrial doors; opportunity for expansion in life's affairs is denied them. What is parliament going to do this year in order to give these young people an opportunity? The nation which cannot find opportunity for its youth will die of premature senility, and it deserves the fate. While Canadian youth is faced with that disaster we squabble in this house for a solid two days over a matter of political prestige or advantage, without bringing forward a single constructive policy to solve the problem. That is the fact of the matter as I see it. I mention the plight of youth not to be rhetorical, but to bring home to this parliament more poignantly if possible than anything else could bring it home, the importance of the question now before us and of finding some solution for it before we leave to go back to our homes.
I come to the amendment which has been proposed. I have no doubt-at least I am not permitted to doubt-that the hon. member who moved this amendment (Mr. Heen-an) is sincere in his objective. But it is rather a remarkable thing that the late Minister of Labour should find nothing better to offer to the unemployed than a huge hash of the speeches of the Prime Minister for the last three years, and that is what he brings to this parliament as a solution of the unem-
Unemployment-Mr. Irvine

ployment problem. I shall not weary the house by reading what has been read already half a dozen times, in the last few years, has been placed on Hansard on different occasions and given to the country in various ways. I fail to see what significance it can have in relation to the unemployment problem other than a political one. I do not know if it is really the case, but certainly it appears to me that in the amendment the reference to a solution of the unemployment problem is more of a means than an end to be gained. Of course adoption of the motion involves the defeat of the administration, and it is distinctly political in its objective. We are not very much interested over in this corner in the life of this administration or any other, nor are we particularly interested in the hopes of the opposition to get over where the present administration now is. That question has never been a very serious one for members of the group over here. Nevertheless, we are forced to express an opinion and sometimes to vote on questions of this character, and we must indicate our position.
The amendment in itself, I say, is distinctly political in character. When we look at the amendment in the light of the statement of the leader of the opposition, that unemployment has become a national emergency; when we look upon unemployment as a national emergency and then look at the resolution which is proposed to meet that national emergency I really do not know what to say about the matter. It is beyond comment. So far as our group here is concerned, and I think I am speaking for the group in this regard, we are not going to vote for the amendment, because we regard it as purely a political amendment, but we say to the hon. gentleman who moved it and to the leader of the opposition that whenever they bring in a positive resolution that will bear upon the problem of unemployment we shall be more than glad to stand with them. But when it comes to a matter of this sort, to an amendment which has clearly but one objective and that the making of political capital out of this national emergency, we do not intend to sustain their desires with our votes. On the other hand, we do not feel disposed to vote against the amendment, for this reason:	We
do not think the government has solved the problem of unemployment any more than do the hon. gentlemen who have been proposing and supporting the amendment, and we are looking forward to a statement of policy by the government in this session of parliament on this Question. Therefore we would not like to indicate by our votes that we are

perfectly satisfied with all that the government has done in the matter. On the other hand, we are not hypercritical. We know that the problem has been difficult. We know that the government has done something. We know that they have kept people from starving. We are looking forward to a better policy. So, Mr. Speaker, this is one of those peculiar motions in respect to which we shall take shelter by not voting at all, neither for nor against, but rather await the proposal of the government, or a better proposal from the opposition, bearing on the problem.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I approach this very important subject of unemployment in a non-partisan spirit, and will rather seek to submit some constructive suggestions which might be of benefit in helping to relieve the unemployment situation, more particularly as it concerns the province of British Columbia.
In so far as the amendment condemns the government for world wide conditions which they could neither foresee nor prevent, I am not in sympathy with it. The amendment is on surer ground when it condemns the government for the extravagant promises on which it rode into office, promises made recklessly and apparently with very little regard to the possibilities, let alone the probabilities, of their being capable of fulfilment. Some responsibility perhaps attaches to the electorate who so readily and credulously swallowed statements and promises which an application of ordinary, common horse sense might have told them were obviously insincere, or at least, obviously impossible of fulfilment. However, as my desk-mate, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has said, that is a matter of eighteen months or two years ago, and no great advantage can be gained to-day, as we see it at any rate, by reproaching the government for the non-fulfilment of promises, the blame for which centres rather around the fact that they were made at all than that they are now found incapable of fulfilment.
The people, as the hon. member for Labelle says, are looking to us to give them some lead, if such can be done, to bring them out of this economic depression. I blamed the government for two actions in connection with their relief scheme of the last year. First, I blamed them because they did not grasp soon enough the seriousness of the situation. Hon. members in this corner of the house and myself repeatedly urged the government concerning the necessity for prompt and immediate action. Such action was not taken. Had it been taken perhaps we would not have

Unemployment-Mr. Neill
seen the spectacle in British Columbia of ill-clad men, in some oases under-nourished, attempting to build roads in the heavy winter rains or at times in eight or ten inches of snow. Such conditions certainly did not promote efficient work, and the health of the men employed must have been affected.
The second fault I found was that too much power was placed in the hands of the provinces. The federal government did not retain enough control of the large sums of money which were being spent and for which they were primarily responsible.
Apart from those two objections I believe the present government made a genuine effort to relieve unemployment last year, and the fact that the results have been so disastrous in British Columbia is, I think, much more the fault of the provincial government than the federal. We may compare the actions of the provincial and Dominion governments in this way:	The
Dominion government did a considerable amount of work on its own hook. That is to say, work done which was wholly dominion in scope and paid for by the federal government. For the most part very little waste took place in that work. In common with other members of the house I was asked to furnish a statement recommending the most necessary works in the district I represent, and I did as requested. I was very careful to include only those works absolutely necessary, and included only those which had been omitted in the ordinary estimates and which should have been provided for in the usual maintenance vote. While the government did not carry out all the works I recommended, as it should have done-they were all very necessary-still all the works they did carry out were amongst those included in my list. I am sure I must have had the support of the government engineers who knew that the works were necessary for the maintenance of those wharves, floats and the like for which the government were responsible.
Of course there was a certain amount of abuse. Two regulations made lby this government were largely ignored. One of them was to the effect that so far as practicable the men employed should be residents of the locality in which the work was being performed. In many 'cases that regulation was ignored. A second regulation stipulated that in no case was discrimination to be allowed or permitted through political affiliations. That also was not properly adhered to. Further, men were employed who were not registered, yet the local government had expressly arranged a system of registration and
had provided and insisted through public notices that no man who had not registered would after a certain date be employed on relief work. That regulation was not complied with. In many cases men were selected on the recommendation of local politicians seeking only personal advantage, and in some cases selections were made on the advice of some would-be kaiser who could not resist the opportunity of inflicting political revenge on persons who, or districts which, in his opinion had not voted properly. If time permitted I could, if challenged, give definite instances of breaches of these regulations.
As I have said, this political manoeuvering took place in British Columbia; it did not take place in Ottawa. I wish now to follow the example set by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) who a few nights ago gave credit to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) for fairness in the administration of his department. I also am pleased to bear witness to his fair-mindedness. In more than one instance when I found that work which should have been done perhaps two years ago, work recommended by government engineers, was being sidetracked for no reasons other than political antagonism, I communicated with the minister and he in turn took steps to see that the grievance was rectified. At the moment I have in mind a situation which (Obtained in Lasqueti Island where three small works were needed, and where the most important one, on account of political intrigue, was being neglected. I give credit to the minister for his attitude in connection with -that work and will take every opportunity to see that he, a Conservative Minister of Public Works in a Conservative government, gets credit for his action in that regard. Despite some defects I think I can say that for the most part the work was wholly necessary and done efficiently. There were one or two small instances where through political influence some man would be put in charge of a little job who barely knew at which end of a canthook to apply himself, and perhaps was not very willing to apply himself at either end. These were small matters, however, and on the whole, there could be very little complaint.
A very different tale must be told, however, when we consider the work done by provincial authorities in which the federal government was interested. I might explain that a large part of British Columbia, other than areas within city municipalities, is unorganized. In those parts the provincial government had full control of the way the money was spent or, probably I should say, misspent. There
Unemployment-Mr. Neill

was very little complaint of the way work was done in the cities. I do not know what custom prevails in the east, but in the west councils are elected on a non-political basis, and consequently there was no opportunity or temptation to play politics. But the cities themselves had grievances. Dealing with the province, the cities found great difficulty in getting their proposals accepted. I have a record of one city in my district which asked for $20,000, and after extensive negotiations they were told they would receive only $10,000. Accordingly they financed on that basis but were told long afterwards that they would receive only $7,000. When the figure was agreed to there would be further delay in receiving an O.K., and still further delay when moneys were to be paid.
Speaking on this subject the other day I said I believed that I would be acting in the best interests of British Columbia if I urged the government seriously to consider the appointment of a commissioner with very sweeping powers who could go to British Columbia and handle the situation very much as though that province were more or less in the hands of a receiver. I said also that a strong capable man was needed vested with wide powers. After the necessary time required for Hansard to reach the province of British Columbia there appeared in a Victoria newspaper-I shall not give the name of the newspaper so that the columnist will not receive the publicity he was no doubt seeking but to which he is not entitled-an article attacking the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) and myself. They accused my hon. friend of asking for, and accused me of supporting, his request for a commission. The suggestion in the article was that the request for a commission bore with it an insinuation that there was something to investigate in connection with relief work. The words I used were a little more definite than the word "insinuate." I said, "the whole thing reeks with suggestion of graft and corruption." There is no insinuation about that. The article went on to say that I was animated bjr a desire to show that I was still the champion of the rights, liberties and interests of the common people. As a matter of fact, referring to the Hansard from which I have just quoted, I find the hon. member for Vancouver Centre did not use the word "commission" at all. He did say that he would like to see a full investigation. Nor did I ask for a commission; I asked for a commissioner, a very different request. So far as the third rate columnist of a second rate newspaper is concerned I am quite happy to accept the

position he wishes on me-in fact I am rather proud to be classed as the champion of the rights and privileges of the common people. I am glad he knew enough to say that I am the champion of the rights and privileges of the common people, although on that occasion the words I used were "the whole of British Columbia."
Then again, Hon. Mr. Bruhn, the Minister of Public Works, rushes into print and says:
Mr. Neill expressed his belief that the administration of unemployment funds should be placed in the hands of a strong minded official with strict power and authority from the Dominion government.
Then he goes on to say:
This_ is the first time that we have known Mr. Neill to advocate a dictatorship when dealing with the unemployed.
I did not use the word "dictator," but if I had I would not have been alone. Let me quote this sentence:
The provincial government very much requires the services of a financial dictator. . . .
That is from the Vancouver Province, the strongest Conservative paper in British Columbia. Further on they use this language:
. . . we should say that such a tangle as obtains to-day in the relief camp service is an extremely strong indictment of the present system of control.
Thus speaks the Conservative newspaper, which in many respects is very fair-minded. As I said, I did not use the word "dictator," though I do not know that its use would not have been justified. What I advocated was not a dictator but a man whom I might classify as a go-between, with the Dominion government on the one hand, who have the money and are willing to spend it for relief purposes, and on the other hand the unemployed people who need relief work, who are anxious for it and who are going hungry for lack of it, but who do not appear able to get it because of this government of inefficient misfits in Victoria. I wanted somebody with sufficient power and authority to exercise some check over those governing curiosities in Victoria who have been blocking the progress of unemployment relief, who have been a nuisance to the government in Ottawa, a reproach to their party friends in British Columbia, and a curse to the unemployed who sought relief.
I am not attacking the Conservative government of British Columbia as such, but if I should do so I would be in very good company. There are a lot of Conservatives, including members of the local legislature, who are very frank in expressing their views of the situation. Perhaps, with a little exaggera-

Unemployment-Mr. Neill
tion, I could best express the situation by saying there is no Conservative government in British Columbia to-day; it has ceased to be, though it still carries the name, perhaps in the same way a woman who has betrayed her husband will for a time shelter herself behind his name and protection. The rump cabinet of Victoria has betrayed the Conservative party, and not only the Conservative party but also that wider section of independent people, whose numbers are growing in British Columbia, who do not vote according to party lines but who vote for what they think is in the best interests of the province. At any rate the Conservatives, and no doubt many Liberals and Independents, did vote for the government, and the best elements of the Conservative party promulgated a platform to which they were pledged and which they were determined to carry into effect. They were pledged to greater efficiency, greater economy, tax reductions and non-patronage, but their cabinet has broken every one of those pledges in turn and now, in this last fiasco in connection with unemployment relief, they have broken them all at once. I reiterate what I said the other night; the local government has made a complete mess of the unemployment situation.


Otto Baird Price: Can you prove that?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, up to the hilt. I may say that I think Hon. Dr. Tolmie, decent, honest man that he is, who I hope soon recovers from his indisposition, would be one of the first to admit that conditions are unsatisfactory. I know this was a very great nightmare to the previous Minister of Labour, and I believe it had a great deal to do with his indisposition. I think even the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) would not care to go too emphatically on record as being wholly satisfied with relations between British Columbia and his own department.
Then we have another minister of the crown writing west and saying that "the provincial government seem unable to meet the ordinary business conditions which the federal government found it necessary to impose in connection with relief administration." Again we find that very early in the session of the provincial legislature a member rose in his place and moved the adjournment of the house to call attention to the fact that the government were not even paying their relief bills. Relief orders had been given to country stores, and a rather unfortunate situation existed in that regard. I know that to be a fact within my own knowledge, for I went into a country store-


Otto Baird Price: I would ask the hon. member to quote someone who is responsible and not give hearsay in support of what he thinks.


Alan Webster Neill: I certainly will not quote the hon. gentleman, for I do not think he is responsible.


Otto Baird Price: You are taking up the time of the house with a lot of political nonsense.


Alan Webster Neill: I might remind my hon. friend of this verse of the poet:
While broken teacups, wisely kept for show,
Rang'd o'er the chimney, glisten'd in a row,
I went into a country store, and the proprietor told me that his wholesaler was pressing him for cash, not an unusual thing in these days. The storekeeper had a stack of relief orders, all initialled and delivered, and he offered them to the wholesaler, but the wholesaler said, "I do not want them; I want cash." Again, we find the city council of North Vancouver, quite a large city, voting money to allow some delegates to take part in an unemployment parade to Victoria. They did so with the comment that they did not believe much in such parades, but they thought it was a good idea to take some steps to stir up the government at Victoria. Then we find the city council of Vancouver saying they did not think they could legally vote money for this purpose, although they would like to do so, but they gave these people relief while they were there and promised them all the flags they needed for their procession or parade. Again we find Senator McRae writing to North Vancouver, which he used to represent, and saying that the blame lay with the province rather than with the dominion.
I have still another example. The Vancouver Sun is known, of course, to be a Liberal newspaper, but it is no more a partisan Liberal newspaper than the Province is a partisan Conservative newspaper. The owner of that newspaper is reputed to be a man of wealth; at any rate he is abundantly able to defend any action for libel and to pay any expenses or damages which might be levied against him. A few months ago he came out in his newspaper with the announcement that he had detailed one of its editorial staff to make a personal investigation, extending from the coast to the Alberta boundary, and report his findings in connection with unemployment. I cannot read the whole report, though I should like to gratify my hon. friend opposite. I will only read three short sentences which are indicative of the whole situation.


Otto Baird Price: Your stuff is all bunk, tha^ is all I have to tell you.
Unemployment-Mr. Neill


Alan Webster Neill: "And the loud laugh that spoke the vacant mind." The article states:
British Columbia's grossest political scandal has been perpetrated under the guise of "unemployment relief."
Those words are actionable if they are not true.
In its morals the operation compares rather unfavourably with stealing pennies from the baby's bank. In its magnitude it more nearly resembles a Wall street raid.
The crime is this: that millions of dollars of public money purporting to be used in the relief and assistance of the needy and destitute, have been scattered broadcast in wages and purchases of supplies among political favourites. Meanwhile the hungry have remained unfed.
That is a statement which leaves the publisher completely open to a libel action, but nothing has been done about it. It is needless to go into details; I have not time, but at any rate, the whole thing was stopped because money ran short. In the meantime the province made a demand upon the dominion treasury; they said, "Give us half; give us your share of the money we have been squandering," but very much to the credit of the government of this dominion, they refused. They said, "No. We are willing to give our share of the money which you have spent on relief, but we are not going to spend our money on your wildcat camps, political friends, and so on." Then the fat was in the fire and the work had to be shut down instantly, and after that the government was reduced to the giving of as much direct relief as could be afforded. That is the very worst form of dole. Hon. members who have howled down any idea of unemployment insurance were only too pleased to see doles given out. Only two meals a day were given to men sitting in camp alongside a road, looking at the road which was in a disgraceful condition. I feel certain that if I had gone and said, "Boys, for God's sake fix that road at your own expense," they would have done it rather than have sat idly by and looked at it. But that was the situation: they were getting two meals a day for looking at it. That happened three months ago, and since then, about every third day we have received notice that work was going to start again, but nothing has been done. They are now talking of a scheme of giving them $7.50 a month, but even that does not seem to be in operation yet.
I repeat, what is needed is for the government to send a commissioner there with full power to investigate, not a political committee. The local government, to save their face-and there is mighty little of their face left in this regard-have appointed a political committee 
of their own choosing, in the proportion of seven to four. They could not even be content with a majority but they had to have seven out of eleven. And they were handpicked on their own side because they could not trust their men. Some of the Conservatives are up in arms about the situation I have outlined, and now a political whitewashing committee has been appointed to administer the necessary whitewash. That is not the kind of investigation we are entitled to, nor is it the kind this government are entitled to for their own protection and information.
It may be claimed that this is a provincial matter and that they have not been squandering the federal money. But much of the trouble that arose in all these months, with* which the Minister of Labour is at least partially familiar-because a lot of it happened in the time of his predecessor-was due to that very thing, that the province was trying to squander federal money, and the trouble came to a head when the federal government would not stand for it. It is the duty of this government to see that the dominion relief scheme is effective, and I am safe in saying that if they carry it out along these lines more than ninety per cent of the people of British Columbia will b,e grateful and more than grateful to them for doing so. Large sums of money are being spent. We have got into the habit of talking in millions, and the Dominion government are paying fifty per cent and in some cases more than that, so that it is their duty to investigate, not only the past, although a good deal of investigation would be necessary if we go into what has been done in the past, but what is being done now and what will be done in the future. There are months and months ahead of us during which we shall need relief from the Dominion government and steps should be taken to see that the money is properly spent.
I submit that it should be this man's duty to see that the money is spent wisely and efficiently so that good work will be done and value got for the money spent. Then he should have power to direct and to dominate, if you like, these misfits in Victoria in order to see that the work is done in such a way and under such conditions that the Dominion government can readily and without question pay their share of the expense. That will have the further great benefit of avoiding any delays, which are sometimes very unfortunate for the municipalities, whose funds are not ample. It is important that there shall be no delay in paying the dominion's share of the money. That is the primary duty of the government, and I hope they will send a good

Unemployment-Mr. MacMillan
man out. Secondly-and this is most important-he should see that the money is really received by the people who need work and who are hungry. Let me refer to the act passed last year. What is it intended to do?
It is for the purpose of relieving distress and providing employment; and elsewhere it speaks of the "speedy and unhampered prosecution of all relief measures". That is all I ask: that they send a man there who will see that the prosecution of the work is speedy and unhampered-unhampered by that bunch of curiosities in Victoria-for the relief of unemployed people. We shall not fulfil the purpose of the act under present conditions unless the government exercises greater supervision there.
In order that my attitude may be quite free from any appearance of partisanship I am going to join with my co-partner, or co-leader, or the other half of the independent desk- we will call it that rather than group or party-and vote against the want of confidence in the government. I hope, however, that the government will take steps to have these matters to which I have referred, carefully considered, and introduce methods that will improve conditions. They have given notice of an extension of the act under which relief is afforded and now will be the proper opportunity to provide more stringent regulations along the lines I have suggested in order that at least in the province of British Columbia, with which of course I am more familiar, the money will go from the federal authorities to the people who so badly need it.


Mr. F. R. MacMILLAN (Saskatoon):: In rising to say a word or two in connection with the amendment, I desire as the representative of a constituency in Saskatchewan to thank the government of the day for the most sympathetic manner in which they have come to the assistance of the people in that province. I was surprised at the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), who tried to establish a comparison between conditions to-day and conditions in the year 1921 when he came into power. There is no comparison whatsoever. At that time I was in a business in Saskatchewan which I think reflected more quickly than any other the condition of unemployment or employment. That was the time of great deflation of commodity prices as a result of the war. During the war the price of almost every commodity had gone up from 50 to 200 per cent, and in twelve months prices dropped again practically to where they had been before, so that there was considerable dislocation of trade and some unemployment. But the situation then was by no means comparable to the present situation.
It is therefore a mistake to make any such comparison. In western Canada at that time there was no unemployment, or at least very little. Rentals, which are a fair index in the city I come from and in every other city and town in Saskatchewan, remained practically at the level that existed prior to 1921. It is different to-day. Rentals of business properties in that .part of the country are down from thirty-five to fifteen per cent.
The problem before us is a national and international problem; it is something over which the government has no control, and the leader of the opposition knows that perfectly well. The right hon. gentleman spoke about raising fears throughout the country because unemployment was rampant. I would ask hon gentlemen opposite this question: Last year did we not sit here week after week listening to wails of woe, particularly from members from western Canada in regard to conditions out in that country? We heard these wails of woe until we were all heartily sick of them, and now the right hon. gentleman comes along and says that we are creating fears in the minds of the people in connection with unemployment. I have wondered, while listening to this talk in regard to unemployment relief, just what the late government did from an administrative point of view. I wonder to what extent the lack of administrative vision has accentuated the unemployment which exists to-day? I could quote figures from my own city in regard to unemployment and the relief granted by federal, provincial and municipal authorities, but I do not intend to weary the house. However, I should like to read a letter from the provincial secretary of the Retail Merchants' Association of the province of Saskatchewan. This gentleman is a very staunch supporter of the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). This letter, addressed to the Premier of Saskatchewan and dated Saskatoon, January 12, 1932, reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Anderson:
At the executive meeting of our association which we held in Regina on Thursday and Friday, January 14 and 15, and at which meeting we also had in attendance the directors of the Retailers' Trust Company, Limited, and the members of the southern merchandising committee of our association, the subject of the manner in which the distribution of relief by the federal and provincial governments, through the Saskatchewan relief commission, was pretty thoroughly talked over by the members present.	.	T
A resolution was unanimously passed that 1 should write you, expressing appreciation of the manner in which this relief has been carried

Unemployment-Mr. MacMillan
out by the governments, through the relief commission, and I was to say to you, Dr. Anderson, that, generally speaking, we believed it to he carried out in a very satisfactory manner, both to the recipients and to the retail trade, as well as to the citizens of Saskatchewan.
I was asked to send a copy of this letter to the Hon. R. B. Bennett, Hon. Robert Weir, and to Mr. Henry Black, chairman of the Saskatchewan relief commission.
I can assure you it affords me much pleasure personally, to write this letter.
Yours faithfully,
W. L. McQuarrie,
Provincial Secretary,
Retail Merchants' Association.
I could read other letters of a similar nature, but I will not take up the time of the house. I'am glad to see the Leader of the Opposition in his place, as well as the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh). I regret that the former Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) is not present because I intend to refer to a matter which pertains to the constituencies of Prince Albert and North Battle-ford, and he might be interested in my remarks.
During the years from 1921 up to the time the natural resources were returned to the province a condition arose which was not in the best interests of the people of Saskatchewan. I refer to the manner in which timber permits were handed out to the friends of the late government, and also to the granting of tie contracts. I hold in my hand a list of the timber permits which have been granted to a firm in Prince Albert, friends of the right hon. gentleman, numbering in all some sixty-one or sixty-four. In each case these permits are listed as being fire-killed timber. They were granted from the year 1925 up to just prior to the last federal elections, and it is a strange thing that no one but this particular firm could obtain a permit to cut timber in this section of northern Saskatchewan. It is also a strange thing that apparently no one but this particular firm could obtain a contract from the Canadian National Railways for the supplying of railway ties. It looks very much like collusion between the Department of the Interior, the Canadian National Railways and the contractors in Prince Albert. Hon. members familiar with timber regulations know that fire-killed timber is that which has been run over by fire and fifty per cent of which will eventually die. The royalty for such timber is only fifty per cent of what it is for standing green timber, so that these contractors by being permitted to lease this as fire-killed timber have paid the government a much smaller royalty than would have been required had it been properly designated.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order. I submit that the remarks of the hon. gentleman are not relevant to the debate. His suggestion that for a great many years such and such a thing has gone on does not concern the question under discussion; this is not the occasion on which to bring up a matter of this kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The debate has wandered over a wide area. The right hon. gentleman opposite during at least ten minutes of his address discussed another item on the order paper, and I do not think the hon. member is beyond the scope of the discussion when he points out how unemployment has been induced by the selection of only a limited number of people to furnish ties.


James Layton Ralston: I am sure that what the hon. member has been saying has nothing to do with the immediate question, that of unemployment.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am of the opinion that the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan) is not out of order. The motion is that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself again into committee of supply, and the amendment proposed thereto opens the way for a wide debate. One paragraph of the amendment reads as follows:
That the giving of these solemn assurances, the using of them to secure support at elections aud their violation after the attainment of office reveal a flagrant disregard of political honour and tend to lower the standard of public life.
Surely that opens the way for a wide discussion.


Frank Roland MacMillan: I prefaced my remarks by stating that I wondered what effect the lack of administrative ability on the part of the late government had had upon unemployment. The hon. gentleman who interrupted me will realize that there is some connection between unemployment and the matter with which I am dealing. I intend to endeavour to show him that this is so, and I hope he will be good enough to accept my proof.


James Layton Ralston: I shall be glad to listen.


Frank Roland MacMillan: The hon. member is very gracious.
As I said before, these contracts extend from 1925 up to just prior to the recent federal elections. I hold in my hand a return made by the office of the general timber agent of the Canadian National railways, dated at Montreal, February 23, 1931. This shows that from 1925 to 1930 the contractors referred to

Unemployment-Mr. MacMillan
received from the Canadian National Railways $1,311,000 for railway ties, they having taken out some 1,600,000 or 1,700,000 ties during that period. All these ties have been listed as fire-killed ties. I am going to read some statements in regard to this timber made by men living in that district. This is a statement made by Charles Marshall of St. Walburg, Saskatchewan, on the 10th day of March, 1931 and witnessed by a commissioner of oaths. He said:
1.	That during the summer of 1930 I was assistant fire ranger in the employ of the Dominion government in the Meadow Lake division, particularly in townships 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, and 60 in ranges 25, 26 and 27 west of the third meridian in the province of Saskatchewan, and as such have a personal knowledge of the matters herein referred to,
2.	That I have inspected and cruised all the
following timber berths, namely:	fire-killed
timber berths numbers: 4141, 4142, 4143, 4495, 4597, 4599, and 4600 and say that all these timber berths contain green jackpine suitable for the production of railway ties and are incorrectly designated fire-killed timber berths.
3.	That in the year 1929 I was employed as tie peeler, peeling some of the ties removed from some of the above-mentioned timber berths, and say that none of the ties peeled by me were fire-killed.
4.	That I have found large tracts of timber ruthlessly fallen and wasted, a total loss and a great fire hazard, because the inspections by the authorities were improperly enforced, as against Hett & iSibbald Limited, the permittees.
Then I have a letter dated at Turtleford, Saskatchewan, April 9, 1931, which states: Dear Sir:
During the year 1927 I made railway ties for Hett & Sibbald Limited from sections 2 and 3 in township 55, range 18, west of the third meridian. The timber was cut from this land by me and delivered to Hett & Sibbald at Livelong, Saskatchewan. All the timber was green timber. None of it was fire-lcilled.
When I was instructed by Hett & Sibbald to cut these ties they told me that they had a permit to cut this timber. I later understood that no such permit was granted and that I was unlawfully removing timber for Hett & Sibbald and without any permit.
I have seen a great number of railway ties made and in the process of delivery from townships 55 and 56 in range 18, during a number of years, particularly 1927, 1928 and 1929. All the ties made from these townships, that I at any time saw, were green ties and were not made from fire-killed timber. All these ties were said to be delivered to Hett & Sibbald Limited.
Yours truly,
Wm. Mattila.
This is another tetter, dated at St. Walburg, Saskatchewan, in the constituency of North Battleford, under date Of April 6, 1931:
They are not fire-killed timber berths, railway ties have been cut off most of them and deliver-ered as green railway ties to Hett and Sibbald, Limited.
T TT Monolioll
Then I have a document from Frederick Oleve Jackson of Loon Lake, farmer, who
says:
1.	That I have visited and cruised the timber in all township 64, in range 25, west of the third meridian in the province of Saskatchewan.
2.	That all the timber in the said township is green timber.
3.	That the so-called fire-killed timber berths cover the N.E. and S.W. of 34; all sections 35, 36 and 27, the S.W. of 26; the W. half of 23; W. half of 14; all 22 and 15; all 21, 28, 33; the N.E. and S.W. of 32; the N.W. of 34; the
S.E. of 20; the N.W. of 16; the N.W. of 17; the N.W. of 18; the S.E. of 19, the S.E. and N.W. of 30; S.E. of 31 in the said^ township and range incorrectly describes the said timber.
4.	That the said township 64, in range 25 west of the third meridian is unsurveyed territory and the timber berths covering the various sections and quarter-sections in the said township and range are not designated by a survey, and cannot be distinguished from other sections and quarter-sections in the said township.
I understand the permit granted for the particular berths to which I have just referred was given to this firm prior to the last federal election. Most of these berths are in the constituency of North Battleford, a few of them in that of Prince Albert. I have listened many times recently to the hon. member for North Battleford when 'he has been speaking - in the house. He is greatly concerned about those who support him in his constituency.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Who told my hon. friend
that?


Frank Roland MacMillan: He is very much concerned about the people who support him. I can tell him that he was defeated in almost every town along the railroad in his constituency, but when he got into the backwoods the people who supported him were those who took out these railroad ties at starvation wages for the contractor. But they will never do it again.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: My hon. friend will never be returned again either.


Frank Roland MacMillan: I want to read from the evidence in a case which was heard in Battleford.


John Vallance: North Battleford.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: He does not know one
from the other.
Dear Sir,-
X know fire-killed timber berths No. 4141, 4142, 4143, 4195, 4599, 4597, and 4600, and say that all these timber berths are green timber.


Frank Roland MacMillan: My hon.
friend knows an institution that is located in Battleford.
International Conventions


Cameron Ross McIntosh: And my hon. friend ought to be in it.
Mr. MaoMILLAN: And I can say without much fear of contradiction that he may find himself there shortly.
I read now from the evidence of J. H. Marshall taken on oath on examination for discovery at Battleford last year in a timber case:
Q. Did you endeavour to get a contract direct ?
A. No.
Q. You never had?
A. No.	'
Q. During the years 1927, 1928 and 1929?
A. Yes. In the latter part of the year I called-
Q. What year?



[Stage Direction]
Q. Where?
A. At Montreal.
Q. Whom did you inquire from?
A. I was going through there and I inquired when them contracts would be given out.
Q. Whom did you inquire from?
A. To the office of the Canadian National Railways.
Q. Whom did you see?
A. I saw one of the clerks there.
Q. Did you know who he was?
A. No. He just asked me what I wanted and I asked him about the contracts and he told me that at that time in order to get a contract you had to speak to the sitting member in the House of Commons for North Battle-ford. ... I went there and inquired for a contract and he advised me the best way out of that was to see C. R. McIntosh. That is what he advised me to do.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 2, 1932