[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 33, respecting The Montreal Terminal Company.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).


[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 34 respecting the Canadian National
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Railways and to authorize the provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1932.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. MANION:: The purpose of this bill is to permit the Canadian National Railways to issue securities to the extent of $61,500,000 for their budget requirements in the coming year. I shall give a fuller explanation on the second reading.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
5.	When the vessel was inspected on the 15th of August, 1931, she was provided with life-saving belts.
6.	No.
7.	No. Trips to Sacre-Coeur are not required by the contract after the end of November. Four trips were omitted to Sacre-Coeur in the last two weeks of November, and a corresponding deduction was made from the subsidy paid.
S.	Answered by No. 1.
9. No.
10. Answered by No. 9.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What is the name of the person who was awarded and now holds the contract for the ferry service between Bay Ste. Catherine and Tadoussac, in the county of Saguenay?
2.	What amount does he receive?
3.	What is the name of the ferry boat used
on the service?	.
4.	Does the engineer on said boat possess a
certificate?	. ,	.	,
5.	Is said boat provided with life-saving belts in case of accidents?
6.	Have complaints been made to the, government in connection with the^ unsatisfactory service given by said boat during the months of November, 1931, and January and February, 1932?
7.	Is the government aware that said boat
does not carry on a regular service between Tadoussac and the parish of Sacre-Coeur, on the Saguenay river?	.
8.	What is the name of the person who at present has the contract?
9.	Were tenders asked before awarding said
contract?	,	,	,,
10.	If so, what were the names and addresses of tenderers, and the amount of their tenders, respectively ?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Captain Arthur Deschenes, Tadoussac,

2.	Subsidy is at the rate of $4,000 per annum.
3.	N.B.T.
4.	When the vessel was inspected on the 15th of August, 1931, the engineer had no certificate but he was examined then by the steamship inspector who reported that he had the required knowledge to permit him to take charge of the machinery of the vessel. No objection was taken to the engineer continuing to act pending the submission of testimonials of service.


POINTE-AU-PIC WHARF KEEPER
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Has Captain Henry Gagnon, keeper of the wharf at Pointe-au-Pic, in the county of Charlevoix, been dismissed?
2.	If so, -were complaints lodged against him, and by whom?
3.	What was the nature of the complaint?
4.	Was an inquiry held before the dismissal of Mr. Gagnon?
5.	If so, what is the name of the commissioner who held the inquiry?
6.	What is the name of the person who replaced Mr. Gagnon?
7.	By whom was said person recommended?
8.	Did said person pass the required civil service examinations?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes.
2 and 3. Charges of political partisanship were preferred against Captain. Gagnon by Charles Lajoie, Jr.
4.	Yes.
5.	Major E. Theodore Paquet.
6.	Joseph Forgues, who resigned October 30, 1931, and was succeeded by Charles Lajoie on the 23rd of November, 1931.
7.	Mr. Forgues was recommended by the Honourable Maurice Dupre, and Mr. Thomas Maher. Mr. Lajoie was recommended by the Honourable Maurice Dupre.
8.	The position is exempt from the operation of the Civil Service Act.


NATURALIZATION OF ALIENS
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	How many aliens have been naturalized during the course of the fiscal year 1930-31, and the fiscal year 1931-32, to date?
2.	Of that number, and in those respective years, how many have been naturalized after the recommendation of a court, according to section 22 of the act?
3.	How many have been granted their certificates under other sections of the act?

Questions


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	1930-31, 21,392; 1931-32 (to January31), 27,817.
2.	1930-31, 20,329; 1931-32 (to January31),
26,838.
3. 1930-31
Section 4 (5)	 20
(Repatriation, married women and 'Canadian born naturalized in U.S.A.)
Section 6	 3
(Doubt as to nationality)
Section 7(2)	  1
(Minors)
Section 8	1,039
(Exchange local naturalization for imperial)
Total	1,063


Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1931-32 (to January 31)
Section 4 (5)	 6
(Repatriation, married women and Canadian born naturalized in U.S.A.)
Section 6	 2
(Doubt as to nationality)
Section 7	(2)	 2
(Minors)
Section 8	1,066
(Exchange local naturalization for imperial)
Total	1,076


REVENUE FROM PRINCIPAL SOURCES
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	What re%-enue has Canada derived, during the fiscal years 1930-31, and 1931-32 to date, from the following sources:	(a) customs; (b)
income tax; (c) sales tax; (d) other excise taxes?

1930-31 11 months $118,746,338 00 70,248,751 29 24,035,088 00 10,562,225 00
1931-32 11 months $92,873,649 00 60,042,860 59 36,379,148 00 15,978,676 00
(a)	Customs duties..
(b)	Income tax	
(<j) Sales tax	
(d) Other excise taxes


WAR REPARATIONS
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	How many cases of war reparations are still outstanding?
2.	When may we expect the final report of Commissioner McDougall?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	368 cases.
2.	When the hearing of the claims is completed and assessments made.


NATIONAL SERVICE LOAN, 1931
Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	What was the total amount of money borrowed under the National Service loan of 1931?
2.	How much commission was paid to the banks ?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	$221,198,200.
2.	$989,638.21.


CONVERSION LOAN, 1931
Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	What was the total amount of bonds converted last May when the Dominion government floated the conversion loan?
2.	What was the total amount of commissions paid to the banks:	(a) on bonds converted by them direct with their clients; (b) on bonds handled by them for dealers?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	$638,609,300.
2.	(a) $911,281; (b) no payment by government.


ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY-CORNWALL SECTION
Mr. RALSTON:: What is the estimated cost for right of way of lands which will be flooded in connection with the development of the Cornwall! section of the St. Lawrence waterway project?


Mr. BENNETT:: I think the hon. gentleman will perhaps drop this question. It is not a proper question to answer at this time in view of the negotiations that are being carried on between the United States and Canada.



BANKRUPTCY ACT

Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Have representations been made to the government on the ground that the operation of the Bankruptcy Act, in so far as it applies to the farmers of Quebec, is harmful to their credit?
2.	If so, will the government take steps for the betterment of such a condition?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: No representations have been made to the government that the operation of the Bankruptcy Act is harmful to the credit of the farmers of Quebec. Representations have been made on behalf of the

Questions
farmers of Quebec, but not in respect to their credit. When the resolution now before the house in respect to an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act comes up for discussion, those representations will be laid before the house.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. TAYLOR:: 1.	How	much	coal	was	purchased by	theMontreal harbour commission from the Canadian Industrial Coal Co., Ltd., and the International Fuel Co., Ltd., from January, 1922, to June	1926,	and from	October, 1926, to
August, 1930?
2.	What price	was	paid	for this coal	and
was the price as low as the lowest tender?
3.	What documents have the Montreal
harbour	commission	on	file showing	the
accuracy of weights?
4.	Who was the chairman of the Montreal harbour commission during these periods?


CANADIAN NATIONAL PIER, VANCOUVER
Mr. REID:: 1.	What was the total monetary loss due to the burning, in 1930, of Canadian National pier, Vancouver harbour?
2.	How much did this pier cost?
3.	Had curtain walls, bulkheads or other cut-off for fire protection been provided and built in the substructure of the burnt pier?
4.	Who designed this pier and who supervised construction?
5.	What was total amount paid and to whom on account of engineering services re burnt pier?
6.	What was the total cost of replacement (present pier), also cost of removing wreckage?
7.	Were contracts on both cases awarded on competitive public tenders and on what basis, unit prices, etc?
8.	Who were the contractors?
9.	What was total amount paid and to whom on account of engineering services re replacement work (present pier) ?


LAPOINTE PIER, VANCOUVER
Mr. REID:: 1.	What is the necessity for the extension of Lapointe pier by the Vancouver harbour commissioners at this time?
2.	Has the demand for existing berthage under the administration of the Vancouver harbour commissioners been taken into consideration in granting approval of this proposed expenditure?
3.	What is the length, width, total estimated cost and estimated time of completion of this extension?
4.	What is the type of substructure design with total height of same and what is the maximum height of the proposed gravel fill?
5.	What is total estimated yardage, contract price and name of contractor in respect to the gravel fill?
6.	How many men, approximately, are employed per day by the contractor in making the gravel fill?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. POWER:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the director of unemployment relief of the province of Quebec and the director of unemployment relief of the Dominion of Canada, concerning the authority and jurisdiction of the inspectors appointed by the federal government to supervise unemployment relief in the province of Quebec.



GABAROUSE, CAPE BRETON, CUSTOMS OFFICER

Mr. CASGRAIN (for Mr. Ralston):: For a return of all evidence and reports relating to the dismissal of Mr. J. A. Spray, in July, 1931, from the office of customs excise enforcement officer, stationed at Gabarouse, Cape Breton.



LITTLE SANDS, KING'S COUNTY, P.E.I.- BREAKWATER

Mr. MacLEAN:: For a copy of all engineer's reports, petitions, correspondence, and paysheets, giving in detail the name of each person employed, and the amounts paid in each ease for labour, also the amounts paid for lumber and all other materials, and from whom bought, including truckage, in connection with the building of a breakwater at Little Sands, King's county, Prince Edward Island.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. REID moved:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, contracts and other documents in connection with the purchase of railway ties under the Unemployment Relief Act of 1931, showing the names of the contractors or persons who were given orders for the making of railway ties or of supplying the Canadian National Railway Company with ties, with the prices paid, also showing ' the points throughout Canada where such railway ties were to be delivered.


Robert James Manion: I am sorry that I cannot
agree to the passing of this notice of motion. The attitude has always been taken both by the late government as well as by this that it. is not for the good of the country or for the good of the Canadian National Railways to give out this type of information. The railway takes that attitude, and for these reasons I must oppose the passing of this motion.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: May I point
out that this is a request for information as to expenditures under the Unemployment Relief Act of 1931, and the Canadian National

Railway has no right or authority in the matter, nor can it object to the giving of information in this regard.


Robert James Manion: These expenditures under
the Unemployment Relief Act were made by the Canadian National Railway. The Canadian National Railway makes the contracts and looks after all the details. So far as giving the amount paid by the government to help unemployment is concerned, there would be no objection; but the government has no information at all as to the details of expenditures by the Canadian National Railways. The Canadian National Railway takes the attitude in regard to contracts of all kinds, contracts of this kind and others, that it is not in the interests of the company to give out such information.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This order is
for a copy of all letters, telegrams, contracts and other documents in connection with the purchase of railway ties under the Unemployment Relief Act of 1931. It relates entirely to the Unemployment Relief Act of 1931. The order goes on:
-showing the names of the contractors or persons who were given orders for the making of railways ties or of supplying the Canadian National Railway Company with ties, with the prices paid, also showing the points throughout *Canada where such railway ties were to be delivered.
The motion is exclusively with respect to payments made for ties under the Unemployment Relief Act of 1931. They may have been distributed to the Canadian National Railway, but they were, or are to be, paid for out of moneys provided by this parliament under the provisions of an act which this parliament passed for unemployment relief, and the Canadian National Railway has no right to raise any objection nor has my hon. friend the right to refuse to give the information.


Robert James Manion: I cannot agree with my
right hon. friend. So far as the relations of this government are concerned there was an order in council which I presume was tabled the other day. I did not look through the documents, but I presume an order in council was among them dealing with this matter and giving the amount of money involved. So far as contracting for ties is concerned, I may tell my right hon. friend that such contracting has been done by the management of the Canadian National Railways as in other yeare. The Canadian National Railways take the attitude, quite rightly, that that is not informa-41761-74
C.N.R.-Purchase of Ties
tion for which they should be asked. They contend that the Canadian Pacific Railway, if asked, would not give similar information.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So that we
may understand the government's attitude correctly, is the minister taking the position that this parliament is not entitled to the fullest information concerning all expenditures made under the Unemployment Relief Act of 1931? That is the principle involved.


Robert James Manion: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, unless
my hon. friend takes that position he ought to consent to this motion and give parliament the information requested.


Robert James Manion: This motion asks for a
great deal more information than the government has. The government has no information on many of the points mentioned in the motion. I have no objection to bringing down any information the government may have, but the Canadian National Railways take the attitude they have always taken, and the attitude they took when my right hon. friend was leader of the government regarding contracts of all kinds.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When we were asked to agree to the measure for unemployment relief we were told we would be given the fullest information concerning all expenditures made for relief. That is the reason we are now asking for the information as set out in the motion. My hon. friend must either agree to give us the information we seek, or we will be obliged to ask the house to vote upon the resolution, and thereby decide whether or not we may have it.


Robert James Manion: Very well, vote upon it.
The house divided on the motion (Mr. Reid) which was negatived on the following division.
Ahearn,
Beaubien,
Blair,
Both well,
Bouchard,
Boucher,
Boulanger,
Bradette,
Brasset,
Brown,
Butcher,
Cardin,
Casgrain,
Chevrier,
Coote,
Denis,
YEAS Messrs:
Deslauriers,
Desrochers,
Donnelly,
Dubois,

Dumaine,
Dupuis,
Euler,
Factor,
Fafard.
Fiset, Sir Eugene, Fontaine,
Fournier,
Gardiner,
Garland (Bow River), Goulet,

C.N.R.-Purchase of Ties

Hanbury,
Hanson (Skeena), Heaps,
Howard,
Howden,
Hurtubise,
Ilsley,
King, Mackenzie, Lapointe,
Lucas,
Maclnnis,
Mackenzie
(Vancouver Centre), MacLean,
Maephail (Miss), McIntosh,
McKenzie (Assiniboia), McMillan
(Huron South), McPhee,
Mercier (Laurier-Outremont),
Anderson (Toronto-High Park), Anderson (Halton), Arsenault,
Arthurs,
Barber,
Baribeau,
Barrette,
Beaubien,
Bell (St. John-Albert) Bennett,
Beynon,
Bourgeois,
Bowen,
Bowman,
Boyes,
Burns,
Bury,
Cantley,
Carmichael,
Casselman,
Charters,
Cormier,
Cotnam,
Cowan (Port Arthur-Thunder Bay), Cowan (Long Lake), Dickie,
Dorion,
Duguay,
Duranleau,
Embury,
Ernst,
Esling,
Fortin,
Fraser (Cariboo), Gagnon,
Ganong,
Garland (Carleton), Geary,
Gobeil,
Gordon,
Guthrie,
Haekett,
Hanson
(York-Sunbury), Hay,
Johnstone,
Jones,

Mitchell,
Motherwell,
Munn,
Neill,
Parent,
Perras,
Power.
Reid.
Jibdaume,
Roberge,
St-Pere,
Sanderson,
S peatman,
Spencer,
Stewart
(Edmonton West), l'hauvette,
Totzke,
Urquhart,
Vallance,
Veniot,
Verville,
Weir (Macdonald), Woodsworth,
Young.-77.
++NAYS
Kennedy
(Peace River), Kennedy (Winnipeg South Centre), Laurin,
Lawson,
Loucks,
MacDonald (Cape Breton South), Macdonald (Kings), Macdougall, MacLaren,
MacMillan
(Saskatoon),
McDade,
McGibbon,
McGillis,
McGregor,
McLure,
Maloney,
Maniion,
Moore (Chateauguay-Huntingdon), Morand,
Mullins,
Murphy,
Nicholson,
Peck
Perley (Qu'Appelle), Pettit,
Pickel,
Plunkett,
Porteous,
Price,
Quinn,
Robinson,
Rogers,
Ross,
Ryckman,
Senn,
Shaver,
Simpson
(Simcoe North), Simpson
(Algoma West), Smith (Vietoria-Carleton),
Smith
(Cumberland),
Spankie,
Spence,
Sproule,
Stanley,
Stewart (Leeds) , Stewart (Lethbridge), Stinson,
Stirling ,
Stitt (Nelson),
Stitt (Selkirk), Sullivan,
Sutherland,
Swanston,
Tetrault,
Thompson
(Simcoe East), Thompson (Lanark), Tummon,
Turnbull,

Weir (Melfort),
White (Mount Royal), Willis,
Wilson,
Wright.-110.

(The list of whips.)
pairs as furnished by the chief Messrs:
Baker,
Bell (Hamilton), Bell (St. Antoine), Black (Halifax), Cahan,
Chaplin,
Dupre,
Edwards,
Gott,
Harris,
Lafleche,
Lennox,
Matthews,
Perley, Sir George, Rhodes,
Rowe,
Ryerson,
Sauve,
Short,
Smoke,
Spotton,
Stevens,
White (London),
Bertrand,
Mercier (St. Henri), Raymond,
Dubuc,
Rinfret,
Malcolm,
Ferland,
Elliott,
Rutherford,
J acobs,
Girouard,
Pouliot,
Moore (Ontario), Marcil,
Ralston,
Lacroix,
Taylor,
Seguin,
Heenan,
Cayley,
Hepburn,
Fraser (Northumberland) , Gershaw.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: I was paired with the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the motion.


Mr. SMOKE:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Cayley). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). Had I voted I would voted against the motion.


Mr. BERTRAND:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the motion.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I was paired with the hon. member from London (Mr. White). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.



EASTER ADJOURNMENT

Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in conformity with the suggestion which I made to the house a few days ago I now beg to move, seconded by Mr. Guthrie:

Immigration of British Boys
That when this house adjourns on Wednesday, the 23rd of March, it stand adjourned until Tuesday, the 29th of March, 1932.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am merely moving the notice standing on the order paper.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the governor in council may authorize the guarantee of securities of the Canadian National Railway Company to an aggregate principal amount at any one time outstanding of $11,372,498.86, to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1931 (where amounts available from net operating income or investments may be insufficient), by or on behalf of the Canadian National Railways or any company controlled by or any company comprised in the Canadian National Railways, or in respect of Canadian government railways entrusted to the Canadian National Railway Company.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the house to an omission in yesterday's Hansard. When Bill No. 16 to amend the Bank Act was before the house the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) moved an amendment that the bill be referred back to the committee on banking and commerce. I was the first to vote for the amendment but there is no mention of my name in the division list. I ask that the necessary correction be made.



VETERANS' PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MacLaren). Is it the intention of the government to introduce during the present session any amendments to the pensions legislation?


Mr. McINTOSH:: This is a quesion that has been put three times this session.


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under consideration.



IMMIGRATION OF BRITISH BOYS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day
Mr.. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):	Mr. Speaker, last week I put a question to the Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Gordon) with regard to the immigration of five hundred English boys, but unfortunately I neglected to give him notice of the question. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) said he was not able offhand to give an answer, but undertook to do so shortly. I have not been able to get any information in connection with the matter, and I should like to ask either the acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization or the Prime Minister if any information is now forthcoming.
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: Mr. Speaker, I think the house is very well acquainted with the fact that so far as encouraging migrants to Canada is concerned, the government has laid down a very definite policy-a policy, which, I think, is very acceptable to the people of this country. On the other hand I do not think the time has come, and I hope it never will come, when the door will be closed to the admission into Canada of a British boy who comes here paying his own way and seeking to make a home for himself.
Some hon. MEMBERS Hear, hear.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: With respect to the boys referred to by the hon. member, for several years various organizations within the dominion, all of them, I trust, inspired with the idea that they were doing what was best for the country, have encouraged the movement of Britishers to Canada. I think at times they have been in error as to the methods they have employed, although I believe they have been acting with the very best motives.
With respect to the movement of British boys to Canada since this government took office, I have been careful to consult with all the societies concerned, who have gone to a great deal of expense down through the years to organize their efforts. I have consulted with these societies and with the provinces *with the idea of trying to determine what might be best at a time such as this. Some of the provinces said they would welcome a reduced number of boys from Great Britain, who would come out here not under assisted
Federal Loans co Provinces

passages, as in the past, but who would pay their own way and would be cared for during their first two or three years in Canada, until they could get places for themselves, by the various societies, mainly religious societies covering all religions, and in accordance with the express desire of these various organizations and of the provinces I agreed that a reduced number of boys might be admitted. If the hon. member has any fear that immigrants of this sort are likely to imperil the future of this country, I may tell him that I do not think there will be five hundred coming out this year.
I can only repeat that whatever action has been taken by the government has not been by way of extravagant encouragement; it has been taken only after careful investigation of the situation with respect to the societies concerned and the provinces which have agreed to accept these boys if they come forward.


Mr. HOWDEN:: I may not be entitled to
the information, but I did ask what guarantee if any had been given the government that these boys would not become public charges and perhaps require deportation.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The very best guarantee
that could be given the government that these boys will not become public charges is that they have enough courage to come out here, paying their own way, in order to hew out homes for themselves in this dominion, and it must be remembered that they are British boys.
SOCKEYE SALMON TREATY On the orders of the day:


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I should like to ask the Acting-Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau) whether he has seen press reports indicating that the attitude of a committee of the United States senate is to refuse to ratify the sockeye salmon treaty. If so, what is going to be the attitude of the government with regard to this matter, by way of further amendment or otherwise?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Notice is required for a
question of that kind.
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Acting-
Minister of Fisheries): The report has not been brought to my attention as yet.
FEDERAL LOANS TO PROVINCES On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. N. RHODE'S (Minister of Finance): Yesterday the hon. member for North Battle-ford (Mr. McIntosh) made inquiry with re-[Mr. Gordon.!
spect to a return in which he is interested. I have looked into the matter and I find that so far as the information required from the Department of Finance is concerned, it has been forwarded to the Secretary of State. The delay has been due entirely to the fact that the question, as it touches the Department of Labour, involves a very great deal of detail work, but I am told that the return is almost completed and may be expected in a day or two.
POSTMASTER OF LAPRAIRIE On the orders of the day:


Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napier-ville) (Translation):: Before the orders of the day are called, would the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) be so kind as to inform the house when we may expect the information required in connection with the postmaster of Laprairie? This question has been on the order paper for over two weeks, and I am still waiting, together with a number of my constituents, for an answer from the hon. Postmaster General.


Mr. SAUVE (Translation):: It is not a
question of good will but one of time; I shall supply this information as soon as possible.


Vincent Dupuis: I trust that it will be soon.
ALLEGED RUM RUNNING On the orders of the day:


Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Sague-nay) :: Last week I directed the attention of
the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryck-man) to a report concerning alleged rum running on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river, and I also wrote the minister with reference to this matter. I should like to know if he has any information to give the house in this regard at this time.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: If the hon. member has
written me on the subject I may tell him the letter has not been received. I made some inquiry with regard to the report that good French Canadians in the constituency of Charlevoix-Saguenay, on the north shore of the river St. Lawrence, were bartering their cattle for whisky, but I could find no confirmation of that report. I can only tell my hon. friend that in the winter time, of course, the boats of the preventive service are not in operation, and I have no doubt that prohibited traffic is carried on during that time. There are some officers of the preventive service in that district, whom I have no

Unemployment Continuance Act
doubt are well known to my hon. friend. He may have assisted in having them appointed to their positions, but I have no doubt they are worthy men, and the law is being enforced on the north shore of the St. Lawrence as far as it is possible to do so. It must be remembered that this territory extends along the north shore of the St. Lawrence right to Labrador, but of the facts as stated by the hon. gentleman-and of course I must accept them-the department has no knowledge.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I did not state that
French Canadians especially were doing that bartering of goods for rum or other articles; I simply directed attention to the fact that people were coming from Newfoundland, or other places, and attempting to induce these people to go into that business. Someone suggests that they might be coming from other provinces as well.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday. March 15, consideration of the motion of the Prime Minister that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on the following proposed 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.
Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the debate that has taken place since this resolution was introduced about three weeks ago has covered a very wide range. Almost every subject that might possibly be introduced in the House of Commons has been discussed and debated; budget speeches of last session have been rehashed; recitations have been given on a variety of subjects, and all this has been done, if we are to take the word of the Toronto Globe of March 9, in order to fulfil one purpose, that is, to carry out what the Globe refers to as the Liberal blockade.


Vincent Dupuis: Read it.


George Brecken Nicholson: I have read it; if my hon. friend wants to read it for himself he can get it from the reading room. The question one is led to ask himself is, why this blockade? What is the purpose of it? To my mind it indicates the attitude of hon. members opposite towards the whole question of unemployment and farm relief. That attitude has been covered by a variety of smoke
screens, nevertheless the debate has shown the attitude of hon. members opposite towards the vital questions facing the people of this country at the present moment, unemployment and farm relief.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) gave notice of this resolution on February 22-I believe that was the date-almost immediately the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) announced that if the leader of the government and his cabinet would abdicate their functions, if they would cease to lead this house, if they would stop trying to define and introduce policies to meet the situation, then the opposition would cooperate. Their attitude was this: If you will do it our way we will cooperate; but if you come forward in your own way, after giving the matter such consideration as you have been able to devote to it, why then we will just hold the question up as long as we can. That is virtually what the leader of the opposition announced; and what has taken place in the meantime has adequately carried out that threat. The first effort they made was to throw up the smoke screen of the constitutional question in relation to this matter. At the last session of parliament we passed an act clothing the government with power to meet every situation that might arise in relation to unemployment and farm relief; or any other emergency that might occur in the difficult period through which this country, in common with the whole world, is now passing. That act automatically came to an end on March 1. On February 22 the Prime Minister announced that this resolution would be brought in, the purpose being to extend the time of the act for two months, or until May 1; and then it was that this announcement was made of cooperation or no cooperation according as the government were or were not prepared to abdicate. Not finding the going very easy in the way they had first indicated that they would take, they brought up the constitutional question; and after a variety of constitutional authorities, starting with the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), had given their judgment, the hon. member for Quebec East, the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and my hon. friend the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) were brought in to bolster up the position with regard to the constitution.
Now there is one thing that the house can be always sure of. When the hon. member for Quebec East rises, one of two things will happen: Either he is going to tear the British North America Act to pieces and build a new constitution, as he professes to have done

Unemployment Continuance Act
at a recent imperial conference, or he is going to throw himself in the way of someone who is anxious to destroy the constitution we have and the institutions of this country. The hon. member for Labelle takes the same position, as a rule-some constitutional question or other, something that is going to arouse passion and prejudice from one end of the country to the other. Following that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) gave us his views on the institutional-not constitutional-question. And so on and so on all through the piece. Let me assure these hon. gentlemen that the constitution and the institutions of this country are just as safe in the hands of the present Prime Minister and the present government as they have ever been or ever will be in the hands of the hon. member for Quebec East, or the hon. member for Labelle, or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
But to come back to the question as to the way that was proposed. The leader of the opposition, in elaborating his plans, said in effect: We will call a conference and we will talk about the question. It is true there is unemployment; it is true the farmers of the west require seed wheat. Well, we will talk about it; we will call in people from every part of the dominion and talk to them about the question. We will not act; we will talk. Now, every member of this house knows that if there is anything to be done, if there is anything which it is necessary that the government or the parliament of Canada should do to meet any situation, no matter what it may be, you may always depend upon it that the leader of the opposition and those who surround him, particularly the ex-Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan), who seems especially anxious, are prepared to do the talking. We all recall that last session of parliament the leader of the opposition entertained us here for a whole day and night, talking, talking all the time, after he had thrown first one and then another senatorial friend to the wolves; and after pleading with tears in his voice for consideration of his dearly beloved son who had been sent to get the money and had not covered up his tracks, he finished his speech at the end of five and three-quarter hours. I can give you another illustration of talking, particularly the talking of the exMinister of Labour and the ex-Prime Minister.
In April, 1930, my predecessor, Mr. Bowman, pleaded with the Department of Labour, through its then minister, for the people, some 412 families, living in a town in northern Ontario, who had not had an hour's work for six months. What did the then Minister of

Labour do? He went to that town and talked to these people. He talked and talked and talked, just as he talks here, not being familiar with the situation. That not being sufficient, he was followed to the same town by the leader of the opposition in a special train; and as is his wont the right hon. gentleman on that occasion talked again. He tried to persuade those people, as he tried to persuade the people throughout Canada, that there was no unemployment situation, that unemployment was merely a dream. He said to them, "Why, haven't we given you the Dunning budget? Can you not now import your hay and oats, your silk hats and walking sticks from England free of duty"? But, Mr. Speaker, it was not hay and oats nor silk hats and walking sticks that these people wanted; they wanted work.


An hon. MEMBER:: And cut flowers.


George Brecken Nicholson: Yes, cut flowers too;
but the people did not want cut flowers either. The situation with which this country is faced, Mr. Speaker, is one that calls not for talk but for action; and the government, through the resolution they have submitted to this house for consideration, are preparing to take action to relieve unemployment and to provide seed wheat for the farmers in western Canada who have been burned out for the past three years, and also to assist those who require assistance. But what do we get from hon. members opposite? Talk, talk, talk.


Mr. FAFARD:: Why don't you bring in a bill to-day and have done with the discussion?


George Brecken Nicholson: I anticipated that question from some hon. gentleman. In reply, I would ask another question. Is there any hon. member on the other side, either the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) or perhaps my hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young), who is smiling so nicely, who can tell the house what kind of estimate-not a bill-would be necessary? How many acres of land in western Canada will be seeded, and how much wheat will be required to seed the land?


Vincent Dupuis: How much do you want?


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Vincent Dupuis: How much do you want? We will give it to you.


George Brecken Nicholson: How much do I want? That shows the intelligence of the whole discussion. The hon. member knows as well as any man in this house or in the country knows

Unemployment Continuance Act
that it. is impossible to prepare an exact estimate to meet the situation that faces us to-day.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member for East Algoma has the floor, and unless he consents to questions he must not be interrupted.


George Brecken Nicholson: 
Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Mr. Speaker,
I rise to a point of order. I submit that the hon.. member is not debating the resolution under consideration.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


@Acting Speaker: The objection is not well taken.


George Brecken Nicholson: After declaiming
against all of these institutions, after comparing conditions in Russia with the conditions in Canada, my hon. friend said:
What are we going to do? It would seem as if the government now in power, sensing somewhat the issue at stake, is determined at all costs to maintain the present system.
What institutions have we in Canada that my hon. friend would destroy? If he would be specific, then we would know exactly how 'to deal with the situation, but after the portrayal of the ideal conditions which prevail at present in Russia he accuses the government of the determination to maintain Canadian institutions.	,
I come now for just a moment to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis), who made the following statement to be found on page 982 of Hansard:
When the Minister of Railways is discussing Russia he should not forget that Russia at the present time is at war:
I agree fully with my hon. friend; Russia to-day is at war-she is at war with civilization.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Read the rest of the
sentence.


Mr. HEAPS:: I think the hon. member is
most unfair in not reading the whole statement.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am repeating just
exactly what the hon. member said.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No you are not.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend made his speech and I will make mine in my own way. Hon. members of &ne house can decide whether this is fair or unfair.
I say that the hon. member is right. Russia is at war-she is at war with Canada. Russian agents are in every hamlet in this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and I am not so sure that she has not agents around these parliament buildings. Whether she has or has not, every man in this country knows that Russia is at war with Canada and she is at war in her own country.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Henry Elvins Spencer: Would the hon. member
give some proof of what seems to be an absurd statement?


George Brecken Nicholson: The hon. member for Vancouver South, who professes to know a lot about Russia, says that Russia is at war. I say that Russia is at war with Canada. It has been proven in the courts that the soviet government sent money into Canada to pay communistic organizers to disrupt this country. For what other purpose was it sent? The hon. member confesses that Russia is at war in Russia; she is at war with her own people, she is at war with every ideal which has been held sacred by men and women ever since the dawn of civilization.
The hon. member said that the kulaks, the peasant farmers, refused to cooperate in that war and consequently had to suffer as they have suffered. It will be to the eternal glory of the kulaks that they refused to cooperate. Let us try to get a picture of the cooperation for which they were asked. The communistic, red army officers came to the peasant farmer and said:	These lands upon which
you have lived, this soil you have tilled and the home you have built are no longer your own, they are ours. The things around you are no longer your own; these children are no longer your own-they are the property of the state. If you are willing to cooperate, if you are prepared to have us destroy this home and take your children away from you, if you are prepared to stand by and see your women violated, all right, you may live and we will send you to Siberia, to Archangel or to the lumber camps on the White sea w;here you can eke out an existence on raw fish and cabbage soup. If you refuse to cooperate, we will stand you up against the wall of this home you call your own and riddle your body with bullets. That is the kind of cooperation the kulak was asked to give.
My hon. friend and his mentor, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, are constantly speaking of these ideal conditions which prevail in Russia and comparing them with what they call the demoralizing conditions which prevail in Canada. Canada is the freest country under the sun. There is not a country in the wide world where the man who wants to make his way in the world has so great an opportunity as he has in Canada. I say in all sincerity and fairness to my hon. friends:	If you feel that Russia
is a much better country in which to live than Canada, why don't you go to Russia?
I believe I can say without hesitation that 
the Department of State would present no difficulties to their securing passports, and I do not believe they would have any difficulty in entering Russia. Why don't they go there if the conditions are so ideal? Is it because comrades Stalin and Kamenoff would rather they remained in Canada to take the place of Tim Buck and his associates who are now behind the walls of Kingston penitentiary. I do not know; I am simply putting that question.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: If I might ask my hon.
friend a question, would he kindly tell me how far he is from the resolution?


George Brecken Nicholson: It is quite possible
that if agitators are allowed to run loose in this country, those who would set class against class and play on the feelings of men and women who are harassed by the conditions through which we are passing, things may be done that none of us would like to see happen. But I say right now that any man or woman in these times, I care not who or where they are, who attempts to stir up strife and set class against class and play on the passions of people is not a true and good Canadian.
Every man in this country knows that we are passing through times which are difficult for humanity all over the world. Canada is in no worse a position than other countries. As a matter of fact I believe we are in a better position than any other country, and I have confidence that Canada will pull through. I have confidence in the resourcefulness and courage and faith of the Canadian people, and I believe that with sound leadership Canada will pull through better than any other country in the world. But it is sound leadership and level heads, not agitators, that the country requires to enable us to pull through. To the Prime Minister and his government I would say that every man in this house and every man in this country has some conception of the problems which the government is called upon to meet from day to day, and every one of us knows that the Prime Minister and his government are working long and tiresome days and many, many weary nights in meeting the problems and accepting the challenge that has been thrown to them as the government which the Canadian people chose in 1930 to carry on the affairs of this country. I say without any hesitation whatsoever that the best people in this country, those who have given thought to the conditions 'through which we are passing and the situation that confronts us, are behind the Prime Minister and his government,

Unemployment Continuance Act
and the government's followers in this house are one hundred per cent behind them. Go forward, I say to the Prime Minister and his government, and meet the tasks you have to meet from day to day, and let the agitators and babblers continue to agitate and babble and the talkers continue to talk.


Thomas Reid: I should like to say a few words on the resolution now before the house. At the outset I wish to say that we on this side are just as much concerned with the great problem of unemployment confronting Canada to-day as are the members on the government side, and personally let me add that I am more concerned with the affairs of Canada than with what is happening in Russia. I think we should pay more attention to the affairs of our own country, because Russia will work out her own destiny. The problem confronting the Canadian people is what is going to happen to us in this dominion of ours.
The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion), in his speech the other day, said that Canada was to-dav facing conditions worse than any she had faced before in her history, not even excepting the war. I agree entirely with that sentiment. But I would go further and say that I for one sincerely believe that even if industry and conditions in this country do come back to what we knew as normal, industry will not be able to absorb the number of men and women who are anxious and willing to work, and that fact will have to be faced more squarely in the future if we wish to put our country on a better basis.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have blamed us on this side of the house for an alleged lack of Cooperation. I suggest that the government should first show some sign that they want cooperation from this side of the house, but I have yet to see the first gesture of anything of that kind. I have sat here and listened to the discussions that have taken place, and every time suggestions were made from this side I have heard the "ha-ha" given to them by hon. gentlemen opposite. It has been reiterated both in this house and outside that we on thi3 side consistently blocked the legislation of last year although many of our members appealed time and time again to the government to introduce legislation to deal with the unemployment situation or at least to give the house an apportunity to discuss it, but it was not until the latter end of the session that the legislation was brought down. It has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite and by the Prime Minister himself
that we consistently opposed that legislation and that if there was any delay in dealing with the unemployment situation, the delay was due to the opposition in this house. I take exception to that statement, Mr. Speaker. Even the then Minister of Labour wrote to a municipality in my riding and said that the talk on this side of the house had delayed the passing of that legislation. If I have any idea of the sort of cooperation that this government expects from us it is simply a quiet acquiescence in everything they do, a desire on their part that we say nothing and do nothing at all in this house. If the positions were reversed and hon. gentlemen opposite were sitting on this side, I am wondering if the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) and the right hon. Prime Minister would not object if we had the temerity to bring down such a proposal as is now before the house, and simply say to us: Yes, go ahead; we have no opposition to offer. It takes a great stretch of the imagination, however, to imagine that.
If there has been any delay, Mr. Speaker, I claim that the delay has come from the government side of the house. The Prime Minister knows the conditions in this country far better than any other man in Canada, and he must have been aware that this act expired on the 29th of February last, and I would ask the- next hon. member on the other side who speaks to explain to me just why an item could not have been placed in the supplementary estimates to carry on the work or to pay for unemployment relief for the next two months. As a new member I should think that would have been easy to do. 1 claim that the Prime Minister is in a position toKlay to know approximately what amount will be required to take care of the situation for the next two months.
I wish to take exception, Mr. Speaker, to some of the remarks that were made yesterday by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. He said that as we in this parliament had passed the act of last year we had endorsed the principle of this legislation. I submit that that is not in accordance with the facts. Turning to Hansard of last year I find that at page 4279 the Prime Minister said:
We should not place a limitation upon the amount that may be expended, either with respect to direct relief or otherwise, because in the one instance you create the idea "Here is a fund upon which anyone may draw without work-[DOT]
There the Prime Minister was stating the reasons why we shauld give him a blank cheque. He went on:
1178	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
That is the question. If you fix it at any
sum you may suggest, I repeat, you but invite the very thing that we .desire to prevent.
Further, in reply to the right hon. leader of the opposition, the Prime Minister said:
If I were less unmindful of the soundness of the criticisms that are made by the right hon. gentleman opposite as to the interference with the general principle, I would not make the observations I do. But when we make charges against the consolidated revenue fund, as we have done continuously with respect to matters mentioned last evening by the Minister of Justice, and when since confederation we have had a frank recognition by parliament that a situation might arise in which the application of the ordinary rules would no longer be possible as witness the Finance Act of the country,
And so on. Then the last paragraph is as follows:
I am compelled to do this in the public interest. But there is no reason why the date should not be limited to the first day of March which will ensure that the house must meet at least a sufficient time before that date to enable parliament to grant such further supply as may be regarded necessary in the premises.
I claim, Mr. Speaker, that if hon. members on this side did acquiesce in or help pass that act last year it was done under the assurance that legislation would be introduced on March 1, and that hon. members would be given an opportunity to discuss this matter. In my opinion the most important functions of parliament are taxation and expenditure. If these are taken away we are deprived of practically all our important rights. Municipal councils, provincial and dominion governments are seized of the fact that the imposition of taxes and expenditures of money are very important functions. The proposal now before us virtually asks us to hand over to the executive the full powers of parliament so far as the expenditure is concerned. Personally I am in favour of voting a certain sum, and I have heard no valid reason why such a sum could not have been placed in the supplementary estimates, or a bill brought in for a specific amount. There must be some reason why the Prime Minister has not yet stated his grounds for proceeding along these lines.
At the special session of 1930 we were told, when we were asked to vote for an expenditure of $20,000,000, that if we did not pass that amount speedily we would be holding up the Imperial conference. Last year legislation was introduced at the end of the session, and we were told that as parliament was about to prorogue the legislation must be passed. It is for these reasons I cannot support the proposal now before the house. Then, again, an extension of the blank cheque will

not in my opinion take care of the situation in the provinces and municipalities which have planned schedules of work and which for a period of two months or six weeks have been standing for approval. In my opinion a blank cheque does not take care of that situation.
I feel that the whole question is going to be shelved. If, as the hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) has said -and I quite agree with him-conditions are worse, and to-day we are in a more unfortunate position than we were during the late war, parliament should be considering some definite plans capable of adoption. Even at the risk of sneers from hon. members opposite, I am about to make some suggestions, believing as I do that we are really face to face with conditions such as never before have been experienced. No one can tell where the end may be. The forces of the country should be coordinated, and the government should consider the conscription of wealth. That matter was under consideration during the last war, and I am sorry no such action was taken. In my humble opinion if wealth had been conscripted at that time our burden of debt would not be as severe as it is to-day. While I know that unemployment insurance will not relieve us of our difficulties, I believe it should be fully considered, in view of the fact that all the energies of our government seem to be concentrated upon the building up of manufacturing industries.
Rates of interest should at least to some extent be controlled. From one of the municipalities in the constituency I have the honour to represent I received information that only last week the rate of interest had been raised from six per cent to six and one-half per cent. The bank said the change was due to the action of the government of British Columbia in floating a loan at six per cent. For that reason bank interest was being raised to six and one-half per cent. Something should be done in that connection, Mr. Speaker, because while wages are continually going down, interest seems to be going up, and some definite action should be taken to control it. If it were at all possible I should like to see legislation whereby the municipalities and provinces could come to the federal government and obtain loans at three per cent, the rate that is now extended to banks, they in turn lending to municipalities or provinces at twice that rate.
I should like to venture an opinion regarding agriculture. One of the reasons agriculture is not progressing as it should is that the man on the land has been entirely divorced

Unemployment Continuance Act
from it. Under our old system a man could exchange his produce and live, but to-day he must have money. Without money he is absolutely tied up. In the province of British Columbia I know of barns filled with produce, but the owners cannot obtain a five cent piece for any of it, or even exchange it for other produce. Under our present capitalistic system the agriculturist is divorced from the land, and the practice under that system of putting men out on the land will in my opinion only produce more distress. Some drastic change will have to be brought about if we are successfully to further our land schemes.
At this point I should like to refer briefly to conditions in British Columbia, and to offer some suggestions concerning that province. I may be met with the remark that British Columbia is the place to discuss those matters. When we realize, however, that fifty per cent of the commitments are to be paid for by the dominion, I think I have a right to discuss provincial matters. Business men, unions of municipalities and municipal governments irrespective of party are genuinely alarmed at conditions in British Columbia. To begin with, I claim the blank cheque of last, session did not work out as the Prime Minister suggested, or would have liked to see it work out. I should like to have seen him adopt the suggestion of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) last session and appoint a commission. I believe the Prime Minister held the idea that if any definite amount had been set there would have been a rush by the provinces to avail themselves of a large share of that fund. To obviate such a rush a bill authorizing a blank cheque was put through parliament. So fai as the province of British Columbia was concerned however the opposite was the result. That province set out on a spending program the like of which had never been witnessed there before. After the passing of legislation for the blank cheque the province had every reason to believe that unlimited funds would be obtainable at Ottawa. I have before me the words of the Premier of British Columbia, as follows:
The provincial government launched its program, employed 16,000 men, built 170 camps and contracted a cost of over $50,000 a day on the definite assurance of the federal government that it would pay half the cost.
If the federal government has decided to scale down this program drastically, as reported in Ottawa, the provincial government will insist that the responsibility rests with it, not with the province.
I say if the province of British Columbia embarked on such an extensive program of
relief works they probably did so after receiving some assurance that there were unlimited funds here in Ottawa, and that all they had to do was to go ahead with the work. They probably believed that for every dollar they expended they would receive fifty cents from the federal government. I bring these matters before the house in an endeavour to show that a commission should have been appointed. Before I take my seat I shall make some suggestions as to how future relief should be handled. This is a matter which has gone beyond a mere question of parties; no one government can solve it. If conditions are as described by the Minister of Railways and Canals, if they are worse than they were during the war period, it is time we decided to appoint a commission to handle relief, so that this serious matter may be entirely free from party control or influence. In the province of British Columbia supplies were furnished through a process of patronage. I do not think any person in that province ever saw such a quantity of needless supplies purchased. Supplies of all kinds were purchased, including wheelbarrows, blankets and even Delco electric light plants. The driver who was taking out the Delco plants told me at the time I met him that that was the hundredth Delco plant he was delivering.
I have no comment to make regarding the construction camps, except to criticize the loose way in which they were conducted. For instance, men got jobs as surveyors, men whose fathers hold high government positions, and I saw four men running around the country with a car and instruments to lay out bunkhouses, although there were plenty of foremen carpenters available and on the job. To show on what a lavish scale the money was handled, in my riding not far from my -home they built two camps- a mile apart. In one camp there were thirteen or so large bunk-houses. To supply water to this camp they erected twenty feet in the air a tank of two or three thousand gallon capacity, and then they laid down the necessary piping and plumbing for hot and cold water. When the plumbing had been completed, someone asked: "Where is the water"? Although all this money had been spent they could find no water. Someone suggested that they could get water three-quarters of a, mile down the road, but after the trenches were dug a doctor came along and said: "You cannot use that water; it is unfit to drink." He was not a Liberal; he is, I believe, a strong supporter of the government. Then they set men to dig a well, but although they went down eighty-five feet they found no water. Ultimately
1180	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
they had to hire a truck and bring water to the camp in barrels. Someone may say that this scandal should be threshed out in British Columbia. Well, before Mr. Jones, the provincial Minister of Finance, came down to Ottawa three and a half million dollars had been spent. If the unemployed had received the bigger portion of the money I would have little criticism to offer, but the bulk of it went in the purchase of supplies and that from favoured wholesale houses. One manufacturer told me that he sold 50,000 blankets, and it took him out of the red.


Mr. COOTE:: That was one good deed,
then.


Thomas Reid: If the unemployed, the needy
and destitute, had received the major portion of the money I do not think there would be very much criticism. I counted in one camp some 450 steel wheelbarrows. They had so many that a man was to be appointed to regulate their use. Ultimately orders were received from the dominion authorities that such extravagance must cease. A serious charge was laid against even a cabinet minister. The men at a camp for the unemployed were cutting wood beside the road and burning it. It seems incredible but actually coal was brought to that camp all the way from Vancouver island. But that was not the worst of this scandal. The coal car was stopped within ten or twelve miles of the camp, and the manager, who was looking after the affairs of the cabinet minister, took the job of hauling the coal the remaining twelve miles to the camp, although that coal could have been taken up the Canadian Pacific tracks right into the camp. That charge was laid against the cabinet minister right in Victoria. And it was not laid entirely by Liberals, even some Conservatives do have a conscience-yes, there are men who^have a conscience even although they are Tories.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Reid: Yes. Those Tories were so
sore about these scandalous conditions that they made that charge in Victoria against a cabinet minister. Let me give another instance to show the astounding scale on which expenditures were made. The men in one camp were doing nothing, simply marking time, yet tenders were called for cutting wood. When it was brought to the attention of the government that those unemployed men were idle, immediately the government had the notices pulled down and quietly ordered one or two carloads of coal. Yet those men had been working cutting logs and burning them

by the roadside. The only explanation given by the minister was that a coal-burning stove had been installed in the camp.
These conditions are so serious that British Columbia has reached the point where it now cannot meet its bills. The provincial government has been advised that the banks will not advance another dollar for unemployment relief. I think it is the duty of every member aware of such scandalous abuses to bring them to the attention of the federal government, so that in future there will be no chance of a repetition of such wasteful >
expenditure. In fact, as the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) suggested last session, a commission should be appointed to handle unemployment relief.
I omitted to mention that machinery was bought on a scale never before known in connection with relief work; close to a million dollars worth, I believe, was purchased.
At this point I should like to commend the good work of two officials of the Dominion government. I have not yet heard anything said on their behalf, and I take this opportunity to give them a word of praise. Mr. McGeough of Vancouver and Mr. Hereford of Ottawa have so far done their duty faithfully.
I think if men of like calibre had been appointed so as to take the expenditure of unemployment relief out of the hands of the provincial government there would have been no such extravagant and reckless expenditure. But with the provincial authorities it was just a case of: "Here's the pork barrel; come and get it." And believe me, everyone who could helped himself. This reckless extravagance would be serious enough in ordinary times, but it is criminal during this depression. One man worth, I believe, $50,000 was given a job as foreman. Many other well-off men were asked if they wanted similar jobs. I know that as a fact, for I took a great interest in what was going on in my riding and saw those men at work. Mr. McGeough and Mr. Hereford should be commended for the way in which they carried out their duties. There can be no doubt about the thoroughgoing qualities of Mr. McGeough. I have been told on very good authority that the provincial government have been trying their very hardest to get rid of him. The trouble must be that Mr. McGeough and Mr. Hereford were not given sufficient authority. True, they could check up expenditures after the commitments were made, but had such men been given authority to act before the commitments were made this deplorable condition of affairs would not have been brought about in British Columbia.

Unemployment Continuance Act
It has been said that direct relief is now to be the order of the day, and many of us are being told that such is to be the policy of the government. Personally I aim against direct relief, for I think it undermines our men, and I am confident that the proper type of men do not want it. I notice that in my own municipality the unemployed have offered their services to go out and clear land rather than accept direct relief. I repeat I am against direct relief; I would rather see unemployment relief work carried on. So far a3 British Columbia is concerned we have the camps and I believe we still have the supplies. We have wonderful resources in this country; they must be developed and I think it is far better to carry on useful work than to provide direct relief. If the municipalities are to be required to assist in these relief works this question should be gone into more fully, and I think it should be handled by a commission such as that advocated by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), so that the spectacle witnessed in British Columbia last autumn in connection with relief camps and the purchasing of many thousands of dollars worth of needless supplies for the benefit of favoured wholesale houses, will not be seen again, or the further spectacle of men well off and in good circumstances enjoying the advantage of the money which should have been given the needy and destitute. I would go further at this time; I would make it a criminal offence for a man in good circumstances to accept relief moneys of any kind.
In my opinion it is high time that the right hon. Prime Minister took a direct hand in regulating the present chaotic state of affairs in British Columbia. First let him appoint an auditor so that the true financial circumstances will be known. Then let him appoint a committee of business men of integrity who will handle all relief matters, not only in the interests of the country but also in the interests of those citizens who now find themselves, through no fault of their own, destitute and in dire need.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that the problem of unemployment is perhaps greater than governments or parties; no one can solve it at once, no matter what government may be in power. But that is no reason why we should not get down to business and appoint a commission to handle this matter in the future. As the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) said, we are faced with a situation such as we have never known before.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I cannot support this measure. It is just another
step in handing over to the executive those rights which should be exercised by parliament. If the country is to be ruled by orders in council we might as well pack up and go home, since the most important functions of parliament have to do with the questions of taxation and the expediture of money. The Prime Minister may have many reasons for asking for this special power, but up to the present time I have not heard them. After I sit down I would be glad to have some member of the government tell the house jusr why a sum of money could not have been placed in the estimates to provide for the relief of the unemployed and destitute in Canada.


Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in this discussion, but after listening to the speeches of hon. members opposite I thought I might very well take a few moments to voice the strongest protest of which I am capable against the delay which has been occasioned in the payment of accounts received by the Department of Labour during the past three weeks. That delay has been caused by the obstruction of hon. members opposite. About a month ago I asked Mr. Hereford, director of unemployment relief, if he would be kind enough to let me have, at the beginning of every month, the different accounts rendered by the municipalities in the county of Compton in connection with the relief act. On March 8 I received a letter from Mr. Hereford, from which I desire to quote a few lines:
The Dominion government has recently received two accounts from municipalities in the county of Compton, one for the municipality of East Angus for expenditures incurred on public works, on which the dominion payment amounts to $2,074.72, and also an account for direct relief disbursed in the municipality of Hampden. These accounts have been audited, but owing to the expiration of the act on March I, 1932, there will be a delay in our remittance as we are obliged to wait until the above act is extended by parliament before payment can be made.
I am sure hon. members of the house, as well as citizens of Canada generally, well know that because of the spectacle we have seen in this house since March 1, many municipalities will not receive the payments they have been expecting. I think people throughout the country are well aware that those in need of the money they have well earned will not receive it for some time because hon. members opposite already have spent a couple of weeks-and may spend another week, I do not know-in discussing a motion which should have been disposed of in a couple of hours.

Unemployment Continuance Act
As I have already said, we have listened to many speeches by hon. members opposite, some eloquent, some less eloquent, and some that were nothing less than appeals to passion and to the lowest instincts of human nature. I do not propose to quote from many of those speeches, but I do wish to refer to one or two of them because they represent very well the ideas held by hon. members opposite.
The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), speaking in this house on March 10, is reported as follows:
The trouble about unemployment in this country is this, that there is no contact between the millionaires who sit on the treasury benches and the common people. They do not know the sufferings of the common people in this country. They are well fed, satisfied and happy, and they cannot imagine that in the cities and in the rural districts there are people who are suffering poverty and hunger.
I ask every sensible member of this house if these are words that any hon. member should utter. They are nothing but appeals to one class as against another. I do not imagine that the hon. member would suggest that the millionaires are all on this side of the house or that they are all Conservatives. I think everyone will agree that the millionaires on this side are no worse than those on the other side, so at a time like this why should we try to stir up one class against another? If the hon. member were sincere and really wanted to help this country; if he desired to ask the millionaires, as other members have suggested, to give part of their wealth back to the treasury of Canada, he could very well use his influence on his own side of the house. For instance, he could interview those who have made a few millions on the Beauharnois deal and ask them to hand back some of that money to the treasury. He said that some of the ministers in this government are well fed and satisfied. Well, Mr. Speaker, as many hon. members in this house know, the hon. member for Temiscouata would not have to go very far from his own constituency to find hon. members who are pretty well fed at the expense of the country, and there are many thousands of the citizens in the province of Quebec who would like to have more details in regard to the services rendered by these hon. gentlemen for the cheque they receive every year. As I have said, however, these words should not come from the lips of any hon. member of this house, and I would never have mentioned what I have, had there not been provocation. Such words, I repeat, should not be found on the lips of any hon. member; but I think we must use the same weapon that is used against us.

I wish to refer for a few minutes to the remarks made by the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis). Speaking on this resolution, he made statements which are not very relevant to the question under consideration, but it seems that on this question it is possible to discuss almost anything. I am going to quote the hon. gentleman's words from Hansard, so that it will not be said that I am misrepresenting him:
Mr. Denis (Translation): I shall say to the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency that this legislation was enacted to redeem the honour of the province of Quebec, attacked and outraged by a mountebank using the election funds, the source of which is as well known by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency as that of Beauharnois. The hon. member has no right to insinuate that the Liberals of Quebec stole the election in the last provincial campaign. His charge is absolutely false and untrue. He has neither _ the right to insult the people of Quebec by insinuating that they were bought.
(Translation) I shall point out to the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) that the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency never used the words which that hon. member has attributed to him. The following are the words the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency used:
If the hon. member for Quebec East wishes to discuss autocracy or tyranny, let him tell us about the Dillon bill which the hon. Mr. Taschereau forced through the legislature in order to legalize in Quebec the elections which were stolen last summer!
The hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, or any other member on the government side never contended that the people, as a whole, in Quebec, had sold themselves last summer. Out of approximately 450.000 citizens who registered their vote in the election of July last, 216,000 were not bribed, notwithstanding all the means resorted to by government agents.	'


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: What has
this to do with the resolution under discussion.


Samuel Gobeil: No more than it had when the hon. member for St. Denis made that statement.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Drop the
subject then.


Samuel Gobeil: I wish to
answrer the hon. member for St. Denis, and I trust, sir, that I shall be allowed the same privilege which was given to that hon. member. Although this may not please hon. members of the opposition, surely we are entitled to refute their arguments, especially when we are attacked.
Apart from the 200,000 electors w'ho could not be bribed, notwithstanding the means resorted

Unemployment Continuance Act
to, there were also many thousands of good, sincere and honest Liberals who were not bought. There are still others: the dead who were made to vote, and who certainly were not bribed, the latter were not bought, they were dragged from their coffins. We have been listening, within these last few days, to the hon. members of the opposition referring to this famous act, this corpse which one wishes to bring to life. The provincial Liberal organization brought to life, in the last provincial election, thousands of people who had been dead for a great number of years. The hon. members on the government side simply stated that the election, last year, had been stolen by the provincial government.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: The.' took their cue from the 1930 election.


Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):: That cost
less.


Samuel Gobeil: Indeed, it is
such an averred fact that the election was stolen that the Quebec government had to enact the famous Dillon bill which everybody knows, and, to which reference was often made in this house. It is the most infamous and unrighteous act that any government in any province of Canada has ever had adopted, it is an act by which thieves, or at least those so charged, appoint themselves judges in their own case and are declared innocent.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: That was
a matter of grief to you.


Samuel Gobeil: That did not
grieve us, except as it affects the honour of the people of Quebec; in this respect it has somewhat saddened us.
I do not intend to insist any further oh this question. I would not even have alluded to it, if the hon. member for St. Denis had not referred to it the other day.
I return now to the remarks I intended to make on this motion. Hon. gentlemen opposite have a hobby-in fact, they have more than one; they have two or three.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is their privilege.


Samuel Gobeil: Yes, everyone is entitled to have a hobby, and one of their hobbies ever since 1926 has been constitutional issues. I am not going to attempt to discuss the question from the legal or the technical point of view. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) the other day made an excellent statement in regard to the situation. As I say, however, the discussion of constitutional questions seems to be their chief hobby, and I quite admit that from that point of
view they had a good deal of success in 1926. But may I remind the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), and the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) as well as the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), who are the three principal champions of constitutional issues in the province of Quebec-and especially the leader of the opposition-that the situation is not quite the same this year as it was in 1926. Many people know that in 1926 the then Prime Minister, now the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) toured this country and made fiery speeches in which he asked the people of Canada if they were satisfied to be ruled from Downing Street. While the right hon. gentleman was touring the country and making these speeches, he was simply bluffing the citizens of Canada.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: The people's verdict was rendered in 1926.


Samuel Gobeil: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the verdict of the people was rendered but it was rendered on false representations. However, conditions are different to-day, the people know more about these things and they know what reliance to place upon the words of the leader of the opposition.
These diplomats are wonderful men but if I had been the Governor General of Canada I do not think I could have listened to the speeches made by the Prime Minister of the day, and knowing what he knew, I do not think I could have kept that knowledge to myself.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Go ahead.


Samuel Gobeil: I have no doubt that the
Governor General will remember as long as he lives the stand taken by the Prime Minister of the day and that he will always regard the right hon. gentleman as the personification of public honesty and integrity.


Paul Mercier: Mr. Speaker,
I submit that the hon. gentleman should not be allowed to put into the mouth of the former Governor General the phrases he has just used.


Samuel Gobeil: Is that all?
If I am permitted to offer advice to the right hon. gentleman, it will be that this action will carry no weight with the Canadian people. I advise him to go to the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and arrange to have his speech printed and distributed. This could be done for very little money.


Paul Mercier: Ten cents a copy.
1184	.	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act


Samuel Gobeil: Hon. members opposite
realize, and we realize that as there is no Beauharnois deal in sight and the Liberal party being in opposition, the means of raising political funds are very limited.


Paul Mercier: Does the hon. member think he can get a speech like that for nothing?


Samuel Gobeil: Certainly.
I have mentioned that the Liberal party has many hobbies. Another one is the use of the words "autocracy" and "dictator" and other similar words.


An hon. MEMBER:: Mussolini.


Samuel Gobeil: I am a new member and have had little experience in the relationship between members of a party and its leader, but hon. members opposite seem to know more about the autocracy of our leader than we do. As far as I am concerned, I know that every time I went to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) for anything, I was received very courteously.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Certainly, because he is a gentleman.


Samuel Gobeil: If my request was reasonable, it was considered favourably. I say to all hon. members, other than those from Quebec, that they know nothing at all about dictators. Those who come from Quebec know all about what a dictatorship can be. No man in that province can earn a single dollar on any work being carried on by the government unless he first declares that he is a Liberal. If a notary or anyone else who is a friend of the government gets into trouble, the government will pass a private bill to legalize everything. That is dictatorship and autocracy.
At its last session the provincial legislature passed a law taking away the autonomy of the municipalities and putting them under the joug of the provincial government. Any municipality which makes the mistake of electing a Conservative mayor or Conservative councillors finds that it will be treated unfairly by the provincial government.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Will the hon. gentleman name some?


Samuel Gobeil: I do not think any province of Canada or even any civilized country in the world has seen a worse piece of autocracy than the Dillon bill introduced by the government of Quebec.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Everyone likes to live there.


Samuel Gobeil: Is it in the interests of civilization and justice, is it fair to minorities

that a provincial legislature should pass a law which gives them control over the courts of the country? I feel certain that in his own conscience every hon. member from Quebec admits that this is not the kind of law which should be passed in a civilized country such as Canada.
May I be allowed to say a few words about Russia? The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) has claimed in the past to be the champion of the rights of his fellow-Canadians. He may be in the minds of some hon. members, but not in the minds of very many of the citizens of the province of Quebec just now. At the outset of his remarks on this question the other day the hon. -member for Quebec East said: Russia is attempting a great experiment.


Paul Mercier: What experiment?


Samuel Gobeil: I do not know just which experiment the hon. member had in mind, but I do know some of the experiments that are being carried on in Russia at the present time. We -have heard several members on the other side of the house speak of Russia. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) referred to it at length, and my colleague who spoke this afternoon said that it was really a puzzle why the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not leave Canada to live in Russia after all he had said about it. When the embargo on Russian goods was imposed by this government the action was so popular in the province of Quebec that Mr. David, the provincial secretary in the Quebec legislature, introduced a motion in that house with a view to claiming the credit for the order in council passed by this government. In his motion he mentioned the steps that should be taken and warned this government to stop entirely the importation of Russian goods. Why did he do that? The province had nothing whatever to do with the question. It was done solely and simply for the purpose of getting credit with the citizens of the province of Quebec for the action that had been taken by this government.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: May I ask my hon. friend why the embargo was taken off raw furs?


Samuel Gobeil: In reply I would say that the Prime Minister can very well answer foi himself.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) has been subjected to

Unemployment Continuance Act
a great many interruptions, all of which are out of order. I would ask hon. members to allow him to continue his speech uninterrupted.


Samuel Gobeil: As I was saying, the hon. member for Quebec East spoke of Russia attempting a great experiment. I have in my hand a 'book entitled Moscou sans Voiles, written by Joseph Douillet, Ancien Consul de Belgique en Ru3sie. Fonde de pouvoirs pour le Sud-Est de l'U.R.S.S., du Haut-Commissaire de la S.D.'N., le Prof. Nansen. Delegue de l'European Student Relief a Rostov-sur-le-Don. I wish the hon member for Quebec East were in his seat because I would have asked him if he had read this book.


Paul Mercier: What is the name of it?


Samuel Gobeil: The name is Moscou sans Voiles. Has the hon. member read it?


Paul Mercier: Yes.


Samuel Gobeil: I have no doubt that the hon. member for Quebec East has also read it, so when he was speaking of Russia he was speaking with full knowledge of the facts. I wonder if he was referring, when he mentioned that Russia was attempting a great experiment, to some of the things that are mentioned in this book. The writer of this book has lived nine years in Belgium. He knows Russia probably better than any other European; by reason of his official position, he could go anywhere, to places where other men could not go. At one time he fell under suspicion and was interned. For two years he was imprisoned. In this book he says that one day he went to a school where there were young children, and he heard the schoolmaster questioning one of the boys. I will quote the exact dialogue in French: (Translation)
The schoolmaster: Tell me, Jeannot, do you pray to God?
The child: Yes, comrade, I pray to God.
The schoolmaster: Does your God give you what you ask him? No answer from the child.
The schoolmaster: Will you ask God immediately to give you bread? You must be hungry ?
The child: O yes, comrade, I am very hungry.
The schoolmaster: Very well. Now, pray to God. Who knows, perhaps your Christ will give you bread.
The child hesitatingly kneels down, crosses himself with his little hand and begins to bow to the ground, as he had seen it done in his home. It was a very touching sight to see the ardent and simple faith of this child. But the black crows who watched at his side, after a few minutes, interrupted the child's prayer and asked him.
The schoolmaster: Well, Jeannot, has your God given you bread?
The child with tears in his eyes, without understanding what was expected from him, however, anticipating something.-No, comrade, God is not granting me anything.
The schoolmaster: You see what your God amounts to. Instead of asking him bread, ask some to the communist comrade. Say to him, "Please give me bread, comrade." You will see that the comrade will give you some. And the child half starved, obeyed and submissively repeated:
Comrade, I pray thee, give me some bread.
The communist: You should have begun that way. If you had applied directly to me, I would have immediately given you some bread. You address jvourself to God, but have you ever seen him? No, since he does not exist.
Those are some of the experiments, Mr. Speaker, that have been carried on in Russia. Elsewhere in this same book the writer refers to schools attended by young boys and girls of twelve to fifteen and sixteen years of age, and tells of the almost unbelievable immorality that is taking place in those schools. He also refers to marriage and divorce in Russia, and states that in Russia a man and woman may be legally married one day and divorced the next. I wonder if the hon. member for Quebec East was referring to any of these wonderful experiments when he spoke of Russia the other day. While it may be a privilege to be legally married one day and divorced the next, that is not what we want in this country. It does explain to a certain extent why the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) was so cautious about it.
In conclusion I should like again to refer to the payment of moneys under the Unemployment Relief Act being delayed by the action of hon. members opposite. Let me tell the unemployed in Canada that if their relief is delayed it is due to the fact that hon. members opposite are doing all in their power to delay the measure now before the house. I am asking hon. members opposite from the province of Quebec if that is not their only purpose in delaying the bill. Are they not obstructing so that they may return to the province of Quebec and say that the federal government, so far as paying for government works is concerned, is no better than the provincial legislature. I wonder if all hon. members know that the premier of the province of Quebec declared not so very long ago that there was a deficit of over $12,000,000 in that province, and do they know that hundreds of municipalities in the province of Quebec have not yet been paid for work done during the election of last summer to bribe the electors?
I am not in a position to speak accurately concerning present conditions in my home county, because I left there in the early part of February, but I can say that in the month

1186	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
of January over 850,000 was owing by the Quebec government to the constituency of Compton for work done during the elections held last year. In the municipality of Hampden work was done during the months of July, August and September valued at 82,000. Just before I left my home I met one of the executive body in that municipality, a councillor, who told me that he did not know what they were going to do. Hampden is one of the poorest municipalities in Compton. The village of Scotstown is in the township of Hampden. That village constitutes the best part of the township, the remainder of it being very poor. He told me that they could not borrow even 8500 from the bank, that they still owed more than 81,000 to the citizens of that municipality who were in need of food for their families. I am quite sure that the money has not yet been paid. Through the action of hon. members opposite the small amount due to the municipality of Hampden will be delayed, and the poor people will not receive their relief. I do not know how long or for how many weeks payment will be blocked, but it is a fair assumption that it will be three, four or five weeks.
I say Mr. Speaker, that such action is a disgrace to the Quebec authorities. If last summer the Taschereau government wanted to bribe the electors by giving them work on the roads, they should have had the decency to have the money for the workers. They should have had the decency to pay for work done. The provincial legislature owes money to many municipalities in my con-stituencey. I could name at least ten or twelve municipalities in the constituency of Compton that have not been paid by the Quebec government for work performed last summer. I say therefore to the people of Canada that although the Liberal opposition in this house seems to be willing to do all in its power to prevent payment, those people are going to be paid because this government will see to it that the resolution now before us and the bill to follow pass.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
spoken forty minutes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker, as I have sat in my place in a somewhat detached attitude I have felt more than an ordinary interest in the state of mind displayed by the two major parties in the house. Hon. members on the government side of the house have complained bitterly about the time taken by hon. members on this side. I might point out however that until this afternoon two out of three speakers have

been on the government side. They have attempted to defend the attitude of the government, so far as this resolution is concerned, and have taken to themselves a certain amount of praise for what has been done during the last eight or nine months in connection with unemployment.
On the Liberal side of the house we find hon. members performing what after all is a legitimate function, namely that of criticizing the attitude of the government. Certainly we are approaching a completely new condition of affairs in the development of parliamentary practice and procedure when we hear a government party complaining about the opposition using the time of the house for legitimate criticisms of government measures. To-day when the hon. member who has just preceded me (Mr. Gobeil) began to speak he told the house his remarks would take only a few minutes, but hon. members must have noticed that Mr. Speaker had to tell him that he had used his full time.
When he complained about blocking the business of the house my mind went back to the year 1930. I think many hon. members opposite will have a very distinct recollection of the debate on unemployment which took place in that year when practically every Conservative member at that time sitting on this side of the house participated in the discussion. What is occurring in 1932 is exactly what took place in this house in 1930. I am surprised to hear hon. members opposite complain about the discussion of a matter which after all is the most important with which this parliament will have to deal. No question to-day is of greater importance to Canadians than that of unemployment and general economic conditions in Canada.


Mr. PORTEOUS:: Were the Conservatives in opposition at that time striving to obstruct unemployment relief?


Abraham Albert Heaps: In 1930 they exercised the
legitimate functions of an opposition by criticizing the attitude of the then government in regard to the unemployment situation.


Victor Clarence Porteous: They were criticizing
the government for doing nothing.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: And in 1929 they blocked unemployment insurance.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not agree with that
statement, and in the remarks I have to offer I do not wish to have my argument deflected.
It would seem to me that a personal element has entered into the discussion which has taken place. It is most unfortunate if in the dis-

Unemployment Continuance Act
cussion of such a vital question the personal element becomes of greater importance than the real question at issue. During the last couple of days I have heard my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) criticize both parties. I do not mind their being criticized for their opinions, but when I hear bandied across the floor: "What did the Minister of Labour say on March 17"? or "What did the former Minister of Justice say when he went down last July to a by-election in the province of Quebec"? I feel that debate is not being maintained on a very high plane. Yesterday we were told that the youth of this country are solidly behind the Conservative party because Three Rivers-St. Maurice had gone over to the Conservative party. That was an extraordinary statement, and I envy the blissful ignorance of the hon. member who made it, because at about the same time there was a by-election in the city of Hamilton-of which probably he never heard. In the city the ideas expressed by my colleagues from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis) and by myself were made the issue. What happened? A Conservative majority of 4,600 was converted into a Labour majority of 3,600. I think most people who know anything about what is taking place in our high schools and our colleges realize that the young people are evincing a greater interest in economic conditions than ever before in the history of the dominion, and if I know anything of the ideas those young people entertain to-day they are anything but favourable to the party now in power.
When we went to Hamilton last year-and I am referring to this only because the question was brought up by the hon. member who spoke of the great Conservative victory in the Three RiversdSt. Maurice by-election-we had nothing to offer the electors.


An hon. MEMBER:: And you have nothing yet.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No, we had no bridges, no
wharfs, no $700,000 appropriations in the estimates to offer the electors of East Hamilton, although such inducements were held out to electors during another by-election. We offered the electors of East Hamilton ideas, and they aocepted those ideas in preference to the ideas expressed by hon. gentlemen opposite.
So much has been said on the constitutional aspect of the motion that I desire to preface my remarks by a few observations on our constitutional rights and privileges. I admit quite freely, Mr. Speaker, that I do not know 41761-75i
a great deal about constitutional questions, I have not given that study to them that perhaps certain other members have, but I should like to express my views on one or two aspects. Our present parliamentary institutions, as has been stated more than once during the course of this debate, date back many hundreds of years, from the time of Simon de Montfort in the thirteenth century. During the whole of that period Great Britain has enjoyed some form of parliamentary institution, and our government to-day is after all only a development of centuries of progress and experience in the old country. Once during the course of those seven hundred years parliamentary government was cast to one side and Britain reverted to a form of dictatorship; I am referring to the brief interregnum when Oliver Cromwell exercised all the powers of a dictator. Hon. gentlemen opposite sometimes tell us how much they dislike the use of the word "dictator." I am very much opposed to any form of dictatorship, and I say quite frankly to hon. gentlemen opposite who so often taunt us of the Labour party about anything we say pertaining to Russia, that we are most bitterly opposed to any form of dictatorship. We stand for the free and full expression of the will of the people of this country. But, as I say, the Lord Protector was a dictator for a few years. Yet I believe there is no British statesman who occupies a higher and more respected place in British history than does Oliver Cromwell. That is an apparent selfcontradiction, but I have not the time to deal with it now. Those who have visited Westminster will have noticed in a very conspicuous place in the parliamentary grounds a life-size monument to Cromwell. A few years ago certain Jacobites sought to have the monument moved to a less conspicuous position, but there were loud protests from the radical element in Great Britain and the monument was not disturbed.
I do not attach a great deal of importance to some of the cries in this house of "dictatorship" and "Mussolini." I realize that the constitution should be jealously guarded, but after all it is more or less of a guide by which we may govern ourselves, and changes in the constitution are being made continually. Only last session the government brought down legislation to make some very important constitutional changes. I claim that parliament at all times must adjust itself through its constitution to changing conditions; but I do not want anyone for a moment to infer that I believe any cabinet should clothe itself with greater powers.


Robert James Manion: Would the hon. gentleman explain what he means by that?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Surely; I am coming to that. When the government wanted funds and, in collaboration with the banks, offered 5i per cent interest, they immediately depreciated the value of bonds bearing a lesser rate of interest. By that action the government took away from the capital value of those stocks to the extent of 11 per cent, which was about equivalent to the amount of interest

Unemployment Continuance Act
which would have been received if the people had invested their money in bonds bearing the higher rate of interest. So I say that by that action the government confiscated 11 per cent of the value of those bonds, and that was not done as a result of the bolshevistic tendencies of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth).


Robert James Manion: Is that not rather a
strange type of confiscation?


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is; I admit that it is a
strange kind of confiscation. Before leaving that question I want to say that in my humble opinion we have reached the end of an epoch; we are now entering upon a new era in the history of this country, and probably in the history of the world. Governments of to-day, as well as those interested in politics, must make up their minds as to which way they are going to travel. I believe we have reached the parting of the ways; we must either work towards a greater, a freer and a nobler democracy or we must continue in the other direction, in which the financial institutions are leading us, which ultimately will mean some form of fascism or dictatorship. If I have to choose between the two, Mr. Speaker, I will choose the free and full democracy, but that democracy cannot be brought about unless we realize certain fundamental principles. For many long years the masses of the people of Great Britain have been fighting for a political democracy, and to-day they have practically achieved that objective. To-day they have the right to elect their representatives to parliament to legislate in their own interests, but in this country so long as parliament is dominated by the hand of finance, and so long as parliament must bow down to the will of those who control our financial institutions, we are not here as free individuals. That is the reason why I made my previous statement; I do not think we have any alternative. In the past we have achieved a political democracy, but now the great masses of the people must achieve economic freedom; we must bring about what might be called an economic democracy. In other words, we must control those institutions which, to a very large extent, control parliament at this time.
What does economic freedom mean? In the first place it means that the individual must have that economic security in life to which every citizen is entitled but which every citizen does not possess at the present time. It means that the individual to-day cannot have that sense of economic freedom while economic power is vested in the hands of a
few, who use that economic power for selfish purposes. To put the matter in another way, the economic forces of the nation must be so harnessed and controlled by parliament that they will be utilized for the common good; the present practice in industry must give way to the higher conception that the forces of production and distribution are a means of satisfying human needs and human requirements. Competitive individualism must give way to the new ideal of cooperative effort, when the individual will realize that he has an interest in the state and that the state has an interest in his well being. Under private control and ownership of the means of production this is not possible; hence we must look to something else as a way out of our difficulties.
One of the main reasons for our present financial difficulties, Mr. Speaker, is that we are passing through an era of contracting capitalism. Until 1929 we were going through a period of expanding capitalism, and now the government is engaged in the thankless task-in which they have my whole-hearted sympathy-of trying to make the contracted dollar of 1932 equal the expanded dollar of 1929. I say that cannot be done. When the government can make two and two equal six they will be able to make our present contracted dollar equal the expanded dollar of 1929. Our debt is now greater because of that fact; our interest charges have increased; our fixed annual charges to-day are greater than ever before in the history of this dominion. Our income has shrunk, not because quantity production has shrunk, although that has been the case to a certain extent. Our dollars have shrunk because values have shrunk. To-day, in spite of the hardships that we have in our midst, in spite of poverty and all that poverty entails, there is more wealth in this country, more potential wealth, than there ever has been in Canada. Now I claim it ought to be the task of governments to get down and try to deal with this fundamental question. If there were a shortage of commodities in Canada, if there were any shortage of real wealth, then there might be some excuse for the suffering which there is in this country. But, as I have said, there is no shortage of either real or potential wealth and therefore there is no excuse for any poverty in our midst.
The government have been taking a good deal of credit for the fact that 334,000 people were provided with an average of twenty-three days' work during the past six months. From my seat in parliament I want to give the government full credit for all that has been accomplished in the way of providing
1190	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
work during the past winter. It was quite a stupendous task to provide employment for
334.000	people in Canada. I think, however, that a moment's sober reflection will show that there is nothing that we in Canada have to be proud about when we find, in the midst of so much wealth, that 334,000 men were compelled to appeal to the government to help them to eke out some miserable form of existence. I say, I do not think there is anything for us to be proud about. But allowing the government all the credit in the world for what they have done in this respect, I want to show something of the other side of the ledger. Let us try to get a true picture of the unemployment situation in Canada.
I figure that if the amount of time worked by these men who were employed on government relief works were put upon the basis of one year's employment, it would represent employment for approximately 25,000 people. That is another way of putting it; that is to say, the government found work for 25,000 people for twelve months. Now in this year's estimates we find, out of controllable government expenditures, there is $55,000,000 less provided than was provided the year before, and I venture to say that, with the reduction in the estimates of civil government for the past fiscal year, they put as .many people out of work as they actually employed by giving an average of twenty-two dlays' work to
334.000	people.
Let us take the latest figures for the railways-because after all this is a fair barometer of conditions in Canada. I find that at the peak of 1929 there were 201,060 men employed on the railways. On December 31, 1931, a little over two months ago, there were 130,802 persons employed on the railways, a reduction of 70,258, or, in other words, a reduction of approximately thirty-five per cent in the number of men employed on the railways in Canada. And if that is the situation with regard to the railways, then I believe it is only a fair indication of what is taking place also in other industrial enterprises in Canada.
I claim that within the confines of the existing structure the government will not be in a position to find any remedies for the unemployment situation. The government have asked us for suggestions. Well, we have made many suggestions to them from this comer of the house, but they take our suggestions and throw them into the waste basket, and therefore we . do not feel inclined to offer many more. We do not want to have our suggestions handled in such an unceremonious manner. But we have put forward suggestions.

For example, seven years ago the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I offered a suggestion with regard to old age .pensions, and we were likened to Robin Hood because we dared to ask for some provision for the aged. Then we made a request for unemployment insurance, and although we were told five or six years ago that we were rather premature in putting forward that suggestion, we find that to-day all hon. members are in favour of granting some form of unemployment insurance. I sincerely trust that during the lifetime of this parliament the government will introduce a measure of unemployment insurance and that it will be of such a nature that we of the Labour group can support it. Again, a few weeks ago we suggested shorter hours and increased purchasing power. But all these have gone into the discard as not acceptable.
Now I am going to offer one other suggestion, a novel one perhaps, but one that has been discussed for many years; and in view of the fact that the unemployed portion of our population seems to be something more or less permanent in the social structure of the country, and although the present government or any government in the immediate future may not be able or willing to handle it fundamentally, I should like to see the government seriously consider the proposal of trying to make the unemployed in Canada a self-contained element in the community. I know that a proposal of that sort could be discussed pro and con and a good deal could be said against it as for it. But after giving this question a little study I believe that, while all that could be said against it would have considerable weight with those who might form an opinion, the idea of making the unemployed in this country self-sustained, so that they might be able to retain all that is best in them, is something that is worthy of serious consideration both by the government and by members of this house.
Before I conclude I wish to refer to some remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson), remarks which I do not think ought to go unchallenged in this house. I have a good deal of respect for any hon. gentleman elected as a member of this house. A good deal of honour attaches to any man who has the confidence of the people who elect him to represent them in this chamber, and there is always in this house a certain standard of conduct which I believe most hon. members try honestly to observe. When the hon. member for East Algoma spoke this afternoon he discussed certain observations made by my

Charges by Hon. G. N. Gordon
hon. friend from Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis) in reference to Russia, and it seemed to me that when the hon. member for East Algoma was discussing my hon. friend's remarks he was unfair to himself, to the hon. member for Vancouver South, and to the house as well. I said to him, "Will you kindly read the statement in full?" And his reply was, "I will make my speech in my own way." Well, he is perfectly entitled to do so, and I am entitled to reply to him in my own way. He quoted certain remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South as reported at page 982 of Hansard. I asked him to continue the quotation but he would not.


George Brecken Nicholson: Did the hon. member expect me to read the whole of the hon. gentleman's speech?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I wanted the hon. member to be fair to the house and to finish the sentence which he was quoting; that was all. Seeing, however, that he did not finish the sentence, I am going to finish it for him. I will quote the whole sentence, of which the hon. member for East Algoma read but a brief extract. My hon. friend from Vancouver South was replying to a statement made by the Minister of Railways, and he said:
When the Minister of Railways is discussing Russia he should not forget that Russia at the present time is at war;-
I asked the hon. member for East Algoma to continue with the statement, but he refused. He quoted only one-half of the sentence, the remainder reading:

it is making war on poverty, on ignorance and on the superstition that has grown and fattened under the czarist rulers.
I think the hon. member did himself a great injustice when he refused to read to the house the complete statement.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver) the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 17, 1932